Early American Voting Demographics (responding to Professor Rakove respon...
matthewhpolsci at aol.com
matthewhpolsci at aol.com
Sat Aug 25 11:07:13 PDT 2007
Who was booted and spurred and ready to ride, and who was bridled and saddled and ready to be ridden??? Is not originalism a methodolology to give a predetermined answer to that question?
Matthew Holden, Jr.
Henry L. and Grace M. Doherty Professor Emeritus of Politics, University of Virginia
DIRECT MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. Box 12588
Jackson, MS 39236-2588
From: Earl Maltz <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>
To: RJLipkin at aol.com; rakove at stanford.edu; MatthewHPolSci at aol.com; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: Early American Voting Demographics (responding to Professor Rakove respon...
I am not claiming that the my approach would lead to noncontroversial answers in all or even almost all cases; indeed, I don't think that any originalist methdology can make such a claim. I simply believe that judges should apply this methodology and make their best estimate of the right answer.?
At 11:15 AM 8/25/2007, RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:?
>In a message dated 8/25/2007 7:23:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu writes:?
>I now believe that its language should be given the meaning required >by the conventions of legal?
>analysis at the time that the document was drafted and >ratified--that is, the interpretation that would have been adopted >by a hypothetical "neutral" judge in 1798-91. Under this view, the >statements of?
>opponents and proponents are only relevant insofar as they are >evidence of what view such a judge would have taken.?
> Was there no controversy over the meaning of those > conventions? And won't what counts as a "neutral judge be > contestable? I have difficulty understanding how constitutional > meaning at the time of ratification can be determined by legal > conventions at the time when those conventions are textual > entities--words and sentences--whose meaning was probably contested > then. But if not then, they are certainly contested now. Why if we > agree that the public meaning of contemporary terms--at least for > certain critical terms such as "liberty," "equality," "commerce," > and so forth--is contestable, can we hope to find 200 years old > linguistic forms and their semantics any less contestable??
>Robert Justin Lipkin?
>Professor of Law?
>Widener University School of Law?
>Ratio Juris, Contributor: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/?
>Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief ><http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/?
>Get a sneak peek of the all-new ><http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>AOL.com.?
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof