there is not an originalist future in that argument. the bribery theory being put forward is as flawed in the 18th century as it is in this century. the statement that is made by one of my esteemed colleagues is that bribery wasn't really defined until much later. there was no bribery statute. and that is certainly true. but it obviously had a meaning. that's why they put it in this important standard. bribery was not this overarching concept that chairman schiff indicated. quite to the contrary, the original standard was treason and bribery. that led mason to object that it was too narrow. if bribery could include any time you did anything for personal interest instead of public interest, if you have this overarching definition, that exchange would have been completely useless. the framers didn't disagree with mason's view that bribery was too narrow.
Related Keywords
One , Argument , Statement , Colleagues , Bribery Theory Being , Originalist , 18 , Bribery , Wasn T , Meaning , Bribery Statute , Chairman Schiff , Standard , Concept , Contrary , Treason , Didnt Disagree With Mason , Definition , Framers , Anything , View , Exchange , Interest , Public Interest ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.