Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Micky G. Jagger]

Whenever, therefore, it becomes necessary to effect any of the objects designated, it is perfectly consonant to all just rules of construction to, infer that the Whenever, therefore, it becomes necessary to effect any of the objects designated, it is perfectly consonant to all just rules of construction to, infer that the usual means and powers necessary to the attainment of that object are also granted.

--The Legislature of Massachusetts

 

[Liberty]

...yeah. I am done responding to you. You have chosen ignorance over knowledge, and dishonesty over integrity. You are not a just man. Misquoting American founders, and my personal heroes, not once but several times to try to backup your own twisted view is unforgivable. You have sold your soul in support of an ideology that is not based on any substance that resembles intelligent thinking. I will not respond to you any longer, for you are not worth my time.

 

[saveliberty]

George Mason Believed In Rules of Construction
​

I doubt the safety of it [a proposal to grant Congress power "to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies"], considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases.

--George Mason

​

It is called statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in most cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose.

In pari materia (Upon the same matter or subject)
When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.

Noscitur a sociis (A word is known by the company it keeps)
When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.

Reddendo singula singulis (Refers only to the last)
When a list of words has a modifying phrase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last, e.g., firemen, policemen, and doctors in a hospital.

Generalia specialibus non derogant
Described in The Vera Cruz (1884) 10 App. Cas. 59 as: "Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any evidence of a particular intention to do so." This means that if a later law and an earlier law are potentially - but not necessarily - in conflict, courts will adopt the reading that does not result in an implied repeal of the earlier statute. Lawmaking bodies usually need to be explicit if they intend to repeal an earlier law.

Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the case of the Constitution, it limits federal powers specifically.

 

[saveliberty]

Whenever, therefore, it becomes necessary to effect any of the objects designated, it is perfectly consonant to all just rules of construction to, infer that the Whenever, therefore, it becomes necessary to effect any of the objects designated, it is perfectly consonant to all just rules of construction to, infer that the usual means and powers necessary to the attainment of that object are also granted.

--The Legislature of Massachusetts

Oh, the legislature of Massachusetts get to interpret the US Constitution now! Your weak and redundant arguments are reflective of your intellect and general dishonesty.

 

[DiamondDave]

This board should start banning such obvious trolls as this piece of shit and Mr. ShitHead

It's one thing to argue with an idiot based on stance... it's another when a pig troll purposely leaves out context, cannot back up assertions with data, and when PROVEN to be wrong, just continues with more unsubstantiated bullshit.... and yes, there are ones on the other side as well... but this is one of the worst trolls we have had.... and that is saying something since we have other tier 1 trolls such as Mr. SheMan and bfgrn

 

[saveliberty]

By what rule of construction can it be maintained that the same words, in a constitution of government, will not have the same effect when applied to one species of property as to another, as far as the subject is capable of it?

--Alexander Hamilton

He is merely suggesting property cannot be interpreted multiple ways. Probably was specifically refering to slaves.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

George Mason Believed In Rules of Construction
​

I doubt the safety of it [a proposal to grant Congress power "to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies"], considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases.

--George Mason

​

It is called statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in most cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose.

At the time the Constituton was made, the rule was,

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. ​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.

As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

--Blackstone​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

By what rule of construction can it be maintained that the same words, in a constitution of government, will not have the same effect when applied to one species of property as to another, as far as the subject is capable of it?

--Alexander Hamilton

He is merely suggesting property cannot be interpreted multiple ways. Probably was specifically refering to slaves.

I thought he was suggesting there are rules of construction.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Whenever, therefore, it becomes necessary to effect any of the objects designated, it is perfectly consonant to all just rules of construction to, infer that the Whenever, therefore, it becomes necessary to effect any of the objects designated, it is perfectly consonant to all just rules of construction to, infer that the usual means and powers necessary to the attainment of that object are also granted.

--The Legislature of Massachusetts

Oh, the legislature of Massachusetts get to interpret the US Constitution now! Your weak and redundant arguments are reflective of your intellect and general dishonesty.

