Indeed, it sure seems like Wurman & co. are grasping at 17th century straws precisely because the 19th century evidence all points to the boring old consensus view, and that doesn’t get you Fox bookings or a federal judgeship.
Replies
Hot take: what really matters is what the Constitution means *today*, as the present-day People are sovereign. And the plain language, to a current reader, is that the words are what they are....the boring consensus view.
jul 18, 2025, 2:16 pm • 1 0 • view
Is it a new trend (see also: SCOTUS re nationwide injunctions) to rely on the British monarchies for construing the US constitution? Never heard of that approach before (I’m not an expert).
jul 18, 2025, 2:40 pm • 0 0 • view
It really seems like the reaction to Bruen (which the Supreme Court already partially unwound is Rahimi) is this idea that law CANNOT be changed from what it was "traditionally", no matter to what degree it is codified and indeed if the view of traditional law is accurate or modern conception.
jul 18, 2025, 1:18 pm • 4 0 • view