The fact that he’s an asshole aside; can I ask why exactly a ‘great common-law authority’ is being dragged in to an examination of what is supposed to be a question of interpreting the US Constitution?
I know that the federalist society golden boys are…creative…in their conceptions of ‘textualist’ and ‘originalist’; that’s practically a running gag at this point; but dragging a common law guy from a completely different jurisdiction into the interpretation of a document written over a century after his death is veering into a highbrow version of the ‘common law’ fetishism of the sovereign citizen/freeman-on-the-land nutjobs.