Virgina did it, so why shouldn't Massachusetts have been able to do the same?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

This board should start banning such obvious trolls as this piece of shit and Mr. ShitHead

It's one thing to argue with an idiot based on stance... it's another when a pig troll purposely leaves out context, cannot back up assertions with data, and when PROVEN to be wrong, just continues with more unsubstantiated bullshit.... and yes, there are ones on the other side as well... but this is one of the worst trolls we have had.... and that is saying something since we have other tier 1 trolls such as Mr. SheMan and bfgrn

Tell us about the rules and principles that guide you when you interpret the Constitution.

 

[DiamondDave]

By what rule of construction can it be maintained that the same words, in a constitution of government, will not have the same effect when applied to one species of property as to another, as far as the subject is capable of it?

--Alexander Hamilton

He is merely suggesting property cannot be interpreted multiple ways. Probably was specifically refering to slaves.

I thought he was suggesting there are rules of construction.

We've known you have had a problem with context... now it is quite evident you have a problem with identifying the subject of the writings as well

 

[DiamondDave]

This board should start banning such obvious trolls as this piece of shit and Mr. ShitHead

It's one thing to argue with an idiot based on stance... it's another when a pig troll purposely leaves out context, cannot back up assertions with data, and when PROVEN to be wrong, just continues with more unsubstantiated bullshit.... and yes, there are ones on the other side as well... but this is one of the worst trolls we have had.... and that is saying something since we have other tier 1 trolls such as Mr. SheMan and bfgrn

Tell us about the rules and principle that guide you when you interpret the Constitution.

Definition in the PROPER CONTEXT of the complete section being interpreted... there's a good start... but something you cannot get past or seem to figure out

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

This board should start banning such obvious trolls as this piece of shit and Mr. ShitHead

It's one thing to argue with an idiot based on stance... it's another when a pig troll purposely leaves out context, cannot back up assertions with data, and when PROVEN to be wrong, just continues with more unsubstantiated bullshit.... and yes, there are ones on the other side as well... but this is one of the worst trolls we have had.... and that is saying something since we have other tier 1 trolls such as Mr. SheMan and bfgrn

Tell us about the rules and principle that guide you when you interpret the Constitution.

Definition in the PROPER CONTEXT of the complete section being interpreted.

Is that a rule?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

He is merely suggesting property cannot be interpreted multiple ways. Probably was specifically refering to slaves.

I thought he was suggesting there are rules of construction.

We've known you have had a problem with context..

What rule do you follow regarding context?

identifying the subject of the writings

What's the rule regarding subject?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Elbridge Gerry Applied Established Rules of Construction to the Constitution​

A fair and candid application of established rules of construction to the Constitution, authorizes establishing the subscribers of the bank into a corporation?

--Elbridge Gerry; On the Establishment of a National Bank; House of Representatives; February 2, 1791​

 

[saveliberty]

George Mason Believed In Rules of Construction
​

I doubt the safety of it [a proposal to grant Congress power "to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies"], considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases.

--George Mason

​

It is called statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in most cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose.

At the time the Constituton was made, the rule was,

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. ​

No, I clearly GAVE you the rules in my post you edited. Your wrong and anyone who has read this thread can easily see you are nothing but an uninformed troll.

 

[saveliberty]

When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.

As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

--Blackstone​

When was Edward III part of writing the Constitution? Once again, taking things out of context is your forte. I understand you have to do this because your so incapable of making your point with any real evidence.

 

[saveliberty]

By what rule of construction can it be maintained that the same words, in a constitution of government, will not have the same effect when applied to one species of property as to another, as far as the subject is capable of it?

--Alexander Hamilton

He is merely suggesting property cannot be interpreted multiple ways. Probably was specifically refering to slaves.

I thought he was suggesting there are rules of construction.

Yes I know you did. Your such a dumbfuck it defies explanation.

 

[saveliberty]

Elbridge Gerry Applied Established Rules of Construction to the Constitution​

A fair and candid application of established rules of construction to the Constitution, authorizes establishing the subscribers of the bank into a corporation?

--Elbridge Gerry; On the Establishment of a National Bank; House of Representatives; February 2, 1791​

He is saying the Constitution does not allow for the establishment of a national bank. Interesting they thought starting a bank was not covered under general welfare, but YOU think public welfare is. Even when you do use your bizare interpretations, you fail.