https://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Con_LawCon Law - Revision history2026-04-13T22:26:04ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.32.0https://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?title=Con_Law&diff=8260&oldid=prevEric Rasmusen at 20:56, 25 January 20252025-01-25T20:56:12Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">Revision as of 20:56, 25 January 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Any theory of con law (originalism, Dworkin, etc.) should be compelled to show how it applies to interpreting (a) a commercial contract, and (b) a tax statute. That would show off the theory's points without the complication of political rationalization.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Any theory of con law (originalism, Dworkin, etc.) should be compelled to show how it applies to interpreting (a) a commercial contract, and (b) a tax statute. That would show off the theory's points without the complication of political rationalization.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">*"For those reading essays onthe best interpretation of the Birthright Citizenship Clause: Be attentive to whether they are based on "plain meaning of text," "original understanding of ratifiers," "framers/ratifiers expected application," "implications of judicial precedent, "history and tradition," or "living constitutionalism." These are all different, rely on different evidence, and are driven by different normative theories." Curt Lash, X (2025).</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>Eric Rasmusenhttps://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?title=Con_Law&diff=5613&oldid=prevRasmusen p1vaim: Created page with "*Any theory of con law (originalism, Dworkin, etc.) should be compelled to show how it applies to interpreting (a) a commercial contract, and (b) a tax statute. That would s..."2022-05-24T02:45:50Z<p>Created page with "*Any theory of con law (originalism, Dworkin, etc.) should be compelled to show how it applies to interpreting (a) a commercial contract, and (b) a tax statute. That would s..."</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>*Any theory of con law (originalism, Dworkin, etc.) should be compelled to show how it applies to interpreting (a) a commercial contract, and (b) a tax statute. That would show off the theory's points without the complication of political rationalization.</div>Rasmusen p1vaim