'INTERPRETATION' IS THE WORD THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN [VFB 👢🎓 HOMO🙃CAPENSIS 🕍]

⁣🎇🎆🌈🌅 wew 🎇🎆🌈🌅

#WINNING SHOUT-OUT REPORT 📋

RFK Jr. exposes White genocide campaign ✅
VfB outs Orson Welles as a BABY MURDERER and WELL POISONER ✅
homo capensis revealed to not possess the capacity for abstract thought, which means they pretend at having a conscience, but simple pattern recognition would indicate that jews simply never keep their word. ✅

Yes - I know you cannot read my mind 🧠

Trust me - yore better to have muh filtered thoughts 🤓

I'm going to PROVE IT in 2 paragraphs - straight C&P w/o edit to preserve receipts: 📃

Revision as of 11:08, 15 July 2011 (edit)
Wingman4l7 (talk | contribs)
m (removed extra comma)
← Previous edit
(498 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

<!-- READ THIS BEFORE EDITING THIS PAGE
This page makes extensive use of footnotes; please be careful when editing the page to ensure that both the article and the related footnotes remain internally consistent.
-->[[File:Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States.png|250px|thumb|right|''[[Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States]]'', by [[Howard Chandler Christy]].]]
In the context of [[United States]] [[constitutional interpretation]], '''originalism''' is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the [[constitution]]and not impose new interpretations foreign to t he original intention of the authors. It extols the virtues of [[judicial fundamentalism]]. It is based on the [[Separation of powers|principle]] that the [[Judicial branch|judiciary]] is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws (which is the realm of the [[Legislature|legislative branch]]) but only to uphold them. The term is a [[neologism]], and the concept is a [[Legal formalism|formalist]] theory of law and a [[corollary]] of [[textualism]]. 🇺🇸

In the context of United States law, originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that asserts that all statements in the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding.[1] This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five.[2] This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.[3][4] Originalism should not be confused with strict constructionism.[5] 🕍🦄🍆

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Originalism&diff=1161746697&oldid=439602566
(((ism)))

When I heard that, I said to myself, "Shouldn't that suffix be 'ist'?

YES ✅

(((bait & switch))) nailed agin! 🕍🦄🍆🥊😵

As to the video:

Source: https://madison.com/news/state....-regional/government

he 1849 law that was widely interpreted as a near-complete abortion ban in Wisconsin doesn’t apply to consensual abortions at all, a Dane County judge ruled Friday while allowing a lawsuit to proceed that seeks to reinstate abortion rights statewide.

“There is no such thing as an ‘1849 Abortion Ban’ in Wisconsin,” Dane County Judge Diane Schlipper said in a ruling that provided a massive but preliminary win for Wisconsin Democrats and abortion rights advocates. Instead, the law applies only to feticide, the act of killing a fetus, usually by “assaulting and battering the mother,” according to the ruling.

“A physician who performs a consensual medical abortion commits a crime only ‘after the fetus or unborn child reaches viability,’” continued Schlipper, who previously questioned whether the 174-year-old law applies to the procedure.

Schlipper’s ruling shooting down the purported ban came in an order rejecting a defendant’s motion to dismiss Democrats’ case seeking to clarify whether the 1849 feticide law, 940.04, applies to abortions.

It doesn’t appear that abortion access will be immediately restored, but Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin said they were evaluating their options “in providing abortion care as soon as we can.”

Diane Welsh, who represents the physicians who joined as plaintiffs in the case, said her clients will “now move promptly to obtain a declaratory judgment to ensure that physicians can provide health care that Wisconsin patients need.”

“I hope this ruling makes clear that no Wisconsin prosecutor should be contemplating any prosecution for abortion under 940.04,” she continued.

Heather Weininger, executive director of the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Right to Life, called the ruling “a devastating setback in our ongoing fight to protect Wisconsin’s preborn children.”
--

huh 🙃

https://dailycaller.com/2023/0....7/15/chris-wray-gun-