Comments on: Accuracy in Quotation

By: R J Keefe

R J Keefe — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:27:31 +0000

Fascinating comments, but isn’t the point of Brian’s post the shamelessness with which Troglodytes misquote, misrepresent, and misconstrue texts? It ought to discredit them, but instead they make it work. How? – Naive in Yorkville

By: liberal

liberal — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:50:25 +0000

tom doyle wrote, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land Note that I had written A constitution is not a law per se. [Emphasis added] That is, a constitution is "law," but not "a law." Related point: see the writings of Ronald Dworkin (e.g., his Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution) for a discussion of the lackings of the originalist position.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 04:44:23 +0000

Jesus, I thought that “Krannawitter” was some kind of lame nickname for Krauthammer, whose name is funny enough anyway.

By: jet

jet — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:37:45 +0000

aj, The last Supreme Court case concerning guns was last year, I believe. The Court decided that the federal government could not regulate machine guns created by a person that were not intended for sale. Schwa, You post your comment mocking the Constitution’s framers in the NYT’s and I’ll post mine advocating restraint on the type of activist judges who destroyed TennCare and we shall see who looks “asanine” ;) Sucka.

By: frank fucking rizzo

frank fucking rizzo — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:44:29 +0000

This For those on the Right, the Constitution is , first and foremost, a LAW; as such, it has static meaning, which does not change—that’s the point of a written law. If the world changes and the law needs to change, it can be changed—but it doesn’t change meaning over time. This method of interpretation makes for much more predictable interpretation of the Constitution, which helps in achieving “a government of laws and not of mean.” followed by Also, on the 2nd amendment: As I understand it, despite all we hear about the Constitution and guns, most gun control battles take place in legislatures, not the courts. Wasn’t the last Supreme Court case concerning guns actually in the 1930s? And what’s the deal with that “militia” business, anyway? Was that part of a world that is “dead and gone” and so can be rightfully ignored today? makes me smile.

By: Ken C.

Ken C. — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:50:51 +0000

“For those on the Right, the Constitution is , first and foremost, a LAW; as such, it has static meaning, which does not change—that’s the point of a written law.” Indeed, I agree that the Founding Fathers Original Intent should be used. Therefore, since the framers intended that citizens should have the right to all the cannon, flintlocks, and swords they desire, I say the right to bear such arms should never be abridged. Similarly, since “the press” refers clearly to the printing press, or perhaps the cider press, I say that the freedom to run a printing or cider press should never be abridged. Plainly, the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent never applied to radio, telegraphy, telephony, television, or them new-fangled internets, so we darn well ought to regulate the heck out of them. Finally, I’m grateful for the vigilance of Justice Scalia and colleagues, in discerning the FFOI as it pertains to the Rights of States to decide their own voting procedures. Clearly, our Founding Fathers intended Florida to have no such right, and for Bush to be president. Similarly, the FFOI clearly was that states have no right to decide who can get married.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:41:48 +0000

On the First Amendment, originalism & activist judges: “In the late 1700s, it wasn’t even clear whether the First Amendment covered criminal punishment for politically incorrect speech. Many people argued that it applied only to “prior restraints,” such as injunctions or prepublication censorship rule. Laws criminalizing speech after it’s published, the argument went, were perfectly constitutional — even if, for instance, the laws banned criticism of the government. Only in the 1930s was it firmly settled that the First Amendment protects speech against criminal punishment. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, courts routinely held that some antigovernment speech — even speech that wasn’t directly inciting crime — was constitutionally unprotected. In many states, until the 1810s and 1820s truth wasn’t a defense to criminal libel prosecutions. Even when it became a defense, it generally applied only when the statement was made with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends,” however a judge or jury chose to interpret these vague phrases. Those limitations weren’t eliminated until the 1960s. In the first half of the 1800s, courts held that blasphemy could be outlawed, and blasphemy covered not just swearing but the offensive public denial of the truth of Christianity. Until the mid-1900s, judges routinely sent people to jail for publishing newspaper articles that criticized the judge’s decisions. Until the mid-1900s, obscenity laws punished not just hard-core pornography, but serious literature as well as discussion of contraceptives. Moreover, until the mid-1900s, the dominant view was that the government had virtually unlimited power over its own property and its own employees. Until recently, courts would probably have upheld campus speech codes simply on the grounds that public universities were completely free to sanction and expel students for any reason at all. And modern free-speech protections were largely the work of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis, who were generally associated with the liberal wing of the Court on most issues; of FDR’s liberal appointees to the Court; and of the notoriously liberal Warren Court.” That’s by EUGENE VOLOKH. “Original intent” originalists are often completely ignorant of, or unwilling to discuss, the embarassing facts about what was originally intended. A first amendment that allowed criminal penalties, just not prior restraint. A fourteenth amendment that allowed de jure segregation. A fourteenth amendment that allowed laws against miscegenation. An eighth amendment that allows severe flogging of prisoners,and execution for all sorts of crimes. etc. etc. And I’ve found few “original meaning” conservatives who do not slide into “original intent” whenever it became convenient.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:24:05 +0000

Wood eye resort to silly punning? Of course eye wood.

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:04:14 +0000

“I always misplace the y in her name. I’m not sure why.” Is that a pun?

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:53:33 +0000

I always misplace the y in her name. I’m not sure why.

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:16 +0000

“On an unrelated note, I continue to applaud Michael Kinsley’s “give these fruitcakes op-ed space to make it absolutely clear to all and sundry how disconnected from reality they are,” strategy.” Posted by schwa Initial results look to have the opposite effect – the American people have a disturbingly deep capacity to redefine success as failure, and failure as success.

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:14:27 +0000

SamChevre wrote, “For those on the Right, the Constitution is , first and foremost, a LAW; as such, it has static meaning, which does not change—that’s the point of a written law.” Liberal responded: “Wrong. A constitution is not a law per se.” The U.S. constitution says it’s a “law.” How “static” the meaning should be is disputed. , U.S. Constitution Article VI [...] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:50:06 +0000

I’ve never heard of Ann Rynd before. She might be interesting, but it’s more likely that she, like the rest of us, would be boring. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is someone we’ve heard too much of, rather like Rachmaninov.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:48:34 +0000

“Yeah I’d say that talking about its genius and great principles amounts to “dismissing the Constitution”.” If you talk misinterpret something badly enough I don’t think dismissing it is a ridiculous thing to say about the endeavour. For instance if I said that I respected Ann Rynd because she powerfully communicated the obvious understanding that governments need to be in charge of every aspect of our lives if we are ever to function, it sounds like I’m praising her. But if you know very much about Ann Rynd…

By: liberal

liberal — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:36:10 +0000

SamChevre wrote, For those on the Right, the Constitution is , first and foremost, a LAW; as such, it has static meaning, which does not change—that’s the point of a written law. Wrong. A constitution is not a law per se.