Non-originalist opinions

[Mitch Berman]

Larry Alexander has asked me to ask this question of y'all:

 

Can anyone point us to Supreme Court opinions that acknowledge that the
original meaning (authorially intended, public meaning, etc.) of some
provision or clause was in fact X, or very probably was X, and yet end
up endorsing some competing interpretation, Y?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Mitch Berman

The University of Texas at Austin

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090420/0ab8254a/attachment.htm>