Cont: The Trump Presidency VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cabbage said:
OK, I'll bite: How are they bigly different?
Click to expand...

Different theories

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.
The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Scalia, are associated with this view.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Different theories

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that won't cut it.
You were referring to my post.

I said what "they" meant.
The constitution is not a "they," but an "it."

Ergo, your link does not address what I said.
The only contextually plausible they from my sentence was the writers of the constitution.
Ergo my statement can only be interpreted to mean "what the writers of the constitution meant." It cannot be read to mean "what the people of the time would think it meant." (because they, not it.)

There is no meaningful difference between what someone means and what they intend to mean.

QED your attempt to correct me was, in fact, an error. It arose from your assumptions instead of by reading the actual words I wrote.


ETA: Clearly it happens frequently that someone did not use the precise words they meant. I have done it myself. In this case I did not. In future, if you feel I have typed or misspoken, perhaps you could ask me to clarify my meaning?
 
Last edited:
beren said:
I'm sorry, but that won't cut it.
You were referring to my post.

I said what "they" meant.
The constitution is not a "they," but an "it."

Ergo, your link does not address what I said.
The only contextually plausible they from my sentence was the writers of the constitution.
Ergo my statement can only be interpreted to mean "what the writers of the constitution meant." It cannot be read to mean "what the people of the time would think it meant." (because they, not it.)

There is no meaningful difference between what someone means and what they intend to mean.

QED your attempt to correct me was, in fact, an error. It arose from your assumptions instead of by reading the actual words I wrote.


ETA: Clearly it happens frequently that someone did not use the precise words they meant. I have done it myself. In this case I did not. In future, if you feel I have typed or misspoken, perhaps you could ask me to clarify my meaning?
Click to expand...
This isn't about the founders, this is about logger. Logger has taken the specific position of original intent. For purposes of interpretation of the law and constitution, there is significant difference between what they mean and what they intended to mean.

You are simply not accurately describing logger's position.

ETA: or logger simply doesn't have a well thought out originalist position, making this moot.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
This isn't about the founders, this is about logger. Logger has taken the specific position of original intent. For purposes of interpretation of the law and constitution, there is significant difference between what they mean and what they intended to mean.

You are simply not accurately describing logger's position.

ETA: or logger simply doesn't have a well thought out originalist position, making this moot.
Click to expand...

Your link demonstrates a difference between what the founders intended and what other people at the time would have thought the constitution meant.

This is NOT the same as a difference between what the founders meant and what they intended to mean.

There is no difference between what they intended to mean (logger's position) and what they meant (my words.)

Furthermore:
Mean
verb (used with object), meant, meaning.
1. to have in mind as one's purpose or intention; intend:
I meant to compliment you on your work.
Synonyms: contemplate.
2. to intend for a particular purpose, destination, etc.:
They were meant for each other.
Synonyms: destine, foreordain.
Click to expand...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meant?

I did not say "Original Meaning" I said "what they meant." This is the same as saying what they intended, or what they intended to mean.


I'm sorry Bob, but you are just wrong here. I didn't say what you thought I said. Stop digging.
 
beren said:
Your link demonstrates a difference between what the founders intended and what other people at the time would have thought the constitution meant.

This is NOT the same as a difference between what the founders meant and what they intended to mean.

There is no difference between what they intended to mean (logger's position) and what they meant (my words.)

Furthermore:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meant?

I did not say "Original Meaning" I said "what they meant." This is the same as saying what they intended, or what they intended to mean.


I'm sorry Bob, but you are just wrong here. I didn't say what you thought I said. Stop digging.
Click to expand...

And by saying that in the context you did, you stepped into that debate regardless. Your intent to avoid that has no meaning there.


Okay. I see it now on your edit.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
I keep on telling you people. before too long the idea of armed resistence to a tyrant won't be as silly as you think....
Click to expand...
Suddenly Trump's past comments about "taking people's guns" following the Florida school shooting makes sense...
 
The Don said:
If they are, then why is the President's statement pertinent ? It doesn't matter what percentage of the President's overall legal work he does - so long as it is legal work. The President's statement makes no difference either way as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

Well that is EXACTLY the point. If Cohen did very little legal work then very few documents are likely to be privileged. Just because Cohen is a lawyer and Trump had him do some work doesn't make it privileged.
 
dudalb said:
I keep on telling you people. before too long the idea of armed resistence to a tyrant won't be as silly as you think....
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it will be the other way around, the idiots that believe Trump's deep state are the ones with all the guns.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Help me understand here. You support the constitution as the framers intended, except for where you don’t. Have I got that about right?
Click to expand...

No, because you don’t understand what sharia is or how our constitution is clearly against it.
 
I don't want to start a new thread for this but, this is the same meme religious doctrines use to stop people even thinking about doubting their faith:

Vox: John Legend asked Kanye West to reconsider his Trump support. Kanye put their texts on Twitter.
After Kanye West launched an ongoing series of tweets about his admiration of Donald Trump and conservative figures like Candace Owens, John Legend reached out to him directly via text — and ended up becoming the subject of yet another Kanye tweet for his trouble.
Click to expand...

Legend:
“I hope you’ll reconsider aligning yourself with Trump,” he wrote. “You’re way too powerful and influential to endorse who he is and what he stands for. As you know, what you say really means something to your fans ... so many people who love you feel so betrayed right now because they know the harm that Trump’s policies cause. Don’t let this be part of your legacy.”
Click to expand...

West:
... You bringing up my fans or my legacy is a tactic based on fear used to manipulate my free thought
Click to expand...

No need to look at Trump's white nationalism if you start by saying you are trying to manipulate me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom