| 
            
              | 
 | 
                
                
                  
                    | 
                              
                                   
                                        | 
                              
                              
                              NOTE! 
                               
                              This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
                      free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
                      Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
                      reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
                      any other living person besides the one who posted them.
                      Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
                              comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
                              Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
                              bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
                              other small-minded people.  Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
                              
                              
                                         |  
                         
                         The
                      Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
                         
                                       
                                            
                      
     
  
    | The framers of the Constitution didn’t worry about ‘originalism’ Submitted by: 
			
Mark A. Taff
 Website: http://www.marktaff.com
 | 
			There 
				is 1 comment 
			 	on this storyPost Comments | Read Comments
 |  
    | Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a self-avowed originalist and textualist. Like most conservative jurists, she praises these modes of constitutional interpretation as effective constraints on judicial discretion. Adherents of these methods hold that they will interpret the Constitution as its original adopters understood it. They will not allow judges to make up new rights, even in response to their personal moral commitments. The text governs all, and those who interpret it must be faithful to the usage of past decades, not contemporary concerns.
 |  
 
 
     
  
    | Comment by: 
     MarkHamTownsend
     (10/17/2020) |  
    | "If the Constitution is to mean whatever we say at the time, why then a written document?" ~~ Judge Learned Hand. 
 We are not supposed to be destroying rights and/or creating new fictitious rights through reinterpret ing the Founding Documents.
 
 The framers didn't worry about "originalism"  because THEY were the ORIGINALS!!!    They were still very aware that future people would try to diminish the rights protected in the Founding Documents.
 
 
 |  
 
 |  |  
              | QUOTES
                TO REMEMBER |  
              | 
                    
                      | "Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy ... censorship. When any government, or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to it's subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Revolt in 2100" (Pg. 68-69, Baen Books paperback edition, 1999 printing) |  |  |