Comments on: Stop Me If I’ve Said This Before… http://www.wholesomereading.com/2009/05/26/stop-me-if-ive-said-this-before/ Musings on culture and politics by baseball writer Steven Goldman Sat, 19 May 2012 10:36:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Chantelle Sackman http://www.wholesomereading.com/2009/05/26/stop-me-if-ive-said-this-before/#comment-10792 Chantelle Sackman Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:39:23 +0000 http://www.wholesomereading.com/?p=456#comment-10792 <strong>Sala de leos...</strong> http://www.mordenprojetosdobanheiro.com O design moderno ao ar livre... Sala de leos…

http://www.mordenprojetosdobanheiro.com O design moderno ao ar livre…

]]> By: Shaun P. http://www.wholesomereading.com/2009/05/26/stop-me-if-ive-said-this-before/#comment-831 Shaun P. Tue, 26 May 2009 19:51:36 +0000 http://www.wholesomereading.com/?p=456#comment-831 That's a fair point, Jacob, and admittedly I was being a little hyperbolic in my characterization of the strict constructionist philosophy. In reading about the Constitution and the Justices in law school, I remember, far too often, that the "activist" Warren Court (there's another gross misnomer) was held to be people who just interpreted the Constitution willy nilly, to get whatever policy result they wanted - but those strict constructionists, well, they relied on what the Constitution actually said. Penumbras - bah! It was a load of bullshit then, and it remains one now, as Steven rightly points out. Yet, in traditional media discussions of the Court and its Justices, I hear it repeated far too often. People bought it and continue to buy it because it sounds good, but if you think about it for just a moment, its a load of bullshit. When you add in that none of the strict constructionists is, to my knowledge, a trained historian who knows how to correctly interpret the documents of the 1780s/1790s, the house of cards really falls apart. Jack Rakove (IIRC?), among others, made this point very clearly in response to Scalia's majority opinion in DC v Heller. Steven, your response to your relative is one of the best arguments I've yet heard, err, read, in response to the "it means whatever you want it to" straw man. I'm going to borrow that, if you don't mind. That’s a fair point, Jacob, and admittedly I was being a little hyperbolic in my characterization of the strict constructionist philosophy. In reading about the Constitution and the Justices in law school, I remember, far too often, that the “activist” Warren Court (there’s another gross misnomer) was held to be people who just interpreted the Constitution willy nilly, to get whatever policy result they wanted - but those strict constructionists, well, they relied on what the Constitution actually said. Penumbras - bah!

It was a load of bullshit then, and it remains one now, as Steven rightly points out. Yet, in traditional media discussions of the Court and its Justices, I hear it repeated far too often. People bought it and continue to buy it because it sounds good, but if you think about it for just a moment, its a load of bullshit. When you add in that none of the strict constructionists is, to my knowledge, a trained historian who knows how to correctly interpret the documents of the 1780s/1790s, the house of cards really falls apart. Jack Rakove (IIRC?), among others, made this point very clearly in response to Scalia’s majority opinion in DC v Heller.

Steven, your response to your relative is one of the best arguments I’ve yet heard, err, read, in response to the “it means whatever you want it to” straw man. I’m going to borrow that, if you don’t mind.

]]> By: Jacob http://www.wholesomereading.com/2009/05/26/stop-me-if-ive-said-this-before/#comment-830 Jacob Tue, 26 May 2009 19:17:27 +0000 http://www.wholesomereading.com/?p=456#comment-830 I think this mischaracterizes the purported strict constructionists just a bit. They do consult texts to help them interpret the Constitution, albeit rarely. One of their favorite texts is the Federalist Papers (the other favorite text being a 1789 dictionary). Oddly enough, they don't believe in consulting legislative history to interpret statutes, though. To them, what the words meant to the populace that ratified the document was what mattered (the populace that apparently read every Federalist Paper and agreed on the definitions of every word). I think this mischaracterizes the purported strict constructionists just a bit. They do consult texts to help them interpret the Constitution, albeit rarely. One of their favorite texts is the Federalist Papers (the other favorite text being a 1789 dictionary). Oddly enough, they don’t believe in consulting legislative history to interpret statutes, though. To them, what the words meant to the populace that ratified the document was what mattered (the populace that apparently read every Federalist Paper and agreed on the definitions of every word).

]]>