Ron DeSantis

Rank 21 of 47

Score 28

The proper way to analyze constitutional text is not to “privilege” any one person’s subjective intent but to ascertain the original public meaning of a particular provision.

Mulder’s Long Fight for Account Reinstatement

@proteinwisdom

25d

@RonDeSantis For over 20 years both on my blog and then here, I’ve written over and over again that intentionalism just is.

Whose intent we privilege — those who wrote and ratified 14A or those who rework the “plain text” to suit their own agendas — has always been, and will remain, the key

12/6/2025, 1:22:48 PM

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the interpretation of constitutional text, specifically the 14th Amendment, in the context of a Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship. It addresses the debate between original public meaning and subjective intent in constitutional interpretation, which is a significant public issue.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on a legal interpretation issue, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by discussing a method of constitutional interpretation, though it does not explicitly promote empathy or compassion. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in constructive dialogue by addressing a legal interpretation method without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
Principle 7:
I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
The statement upholds free speech principles by responsibly discussing a public issue related to constitutional interpretation. [+1]