Well, Daniel is limited in space for his argument, but he’s saying the same thin

Well, Daniel is limited in space for his argument, but he’s saying the same thing we are, which is that the law as constructed in the absence of natural law, fully articulated legislation both in positive and negative, originalism in meaning and textualism as its recording, especially given the advent of the positive law ‘sedition’, puts the court in the difficult position of having to uphold unclear constitution, bad legislation and bad law, or violate their provision of not legislating from the bench to correct the sedition of positive law.

Reply addressees: @WerrellBradley