Quote:
|
you take an Originalism perspective in maintaining this belief that what was in the text at one point a hundred or two hundred years ago had the same means as it does today.
|
I've never said that this is my position... because it's not. This is a straw man.
Quote:
|
Fact of the matter my interpretation is right, and there is nothing but history and case law on my side (Brown v. Board of Education; Loving v. Virginia; Obergfell v. Hodges; Zablocki v. Redhail; Turner v. Safely, and on and on and on).
|
None of those cases stand for the proposition you're putting forward. Not even remotely.
The reason I'm not providing citations is because I'm not aware of any case, in the USA or otherwise, that's considered the position you're putting forward here. It's fundamentally opposed to the basic workings of the legal system as it pertains to constitutional JR. It wouldn't
get to court.
I still think where you're getting caught up is missing the difference between a law being unconstitutional and being
deemed unconstitutional.