Talk:Originalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
 |
Originalism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
For clarity, older discussions from this talk page are archived.
[edit] Con argument
"Originalism leads to unacceptable results. For example, interpreting the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution only to protect liberty recognized at the time it was ratified provides no protection to groups who were discriminated against at that time, particularly women and homosexuals. With originalism, the courts are extremely limited in their power to protect against discrimination." This is only true if people refuse to ammend the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.21 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Twenty-seventh Amendment
The text invokes "the example of the Twenty-seventh Amendment". The 200 year ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is sui generis, and not an example of anything. Randall Bart Talk 18:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.21 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Bad originalism
It seems to me that Bad originalism is either now a POV fork of this article or has great potential to become one. I'm not sure it would be best to completely integrate the text of the two, but it seems to me that at minimum, the bad originalism concept needs to be mentioned here and that should be treated as a subarticle somehow. Erechtheus (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
