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

P. O. Box 12588
LeFleur Station
Jackson, MS 39236-2588

Phone: 601-952-0596

-----Original Message-----
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...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070825/9269fbf9/attachment.htm 

More information about the Conlawprof mailing list