Maggie's Farm

I will give you credit for standing after being ruled KO'd and dragged bleeding to your corner by a 110# ring harlot. Shaking your tiny fist in victory adds a nice touch.

The way this works, coun-zeler, is that you get to choose either textualism or intentionalism. There are no other choices. Either the text is primary, or you're one of those vapid leftist Living Constitution twats like they have in, you guessed it, Canada.

See, coun-zeler, either the law is what the legislature wrote and you don't get to pull a Roberts and reword it so as to refit it to later intent, or you are indeed one of those fruitcakes who bend, fold, mutilate, contort, lobby, corporatize, twist, obfuscate, manipulate, re-legislate, submit to your activist court, reinterpret, mob rule, or generally destroy in order to, among other things, eventually stare decisis the thing completely and entirely out of shape.

While it's not clear from your imprecise wording what you are - except maybe incompetent - it is clear you won't touch this topic with a fifty foot law table. I reckon this is because somewhere in your dim recesses you know you're upside down on the issue, trying in vain to balance your meager patriotism and its constitutional textualism - wherein out here among us normals we send law back to the legislature if they can't wield an Oxfords right - with your presumed decades of sloppy thinking from which you'd bend, fold, mutilate, contort, lobby, twist, obfuscate, manipulate, re-legislate, submit to your activist court, reinterpret, mob rule, or generally destroy the text and its intent in order to, among other things, stare decisis the thing completely out of shape.

Because while you apparently you haven't the alacrity to make much sense of what the rest of us normals already have, so far you're incapable of addressing the distinction between the original document and 200 years of creep. Meanwhile to like-minded couns-zelors, evidently all y'all think so highly of those two hundred years of rulings that if a ham sandwich were ruled a founding declaration you'd burn the latter for having the audacity to conflict the former.

And you'd put the ham sandwich on a plate, serve it with some nice chips and a pickle, tell the world coun-zelors saved this exclusive neo-Konstitushun, and charge a subscription to read it. Because, darn it, somebody's gotta do the heavy lifting.

But since your previous word salad didn't favor either textualism or intentionalism, and since your previous word salad cited neither as well, one naturally assumes you're as dim as a PD working her internship somewhere, assuming PDs work internships somewhere. Which with my not knowing the topic where it counts, maybe you could at least clear that up.

Oh wait. I've been entirely too conciliatory. Apparently you are a Canadian style Living Konstitushunlist. It sez rite hear, coun-zelor,

only a truly brain dead simpleton believes the federal constitution, as enacted, is even workable today.

...which, given your mumbleshipness-u-tude on the general topic, us normals out here will take that as your impenetrable brain fog on what you only think you're on about.

Oh snap. Somebody needs to fix your text so it fits your intent. Do you have aides or do you write those opinions yerself?

And tell me, do either know what you think? You can see why one would ask.