

This article highlights the real problems with these originalist philosophy: they are bad historians. These are legal experts and have lots of skills in this area but none in historical research. They cherry pick bad sources to make their point. Real historians could be useful but that are never consulted
This shouldn’t be the point of overturning laws based on obscure laws and notes from hundreds of years ago. It’s ridiculous




That’s true that there’s isn’t one “truth” but there are things more true than others. That is the problem is if you come with an agenda you can cherrypick to get the history to match what you want