Under the test established by the #supremecourt in Bruen v. NY Rifle Ass’n, the #constitution must be strictly interpreted in light of laws in place at the nation’s Founding. Yet that would mean the First Amendment authorizes punishment of anti-government speech as seditious libel. Is the original meaning of the constitution fatally out of step with modern values? The Constitution’s original meaning is far more complex than court has led us to believe. #law #scotus https://senatormoobs.substack.com/p/originalism-and-the-freedom-of-speech
No, that's not what the Supreme Court said in Bruen v. NY Rifle Ass’n, and it's not how originalism works in general.
For one, much of the amended Constitution was not written at the time of the founding. It would go against originalism to interpret text in a context besides that from which it originated.
But more importantly, this sort of analysis is only needed when there's reasonable dispute over what the text means, as in the 2nd Amendment cases but not as in such free speech cases.
