Comments on: Interpreting the Constitution: Originalism http://blog.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/ Technology for the Good of People Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:08:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sean Kellogg http://blog.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/comment-page-1/#comment-42 Sean Kellogg Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:28:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/#comment-42 Fair enough, but doesn't that prove my point? The 14th amendment does not apply to D.C. under the originalism view, which means that Brown should not be applicable to the Federal Government. Seems that fails my test for theories that are "good."<br/><br/>And I also think the Court has been pretty clear that the Feds are treated like a State when they are regulating D.C. I wonder how that opinion squares against the intent of the drafters of the Conclave Clause? Fair enough, but doesn’t that prove my point? The 14th amendment does not apply to D.C. under the originalism view, which means that Brown should not be applicable to the Federal Government. Seems that fails my test for theories that are “good.”

And I also think the Court has been pretty clear that the Feds are treated like a State when they are regulating D.C. I wonder how that opinion squares against the intent of the drafters of the Conclave Clause?

]]> By: srcastic http://blog.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/comment-page-1/#comment-41 srcastic Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:20:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/#comment-41 Under an originalist interpretation, the 14th Amendment would be limited to states, but not to DC. The plain text supports this, as the Equal Protection Clause only speaks to states - a category that DC is not included in. <br/><br/>"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of <b>the State</b> wherein they reside. No <b>State</b> shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any <b>State</b> deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Under an originalist interpretation, the 14th Amendment would be limited to states, but not to DC. The plain text supports this, as the Equal Protection Clause only speaks to states – a category that DC is not included in.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

]]> By: Sean Kellogg http://blog.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Sean Kellogg Sun, 09 Oct 2005 06:12:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/#comment-38 The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause isn't limited to States, so I'm not sure how you argue to make the distinction. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause isn’t limited to States, so I’m not sure how you argue to make the distinction.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Anonymous Sun, 09 Oct 2005 05:14:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/#comment-37 Oh, but don't think I don't agree that originalism is dangerous and flawed as a theory, because it is, and we should be wary of those who subscribe to it.<br/><br/>-Brant Oh, but don’t think I don’t agree that originalism is dangerous and flawed as a theory, because it is, and we should be wary of those who subscribe to it.

-Brant

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/comment-page-1/#comment-36 Anonymous Sun, 09 Oct 2005 05:09:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/#comment-36 Well, two things, really. First, originalism isn't that popular, even among conservatives. It's just that those with whom it is popular are very very vocal about it, which brings coverage. Second, you can arguably use an originalist viewpoint to back up Brown, as DC is not a state, but the companion case, Bolling v. Sharpe, cannot be justified with that viewpoint.<br/><br/>-Brant Well, two things, really. First, originalism isn’t that popular, even among conservatives. It’s just that those with whom it is popular are very very vocal about it, which brings coverage. Second, you can arguably use an originalist viewpoint to back up Brown, as DC is not a state, but the companion case, Bolling v. Sharpe, cannot be justified with that viewpoint.

-Brant

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Anonymous Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:37:00 +0000 http://wordpress.probonogeek.org/2005/10/interpreting-the-constitution-originalism/#comment-35 Google lobbies Congress for a 'free' internet<br/>Google has opened a lobbying office in the US capital of Washington in a bid to extend its influence in America's corridors of power.<br/>Hey, you have an excellent blog here! Great job. I have a <a HREF="http://www.hair-loss-hub.com/" REL="nofollow">hair loss prevention</a> site. It pretty much covers hair loss prevention related stuff.<br/><br/>Come and check it out when you get time :-) Google lobbies Congress for a ‘free’ internet
Google has opened a lobbying office in the US capital of Washington in a bid to extend its influence in America’s corridors of power.
Hey, you have an excellent blog here! Great job. I have a hair loss prevention site. It pretty much covers hair loss prevention related stuff.

Come and check it out when you get time :-)

]]>