Gorsuch condones usurpation of power in Civil Rights case, ignores oath of office

OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.
No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed
So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.
Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK
This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.
No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed
So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.
Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.
The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.
We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Nope, you have a perspective and so do I. Obviously, someone needs the last word here, so take it and have a nice day.
We are not talking about differences in perspectives. We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

Why do you find it necessary to deflect?

JWK
No deflection at all. You are entitled to your OPINION on how a justice should interpret the Constitution.
We are not talking about my OPINION. We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules. Keep in mind our Constitution commands an adherence to "the Rules of the Common Law".


In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.


In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”


It should also be noted our Supreme Court cited the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution in order to enforce it, see UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).



And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is a priority of the Court:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."



In the instant case, and with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the legislature was addressing a specific evil with respect to “sex” . . . perceived discrimination between men and women in the workplace. For Gorsuch to add groups, who engage in sexual deviant behavior, to the meaning of “sex” within the CRA of 1964, is to do exactly what he admittedly condemns ____ “… amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. … And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations.”

In fact, Gorsuch’s actions have indeed forced upon the people that which neither the legislature nor public was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted. And that, my friend is judicial tyranny!


JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our property and our liberty and our property under the Constitution.”

- Charles Evans Hughes


/End Thread
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our property and our liberty and our property under the Constitution.”

- Charles Evans Hughes


/End Thread
That remark by Hughes was not made in any legal opinion, nor when he was a judge. It is an irrelevant comment. :rolleyes:

In any event, we are talking about the rules of constitutional construction, which you constantly deflect from.

JWK
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our property and our liberty and our property under the Constitution.”

- Charles Evans Hughes


/End Thread
That remark by Hughes was not made in any legal opinion, nor when he was a judge. It is an irrelevant comment. :rolleyes:

In any event, we are talking about the rules of constitutional construction, which you constantly deflect from.

JWK
There is no deflection. You have a problem with your strict constructionist view being challenged. The SCOTUS does not march in lockstep with such a methodology. Site all of the quotes you want to confirm your own biased POV. The pedagogy is boring.

Have a great day.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
There is no deflection. You have a problem with your strict constructionist view being challenged. The SCOTUS does not march in lockstep with such a methodology. Site all of the quotes you want to confirm your own biased POV. The pedagogy is boring.
I have no idea what you mean by "strict constructionist view".


we are talking about the rules of constitutional construction, which you constantly deflect from.

JWK
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
There is no deflection. You have a problem with your strict constructionist view being challenged. The SCOTUS does not march in lockstep with such a methodology. Site all of the quotes you want to confirm your own biased POV. The pedagogy is boring.
I have no idea what you mean by "strict constructionist view".


we are talking about the rules of constitutional construction, which you constantly deflect from.

JWK
Translation: I have to get the last word.

By all means have it.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.

You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal rights. It's about defending our Constitution, a system of government by reason and choice of the people, and not being subject to the whims and fancies of our public servants.

Keep in mind our Constitution does provide for change, but only by its amendment process in which the people participate. To allow our public servants to ignore our constitution, even if the breach appears to be just, opens the door to our Constitution being a dead letter and the whims and fancies of those in power becomes the rule of law.


We have been duly warned about arbitrary acts of power:


“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___The Old Guard, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.


JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Bovine excrement! Not buying it. Anyone who would put this much energy into railing about this ruling is not committed to equal rights. Stop lying. Do you or do you not thing that LGBT people should be protected in the workplace.? What is your position on marriage equality? Tell the truth.
Agreed. That’s a reactionary couching intolerance behind “originalist“ interpretation.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
Translation: I have to get the last word.

By all means have it.
In other words, you never intended to discuss the rules of constitutional construction.

JWK
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
Agreed. That’s a reactionary couching intolerance behind “originalist“ interpretation.
I have no idea why you mean by "originalist" interpretation. I do know there are rules which govern constitutional construction, and those are the rules required to be followed under our Constitution.

JWK
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
Translation: I have to get the last word.

By all means have it.
In other words, you never intended to discuss the rules of constitutional construction.

JWK
Translation: I can’t tell FACT from OPINION , but if I get the last word. I win the
Translation: I have to get the last word.

By all means have it.
In other words, you never intended to discuss the rules of constitutional construction.

JWK
White flag accepted
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
Agreed. That’s a reactionary couching intolerance behind “originalist“ interpretation.
I have no idea why you mean by "originalist" interpretation. I do know there are rules which govern constitutional construction, and those are the rules required to be followed under our Constitution.

JWK
Again, white flag accepted.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
White flag accepted

When and if you care to discuss the rules of constitutional construction, i.e., the rules used to determine what out Constitution means when there is a question as to its meaning, get back to me.

JWK




The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
17,981
Reaction score
3,424
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
There is no deflection. You have a problem with your strict constructionist view being challenged. The SCOTUS does not march in lockstep with such a methodology. Site all of the quotes you want to confirm your own biased POV. The pedagogy is boring.
I have no idea what you mean by "strict constructionist view".


we are talking about the rules of constitutional construction, which you constantly deflect from.

JWK
Then you have not done your homework:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strict constructionist
Definition of strict constructionist. : one who favors giving a narrow conservative construction of a given document or instrument specifically : one who favors a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States — compare loose constructionist.
which allows conservatives and those who wish that we still were living in 1950, or 1850 to deny the fact that the social order is n flux and that the framers of the constitution were aware that issues would arise in the future that the Constitution does not address directly. And they were wise enough to understand that the document and the amendments must be open to interpretation in the context of changing standards of human decency, and social norms and values
\\


\
 
Last edited:

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
17,981
Reaction score
3,424
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
White flag accepted

When and if you care to discuss the rules of constitutional construction, i.e., the rules used to determine what out Constitution means when there is a question as to its meaning, get back to me.

JWK




The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Then what are the rules? Is there a rule book for interpreting the Constitution? Lets se it.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
Then you have not done your homework:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strict constructionist
Definition of strict constructionist. : one who favors giving a narrow conservative construction of a given document or instrument specifically : one who favors a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States — compare loose constructionist.
which allows conservatives and those who wish that we still were living in 1950, or 1850 to deny the fact that the social order is n flux and that the framers of the constitution were aware that issues would arise in the future that the Constitution does not address directly. And they were wise enough to understand that the document and the amendments must be open to interpretation in the context of changing standards of human decency, and social norms and values
\\
Oh, but I always do my homework. And the definition you provide seems to me to be misplaced, at least when I examine some of the Justices charged with being a “strict constructionist”. Justice Thomas, for example, abides by his oath of office to support and defend the text of our Constitution, in conjunction with the documented intentions and beliefs under which its provisions were agreed to, which gives context to the constitution's text.

In regard to your novel explanation regarding our social order being in “flux”, that our framers were aware “that issues would arise in the future that the Constitution does not address directly”, particularly “changing standards of human decency, and social norms and values”, those are the very reasons why they provided Article V, our Constitution’s method for change for changing times ___ a method allowing the people to affirmatively agree to change, as opposed to judges or Justices imposing their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law.

Why have a written constitution adopted by the people, if its defined and limited grants of power can be set aside or altered by the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
 
Last edited:

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
17,981
Reaction score
3,424
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Then you have not done your homework:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strict constructionist
Definition of strict constructionist. : one who favors giving a narrow conservative construction of a given document or instrument specifically : one who favors a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States — compare loose constructionist.
which allows conservatives and those who wish that we still were living in 1950, or 1850 to deny the fact that the social order is n flux and that the framers of the constitution were aware that issues would arise in the future that the Constitution does not address directly. And they were wise enough to understand that the document and the amendments must be open to interpretation in the context of changing standards of human decency, and social norms and values
\\
Oh, but I always do my homework. And the definition you provide seems to me to be misplaced, at least when I examine some of the Justices charged with being a “strict constructionist”. Justice Thomas, for example, abides by his oath of office to support and defend the text of our Constitution, in conjunction with the documented intentions and beliefs under which its provisions were agreed to, which gives context to the constitution's text.

In regard to your novel explanation regarding our social order being in “flux”, that our framers were aware “that issues would arise in the future that the Constitution does not address directly”, particularly “changing standards of human decency, and social norms and values”, those are the very reasons why they provided Article V, our Constitution’s method for change for changing times ___ a method allowing the people to affirmatively agree to change, as opposed to judges or Justices imposing their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law.

Why have a written constitution adopted by the people, if its defined and limited grants of power can be set aside or altered by the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
You entitled to your interpretation of how the Constitution is supposed to work, gay folks still would not be able to marry in some states, interracial marriage would also be illegal in some places and women could be denied abortion along with a whole host of other advances in civil right that the old white men in congress would never have addressed. Oh, right , those are all things that you would have preferred did not happen. Too bad. Judicial oversight is an accepted principle

Significance of judicial review
https://www.usmessageboard.com/javascript:void(0)
Image: slideshare.net
Judicial review is a key to the doctrine of balance of power based on a system of “checks and balances” between the three branches of the federal government. The power of judicial review was established in the 1803 Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison.
What Is Judicial Review? - ThoughtCo

www.thoughtco.com/what-is-judicial-review-104785
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
You entitled to your interpretation of how the Constitution is supposed to work,
:rolleyes:

So, instead of addressing what I wrote in response to your post, your deflect.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
Well, Progressive Patriot? Why have you deflected and not addressed what I wrote?

JWK



When it comes to healthcare, our socialist candidate, Joe Biden, has no moral compass whatsoever. He refuses to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the healthcare needs of illegal entrants.
 

DOTR

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
3,478
Points
290
As we shall see, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution,

In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing:

“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”

Gorsuch then goes on to ignore historical facts which establish Congress usurped a power outlawing distinctions being made in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, and in so doing he condones, by his silence, this blatant usurpation of power engaged in by Congress, which not only has resulted in the loss of people being free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations ___ which is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind ___ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.

Now, let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

Justice Gorsuch and the Majority, in doing for the people what they have refused to do for themselves under Article Five of our Constitution, have not only used and abused their judicial power, but usurped legislative power as well, and this borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin
You people are cowards! Why don't you just admit that you are against extending the civil rights act to LGBT folks and dispense with the crap about how it should have been don legislatively . You know that would not happen in our lifetime, and I know that you would not support such congressional action. If it did come up for a vote you would be bitching about how employers have rights too. Stop lying !

OK. We are against extending the rights of LGBT "folks" as we have demonstrated every time we vote. We also voted against homosexual marriage and abortion.

Why dont you admit that you consider Americans a people (or "folks") to be ruled rather than a people who exercise self government?
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
17,981
Reaction score
3,424
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Well, Progressive Patriot? Why have you deflected and not addressed what I wrote?

JWK



When it comes to healthcare, our socialist candidate, Joe Biden, has no moral compass whatsoever. He refuses to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the healthcare needs of illegal entrants.
I did not deflect. I presented an alternate viewpoint. Your reality is not the only reality. Your truth is not the only truth and your opinion is not the only valid one. I could just as well accuse you of "deflecting: by refusing to deal with the reality that in many cases, if the court does not act, classes of people would not be granted certain rights in their lifetime. It is part of our system of checks and balances.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top