I ran across a Quora post the other day, responding to the question "why, originalism?" As in, why do some Supreme Court justices hold to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, since the meanings of words evolve over time.
Peter, I - as well as other people in my community - are presently fighting against a proposed 900-acre solar “facility” (in scare quotes because some people call them, “solar farms,” and they are not “farms” because they do not produce crops or animals.) One of our successful tactics, so far, has been to take our county’s own permit process and insist that the exact wording at the top of the first page - it is in ALL CAPS - be followed. This has bought us time to get better organized, and seek good legal representation. Other counties are also fighting against solar panels. By the way, a 480-acre solar facility two miles from me has made a bad example of what solar facilities are, and we are using that as a tangible showcase of why we don’t want more.
Imagine if, instead of battling to shove solar panels into every available location, they simply built a nuclear plant wherever your current power comes from......
I agree. Here’s an interesting observation, unique to where I happen to live: in the 1950’s, Lake Thurmond (a.k.a. “Clarks Hill Lake”) was built on the Savannah River, above Augusta, and my county lost several hundred acres of land to that; we lost thousands of acres again, to Lake Richard B. Russell, during the 1980’s; we had a pipeline traverse our county during the past 10 years. I realize that we all use and need energy, but, we already “contribute” quite a bit. We also need food and fiber.
The Etymological Fallacy is likely not our friend in debate. They STILL believe - and horses, let alone the Supreme Court's Heller decision, cannot pull them off it - that the "militia" clause in the Second Amendment means citizens may only bear arms if they actively serve in the military. We are fortunate, for now, our highest court isn't corrupted and still rules on the basis of original intent.
The militia clause is explanatory, and its "limits" are as to "what," i.e. what sorts of arms are protected. The main clause says "the People," not "the Militia." The whole "only a militia" argument is a falsehood.
Peter, I - as well as other people in my community - are presently fighting against a proposed 900-acre solar “facility” (in scare quotes because some people call them, “solar farms,” and they are not “farms” because they do not produce crops or animals.) One of our successful tactics, so far, has been to take our county’s own permit process and insist that the exact wording at the top of the first page - it is in ALL CAPS - be followed. This has bought us time to get better organized, and seek good legal representation. Other counties are also fighting against solar panels. By the way, a 480-acre solar facility two miles from me has made a bad example of what solar facilities are, and we are using that as a tangible showcase of why we don’t want more.
Imagine if, instead of battling to shove solar panels into every available location, they simply built a nuclear plant wherever your current power comes from......
I agree. Here’s an interesting observation, unique to where I happen to live: in the 1950’s, Lake Thurmond (a.k.a. “Clarks Hill Lake”) was built on the Savannah River, above Augusta, and my county lost several hundred acres of land to that; we lost thousands of acres again, to Lake Richard B. Russell, during the 1980’s; we had a pipeline traverse our county during the past 10 years. I realize that we all use and need energy, but, we already “contribute” quite a bit. We also need food and fiber.
Solar “farm” - what a great example of manipulating words. So peaceful, so pastoral, so wholesome, so productive and nourishing. Give me a break.
The Etymological Fallacy is likely not our friend in debate. They STILL believe - and horses, let alone the Supreme Court's Heller decision, cannot pull them off it - that the "militia" clause in the Second Amendment means citizens may only bear arms if they actively serve in the military. We are fortunate, for now, our highest court isn't corrupted and still rules on the basis of original intent.
The militia clause is explanatory, and its "limits" are as to "what," i.e. what sorts of arms are protected. The main clause says "the People," not "the Militia." The whole "only a militia" argument is a falsehood.
Which is the basis upon which Heller affirms an individual - i.e., not collective - right.
For future reference I believe that comic is from XKCD.