Shameless! You keep bothering people saying the same thing over and over and over again and never taking into account objections and counterarguments and then when people tell you to get lost, you cackle and think that you've won. No, all you've done is tick people off with your nonsense.
If I wanted to understand an 18th century legal case, I would at least try to understand something about 18th century law. Britain and the colonies had the common law, a body of traditional, ancestral judge-made law. Few objected to it because it was based on tradition and precedent and principles derived from precedent. It wasn't an attempt at social engineering or social control, it was an attempt to work out and apply a few simple principles of law.
Slavery was abolished in Britain by degree in 1381, and was on shaky legal ground with the courts ever since, so it wasn't from out of the blue that courts banned Negro slavery in Britain and in Massachusetts four centuries later, without any great social outcry. People knew that slavery wasn't secure legally or morally (or constitutionally, after Massachusetts adopted its own written constitution). Most people would be glad that slavery could be abolished peacefully, but then, most people don't show your loving concern for the welfare of the slave owners.
I said before, not to ping me unless you had something new to say. But after that last post, just don't ping me at all with your garbage.
You are deliberately deflecting the topic away from the salient issue here, which is the creating of *FAKE* interpretations of written law.
You supported this fake interpretation of law in the case of what Massachusetts courts did in 1780 and I, on the other hand, have always been opposed to this "Penumbra" style of interpretation of law.
An interpretation that results in significant upheaval to an existing system should never be allowed unless such a law is clearly written to accomplish this effect, and clearly approved by the legislative process.
In the same manner that constitutional clauses cannot be interpreted as having no effect, so too can a law not be interpreted to have effects beyond what is plainly written in the words.
I said before, not to ping me unless you had something new to say. But after that last post, just don't ping me at all with your garbage.
It isn't garbage, you just don't agree with it. You don't agree with it because the logic of it breaks into that safe harbor of what you wish to believe, and you have sufficient perception of what I am saying to realize this.
Making up fake interpretations of Law is denying the people's right to approve laws. It is counter to the concept of "consent of the governed" upon which our system is founded.