A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning the use or distribution of contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps.
An intro to Twitter for lawyers on the fence about trying it I started using Twitter the day the CA3blog site crashed. Twitter can be useful, and it can also be god-awful. Geeking out with a top conservative academic about circuit nominees, for example, or trading ideas about how to get better at oral argument.
At its best, Twitter is glorious. Twitter is how I imagine cocaine: So, can you enjoy useful Twitter while avoiding the god-awful?
So, on that jolly note, here are a few thoughts on how to get started with Twitter, should you decide you want to.
Setting up your account.
Use your real name unless you plan to just lurk or blow off steam. Anonymous accounts tend to get ignored. Deciding who to follow.
Search for people you respect. But, most of all: Step one, follow the people you want to follow you, and many will follow you back. Step two, interact with some appellate-oriented folks who tweet a lot and have a lot of followers.
Respond to their tweets, say something nice, disagree intelligently, whatever. Step three—and this is the one that actually matters—be helpful and interesting.
If you add value, people will find you. Twitter is public, dummy. Err on the side of concealing your inner dumbass. Bottom line, do I think you should start using Twitter?
4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.) 5. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities. 6. Brown vs Board of Education (on originalist grounds, it was decided incorrectly). Perhaps no decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable search and seizure” has come in for more criticism than Terry v.
This entry was posted in Writing on.The United States Supreme Court is increasingly forsaking its role as legal interpreter for the role of legal author due to a transformation in constitutional interpretation.
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources. Originalism is a theory of the interpretation of legal texts, including the text of the Constitution.
Originalists believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law. An excerpt from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution Written constitutionalism implies that those who make, interpret, and enforce the law ought to be guided by the meaning of the United States Constitution--the supreme law of the land--as it was originally written.
In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a way to interpret the Constitution's meaning as stable from the time of enactment, which can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five.
The term originated in the s. Originalism assumes that Marbury is correct: the Constitution is the operating charter granted to government by the people, as per the preamble to the United States Constitution, and its written nature introduces a certain discipline into its interpretation.