Well Written Article on Amy Barrett, "Textualism" and the Second Amendment

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
It was an opinion article written by a journalist. It wasn't reporting.

therefore
"Overall, we rate Salon Left Biased based on story selection that strongly favors the left and endorsements of political positions that are affiliated with the Democratic Party."
I never said it was. It’s why I specifically said their reporting was mostly factual, to note the difference from the opinion piece the OP linked
 

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
23,985
5,128
146
When liberals start buying assault and sniper rifles, GOP will discover the true meaning of 2nd Amendment like Reagan did with the Mulford Act.
Nothing made reagan shit his pants more than seeing African-Americans carry weapons in public. That's the only reason for the Mulford act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
The role of @imported_tajmahal in this episode is being played by @HomerJS

Post: In a speech Donald Trump mentioned the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Response: Trump is a lying asshole who doesn't believe in science. Opinions of right wing dictators aren't worth spit so I entirely dismiss his claim.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Nothing made reagan shit his pants more than seeing African-Americans carry weapons in public. That's the only reason for the Mulford act.
Was Reagan racist? I really can't remember. I was a little busy working and commuting to put myself through University.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
Correct me if I'm wrong, an originalist judge means you must go back to the original intent of the founders or the literal words of the Constitution.

The Constitution specifies the creation of an Army and Navy. Not only did the founders not mention an Air Force but there is no way they could have envisioned flight 127 years before the Wright Brothers. There was no Constitutional amendment allowing for an Air Force.

Sound right?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Its been blatantly clear what the 2nd Amendment was meaning forever.

It still blows my mind that anyone can claim that gun control isn't feasible when any interpretation of what is meant by phrasing of individual vs collective doesn't matter because it literally says in the first goddamn 3 words "A well regulated". No matter what other moronic way you try to twist the words its clear that they absolutely 100% felt that regulation isn't just acceptable but literally absolutely integral in regards to bearing arms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and hal2kilo
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Was Reagan racist? I really can't remember. I was a little busy working and commuting to put myself through University.

Yes. But even Democrats were pretty racist back then, so it didn't seem quite as stark of contrast.

Which, brings up an interesting thing, and would be a much better topic for discussion instead of beating the 2nd Amendment horse to death for the billionth time (and save us from the usual tantrums of the surrogate penis fans). So you know the anti-Disco stuff? Did you know it was pretty blatantly racist and homophobic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Its been blatantly clear what the 2nd Amendment was meaning forever.

It still blows my mind that anyone can claim that gun control isn't feasible when any interpretation of what is meant by phrasing of individual vs collective doesn't matter because it literally says in the first goddamn 3 words "A well regulated". No matter what other moronic way you try to twist the words its clear that they absolutely 100% felt that regulation isn't just acceptable but literally absolutely integral in regards to bearing arms.


Well, I think there's room for argument as to what 'regulated' means in that context (trained? supplied?). And there's the fact that that sentence appears badly-constructed to modern eyes, what with having too many commas in it to fully make sense.

But just don't see why 'what the founders intended' is held to be of such importance - as if they were infallible prophets of God. It starts to look as if Americans are frightened of thinking for themselves and need long-dead guys to hold their hands and tell them what to think and do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Which, brings up an interesting thing, and would be a much better topic for discussion instead of beating the 2nd Amendment horse to death for the billionth time (and save us from the usual tantrums of the surrogate penis fans). So you know the anti-Disco stuff? Did you know it was pretty blatantly racist and homophobic?

I thought that was common knowledge? Or am I missing your subtle mockery? At least there weren't any constitutions being written in the 1970s, enshrining forever the mood-of-the-moment by devoting a whole series of clauses to banning syncopated rhythms and repetitive beats, while not bothering to specify trivia like the right to vote.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
supplied?
in the second militia act way back in like 1792, the public at large was required to procure their own firearms and equipment.

/in b4 'government can't make you buy something!'
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Much of what you need to know about this "well written article" can be summed up with these 2 paragraphs.





"Hold that thought, because when the text is considered to be not as clear as it needs to be, the textualist then is able to hunt for more information  —  in history, traditions and, if things are still murky, in more esoteric areas, say, sea shanties. (Okay, likely not sea shanties, unless the statute has to do with, say, whaling or piracy. Then maybe so.)
Speaking of militias, the Militia Act of 1903, also known (somewhat hilariously) as the Dick Act, for Ohio congressman Charles Dick, was passed after militia groups sent by states proved untrained and disorderly and generally lacking standards (e.g., different uniforms) during the Spanish-American War. Unfortunately, the act mentioned the creation of both an "organized" and an "unorganized" militia, and thereby confused the issue. "


It sure convinced me.............. of nothing.

Its Salon. What did you expect?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,639
50,865
136
What’s funny is that the constitution was left deliberately vague so that morons would attempt to do exactly this sort of thing with it.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
Was Reagan racist? I really can't remember. I was a little busy working and commuting to put myself through University.
There are recorded tapes


There are also recorded tapes of many of his personal and campaign advisors being openly racist. His campaign advisors has a famous rant where he basically advises Republicans to stop using the n word openly and stop being openly racist because it was turning off voters and instead code it with language about fiscal conservativism and protecting suburbs and etc.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Ajay

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Yes. But even Democrats were pretty racist back then, so it didn't seem quite as stark of contrast.

Which, brings up an interesting thing, and would be a much better topic for discussion instead of beating the 2nd Amendment horse to death for the billionth time (and save us from the usual tantrums of the surrogate penis fans). So you know the anti-Disco stuff? Did you know it was pretty blatantly racist and homophobic?
Thanks for the info! Geez, I voted for this guy, mainly because my parents supported him (the were the opposite of racists). Then I was sucked into the GOP's disingenuous rhetoric for 3 decades :(.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Its crazy how an opinion piece gets him worked up. Even more odd is that the piece was more of an attack on originalism/textualism than on Amy herself. In fact once you get past the first paragraph or abouts, I don't recall seeing her mentioned.
What I think it was about is that thought become a tool to rationalize anything when an ideological persuasion proceeds it as motivation. And who better than a journalist trained in the art of objectivity or the deprogrammed individual who has self knowledge via self observation of this fact to be qualified to point it out. It is the very expertise a journalist is supposed to be trained in.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Well, I think there's room for argument as to what 'regulated' means in that context (trained? supplied?). And there's the fact that that sentence appears badly-constructed to modern eyes, what with having too many commas in it to fully make sense.

But just don't see why 'what the founders intended' is held to be of such importance - as if they were infallible prophets of God. It starts to look as if Americans are frightened of thinking for themselves and need long-dead guys to hold their hands and tell them what to think and do.
There is that fear of thinking for yourself when as a child doing just that got you killed psychically, but in addition to that monster of a reality, there is also the issue that anything you can invent the forefathers to have said can't now be checked with them. So it is very convenient to claim that is what originalist judges are doing. They don't want anybody doing any independent thinking.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
There are recorded tapes


There are also recorded tapes of many of his personal and campaign advisors being openly racist. His campaign advisors has a famous rant where he basically advises Republicans to stop using the n word openly and stop being openly racist because it was turning off voters and instead code it with language about fiscal conservativism and protecting suburbs and etc.

Wish they'd bring back the 'informative' reaction emoji. Sometimes neither 'like' nor 'wow' seems quite appropriate. Can't say this surprises me in the slightest, but it's interesting to see it on record. Didn't Nixon in particular obsessively tape everything as a personal foible? (Hence the Watergate tapes) - or is recording all Presidential conversations just something that is done with all Presidents, for official reasons? I've actually heard both of those things stated, over the years.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
There are recorded tapes


There are also recorded tapes of many of his personal and campaign advisors being openly racist. His campaign advisors has a famous rant where he basically advises Republicans to stop using the n word openly and stop being openly racist because it was turning off voters and instead code it with language about fiscal conservativism and protecting suburbs and etc.
"Advisors" like Lee Atwater.

Amazing recorded interview from Lee Atwater of how right-wing authoritarian racism is couched in dogwhistles. And those dogwhistles are STILL used today.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
The US seems like an example of the problems with having a written constitution (and letting it ossify). It's one reason why I'm dubious about the EU, which seems to be repeating the same mistakes as the US - embodying all sorts of ideas in hard-to-change founding documents, largely based on the political expediencies and balance-of-power of the moment when the document is drawn up.
Europe has seen and felt what can happen if there aren't tough enough underpinnings of governments, i.e. the world wars. Words on paper could be detrimental to development, but could also help insure against deteriorating into chaos, oligarchy, monarchy, dictatorships.

I'm not defending the US constitution here, I think it's very flawed and weak in many ways. The 2nd Amendment is a major example, the electoral college, another. The president has far too much power, as we've seen the last 4 years, in particular if the office is held by a person with no respect for precedent, law, fairness, equity, morality and sanity. We're really up against the wall, and that wall may crumble and the integrity of the USA fall headlong into a funk we won't recover from. The unprecedented polarization is the canary in the coal mine. Politicians are afraid to deviate from the party line because individual responsibility is no longer valued. If we don't get over that soon, the USA won't recover.
 
Last edited: