Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > us.talk.constitution > #247
| Newsgroups | us.talk.constitution |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-01-09 20:15 -0800 |
| References | <b7683ea8-0b0e-42ad-b7f8-191746972949o@googlegroups.com> <934bc683-64ac-4146-81d5-32c5a671bc4bn@googlegroups.com> |
| Message-ID | <f68a1e57-a86e-4496-bac8-d09a46dd7d6dn@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 |
| From | Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> |
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 6:07:31 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 9:22:06 AM UTC-7, jeffr...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hello. > > > > On this July 4th I would like to explain to you a particular and perhaps defensible theory of the US Constitution which is based on its historical circumstances of composition. This is not a "Federalist" theory in the sense of the Federalist Society, for it suggests the idea of "originalism" is woefully wrongheaded. > > > > It is a strange but true fact that the "body text" of the Constitution, as opposed to the bill of rights, is largely the work of one man: Gouverneur Morris of New York (in a committee with two others, he is widely believed to have literally written most of the words in the document). > > > > Does that mean that Mr. Morris was the "signal" Founding Father? Far from it. His words had to be "blessed" by the Constitutional Convention to have the status of compact, and only the enduring practices and standards of US law make those words continue to have meaning. > > > > It is only as a document capable of being interpreted "variously and generally" that the Constituion has any value, and realizing this teaches us the severe limits of one's opinions and "constructions" on this and similar topics. > > > > If constitutional law is to live in the United States it must be practiced, and practiced widely. Believe not the theories of those who think serious matters can be neatly "swept under the rug" and not to the detriment of people in general. "Makes no never-mind"? We ever mind. > > > > Jeffrey Rubard > What's new in your own personal Constitutional interpretation? No, really! We all have theories about things, you know.
Back to us.talk.constitution | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 jeffrubard@gmail.com - 2020-07-04 09:22 -0700
Re: Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2022-01-06 06:07 -0800
Re: Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2022-01-09 20:15 -0800
Re: Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2022-01-10 04:15 -0800
Re: Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2022-01-11 16:38 -0800
Re: Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2022-01-12 04:11 -0800
Re: Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2022-01-12 18:45 -0800
Re: Constitutional Avenues (The Text, Its Construction, and Its Interpretation) Jul 4 Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2022-01-13 15:14 -0800
csiph-web