@crgreen24601 @WilliamBaude OK, though twitter's far from ideal for this. If I pledge to "support my family" or to "support Maryland," that doesn't say a thing about what form that support may or must take. There are very few judges/scholars/officials who aren't committed to supporting the Constitution. /1
@crgreen24601 @WilliamBaude I'm honestly not sure what (5) and (6) mean. I *believe* that (7) merely means, at most, that when the Const. was ratified, most people used certain conventions to interpret it. OK, but even if that's right, so what? It doesn't follow ... /2
@crgreen24601 @WilliamBaude ... that "support" for the document requires use of those conventions--and only those conventions--to interpret it. Those who fought for the Union army also supported it that way. That is to say, "support" doesn't say or connote a thing about how to interpret it. 3/
@crgreen24601 @WilliamBaude Besides which, it appears you're supporting some form of "original interpretive methods" originalism, in which case: (i) no one today disclaims most or all of the methods used at the Founding; and (ii) there was no original understanding or argument, far as I know, ... /4
@crgreen24601 @WilliamBaude ... that the Constitution precluded development of *other* modes of interpretation, too, even if they were rarely if ever used at the Framing.
But in any event, back up: If you tell someone who's deeply devoted to the Constitution (most ACS members, for instance) ... /5
But in any event, back up: If you tell someone who's deeply devoted to the Constitution (most ACS members, for instance) ... /5
@crgreen24601 @WilliamBaude ... that they don't actually "support" the Const. b/c they--like every Justice ever to sit on the Court--don't adhere to a strong form of originalism, most would simply say that's silly, and think poorly of you for trying to claim a monopoly on constitutional fidelity. /6
@crgreen24601 @WilliamBaude That arrogance ("We're faithful; you're not."), intended or not, is what appears to have pissed off Cass. I didn't have the same sharp reaction, but only b/c I think the argument doesn't have the power to actually influence anyone. /7
