Very well explained!! Thank you for the examples

Sir you are the one best teacher please upload more videos

This guy immediately conflating textualism and originalism. Impressive.

English is a living language that is always changing. The consitution is not, it's a timeless framework. When you breathe life into the consitution you ensure its death. You should interpret the Constitution to it's original meaning when it was ratified. The original interpretation covers framer's intention which was explained in various documents such as the federalist papers. A living consitution which allows a judge to legislate from the bench violates the separation of powers.

@ericlane659

2 жыл бұрын

The Constitution is written in English. As you stated, "English is a living language. " Yet you conclude that the document is not living, though it's written in a living language. ...that makes absolutely no sense.

@cortelyons9540

Жыл бұрын

@Eric Lane Words change, people don't. Tomas Jefferson would not approve of the way in which our government is ran.

Very Relevant to Sabarimala Problem 😂😂😂....nice explaination sir

I am a subjective/specific intent kind of person. What was the subjective intent of the enacting generation, given the totality of today's circumstances and statutory authority?

The press wasn't limited to print media. Town criers would have also been covered, where many people got there news for thousands of years.

@ricofico

3 жыл бұрын

Which was brought up at the time the constitution was being written. It was agreed upon that since mass print you have documentation of what was written as oppose to the Town Criers who's interpretations can be wildly varied from person to person in that position. Even tho criers were supposed to held to a higher standard and sworn in by the magistrates, as they also spoke about law changes and other proclamations. The issue with criers is every once in a while you get a Rush Limbaugh type!

@3jacen

3 жыл бұрын

@@ricofico Maybe this will help you understand what I was talking about. 1:28 "an example of why we might need a living constitutional would be that when the first amendment was first written, the freedom of the press could only have referred to printed objects" He says that we need a living constitution because of so much change over time. My point is that Rush Limbaugh would have certainly been covered. I would also point out that mass print didn't mean you knew WHO had written things as is proven by Publius being the author of the federalist papers. While I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is covered by the 1st amendment, I would ask, is Jim Acosta's lying covered? media.notthebee.com/articles/article-5f776ce7f1f34.jpg

Lets be honest... justices treat these doctrines not as requirements but ad guidelines. >_>

Originalism does not require that the meaning of "the press" as used in the First Amendment be forever limited to those types of news outlets or media available at the time of the amendment but to any reasonable journalistic medium. The Constitution purports only to prohibit governmental tyranny (excluding the anti-slavery amendments) so democracy can proceed. The fundamental question is, What medium of speech would a tyrant insist on controlling--speech in printed objects, speech in broadcasts, or speech on the Internet? An originalist would answer "all of the above." Thus, a law abridging the freedom of speech will be unconstitutional under the First Amendment regardless of the medium in which the speech appears. Also, the jaywalking example makes little sense because the prohibition against it is statutory, not constitutional.

*As a Jew I see no problem with reinterpreting the constitution as it's a human document, while I am an originalist when it comes to the Scripture, unlike the Christian right who take a loose constructionist approach to the Bible but a strict originalist view of the Constitution*

@sadsackkvisling9694

4 жыл бұрын

As a Roman Absolutist, yer opinion ain't shit, Schlomo.

@lloydgardner1628

3 жыл бұрын

It's a human document but humans can change its wording through the amendment process.

@eriksmith2514

3 жыл бұрын

So what is a "non-human" document, then?

The most unintelligent thing I’ve ever heard is the constitution is a living document the whole point of the constitution is to be set in time and not change.

@doodelay

2 жыл бұрын

if this were true the founder's wouldn't have given us the ability to make amendments and to correct their mistakes, this document was written by mortals it isn't perfect by nature. And they knew that

@joseplois4337

2 жыл бұрын

@@doodelay amendments are done with due process of law, not for the court to change to their interpretation.

@amandadehart9333

Жыл бұрын

@@joseplois4337 they already do that with every case they rule on, the constitution is vague and that allows judges to make biased interpretations.

@federicofornaciari4434

Жыл бұрын

How can it not change? Seriously, are trying to say that we should live following to the letter a document that was written in the 18th century without considering the socio-political amd economical situation of the present?