• Kepabar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually, it really might in this case.

      A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.

      Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They are opportunists who clung to the the idea of “originalism” when it served them. A much more modern take is they are a religious insurgency trying to legislate morality from the bench.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does that “strict originalist” view extend to the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd ammendment?

        • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Certainly doesn’t apply to the “secure in their home and persons” part when it comes to limiting police.

        • Kepabar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, it does.

          The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.

          This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.