Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Do y'all not practice in courts in which the rule is that you consult the legislative history only when the language of the statute is unclear and cannot be resolved on the grammar, with a judicially noticeable dictionary? Recognize that, mere days ago, several smart people were arguing that strict constructionism is a superior method of constitutional interpretation.
Allard's idea of what this amendment does isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Plus, I think it's a lie. I cannot wrap my brain around why "state law" would have been included if his intent was other than what he now says.
|
Exactly, plus Mr. Allard's supposed meaning would render the term "incidents of marriage" as bereft of any meaning and entirely superfluous. Everyone knows you don't interpret statutes or constitutions that way.
Thus, unless the "freindly amendment" pulls those words -- this Amendment prohibits civil unions no matter what Allard thinks.
S_A_M
