Republican Leadership caves in during Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings

[johnwk]

Having followed the Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nominee hearings, I find it not only astounding that one of the most important lines of questioning was suspiciously absent when the Republican Leadership questioned Ketanji Brown Jackson, but it was also nowhere to be found in our popular media’s discussions on the topic. That question is, how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers?

In 1968 at a lecture at Columbia University the notable U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Hugo L. Black, emphatically pointed out: "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."

So, how does one who is sincerely determined to be obedient to “this Constitution”, which every Supreme Court Justices takes an oath to do, determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or goes beyond delegated constitutional limits? Is it not reasonable that every Supreme Court nominee ought to expound upon these questions and give their assurance to enforce what the people have willingly agreed to when adopting the Constitution, rather than what they believe it ought to mean?

Having been dedicated to answering these very questions for over forty years I must say, Thomas Jefferson was spot on when he addressed this very subject and wrote: "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.

Indeed, those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to as documented from historical records [our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates which give 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.

So, why is it that our Republican Party Leadership failed in its duty to pursue this line of questioning during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings, and was not even pursued, to the best of my knowledge, by our popular media? Keep in mind the wise observation of Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law:

"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.”

Finally, and in the words of Justice Story, “If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”

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)

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because it would have been racist.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Listen carefully......

The PRIMARY reason for putting this woman on the Supreme Court is to once and for all kill the 2nd Amendment.
Mark my words.
She is going to do more damage to 2A rights than all the gun control activists groups combined over the last 50 years.
It is THE REASON she was specifically picked. Ignore anything she or anyone says otherwise.

She will (along with other "Justices") shit on the Constitution to kill the 2A like a bear shits in the woods.
Sadly, Congress has sold us all out and are in bed with the agenda.

It's why Biden just beefed up the ATF BIG time.
Few are going to believe what's ahead until it hits them. And all your pleading and calling Representatives will fall on deaf ears.

#1 on the roster - Ban and outlaw ALL (what they call) "assault weapons. Yes. They are going to ban them and make it mandatory to turn them in.
#2 on the roster - ban ALL semi auto hand guns.

You can count on these like the Sun rising tomorrow.

 

[White 6]

Listen carefully......

The PRIMARY reason for putting this woman on the Supreme Court is to once and for all kill the 2nd Amendment.
Mark my words.
She is going to do more damage to 2A rights than all the gun control activists groups combined over the last 50 years.
It is THE REASON she was specifically picked. Ignore anything she or anyone says otherwise.

She will (along with other "Justices") shit on the Constitution to kill the 2A like a bear shits in the woods.
Sadly, Congress has sold us all out and are in bed with the agenda.

I kind of doubt the newest associate justice will get to pick the cases the Supreme court takes up and will be in the minority of the court, even if that is a goal.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I kind of doubt the newest associate justice will get to pick the cases the Supreme court takes up and will be in the minority of the court, even if that is a goal.

Then you kind of don't understand the dynamics of the trend on the SCOTUS.

Are you saying she will not have a vote? Since when do whites stand up to black women?
Are there any other Justices who are "unfriendly" with the 2A and have voted contrary to the Constitution already? (Think Obamacare for one)

If you think for one second that putting another far Left radical justice on the supreme Court will not harm the 2A then you are living in a bubble.

 

[johnwk]

Because it would have been racist.

I have no idea what you are alluding to.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[White 6]

Then you kind of don't understand the dynamics of the trend on the SCOTUS.

Are you saying she will not have a vote? Since when do whites stand up to black women?
Are there any other Justices who are "unfriendly" with the 2A and have voted contrary to the Constitution already? (Think Obamacare for one)

Chief Justice has the biggest voice in what cases are heard before the court and which will not be heard. Majority rules but it is directed to a great extent, and they do not like to overturn previous SC rulings. Jackson does not worry me at all. Most of the Senate Republican and Democrat alike approved here when she first went to the federal bench. People mainly do not want her because Joe picked. The announcement of his search criteria (if you can call it that) basically meant, whoever he chose was automatically a token negro woman. That is what should piss people off. Joe picked her partially because she had recent overwhelming Senate approval. Case closed. She's in, and the rest is just political grandstanding.

 

[Rambunctious]

We didn't get to where we are as a nation with democrat strength alone...we got here with republican cowardice and weakness too....

 

[Penelope]

Listen carefully......

The PRIMARY reason for putting this woman on the Supreme Court is to once and for all kill the 2nd Amendment.
Mark my words.
She is going to do more damage to 2A rights than all the gun control activists groups combined over the last 50 years.
It is THE REASON she was specifically picked. Ignore anything she or anyone says otherwise.

