<DIV>If you use words in a way that most people will understand as saying p, but you meant to say q by them, and you get them enacted into law, you have enacted p, not q. So the franers of the 14th Amendment might have intended only to protect the civil and political rights of Blacks, and not to promote social equality, when they enacted the equal protection clause, but the language they used, correctly interpreted, made social equality the law of the land.<BR><BR><B><I>lweiger@umich.edu</I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>> I am not, as I have said impressed by arguments about<BR>> original intent - whether from Justice Scalia or Dan<BR>> Lazare. Who cares what they meant, if what they said<BR>> is clear?<BR>><BR>> So that's what I think.<BR>><BR>> jks<BR><BR>I think I agree with you, but doesn't what you mean to say have a lot to do with<BR>the meaning of what you say?<BR><BR>-- Luke<BR>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/">Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!</a>