Jump to content

"Originalism"..............


Jim Naseum

Recommended Posts

 

 

From Wiki:

 

The tort of nuisance has existed since the reign of Henry III, with few changes, and most of them merely technical.[5] It originally came from the Latin nocumentum, and then the French nuisance, with Henry de Bracton initially defining the tort of nuisance as an infringement of easements.[6] The tort was in line with the economic status quo of the time, protecting claimants against their neighbours' rights to develop land...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance_in_English_law

By comparison, the modern Constitution of S.A>

Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa

Chapter 2 is a bill of rights which enumerates the civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights of the people of South Africa. Most of these rights apply to anyone in the country, with the exception of the right to vote, the right to work and the right to enter the country, which apply only to citizens. They also apply to juristic persons to the extent that they are applicable, taking into account the nature of the right. The rights enumerated are:

Section 36 allows the rights listed to be limited only by laws of general application, and only to the extent that the restriction is reasonable and justifiable in "an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom."[10]

Section 37 allows certain rights to be limited during a state of emergency but places strict procedural limits on the declaration of states of emergency and provides for the rights of people detained as a result.

Gee, we eventually fixed slavery and women's suffrage. I wonder how long it wolf take to get to this Bill of Rights?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

Look at all those rights.  Wow!  I wonder how they're doing over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wiki:

The tort of nuisance has existed since the reign of Henry III, with few changes, and most of them merely technical.[5] It originally came from the Latin nocumentum, and then the French nuisance, with Henry de Bracton initially defining the tort of nuisance as an infringement of easements.[6] The tort was in line with the economic status quo of the time, protecting claimants against their neighbours' rights to develop land...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance_in_English_law
By comparison, the modern Constitution of S.A>

Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa

Chapter 2 is a bill of rights which enumerates the civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights of the people of South Africa. Most of these rights apply to anyone in the country, with the exception of the right to vote, the right to work and the right to enter the country, which apply only to citizens. They also apply to juristic persons to the extent that they are applicable, taking into account the nature of the right. The rights enumerated are:

Section 36 allows the rights listed to be limited only by laws of general application, and only to the extent that the restriction is reasonable and justifiable in "an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom."[10]

Section 37 allows certain rights to be limited during a state of emergency but places strict procedural limits on the declaration of states of emergency and provides for the rights of people detained as a result.

Gee, we eventually fixed slavery and women's suffrage. I wonder how long it wolf take to get to this Bill of Rights?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Look at all those rights. Wow! I wonder how they're doing over there.

I would love to have those rights here. Which was the point I was making about old versus new blue prints.

Once more, I invite you to consider that a blue print is not the building.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is far simpler than is being made out. Our Founders ratified a Constitution permitting slavery, and no suffrage for women. That alone, with no more analysis, defines an old set of ideas by men who could think no better. A modern Constitution, from modern thinkers, would have no such hurdles to over come.

The Constitution, as amended, is the law. You are criticizing something which was long ago superseded.

Anyway, if you are unable to see the inconsistency in your various positions concerning restrictions on government and conspiracy-theories, then, there is little left to argue. I am not in your shoes, but when I spot myself being inconsistent or confused, I tend to admit it. It keeps me open-minded and capable of learning.

Again with the conspiracy theories? Where do you get this stuff?

I haven't mentioned any conspiracy here. But I did demonstrate easily that old is not virtuous when it comes to blueprints for a nation.

Whenever you are flummoxed you resort to an escape hatch of yelling "conspiracy theory." Find the conspiracy theory in this thread and quote it.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

"n this thread?" Why does it have to be in this thread? If it's not in this thread, does it mean you no longer believe it?

Why would you be trying to avoid the concise argument here in this thread by rambling on about unrelated events in another thread, unless you just had no case at all?

Everything I have posted here is simple, straight forward. It doesn't rely on any other thread. That's why I said "in this thread."

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you be trying to avoid the concise argument here in this thread by rambling on about unrelated events in another thread, unless you just had no case at all? Everything I have posted here is simple, straight forward. It doesn't rely on any other thread. That's why I said "in this thread."
 

 

The relevance is very clear.  You can't hide behind a pretend "thread-barrier."

 

Duck Dodgers.

 

v4l-129007.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to have those rights here. Which was the point I was making about old versus new blue prints.

 

You do realize that the piece of paper merely says they have those rights.  Have you investigated what life is actually like over there?  What's the point of the prison warden telling me how "free" I am?

Exactly, why would you rely on some anonymous government bureaucrat to provide your housing, food, water, and healthcare. Sounds like a good way to end up dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to have those rights here. Which was the point I was making about old versus new blue prints.

You do realize that the piece of paper merely says they have those rights. Have you investigated what life is actually like over there? What's the point of the prison warden telling me how "free" I am?

Well duh. Why are you continuing to conflate the blue print with the building? It's illogical.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to have those rights here. Which was the point I was making about old versus new blue prints.

You do realize that the piece of paper merely says they have those rights. Have you investigated what life is actually like over there? What's the point of the prison warden telling me how "free" I am?

Exactly, why would you rely on some anonymous government bureaucrat to provide your housing, food, water, and healthcare. Sounds like a good way to end up dead.

You too are making the same error in logic as old TeX. A constitutional right doesn't how it is accomplished.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you be trying to avoid the concise argument here in this thread by rambling on about unrelated events in another thread, unless you just had no case at all? Everything I have posted here is simple, straight forward. It doesn't rely on any other thread. That's why I said "in this thread."

The relevance is very clear. You can't hide behind a pretend "thread-barrier."

Duck Dodgers.

v4l-129007.jpg

There's nothing to hide. Old political science is bad, and new is better. The old Framers were slavers, and new ones would not be. The old Framers designed very poor popular representation, and new ones would not. Old Framers prevented females from voting, new ones would not.

Pretty simple.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...