She will (along with other "Justices") shit on the Constitution to kill the 2A like a bear shits in the woods.
Sadly, Congress has sold us all out and are in bed with the agenda.

It's why Biden just beefed up the ATF BIG time.
Few are going to believe what's ahead until it hits them. And all your pleading and calling Representatives will fall on deaf ears.

#1 on the roster - Ban and outlaw ALL (what they call) "assault weapons. Yes. They are going to ban them and make it mandatory to turn them in.
#2 on the roster - ban ALL semi auto hand guns.

You can count on these like the Sun rising tomorrow.

thats settled law, same as abortion. she would need to make 6, yes 6 republicans to agree with her!

 

[johnwk]

Chief Justice has the biggest voice in what cases are heard before the court and which will not be heard. Majority rules but it is directed to a great extent, and they do not like to overturn previous SC rulings. Jackson does not worry me at all. Most of the Senate Republican and Democrat alike approved here when she first went to the federal bench. People mainly do not want her because Joe picked. The announcement of his search criteria (if you can call it that) basically meant, whoever he chose was automatically a token negro woman. That is what should piss people off.

That is really irrelevant. What "We the People" should be pissed off about are judges and Justices who ignore the true meaning of our Constitution and impose their whims and fancies as the rule of law.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

 

[White 6]

That is really irrelevant. What "We the People" should be pissed off about are judges and Justices who ignore the true meaning of our Constitution and impose their whims and fancies as the rule of law.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

They should always side with strict interpretation of the constitution first, that go with established precedent, and leave to the states what should be handled by the states.

 

[Jets]

That is really irrelevant. What "We the People" should be pissed off about are judges and Justices who ignore the true meaning of our Constitution and impose their whims and fancies as the rule of law.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

What SC Justice epitomized that standard?

 

[BS Filter]

 

[iceberg]

Listen carefully......

The PRIMARY reason for putting this woman on the Supreme Court is to once and for all kill the 2nd Amendment.
Mark my words.
She is going to do more damage to 2A rights than all the gun control activists groups combined over the last 50 years.
It is THE REASON she was specifically picked. Ignore anything she or anyone says otherwise.

She will (along with other "Justices") shit on the Constitution to kill the 2A like a bear shits in the woods.
Sadly, Congress has sold us all out and are in bed with the agenda.

It's why Biden just beefed up the ATF BIG time.
Few are going to believe what's ahead until it hits them. And all your pleading and calling Representatives will fall on deaf ears.

#1 on the roster - Ban and outlaw ALL (what they call) "assault weapons. Yes. They are going to ban them and make it mandatory to turn them in.
#2 on the roster - ban ALL semi auto hand guns.

You can count on these like the Sun rising tomorrow.

um one judge cannot do this.

 

[johnwk]

They should always side with strict interpretation of the constitution first, that go with established precedent, and leave to the states what should be handled by the states.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "strict interpretation of the constitution". If you mean enforcing the text of the constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was ratified and agreed to, which gives context to its text, then we are in total agreement and are following the most basic rule of constitutional construction.

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)

 

[White 6]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "strict interpretation of the constitution". If you mean enforcing the text of the constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was ratified and agreed to, which gives context to its text, then we are in total agreement and are following the most basic rule of constitutional construction.

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)

Sounds like we are in agreement, although I may be more inclined to the strict reading of the letter of the law and constitution, rather than what the lawmakers were thinking when it was written.

 

[johnwk]

Sounds like we are in agreement, although I may be more inclined to the strict reading of the letter of the law and constitution, rather than what the lawmakers were thinking when it was written.

At one point in time, I also thought a strict reading of the Constitution was the way to go. However, I soon realized a strict reading, without the context in which particular provisions were adopted and agreed to, left a door open for intentional abuse, e.g., making passages of our Constitution mean what a judge or Justices wanted them to mean rather than what was understood and agreed to. An example of this abuse is found in the Social Security Act being found by the Court as a delegated power under the phrase "general welfare".


In these cases Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. case the Court stated:


“Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents”

What is significant is, the court cited the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and it will not “resurrect the contest”.

In other words, the Court refused to follow a fundamental rule of constitutional construction and review the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the framing and ratification debates. Instead, Justice Cardozo was all too eager to use something Hamilton wrote years after the Constitution had been adopted concerning the phrase “general welfare” in order to uphold the Social Security Act as being constitutional and the new rule of law.

