Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SC_Pete; Deagle

Intent is a trap to which we can’t seem to help falling prey. Original meaning is what matters, not intent. The latter is far too nebulous. Plus, what happens when the Framers screw up and say something different than intended? Meaning must trump intent, otherwise we’d be as bad as the lefties for pretending absent words are present and present words don’t matter.


36 posted on 11/08/2012 8:10:51 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane

Yes, I agree. I guess that intent is way too open to today’s interpretation. I agree - Original meaning is much better. Sure wish that that interpretation was more prominent today.

Sorry about the use of that that...but sometimes clarity is necessary...heh.


38 posted on 11/08/2012 8:21:55 PM PST by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Tublecane

RREAD THE BILL TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett


67 posted on 11/09/2012 4:21:34 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson