Official Website for Amitabha Palmer
Notes and Thoughts on A Response to Scalia by DworkinOverviewNote, some of the content in the article–as you might expect–refers back to the Scalia posts.Dworkin agrees with Scalia that the Constitution should be interpreted according to original textual meaning but distinguishes two approaches. The first is semantic originalism: the idea that clauses ought to be […]
Read More Constitutional Interpretation: Dworkin’s Response to ScaliaPart 2 of Notes and Thoughts on Interpreting the Constitutions by Antonin Scalia Key Quote:“To be a textualist in good standing, one need not be too dull to perceive the broader social purposes that a statute is designated, or could be designated, to serve; or too hide-bound to realize that new times require new laws. One […]
Read More Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism & Textualism (Scalia) Part 2Notes and Thoughts on Interpreting the Constitution by Antonin Scalia I apologize for typos and such, I haven’t had time to thoroughly proof read this post yet.PreambleSo, I’m writing my philosophy of law paper on constitutional interpretation; “originalism” in particular. At first, I thought the whole idea of originalism kind of silly, but after doing some […]
Read More Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism and Textualism (Scalia) Part 1Notes and Thoughts on Moral Disagreement as Discussed in Parfit’s “On What Matters” Ch. 34Parfit Vs Basic Argument from DisagreementSuppose you and your counterpart are in ideal epistemic conditions. You are aware of and agree on all the non-normative facts yet your opinions differ on what the true moral belief is. In a way, we […]
Read More Parfit on Moral Disagreement: Part 2Notes and Thoughts on Parfit and Moral Disagreement (Ch. 34)IntroductionBefore getting into the philosophy, for those of you who aren’t familiar with the trolley thought experiments, answer these questions before proceeding:Trolly Q1: You are driver of a runaway tram which you can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working […]
Read More Moral Disagreement Part 1: ParfitConflict Between the Ten Commandments and the Constitution and the People who Think the Two Can Be Appealed to for Public PolicyI’m supposed to be working on a paper but what I heard got me so worked up, I had to write something about it. NPR was broadcasting a debate between contestants in the Texas […]
Read More Rant: Conflict Between the Ten Commandments and the ConstitutionPreamble and Notes to the Reader People is always axin’ me (jk, lol, #thatneverhappens), why don’t you post your papers? The answer is that while, for the most part, I enjoy writing in my blog, for some reason I don’t like how my philosophy papers turn out. They seem sterile. Anyway, I’m posting this paper because it’s […]
Read More Critique of Kuhn: Scientific Revolutions and Semantic IncommensurabilityNotes and Thoughts on the Legal Issues Surrounding the Separation of Church and State in the Context of the Establishment ClauseOverviewSo, what’s the establishment clause? It’s the part of the first part of the first amendment that says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”. The free exercise clause follows it […]
Read More Separation of Church and State Part 2: The Establishment Clause and Accommodationist PositionNotes and Thoughts on Parfit’s “On What Matters”, Vol. 2, Chapter on NormativityOh! Before we start…Welcome my 100th published post! That’s a lot of rambling…Thank you for reading my stuff. Here are a couple of fun facts about my blog: Total number of visits 6787Most visits in a month 548 in Feb 2012Strangest Stat: I’ve had […]
Read More Normativity and Misunderstandings: Parfit(apology–I haven’t proof read this yet)Yo, check it. I think I might actually have my paper topic for metaFX. Stop. That would be the best DJ name for a philosopher ever, DJ metaFX. Anyway, I is going to talk about whever der is such ting as normativity in reasons–that is, whether there’s such a ting […]
Read More Normative Truth: Good and Bad Reasons. (Parfit)
Wrestling with Philosophy 