Using Original-Meaning-Originalism

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

Is there any  example, whether a judge's (or attorney's) actual argument, 
submitted at the  Founding or any subsequent era, or a scholar's reconstruction 
of an actual  case or examination of a hypothetical case where  
original-meaning-originalism is clearly distinguishable from  textual or 
original-intent-originalism? I'm aware, of  course, of judicial history lessons in dozens of cases 
such as Thorton,  Printz, and so forth.  But I'm looking for an interpretive  
methodology that clearly demonstrates the public meaning of X  as Y, step by 
step and independent of advocacy. I hope  I've clearly stated the object of my 
inquiry.
 
        Please forgiving my  double-posting but, if there is an answer to my 
question, I'm sure both law  school scholars and political scientists will 
contribute to articulating the  answer. Thanks very much, and off-list replies 
are fine.

Bobby

Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware


Ratio Juris,  Contributor: _  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ 
(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) 
Essentially Contested  America, Editor-In-Chief 
_http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) 



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20071128/5836929c/attachment.htm