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?
JWKThis 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. The problem is that the SC did not do what you wanted.
Not quibbling over this any further.
Can I ask a question? What do you see as the limits of judicial review? Don't say "the Constitution" because it is clear you don't believe that based on your statements.
Mark