Originalism takes the meaning of all the available documents into account, sometimes referencing other works to determine intention and meaning. Textualism limits itself to purely the law as written, sometimes with a modern interpretation. Frex, a Textualist could argue that the 2A refers only to members of a militia that is bound by law to oversight by the government, because the law clearly reads "the militia" and "well regulated". An Originalist would look at outside works of the era to determine what the Founders intent was.
Both are valid, because the law IS what is on paper that was actually passed by Congress, not any one members interpretation or goals. But for such an old doc it's also extremely important to see the intent of those laws through the lens of that era.
Originalism and Textualism are opposite interpretations, which is she really?
But they are both good.
Demonrats judges don't do either of them. They follow the method of "inventing things that don't exist so you can legislate from the bench".
Could you give me a quick explanation of the difference.
Originalism takes the meaning of all the available documents into account, sometimes referencing other works to determine intention and meaning. Textualism limits itself to purely the law as written, sometimes with a modern interpretation. Frex, a Textualist could argue that the 2A refers only to members of a militia that is bound by law to oversight by the government, because the law clearly reads "the militia" and "well regulated". An Originalist would look at outside works of the era to determine what the Founders intent was.
Both are valid, because the law IS what is on paper that was actually passed by Congress, not any one members interpretation or goals. But for such an old doc it's also extremely important to see the intent of those laws through the lens of that era.
Thanks for the information.