Uh, slavery was allowed. Slaves were considered 3/5 of a human being. And women could not vote. Yes, the Constitution DOES change over time!
Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur
13 Oct 2020
Replying to @sahilkapur
Amy Coney Barrett on originalism: "That means that I interpret the Constitution as a law... I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. That meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my policy views into it."

Oct 15, 2020 · 3:07 AM UTC

330
686
75
3,474
Load newest
Replying to @marwilliamson
The Constitution didn't evolve over time, the Constitution forced predominant thinking of the time to evolve to suit it. At anytime judges could have ruled the Constitution didn't allow slavery, but it took a few decades before someone had the balls to do it.
2
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Which is why we've had amendments. You're the most divisive group of people in history. She's brilliant and well reasoned. It's congresses job to legislature not the courts.
1
6
Replying to @marwilliamson
They’re called amendments. Which originalists very clearly understand. I loved your calling out the bullshit we are subjected to regularly by the two party duopoly that runs DC. But this just displays a complete ignorance of constitutional interpretation.
1
1
40
Replying to @marwilliamson
This dishonesty is appalling. Of course the Constitution changes over time. That change comes about through the amendment process detailed in Article V of the Constitution.
1
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Slaves were counted as 3/5 to LIMIT the voting power of slave OWNERS! Read your history! FFS
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
Not to mention - men carried MUSKETS! Not automatic rifles.
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
That originalism thing blows my mind; it really does. Did not even know it existed. Seems like a concept favored by a person who fails to understand that society and it's various mores and ideals evolve and progress over time. They are not static.
3
Replying to @marwilliamson
“Siri, what is a Constitutional Amendment?”
14
Replying to @marwilliamson
If textualist originalists were around during Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court would have no final authority on judicial review. Completely self-owning philosophy.
1
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
All those changes were made via amendments ratified by Congress, not rulings by the supreme court. All originalism means is that the supreme court cannot change the law.
1
Load more