Originalism Is Fun!
Posted by
tgirsch
I’ve been thinking about this more, and I’m thinking that maybe the “legal conservatives” are right on this one. Perhaps the original intent really is the only thing that matters in Constitutional jurisprudence. As a result, I’m forced to concede that any laws banning individuals from owning flintlock rifles and muskets must be found unconstitutional.
UPDATE: Uncle adds in comments:
And they can ban speech on the internet. But if you own your own printing press, go for it.
Yay originalism!
shouldn’t we also get things like cannons and swords?
Comment 3/28/2008
And they can ban speech on the internet. But if you own your own printing press, go for it.
Comment 3/28/2008
Since it’s Friday night, I’m willing to support the funding drive for LL’s printing press. I nominate that the other readers pledge a dollar amount per shot of Jameson I consume this evening. Maybe I could YouTube it, you know, for purposes of verification. There will be no hanging chad funny business in my liver; I’m fully accountable to my, what are they called again, oh yeah, “enablers!”
Or, we could just set up a paypal account and a virtual “liar/bigot jar,” but that may not result in the most equitable distribution of funding among readers.
Who’s gonna tell Obama that a large portion of his base was just reduced by 40%?
Comment 3/28/2008
If the Founding Fathers had meant that the Constitution could be interpreted willy-nilly according to changing times, it made no sense to put in a process whereby the Constitution can be amended. What’s the point?
Comment 3/28/2008
Can we get rid of the federal income tax amendment? I’m not a big fan of that one.
Comment 3/28/2008
What did the term “arms” mean, anyway? In california it’s against the law to wear a pig-sticker greater than 6 inches. Is that constitutional or not?
Comment 3/28/2008
Matt:
Sure we can. All you have to do is get three fourths of the states to agree with you.
Of course, it would help if you could tell us where else we’re going to come up with $2.8 trillion per year, or what spending you’re going to cut to reduce that figure — and then get three fourths of the states to agree with you on all of THAT.
Comment 3/28/2008
Well how much does the IRS cost to run? How much do we save by getting rid of all pork? that should help with a big chunk of it. Dump government subsidies to for profit businesses that aren’t competitive, getting closer…
Comment 3/31/2008
Matt:
“Pork” of all kinds amounts to a whopping 4% of the federal budget. In fact, if you eliminated absolutely everything the government does besides Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, and interest on the national debt, you’ve only eliminated 19% of the federal budget.
The truth is, most of the stuff the “fiscal conservative” types tend to target for elimination is such a small percentage of federal spending that nobody would notice the difference.
Comment 3/31/2008
‘In fact, if you eliminated absolutely everything the government does besides Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, and interest on the national debt, you’ve only eliminated 19% of the federal budget.’
well, then we shouldn’t even try!
Comment 3/31/2008
No, Uncle, that’s not what I’m saying. (Where did I even imply that?) What I’m saying is that with the budget a mess, you have to fix the budget BEFORE you go repealing taxes and cutting taxes. Of course, I understand that libertarians couldn’t care less how much debt we saddle our kids with. Just cut taxes, and let the Mystical Budget Fairy work everything out at some magical later date!
You can argue that cutting taxes will force budgetary cuts, but you’d have to ignore the history of the 20th and (so far) 21st centuries to believe that particular fairy tale.
What Matt has argued for is the equivalent of a primary breadwinner saying “I’m going to quit my job!” and when asked how they’ll afford it, answering “I’ll pick up any spare change I find on the sidewalk! Oh, and I’ll stop supersizing my extra value meal!”
Comment 3/31/2008