Your comment is a non-sequitur. Neocon said the following:
>>>>>The debate is over adhering to the letter of the law, sometimes employing material such as the record of legislative debates to clarify the intention behind the law, and the supposition that the Constitution, as a "living document", is subject to ingenious interpretation that is pretty obviously remote from ordinary reading.........<<<<<
That posits that "the debate" on interpreting the Constitution is thus and so. The question is, who is debating the issue as Neocon framed it? Giving what he said the most charitable reading, because he is not a legal scholar, I believe he is attempting to express the views of Justice Scalia, who is, as you know, in a distinct minority in his views on the interpretation of the Constitution. I should point out that I have a lot of respect for Justice Scalia, and don't mean to denigrate his arguments in any way.
Perhaps I misinterpreted the intention, maybe it's like the "Clitoral Hegemony" posts, just intended for laughs, not for serious debate. |
