NYT editorial on the Heller case

[RPCVYemen]

Well then please explain how exactly you come to the conclusion that this "editorrialist" has read ANY of the FF statements, and if he has then how can he NOT be considered a liar?

Piece of cake. First of all, I assume that an editorial writer for the NYT has a college degree. Everyone who has a college degree has read at least one statement by one of the founding fathers.

I would further hazard a guess that an editorial writer for the NYT is very likely to be a poli sci/journalism major. Such a major will almost certainly have read lots of writings by any number of the founding fathers.

So your statement is simply untrue.

At the risk of stating the obvious the FF did pen the document. They both designed and put it into place.

Oddly enough, I thought it was "put into place" - ratified by a whole lot of folks - most of whose writings we don't have. That's probably why Scalia specified "the whole Congress".

Here is a statement - defining textualism - that explains some of the issues with the technique of finding a few quotes from the author of a document, and assuming that those quotes determine the meaning of the document:

Textualist judges have contended, with much practical impact, that courts should not treat committee reports or sponsors' statements as authoritative evidence of legislative intent. These judges base their resistance to that interpretive practice on two major premises: first, that a 535-member legislature has no "genuine" collective intent concerning the proper resolution of statutory ambiguity (and that, even if it did, there would be no reliable basis for equating the views of a committee or sponsor with the "intent" of Congress as a whole); second, that giving weight to legislative history offends the constitutionally mandated process of bicameralism and presentment.

If you substitute the FF for Congress in the quote above, you will see the problems with interpreting the Constitution based on a writings of a few of the Founding Fathers:

1. It is very hard to determine the collection intent of all of the ratifiers of the Constitution. It is very likey that no such "collective intent" existed.
2. Even if such a "collective intent" could have been determined, the method of intepretation specified in the Constituion is by the Supreme Court.

Mike