Stanley Fish writes in the Times about, well, nothing much. 飞刀加速器-免费注册飞刀网游加速器【官方网站】:手机号码: (若收不到验证码请更换ie浏览器尝试或联系客服)
Some of the article is tongue-in-cheek of course, rather like the title of this post, but there’s a large problem underlying the entire enterprise. I thought I’d write about it in a general, broad brushed way, since a lot of the articles on the topic quickly dive into murky theory.
媒体:中国开始屏蔽外国VPN服务- 中国日报网:2021-1-23 · 《环球时报》英文网相关报道截屏 【中国屏蔽外国VPN服务!】《环球时报》英文网报道,中国已开始屏蔽外国VPN服务。VPN供应商Astrill通知用户,因 ...
Here's the problem. In contemporary America, Originalism is used as a means of “interpreting” certain important ideas and concepts in the Constitution. It’s associated with “conservative” thought (although there’s no reason why it couldn’t be “liberal”), and has a kind of common, rough-hewn sense to it. However, the application of Originalism can be dangerous and sometimes farcical.
For non-law, non-politics type readers, here's a super-imple sketch of law in America. America’s citizens created a Constitution. The Constitution sets the rules as to how the Government functions and creates “rights” for citizens. The Constitution can be modified by specific mechanisms. In a sense, the Constitution sets the “Basic Rules” for the country; the government and the laws created under the Constitution cannot violate those “Basic Rules.”
In principle it’s an excellent and flexible system, and most of the time it works pretty transparently. On one end of the scale, Americans still completely agree (thankfully) on what some of these rights “mean” in a practical, everyday sense. For example, the government cannot send soldiers to shoot you in the head, just because the people in power don’t like how you pray. In fact, many of these agreements are so obvious as to seem ludicrous to Americans; but it’s a case of a fish not being aware of the water it swims in. There are places where governments do just shoot people – it happens now. Americans enjoy a wonderful and amazing array of rights that the law enforces and defends; freedom to speak your mind, pray, gather in a community, own property, go to court if someone’s wronged you, worship (or not) as you see fit, not to be beaten by strangers, etc. Nearly all of these rights are found in the Constitution and its Amendments, and while we disagree on the fine points of some of them, they’re basically there, and there's little (or very marginal) controversy surrounding them.
On the other end of the scale, Americans are deeply divided over a few issues like abortion; some argue abortion has Constitutional protection as a basic right, others argue is has no protection and thus could be legislated against or outlawed. Since the Constitution sets up the “Basic Rules” which specific laws have to follow, on contentious issues, it suddenly becomes very important what certain phrases in the Constitution “actually mean.” Is abortion “actually” protected by the Constitution or not?
又跳票了 魅族MX四核JW透露月末上市!_数码_腾讯网:2021年6月12日 - 去年冬天,J.Wong说到,魅族MX四核会在明年五...应用控官方微博 绿恐龙哥哥 数码莫莫 影像仓库...3D702400146%26pri%3DvPMHfvsrHbH5c1lfqd34p...
Originalists (in this context) want to look at what the people who originally wrote (and voted on) the Constitution meant. They also want to look at how people living at the time would have generally understood what the Constitution “meant.” The underlying idea is that through Orignalism we’ll have a more precise understanding of what “cruel and unusual” means, and be in less danger of being “mislead” by language or concepts that have changed over time. Legal decisions would be more predictable, reasonable, and if something needs to be changed in the Constitution itself, we can just vote in a new amendment. Which sounds aaaaalmost reasonable. (Cue Stanley Fish with his pastries: “we’re just trying to understand something, not be political. . .”)
In no particular order, here are the problems with Originalism.
gyastal百度百科_gyastal品牌介绍_gyastal官网:2021-2-12 · 百度百科史记2021年度人气王鹿晗,本视频时长103秒,也可众在这里观看:w..... 百度百科年度人气王奖--鹿晗
Second, Originalism is intellectually dishonest. Even if you “start” with Originalism, there’s always a layer of interpretation that must occur because things change over time. Let’s say the idea of forcing people to take medication just was never considered, one way or another, when people were talking about “cruel and unusual” punishment in those days. So what do we do now, guess as to what people might have thought about it, 200 years ago? Or, lets say that something flat out didn’t exist 200 years ago? Anything invented in the past 200 years is in an “anything goes zone?” If you’re going to engage in interpretation anyway. . .
