Please don't take this personally, but this isn't the way legal argument is
generally done, and for good reason. I don't know the poster from
Adam. I have no idea how much he knows or doesn't know about the
subject. Why should I, or anyone else on the list, trust what his posts
assert about "prevailing and uncontested practices during the Founding
Era"? As the Bellesiles scandal shows, we can't even trust what tenured
history professors say about a subject, but should expect citations that we can
ourselves check. Why should we believe what total strangers on discussion
lists say?
So here's a general rule: If you think your point is
supported by some evidence, CITE THE EVIDENCE. Don't just cite to a long
treatise. Cite the document, cite the page number, give a quote.
(Also, if the document explains why something was the practice, explain why you
think the Constitution *mandates* that this remain the practice. Practices
change, and constitutions often provide some latitude for them to change, at
least in some areas, though not others.) Maybe if you're a noted scholar
whose accomplishments are well-known to the list, we'll trust you
more. Maybe. But even then, I'd rather that you give some more
specific details to support your assertions.
This is what's useful to legal scholars doing research, which I
stress again is the purpose of this list. General assertions, or broad
citations to treatises, aren't enough. They're not helpful; they just
waste people's time. Please adhere to these conventions when posting to
the list.
Eugene Volokh
It is an argument that original understanding is to be found in prevailing
and uncontested practices during the Founding Era. These are documented,
among other places, in the militia treatises of James B. Whisker at
http://www.constitution.org/jw/jbwhisker.htm .Eugene Volokh wrote:
>
> Sorry, but this seems to be just making stuff up.
