Exactly: the Federalist papers, the letters, etc., which explain the original intent of the constitutional clauses. We refer to the Fathers of the Chruch in the same way: they explain the intended meaning of the scripture.
Nothing in the later pronouncements, papal and consiliar, may contradict the earlier doctrine. One cannot get more conservative than that.
Thanks for this post.
Exactly: the Federalist papers, the letters, etc., which explain the original intent of the constitutional clauses. We refer to the Fathers of the Church in the same way: they explain the intended meaning of the scripture.
No, the Fathers were commentators, NOT drafters. It is NOT the same and the distinction is clear. The place of the drafters would be taken by other scripture, the intent of the drafter HAS to be the intent of God. We look to God for that intent, and apparently you look to the Fathers for that intent. The liberal looks to outside sources, and the Fathers ARE outside sources, unless you want to put them on a par with the Holy Spirit.
Nothing in the later pronouncements, papal and consiliar, may contradict the earlier doctrine. One cannot get more conservative than that.
All this means is that no one commentator can contradict an earlier commentator. That is neither conservative nor liberal by itself. What is liberal is that the claimer of interpretation (the Church) is using these outside sources as authority in the same way Justice Breyer likes to use foreign law in his opinions.