又跳票了 魅族MX四核JW透露月末上市!_数码_腾讯网:2021年6月12日 - 去年冬天,J.Wong说到,魅族MX四核会在明年五...应用控官方微博 绿恐龙哥哥 数码莫莫 影像仓库...3D702400146%26pri%3DvPMHfvsrHbH5c1lfqd34p...
I think the best evidence "in" the Constitution itself is simply that if it was really meant to be an Originalist document, we’d either have to constantly amend the Constitution with tiny specific updates (because it wouldn’t apply to new things we think up) or pass an amendment that said “we’re going to interpret the Constitution through our normal societal standards at any given time.” And you know what? The Founders DIDN’T start constantly amending the Constitution to clarify its language.
Another way of looking at this is to apply an Originalist system and imagine the Founders trying to design it: “OK, lets make a Supreme Court. The Court will only decide based on the literal language of the Constitution and will not “interpret” it in any way. That way, if there’s an important case involving a brand new situation, a case that might affect thousands of people, the Court can simply say it can’t interpret the Constitution. Then, when enough people are outraged, we’ll muster the entire population and have them amend the Constitution so the situation is covered. We’ll just keep on doing that for every “new” court case! And, for extra fun, we won’t schedule any kind of regular procedure to periodically amend the Constitution.”
Mxvpn : MxVPN加速中心-【唯一官网】-网络加速器-看到 …:MxVPN是一款专业的网络加速工具,拥有覆盖全球的优质VPN线路提供PC,Mac,安卓,iOS等平台的专用客户端,帮助你畅游互联网,加速外服网络游戏,看到更多的世界!MxVPN加速中心-【唯一官网】
There’s a more fundamental political issue though: So. Let’s go with Originalism. What if death by torture was completely normal 200 years ago? (Torture everyone!) Or, on the other hand, what if forcing someone to take psych meds, or locking someone up for more than a year was considered “cruel and unusual” 200 years ago? (Let everyone in Jail out now!) What if, 200 years ago, some people thought it was, and some people thought it wasn’t? What if someone felt strongly about it but thought the concept was so obvious they didn’t write it down? (We guess!) You see the problems. It really does not matter what people thought if the result (for us, now) would be absurd – and if the result is sensible and wise, surely we can reach it on our own. Now as far as “consensus” goes, the idea that we’re just going to look for what those long dead people thought as a whole, or thought something meant as a whole, let me tell you, regardless of what they thought, they made bad decisions. For example, “collectively” forbade women to vote and allowed slavery. The slavery argument isn’t just rhetorical by the way, it’s obvious immorality aside, it was a bad decision that crippled and nearly destroyed the country. There is no “golden age” of right decisions and clear language to return to, even assuming the Originalists didn’t make any mistakes in their interpretations of what they think someone meant.
So why the obsession with tracking down the nuances of a word used 200 years ago? Well, Fish in his article might have you believe that it adds to our understanding, and I’m sure it does somewhat. But what it really does is put an argumentative arrow in a Judge’s quiver. The argument, as you may have guessed, is “Dead White Guy (or guys) thought “X,” the end.”
Or even worse, “DWG wrote X, which everyone thinks meant X, and lord knows we’ve been going about acting like it meant X, but the jokes on us because it really meant Y! The end."
Seriously. I’m not kidding. That’s the only way you can use Originalism. “Well, on this contentious divided social issue, which some people think should go one way, and some people think should go another way, DWG thought X, the end.”
NOTE: this is not saying, “Well, on this contentious divided social issue, DWG thought X, which Agrees or Disagrees with this important comprehensive study about the issue itself, outlining its pros and cons, in light of our traditions and what we can expect in the future.” That would be an interesting historical footnote. It’s also Not saying, “Well, on this contentious divided social issue, there’s a long string of good (or bad ) decisions people have made, and these are the effects of those decisions, interestingly enough, DWG thought X, which began (or opposed) these decisions.” But none of these would actually be Originalism, just the proper use of historical context.
I’d put it to you that if an issue is in fact contentious, or litigated, or far reaching, or important, it ought to be decided in a rational way that considers as much information as possible and weighs the consequences of our options. Playing “gotcha” with definitions is abrogating our responsibility to ourselves and our future.
Just remember – “the more Originalism you need, the less relevant it is.”
科学上外网软件