Lorena Packs Heat to do the Job In Melbourne

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

OK, good, I'm glad it wasn't you who said those foolish things. As to orginal intent, I don't know much about it and I don't care. I am not an originalist. I don't think it matters that much what the framers meant. If you want to know about that stuff, read Jack Rakove's Original Meanings or Gordon Wood's books about the American revolution or Akeel Reed Amar's The Bill of Rights (the last will be smart but tendentious). 

--jks

In a message dated Wed, 9 Feb 2000  3:29:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, oudies at flash.net writes:


> Justin writes:
> >No, it's not. Not, anyway, according to longstanding Supreme Court
> precedent. Here is the latest statement:
> 
> 
> i forgot to excise those editorial comments that were those of a member of
> another list.  i don't agree with them.  however, i'm wondering about this
> issue that never gets raised in these debates:  most of the english
> colonies had a bill of rights in their own constitutions prior to the CC in
> Philly.  as such, if i remember correctly, these weren't about state
> militias but were about "the rights of man".  one of the CC debates was,
> among other things, over the redundancy of even having a bill of rights
> when most of the colonies had already established them during the colonial
> era or had done so under the Articles of Confederation given that, at that
> time, each of the 'states' saw themselves as sovreign governments simply
> allying themselves under the articles.  wondering what, if any, the
> scuttlebutt in that regard was in your circles.
> 
> kelley