[P-Marlowe]

I agree, but I also agree with Scalia that the intent of the drafters is not what determines the meaning of a law or constitutional provision.

If Scalia believes that, then my opinion of his legal mind has dropped considerably. Words change meanings over time and it is imperative that in interpreting a statute of a provision of the Constitution that the reviewing court must determine as best as possible the intent of the drafters utilizing the contemporaneous discussions surrounding the drafting and the passage of the provisions and further they must use the definitions of words contemporaneous with the general definitions of the words at the time the provision was passed.

Words must be given their original intent and any attempt to give a modern definition to an archaic word or expression would result in a misinterpretation of the statute or provision in question.

Do you have any specific reference where Scalia made such an idiotic remark?

[betty boop]

Words must be given their original intent and any attempt to give a modern definition to an archaic word or expression would result in a misinterpretation of the statute or provision in question.

Oh so very true, P-Marlowe!

Yes, a citation please Bruce Campbells Chin re: Scalia's "idiotic remark."

[Somehow this doesn't sound like Justice Scalia at all. So — where's your "proof?"]