Professor Sherif Girgis was a very good speaker here. I really enjoyed the "AI Kavanaugh" and "AI Barrett" discussion. I had fairly vague ideas on the different types of originalism and the "horizontal" and "vertical" problem, but this really cleared everything up.
The balancing-dilemma discussed after minute 24 is only logically necessary if we assume the bad conduct (e.g. school shootings, domestic violence) should be allowed to be proscribed by laws that otherwise violate broad constitutional rights, which is the moral demand originalism disputes in the first instance. Originalism stands for the proposition that a constitutional law must be passed or else the Constitution must be amended by Congress. Originalism rejects ab initio your proposed third-way of allowing the effective amendment of the Constitution by judicial decision alone.
Originalism is actually very flexible and only blames Congressional inaction when convenient. For example, As currently employed, the originalists only support individual rights vs. state and federal prerogatives, in their pursuit of absolutist gun rights, and religious rights to discriminate, which they have created out of nothing, because historically, the imposition of religiously based opinions in the civic sphere, has nothing to do with the "free exercise", of religion. It is by definition, an establishment of religion/morality, ironically, by the judiciary itself.
also, with regard to your specific example, as I understand it, Originalists tend to ignore half of the second amendment, which is nearly most of the amendment! That's not very textual.
@@Eriugena8no they aren’t by definition establishing religion. If congress passed a law establishing Anglicanism as the national church that would by definition establishment of religion
@@Eriugena8the first part is a preamble. The operational part of 2A is not altered by the preamble, no matter how many words are in the preamble. The government may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Professor Sherif Girgis was a very good speaker here. I really enjoyed the "AI Kavanaugh" and "AI Barrett" discussion. I had fairly vague ideas on the different types of originalism and the "horizontal" and "vertical" problem, but this really cleared everything up.
The balancing-dilemma discussed after minute 24 is only logically necessary if we assume the bad conduct (e.g. school shootings, domestic violence) should be allowed to be proscribed by laws that otherwise violate broad constitutional rights, which is the moral demand originalism disputes in the first instance. Originalism stands for the proposition that a constitutional law must be passed or else the Constitution must be amended by Congress. Originalism rejects ab initio your proposed third-way of allowing the effective amendment of the Constitution by judicial decision alone.
Originalism is actually very flexible and only blames Congressional inaction when convenient. For example, As currently employed, the originalists only support individual rights vs. state and federal prerogatives, in their pursuit of absolutist gun rights, and religious rights to discriminate, which they have created out of nothing, because historically, the imposition of religiously based opinions in the civic sphere, has nothing to do with the "free exercise", of religion. It is by definition, an establishment of religion/morality, ironically, by the judiciary itself.
also, with regard to your specific example, as I understand it, Originalists tend to ignore half of the second amendment, which is nearly most of the amendment! That's not very textual.
@@Eriugena8no they aren’t by definition establishing religion. If congress passed a law establishing Anglicanism as the national church that would by definition establishment of religion
@@Eriugena8the first part is a preamble. The operational part of 2A is not altered by the preamble, no matter how many words are in the preamble. The government may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms
The court’s were constrained in the 17th and 18th centuries by close supervision by congress of their budget and case load.
One thing's for sure. Nobody ever intended three of nine SC members to be appointed by a convicted felon with more immunity then even they had.
Lol give it a rest.
@@XFT8 Biggest loser ever.
Oh you, with your facts and truth.