Originalism

[Malla Pollack]

Point one proves that I can sell my children into slavery (if their father
agrees with the decision).
Point two confuses the right to rent someone's real property with the right
to self-government.
At this point, I think the list would be better served by ending this
thread.  I, at least, do not have time to respond to any further
hypotheticals etc from Prof Green.
Malla

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Christopher Green <crgreen at olemiss.edu>wrote:

>  "The founding generation did not 'own' the federal government."
>
> They *created* the federal government.  That seems to bring entitlements
> pretty similar to ownership.
>
> "I doubt that Prof Green thinks that my landlord can tell me how to vote
> in an election."
>
> Why not?  Can't I decide only to rent to Democratic tenants?  Probably bad
> for business, but not obviously a breach of anyone's basic moral
> entitlements.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Malla Pollack [mailto:mallapollack3 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:56 PM
> *To:* Christopher Green
> *Cc:* CONLAWPROF Prof list
> *Subject:* Re: Originalism
>
> No. The founding generation did not "own" the federal government. That is a
> total rejection of any later generation's claim of a right to
> self-government. Nor did it (in the sense Prof. Green seems to mean) own the
> land mass.  In 1789 etc, parcels of real estate were owned by individual
> persons or groups.  Theses parcels have passed by legal means to other
> owners.  But ownership of land in this sense does not include the right to
> impose a limit on later occupant's rights of self determination.  I doubt
> that Prof Green thinks that my landlord can tell me how to vote in an
> election.
> Malla
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Christopher Green <crgreen at olemiss.edu>wrote:
>
>>  I'm not claiming that the Founders owned *us*.  Rather, the founding
>> generation was in charge of certain resources: (a) the American land mass,
>> and (b) the federal government.  Article VI is a rule that if you want
>> access to these resources, you have to promise to be bound by the rules they
>> set up.  That seems consistent with Mill and Kant to me.  It's like an
>> assertion of in-rem jurisdiction, rather than in-personam, or like
>> establishing a shrink-wrap license that kicks in if we use a product.
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Malla Pollack [mailto:mallapollack3 at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:33 PM
>> *To:* Christopher Green
>> *Cc:* CONLAWPROF Prof list
>> *Subject:* Re: Originalism
>>
>>   Sorry, but I simply do not understand Prof Green's response.  I think
>> we all recognize that all human rights are  limited by the equal rights of
>> others. No one's right to "self government" includes the right to limit
>> others in certain ways. This is (at least to me) the core message of John
>> Stuart Mill's On Liberty.  Since my ancestors did not "own me" as a
>> "resource" (I am a member of Kant's Kingdom of Ends), they can't limit my
>> rights to any greater extent than any other people can. In fact, they have
>> no current need to limit my actions because my actions cannot do anything to
>> curtail what they have already done.
>>
>> The concept of when my right to self-government is claiming too much
>> (intruding too far on others' similar rights) is a very difficult and hotly
>> contested issue.  However, I do not see how this problem in any way supports
>> an argument in favor of an original meaning of the Constitution.
>> Malla
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Christopher Green <crgreen at olemiss.edu>wrote:
>>
>>>  "I disagree that my inalienable right to self government (whether I
>>> hold office or not) is less robust than that of my ancestors."
>>>
>>> Fair enough, but distinguish *s**elf*-government from the government of
>>> other people, or the use of resources in the possession of others.
>>>  ------------------------------
>>> *From:* conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
>>> conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Malla Pollack
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:00 PM
>>> *To:* CONLAWPROF Prof list
>>> *Subject:* Originalism
>>>
>>>   "Fair enough, for non-officeholders, though we can regard Article VI
>>> as limiting the transfer of title to future generations, and the lack of a
>>> (moral) power to do things inconsistent with the Constitution seems
>>> equivalent to a morally-binding promise to obey the Constitution, doesn't
>>> it?" C. Green
>>>
>>> Malla Pollack= I disagree that my inalienable right to self government
>>> (whether I hold office or not) is less robust than that of my ancestors.
>>>
>>> On the more major point, the Court and Congress rarely (if ever) act
>>> merely to "say what the law is" without real-world effect.
>>>
>>> PS I apologize for my email sending out an incomplete message earlier.
>>>
>>> Malla
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>
>>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>>> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>>> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100923/a2f69143/attachment.htm>