Re: History in excess…
Reply #33 –
What we choose today affects tomorrow--sounds a lot like both law and life, eh?
Had you got far enough into the article to read the words:[…] the conservative legal movement’s adoption of originalism was no mere happenstance or relationship of convenience. It is, rather, founded on shared philosophical premises: a belief in the value of the past, the duties of the present, and the delicacy of a legal regime founded on both. Originalism, properly understood, has endeavored to preserve — and where necessary, restore — that regime in the face of relentless scholarly criticism, political attacks, and the ever-present desire to break free from
the constraints that prevent us from doing what we will.
(emphasis added)
I'm not sure you will understand my point, even with the underlining…
But put it in another context: Scientific consensus… Can you not see the difference? And why they must be different…?
You do -despite being a non-religious- accept some common morality? From whence does it come?
(Did you just accept what others did…? Did you grok it, on your own? — There seem to be no other sources left to you, James!) If you don't know -or care- where it comes from, then you are un-interested. (And, hence, not allowed to argue… )
[…} (Oops! Tired! Must sleep… You can continue to think, if you'd like; I've no problem with considered opinions!)