[tacticalogic]

Obviously, you're entitled to your own opinion and conclusions. I find it unsupportable that someone should undermine the plain language of a Constitution written for "We, the People" by saying the actual written words are less authoritative than the opinion of an individual.

I think that's a disingenuous mischaracterization. I think it's more like saying the author is the most authoritative source to determine the specific meanings of the words used.

Pure textualism disregards the historical context and intent of the authors. Without this, any of the possible meanings can be attributed to any of the words, and interpretation becomes a game of searching for a particular combinatation of meanings that will produce a desired result.

[Outership]

"Pure textualism disregards the historical context and intent of the authors. Without this, any of the possible meanings can be attributed to any of the words, and interpretation becomes a game of searching for a particular combinatation of meanings that will produce a desired result."

This is exactly right and 100% correct. Lawyers make a job of finding the way to twist word meanings until the outcome desired by their client is produced. We as the jury need to be able to understand the spirit behind the law, for words alone can mean anything.

Just think about how much the meaning of the word militia has changed in the last 200 years. If Webster's wanted to destroy the 2nd Amendment, all they would have to do is put in the dictionary: Militia- A government run group of armed men.

Words change, meanings change; some words or definitions aren't even used anymore. With a "pure textualism" approach we will be under the authority of unelected language professors and the changing whim of a living language.