Ah, but remember, these people interpret the Constitution in their "own" way, twisting meanings to suit their warped views that many of us cannot agree with or understand the thought process behind. Similar to the supposed "originalist" judges who band together for their backwards viewpoints.
Ah, but remember, these people interpret the Constitution in their "own" way, twisting meanings to suit their warped views that many of us cannot agree with or understand the thought process behind. Similar to the supposed "originalist" judges who band together for their backwards viewpoints.
The oath they took says they will support the constitution, not interpret it to suit their individual beliefs. Upon enlisting or being drafted, the oath I took:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . . "
There is nothing there which says I can interpret it differently. The oath is different than the Constitution. Court may interpret it differently, this we know. This court is made up of "originalists." I believe they would hold to the same words even though law is interpretive. The oath is not law even though it is assertion. I would call it a rule.
I was bound by the UCMJ. If there was nothing in the UCMJ which covered an issue, there was always Article 38 which was called the "Captain's Cloak," which covered anything unspecified. This is outside of the topic.
Ah, but remember, these people interpret the Constitution in their "own" way, twisting meanings to suit their warped views that many of us cannot agree with or understand the thought process behind. Similar to the supposed "originalist" judges who band together for their backwards viewpoints.
The oath they took says they will support the constitution, not interpret it to suit their individual beliefs. Upon enlisting or being drafted, the oath I took:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . . "
There is nothing there which says I can interpret it differently. The oath is different than the Constitution. Court may interpret it differently, this we know. This court is made up of "originalists." I believe they would hold to the same words even though law is interpretive. The oath is not law even though it is assertion. I would call it a rule.
I was bound by the UCMJ. If there was nothing in the UCMJ which covered an issue, there was always Article 38 which was called the "Captain's Cloak," which covered anything unspecified. This is outside of the topic.
Just like the evangelical rabid right "interpreted" their professed Scripture in their lust for temporal power.
Yep.