 |
|
WADR, that is his interpretation. With which i
Posted on: December 18, 2017 at 12:02:26 CT
hokie VT
Posts:
67163
Member For:
9.45 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
disagree.
You argued earlier for the plain reading of the amendment.
It seems plain to me.
The issue is the interpretation of that rule (you argued against scotus interpreting and just sticking with the plain meaning, iirc) that was done many times and in my non legal opinion seemed to nullify the plain meaning and opted instead for some interpretation of what the writers MEANT instead of what they SAID.
I appreciate the article. It is scholarly, precise and wrong. In my opinion, based on the plain reading of the amendment.
You argued earlier for the plain reading of the amendment.
It seems plain to me.
The issue is the interpretation of that rule (you argued against scotus interpreting and just sticking with the plain meaning, iirc) that was done many times and in my non legal opinion seemed to nullify the plain meaning and opted instead for some interpretation of what the writers MEANT instead of what they SAID.
I appreciate the article. It is scholarly, precise and wrong. In my opinion, based on the plain reading of the amendment.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
WADR, that is his interpretation. With which i - hokie VT - 12/18 12:02:26