draft
draft
draft
Dear REDACTED,
As you know there are many elements of the current political situations(s) that I dont understand or perhaps incompletely appreciate. Certainly I am not at all concerned whether the debate over an originalist interpretation of the constitution is political or not, of course it is. Not even a stupid moron could doubt that. My problem (well one of them) is that I dont understand what the originalist position actually is. I want to try to understand the originalist position better and nothing I have read has helped me much. So lets take the 2nd amendment, which is apparently more important than issues of racism or the right to vote among our fellow citizens.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
1. What is a well regulated militia? Whatever it is, I am pretty sure that it never was intended to be a bunch of yahoos forming vigilante squads to shoot at whoever they want whenever they want because "they need killin". To the best of my knowledge, militia's were self generating (unlike for example a regiment which usually had a designated officer responsible for raising a body of troops), but even so I am pretty sure that they were sanctioned (or not sanctioned) by official authority. Yes, no, maybe? Therefore outside of a "well regulated whatever" why does this amendment even apply?
2. By "state" here, I presume they mean the individual states & commonwealths, e.g. 13 of them. Not the federal govt, or did they mean the federal govt?
3. I am not sure what "arms" means here in an originalist sense. Are we talking about unrifled muskets, presumably flint locks or similar technology, muzzle loaded? How about artillery, which in this case would mean muzzle loaded single piece unrifled cannon firing shot or metal balls, those are certainly arms. It would not be an originalist position to say this refers to rifled, semi automatic, weapons which are wildly different in capability to a flintlock. If we are interpreting the constitution to refer to "modern personal firearms" then that would have to include antitank and antiair weapons as those are every bit as much a personal kinetic weapon as updated to our times. Certainly a modern semi automatic hand gun would not be considered to fall under this amendment in any originalist sense as the handgun as a useful technology pretty much did not exist at that time.
So which is it, original or interpreted?
"At the request of one of my subjects who must remain nameless, We have consented to suggest a policy or approach for the situation in Ukraine to defeat the False Vladimir, the so-called "Vladimir the Bringer of Peace", and encourage him and his degraded Boyars to reenter civilization and turn away from their bloodthirsty celebration of the most hateful of pagan devils: Belobog and Cznerobog with their obscene hand gestures in defiance of the True Way of Our Savior who died on the Cross, the murdered God of Two Natures, indivisible, who opened the Door back to God. May the Blessed Virgin, Immaculate and Chaste, preserve us!"
For what it is worth, here are my impressions of the Academy Awards 2022. I have no special insight but I have been around for a while.
People who dont know how this works should realize that the real test of skill is to be invited to, and be noticed at, one or more of the extremely glamourous parties after the awards ceremony itself. Of course anyone holding an oscar from that year is automatically granted entry to any party (including the Governor's Ball). Attending the awards itself is certainly a privilege and has a variety of entertaining aspects, but ultimately it is best to realize that it is "work" to the people who are there. Most of them have to be there.
My observation is that in spite of all the complaints about the various versions of the Academy Awards ceremony, that the award itself retains both its glamour and its practical career benefits. If you receive an Oscar then it is likely that your career will receive a boost and you will be more marketable. This differs from branch to branch, I think, at least that would be logical.
The thing to keep in mind is that the Academy funds its entire operation for a year out of that one night. They do a lot of good work from what I can tell. Of course I presume there are always politics and some waste, how could there not be? But they definitely spend their money on things that help us all. Things like film restoration, for example.
The Will Smith incident is just unfortunate. People are really highly stressed in these circumstances. I dont know the man, but I know people who have worked with him on projects and no one has said he is a monster. He probably just had a bad night which is a shame.