“”””Justice Scalia has written that in interpeting the Constitution, he does not look at the intent of the Framers, only what the words meant in 1787.””””
Well at this point, even that would satisfy me..... Because if the court takes up the issue and can accurately state what the words actually meant, then original intent will be more obvious.
“Well at this point, even that would satisfy me”
Maybe. Here is what Justice Scalia said in 2005.
“Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don’t think it changes since then.”
“Now, obviously if you have that philosophy... foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like “due process,” the “right of confrontation” and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it’s all old English law.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352357/posts