[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[kaz]

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.

8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.

It's not "flawed" their objective was different than yours. They wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority

 

[PMZ]

Sure. And you're lying. What part of the constitution allows you to do the things you're suggesting? To rob someone of their prosperity just because someone else isn't?

So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?

No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod. Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.

You are taking advantage of the services every day. What we're talking about is you paying your bills.

 

[bripat9643]

So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?

No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod. Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.

You are taking advantage of the services every day. What we're talking about is you paying your bills.

No, I don't "take advantage of" any services. I don't have any legitimate bills for stuff I haven't agreed to pay for.

 

[PMZ]

No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod. Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.

You are taking advantage of the services every day. What we're talking about is you paying your bills.

No, I don't "take advantage of" any services. I don't have any legitimate bills for stuff I haven't agreed to pay for.

Don't pay your taxes then. Simple solution for you. Stay in control of your life rather then constantly whining.

Even if you never leave your Lazy boy, the fact that you don't see any foreign armies in your front yard is a service that you consume every day.

 

[bripat9643]

You are taking advantage of the services every day. What we're talking about is you paying your bills.

No, I don't "take advantage of" any services. I don't have any legitimate bills for stuff I haven't agreed to pay for.

Don't pay your taxes then. Simple solution for you. Stay in control of your life rather then constantly whining.

The only thing you're proving is that you're a jackass. We all know what happens when you don't pay your taxes.

Why don't you quit whining about businesses not employing more people or paying them a "living wage?" Move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking.

Even if you never leave your Lazy boy, the fact that you don't see any foreign armies in your front yard is a service that you consume every day.

As I said, legally I'm not obligated to pay for services I haven't agreed to pay for, so your attempt to compare government with normal rules of the market is a complete failure. Government is compulsion. I haven't agree to anything it does. It doesn't provide "services" in the market sense. It simply compels me to pay for whatever it does.

 

[PMZ]

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.

8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.

It's not "flawed" their objective was different than yours. They wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority

And replace it with tyranny of a minority.

 

[PMZ]

No, I don't "take advantage of" any services. I don't have any legitimate bills for stuff I haven't agreed to pay for.

Don't pay your taxes then. Simple solution for you. Stay in control of your life rather then constantly whining.

The only thing you're proving is that you're a jackass. We all know what happens when you don't pay your taxes.

Why don't you quit whining about businesses not employing more people or paying them a "living wage?" Move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking.

Even if you never leave your Lazy boy, the fact that you don't see any foreign armies in your front yard is a service that you consume every day.

As I said, legally I'm not obligated to pay for services I haven't agreed to pay for, so your attempt to compare government with normal rules of the market is a complete failure. Government is compulsion. I haven't agree to anything it does. It doesn't provide "services" in the market sense. It simply compels me to pay for whatever it does.

" As I said, legally I'm not obligated to pay for services I haven't agreed to pay for"

So you pay your taxes even though you believe that you have no legal obligation to?????

What a coward. Why don't you stand up for your rights?

 

[dcraelin]

It's not "flawed" their objective was different than yours. They wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority

thats why they counted black slaves as 3/5ths of a person

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?

No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod. Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.

You are taking advantage of the services every day. What we're talking about is you paying your bills.

I'm really tired of this leftist meme. Let's talk about some of the things our federal government spends tax money on, and whether or not we are "taking advantage of the services every day", and they are, in fact, "our bills", shall we?

International Affairs

The International Coffee Organization
The International Copper Study Group
The International Cotton Advisory Committee
The International Grains Council
The International Lead and Zinc Study Group
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation
The Export-Import Bank

Agriculture

The Market Access Program
The Foreign Agricultural Service

Transportation

The New Starts Transit Program
Intercity Rail Subsidies

Labor

Job Corps
Corporation for National and Community Service

Health

Title X Family Planning Grants

Administration of Justice

The Legal Services Corporation

And that's not even counting things like Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF, Social Security, Medicare - none of which I receive anything from. So please tell me which "services" I'm "taking advantage of" from anything listed here, and how they constitute me "paying my bill".

- Thanks to the Heritage Foundation for the list

 

[PMZ]

No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod. Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.

You are taking advantage of the services every day. What we're talking about is you paying your bills.

I'm really tired of this leftist meme. Let's talk about some of the things our federal government spends tax money on, and whether or not we are "taking advantage of the services every day", and they are, in fact, "our bills", shall we?

International Affairs

The International Coffee Organization
The International Copper Study Group
The International Cotton Advisory Committee
The International Grains Council
The International Lead and Zinc Study Group
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation
The Export-Import Bank

Agriculture

The Market Access Program
The Foreign Agricultural Service

Transportation

The New Starts Transit Program
Intercity Rail Subsidies

Labor

Job Corps
Corporation for National and Community Service

Health

Title X Family Planning Grants

Administration of Justice

The Legal Services Corporation

And that's not even counting things like Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF, Social Security, Medicare - none of which I receive anything from. So please tell me which "services" I'm "taking advantage of" from anything listed here, and how they constitute me "paying my bill".

- Thanks to the Heritage Foundation for the list

We could all save a dollar or two every year if they were eliminated.

 

[johnwk]

We are not talking about my opinions. We are talking about the stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.

Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional law?

Finally, you still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion in our Constitution? Please feel free to point to those words.


JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law. No opinions.

You assert above that The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?

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.

Well PMZ? You assert above that "The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law." But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?


JWK

"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.

 

[dcraelin]

The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law. No opinions.

You assert above that The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.
16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”
par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )
Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )
So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.
Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?
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.

Well PMZ? You assert above that "The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law." But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?
JWK

"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 of the people adopting it." ---This is the key.....The Framers had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE .....There is evidence quite a few of the framers wanted a king but the people at large would not have it.........If the opinions of the people at large at the time of ratification were known that would have to be the deciding point on questions of interpretation......except for the amendments which are more focused and more clearly represent the will of the people.

 

[PMZ]

The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law. No opinions.

You assert above that The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?

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.

Well PMZ? You assert above that "The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law." But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?


JWK

"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.

Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.

In the case of the words governing the government, their bylaws, our Constitution, the same applies.

It's only the words of the law that apply.

The intentions of some or one of the founders, as evidenced by what they left behind, were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion, not the finished product enshrined in DC.

 

[PMZ]

Some of the founders thought that our fledgling country would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth display of royalty.

They had legitimate concerns about a republic with none of what Europe had as tangible evidence of economic power.

But that opinion did not win the day at the Constitutional Convention.

Therefore we are fully and forever a republic. And their words and thoughts to the contrary have no influence today in our rule by law.

 

[johnwk]

You assert above that The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?

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.

Well PMZ? You assert above that "The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law." But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?


JWK

"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.

Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.

In the case of the words governing the government, their bylaws, our Constitution, the same applies.

It's only the words of the law that apply.

The intentions of some or one of the founders, as evidenced by what they left behind, were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion, not the finished product enshrined in DC.

Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with “the rule of law” as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing “legislative intent” even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce “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."

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 as 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."


Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.


JWK

Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, 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.

 

[PMZ]

Well PMZ? You assert above that "The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law." But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?


JWK

"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.

Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.

In the case of the words governing the government, their bylaws, our Constitution, the same applies.

It's only the words of the law that apply.

The intentions of some or one of the founders, as evidenced by what they left behind, were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion, not the finished product enshrined in DC.

Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with “the rule of law” as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing “legislative intent” even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce “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."

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 as 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."


Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.


JWK

Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, 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.

I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.

You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved, and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to, written down, and in its final version, voted into law.

What you espouse is royalty. What the king wants is the law.

Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?

 

[johnwk]

You assert above that The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”
par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )


Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )


So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?

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.

Well PMZ? You assert above that "The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law." But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?

JWK


"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 of the people adopting it." ---This is the key.....The Framers had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE .....There is evidence quite a few of the framers wanted a king but the people at large would not have it.........If the opinions of the people at large at the time of ratification were known that would have to be the deciding point on questions of interpretation......except for the amendments which are more focused and more clearly represent the will of the people.

You are absolutely correct about “and of the people adopting it.” That is one of the reasons I often quote from Elliot’s Debates which are the State Ratification debates of our Constitution. Other sources to determine legislative intent would be Madison’s notes, the Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers, all of which documents the evils our founders sought to correct with a written constitution which defines and limits the powers granted to our federal government.


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 ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[dcraelin]

"and of the people adopting it." ---This is the key.....The Framers had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE .....There is evidence quite a few of the framers wanted a king but the people at large would not have it.........If the opinions of the people at large at the time of ratification were known that would have to be the deciding point on questions of interpretation......except for the amendments which are more focused and more clearly represent the will of the people.

You are absolutely correct about “and of the people adopting it.” That is one of the reasons I often quote from Elliot’s Debates which are the State Ratification debates of our Constitution. Other sources to determine legislative intent would be Madison’s notes, the Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers, all of which documents the evils our founders sought to correct with a written constitution which defines and limits the powers granted to our federal government.
JWK

Well in a way I guess we agree but I don't place much importance on the Federalist papers, they were not widely read at the time and probably had next to no influence on ratification. ...Our first federal government was the Articles of Confederation and their inadequacy was hugely overblown.....There are some good things in the AOC such as a way to appoint judges that takes a lot of the politics out of it.

 

[bripat9643]

You assert above that The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?

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.

Well PMZ? You assert above that "The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law." But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?


JWK

"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.

Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.

So whatever laws the legislature devises conform to the rule of law? What about laws that conflict with the Constitution? What about laws that allow the government to shove Jews into gas ovens? Is Obama complying with the rule of law when he grants waivers to his favored constituents? How about when he declines to enforce laws on the books like DOM and our immigration laws?

 

[bripat9643]

Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.

In the case of the words governing the government, their bylaws, our Constitution, the same applies.

It's only the words of the law that apply.

The intentions of some or one of the founders, as evidenced by what they left behind, were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion, not the finished product enshrined in DC.

Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with “the rule of law” as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing “legislative intent” even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce “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."

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 as 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."


Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.


JWK

Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, 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.

I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.

You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved, and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to, written down, and in its final version, voted into law.

What you espouse is royalty. What the king wants is the law.

Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?

So when Obama says Insurance companies and allow their customers to keep their current polices despite what the Obamacare law says, is that the rule of law?