But, what is not pointed out by the Court is the Hamilton “view” which the Court relied upon was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution. It was made years after the Constitution had been ratified when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, and was made by him to gain support for appropriating revenue from the federal treasury to be used to encourage specific manufactures.

In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, See Page 136

“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”

But that summary by Hamilton is in direct conflict with what he wrote in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution. Hamilton, in crystal clear language in Federalist No. 83 refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. The specification of particulars are found beneath Article 1, Section 8!

This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates.

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?..For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power…But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning…is an absurdity.”

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: “the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”[3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…”

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

So, as one can see from the above example, when a question arises as to the meaning of the text, and to ensure the true meaning of the constitution is observed and enforced, resort must be had to the documented intentions and beliefs under which the constitution was adopted to prevent the whims and fancies of a judge or Justices being enforced as the rule of law.

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 that give 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.

 

[BackAgain]

Having followed the Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nominee hearings, I find it not only astounding that one of the most important lines of questioning was suspiciously absent when the Republican Leadership questioned Ketanji Brown Jackson, but it was also nowhere to be found in our popular media’s discussions on the topic. That question is, how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers?

In 1968 at a lecture at Columbia University the notable U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Hugo L. Black, emphatically pointed out: "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."

So, how does one who is sincerely determined to be obedient to “this Constitution”, which every Supreme Court Justices takes an oath to do, determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or goes beyond delegated constitutional limits? Is it not reasonable that every Supreme Court nominee ought to expound upon these questions and give their assurance to enforce what the people have willingly agreed to when adopting the Constitution, rather than what they believe it ought to mean?

Having been dedicated to answering these very questions for over forty years I must say, Thomas Jefferson was spot on when he addressed this very subject and wrote: "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.

Indeed, those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to as documented from historical records [our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates which give 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.

So, why is it that our Republican Party Leadership failed in its duty to pursue this line of questioning during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings, and was not even pursued, to the best of my knowledge, by our popular media? Keep in mind the wise observation of Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law:

"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.”

Finally, and in the words of Justice Story, “If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”

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)

That Jefferson quote was spot on.

 

[White 6]

At one point in time, I also thought a strict reading of the Constitution was the way to go. However, I soon realized a strict reading, without the context in which particular provisions were adopted and agreed to, left a door open for intentional abuse, e.g., making passages of our Constitution mean what a judge or Justices wanted them to mean rather than what was understood and agreed to. An example of this abuse is found in the Social Security Act being found by the Court as a delegated power under the phrase "general welfare".


In these cases Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. case the Court stated:


“Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents”

What is significant is, the court cited the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and it will not “resurrect the contest”.

In other words, the Court refused to follow a fundamental rule of constitutional construction and review the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the framing and ratification debates. Instead, Justice Cardozo was all too eager to use something Hamilton wrote years after the Constitution had been adopted concerning the phrase “general welfare” in order to uphold the Social Security Act as being constitutional and the new rule of law.

But, what is not pointed out by the Court is the Hamilton “view” which the Court relied upon was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution. It was made years after the Constitution had been ratified when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, and was made by him to gain support for appropriating revenue from the federal treasury to be used to encourage specific manufactures.

In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, See Page 136

“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”

But that summary by Hamilton is in direct conflict with what he wrote in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution. Hamilton, in crystal clear language in Federalist No. 83 refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. The specification of particulars are found beneath Article 1, Section 8!

This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates.

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?..For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power…But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning…is an absurdity.”

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: “the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”[3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…”

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

So, as one can see from the above example, when a question arises as to the meaning of the text, and to ensure the true meaning of the constitution is observed and enforced, resort must be had to the documented intentions and beliefs under which the constitution was adopted to prevent the whims and fancies of a judge or Justices being enforced as the rule of law.

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 that give 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.

I still lean more toward the written word. If they could orate about it, but failed to get it written to agree with their orations, I hate it, but it sounds like lawyers that talk a good game on the courthouse step, but will not attest to the same in court. These were educated men. What they wrote, agreed to, passed and signed off on is what they meant.

 

[toobfreak]

So, why is it that our Republican Party Leadership failed in its duty to pursue this line of questioning during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings, and was not even pursued, to the best of my knowledge, by our popular media?

Put simply John, the reason is because the difference between the parties is much a lie with many within working for the same things, and the whole certification process both in senate chambers and in the media is for the most part a SNOW JOB.

Both entities assume Joe Q Public is far too ignorant to even wonder such questions, never mind actively trying to dumb all of us down so to not even ask.