Fun With The Constitution - Sophistry

[emanymton]

.

Questions for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Antonin Scalia who vigorously advances textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation.

The Constitution of USA -

Article. II.

Section. 1.

...

paragraph 5 states:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."


Does not this mean that to be eligible to the Office of President _only_ persons at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (September 17, 1787) who were natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at that time, shall be eligible? As no one today can meet these eligibility requirements does this not mean NO ONE can be President?

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Does not this mean that right of the people to keep and bear only Arms that existed at the time (black powder, self-loading) of the adoption of the "Bill Of Rights" (December 15, 1791) not be infringed? Does not this mean modern day weapons are not covered by this amendment.

This could go on. But one should get the idea that trying to lock up the Constitution in a straight-jacket of originalism intent is absurd.

~@:o?
.

[ck4829]

1. There are legions of things not included in the Constitution

Electricity, the Internet, airplanes, corporations, etc.; so why aren't originalists demanding that the government stay out of those things.

[safeinOhio]

2. I'd say that textualism , in genral, is used

to justify what one agrees with and the rest is about loop holes.

[ThomWV]

3. No, your argument fails

In your first instance you will not that the Constitution defines the time with the phrase "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". Your Article II reference has no such anchor in time included in the passage.

Also, I believe in a strict interpretation you'd come to the conclusion that only at the time of the adaptation of the Constitution was it necessary for the President to have been born in the country - that for all later President's there is no such requirement. See what I mean? At the time of the adaptation of the Constitution you had to be a natural born citizen but it doesn't say that once the Constitution had been adopted that the requirement would survive.