The best thing about most of your posts is that you quickly tell everyone you have no idea what you’re talking about without actually saying you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Thomas is an originalist who wants to follow the intent of the framers at the time of writing. He hasn’t recently weighed in on anything that’s been modified by an actual amendment, so it’s not clear how he approaches something like that.
The 3/5 compromise was repealed by the 14th amendment. Because it’s an outright repeal, it would be completely impossible to follow both the original and amended versions.
That’s not really relevant though, since there are no recent decisions that have anything to do with 3/5 or the 14th. You clearly don’t know that, which tells me you haven’t even read the news, much less Thomas’ most recent idiotic opinion.
Last week Thomas continued his pattern of cherry-picking precedents to stand as the lone dissenter (quite a feat on this court) and vote against removing guns from domestic violence offenders who have been found to pose a threat to another individual. His primary argument against being that the founders wouldn’t have agreed with doing so (although in his dissent he directly refers to situations where they did). He believes that dangerous DV offenders should be allowed to keep their weapons, but be told that if they step out of line they’ll be fined - because that’s what the colonials did.
I made the reference to the 3/5 compromise because I find it mystifying that someone can cling so tightly to originalism when those views would devalue or outright ignore that individual’s opinions.
Your reading comprehension, is off. It's either that, or I wasn't clear, or both, etc, because I never said anything about a 3/5 decision, etc. In fact, I said THE 3/5 thing was DONE AWAY, by, replaced by the AMENDENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION.
I did not mention the 14th amendment, because I had FORGOTTEN WHICH amendment did away the 3/5 thing.
Also I knew that there hasn't been a case about the 14th amendment, at least recently, because the 14th amendment GENERALLY covers BOTH the 3/5 thing, and about everything else not covered by one of the other amendments, which usually leads to most to almost all cases being about the other amendments, which means there probably hasn't been 14th amendment cases recently, and I haven't heard, read, etc, of any 14th amendment cases recently, or at all, so you saying that I didn't know that there hasn't been both 3/5, and 14th amendment cases, etc, is pretty silly, since I never said anything about that, since I already knew that, since the 3/5 thing was replaced, done away, etc.
Clarence Thomas, and most to almost all to all of the conservative justices on Supreme Court are Original, Actual meaning, intent of the Original, Actual constitution. Your right about that. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY GO BY THE 3/5 thing, unamended, pre amendmended constitution.
Example. In the Ruling that upholds the law banning domestic violence offenders from owning guns(so much for your wrong assertion that I don't stay informed about this kind of stuff, and other things, news, etc.), Barret made the ruling based on the Original AND Actual meaning, AND OR Intent, of BOTH the TEXT, AND the writers of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment TEXT is the SAME both before AND AFTER the 3/5 thing done away, replaced, amended, etc, so Barret was making her decision based on the CURRENT 2nd Amendment Constitution, because of that.
It's SUPPOSEDLY the same with Clarence Thomas, except he hasn't made sense. He semi like Barret is supposedly following the 2nd amendment that same now after 3/5, as it was before, so because of that Clarence is supposedly following the current 2nd amendment, current, amended, etc, constitution, except that he is not making sense, while Barret is making sense, because she said that the founding fathers that wrote the 2nd Amendment, obviously intended there to be very limited exceptions to the 2nd Amendment, such as when the founding fathers, colonials, etc, had the COMMON SENSE to do the things that Clarence Thomas mentioned like fining violent gun owners, etc, except unlike Clarence Thomas, she interpreted that to mean that can do things like imposing BOTH fines, bans, things that limit, impinge, impede the right to bear arms(something the 2nd Amendment technically forbids(Shall NOT be IMPINGED)(fines can technically, theoretically, etc, be considered to IMPINGE)(the amendment didn't leave room for limited exceptions, even tho the intent of the founders, colonials, writers of the 2nd amendment, was to have it work that way, with exceptions.)
Clarence interpreted it the opposite of Barret, others, and unlike the Barret, and the others is not making sense.
Also as you seem to not be getting, I wasn't defending Clarence. In fact I even said how bad, corrupt, etc, Clarence is in BOTH your post and the other post about Clarence.
What I did say, and this is not defending him, that he Clarence does not go by the 3/5 thing, that he goes by the amended constitution that did away with the 3/5 thing. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CLARENCE RIGHTLY INTERPRETS THE CONSTITUTION, AND OR THAT HE SUPPOSEDLY NOT BAD, CORRUPT, ETC, and I did NOT say that Clarence rightly interprets constitution, is not bad, etc.
What I said, meant, is that NONE OF US HERE are EXPERTS, and as such, that while can, do know about stuff, there are things that don't know about, as WE ARE NOT EXPERTS(Except maybe Lawyer Gibbons)
