Republican Leadership caves in during Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings

[johnwk]

I still lean more toward the written word.

And how would you have decided the Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. cases, and particularly with reference to the meaning of "general welfare"?

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", and, our Constitution confirms that the rules of the common law are to be adhered to.

One of the most fundamental rules of common law is to adhere to legislative intent. For a eloquent summary concerning the priority of adhering to legislative intent see Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)

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."

Why do you have such an aversion to adhering to the text of the constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text? As I correctly pointed out before, ignoring the context in which provisions of our Constitution were adopted and the documented intentions and beliefs under which such provisions were adopted, and relying exclusively on its text, opens the door for judges and Justices to make the words of our constitution mean whatever they wish them to mean as was done in the Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. cases.

In any event, one of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:


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.


JWK

"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. Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[White 6]

And how would you have decided the Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. cases, and particularly with reference to the meaning of "general welfare"?

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", and, our Constitution confirms that the rules of the common law are to be adhered to.

One of the most fundamental rules of common law is to adhere to legislative intent. For a eloquent summary concerning the priority of adhering to legislative intent see Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)

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."

Why do you have such an aversion to adhering to the text of the constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text? As I correctly pointed out before, ignoring the context in which provisions of our Constitution were adopted and the documented intentions and beliefs under which such provisions were adopted, and relying exclusively on its text, opens the door for judges and Justices to make the words of our constitution mean whatever they wish them to mean as was done in the Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. cases.

In any event, one of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:


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.


JWK

"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. Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

I just feel the freedom of interpretation of intent vs what they actually passed as legislated, signed law is one of the slippery slopes of law, resulting in re-interpretation as time passes. If they have a bad law, (meaning ambiguous to the extent requiring interpretation as to what is not written in the law, but in the minds of the framers outside what they wrote and passed) it should be struck down, and the legislative branch should do its job and replace, amend, annotate into the law of the land what the law should actually say. Otherwise, it amounts to legislation from the bench of sitting justices at any one given point in time.
Congress doing it's job, actually passing, repealing, annotating, amending legislative law to regulate society is their primary function. Congress spending time, actually doing their job instead of campaigning, fund-raising or spending their time in political bickering, for style points in the public square is the problem. Re-interpretation is just a band aide on what is needed to be healed.

 

[busybee01]

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)

That is a ridiculous statement. The founding fathers were not aware of many of the advances that we have made since they died. To assume that the Constitution covers that is inane. No one can say that the founding fathers would have approved of private ownership of machine guns. Privacy rights is a issue that should not depend on what state you live in. Some citizens do not have the ability to move to other states to get better rights.

This Supreme Court has ignored the text of the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections. Yet the Supreme Court has eviscerated The Voting Rights Act which was passed by the Congress and signed by the President. 3 or 4 of the justices support the idea that a state legislature can pass election law without the signature of a governor yet they have participated in eviscerating the Voting Rights Act. This is how the Supreme Court has been corrupted.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Impossible....the 2nd Amendment was eliminated and all guns were taken under President Obama just like the Right swore would happen.

 

[bodecea]

And how would you have decided the Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. cases, and particularly with reference to the meaning of "general welfare"?

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", and, our Constitution confirms that the rules of the common law are to be adhered to.

One of the most fundamental rules of common law is to adhere to legislative intent. For a eloquent summary concerning the priority of adhering to legislative intent see Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)

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."

Why do you have such an aversion to adhering to the text of the constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text? As I correctly pointed out before, ignoring the context in which provisions of our Constitution were adopted and the documented intentions and beliefs under which such provisions were adopted, and relying exclusively on its text, opens the door for judges and Justices to make the words of our constitution mean whatever they wish them to mean as was done in the Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. cases.

In any event, one of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:


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.


JWK

"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. Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[bodecea]

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)

 

[johnwk]

I just feel the freedom of interpretation of intent vs what they actually passed as legislated, signed law is one of the slippery slopes of law, resulting in re-interpretation as time passes.

But we are not talking about "re-interpretation" when resorting to the framing and ratification debates to document the true meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by its framers and the people adopting it.

JWK

"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?"___ Justice Story

 

[Jets]

But we are not talking about "re-interpretation" when resorting to the framing and ratification debates to document the true meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by its framers and the people adopting it.

JWK

"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?"___ Justice Story

Thats an unrealistic approach to judicial interpretation. Going by that standard flintlock pistols and muskets would be the only “arms” as defined by the second amendment at the time of ratification.

Want to go down this rabbit hole?

 

[johnwk]

Thats an unrealistic approach to judicial interpretation.

Thank you for your OPINION!

It is only unrealistic to those who wish to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean. The fact is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:



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.

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]

But we are not talking about "re-interpretation" when resorting to the framing and ratification debates to document the true meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by its framers and the people adopting it.

JWK

"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?"___ Justice Story

Sure we are. That is what judicial activism is all about. If you want it reinterpreted to whatever definition, for whatever reason, it should be in the legislative branch. That is one of the reasons strict interpretation is favored, and why they like torule in the most limited terms possible, when forced to on a case before the court.

 

[lennypartiv]

Attacking Ketanji was the right thing to do. Unfortunately Republicans backed off after Hawley, Blackburn, and Cruz had their say. The media implied Senators were being racist and the other Senators got timid.

 

[Jets]

Thank you for your OPINION!

It is only unrealistic to those who wish to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean. The fact is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:



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.

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)

So the second amendment should only apply to muskets and flintlock pistols?

Priceless….

 

[johnwk]

Sure we are. That is what judicial activism is all about. If you want it reinterpreted to whatever definition, for whatever reason, it should be in the legislative branch. That is one of the reasons strict interpretation is favored, and why they like torule in the most limited terms possible, when forced to on a case before the court.

Strict interpretation requires enforcing the Constitution's text and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to which gives context to its text.

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 [the Constitution's framing and ratification debates] 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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

thats settled law, same as abortion.

Nothing is ever settled law.

 

[johnwk]

That is one of the reasons strict interpretation is favored, and why they like torule in the most limited terms possible, when forced to on a case before the court.

Limited terms possible? You mean as was done in the Kelo decision where Justice Stevens actually indicates the Court will ignore the meaning of “public use” as it was understood when our Constitution was adopted, justifying such judicial tyranny because of the “evolving needs of society”!

Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:


while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose."

The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:

”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?


“Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption… (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


The bottom line is, there are fundamental rules to be followed when determining what our Constitution means, and every Supreme Court nominee ought to be able to explain those rules and how one legitimately determines when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers. Unfortunately, not one Senator questioned Ketanji Brown Jackson's understanding of those rules, nor asked her to explain how one goes about to legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated 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)

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It's amazing how out of 115 SC Justices 108 of them have been white males and that is exactly how right wing Republicans would like to keep it.

 

[johnwk]

It's amazing how out of 115 SC Justices 108 of them have been white males and that is exactly how right wing Republicans would like to keep it.

I kind of remember how "Republicans" including white males and "right wing" Republicans, embraced the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Seems to me the majority of those opposed to the Clarence Thomas nomination were domestic revolutionaries who want to make the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean and subvert the protections written into our Constitution, and re-enslave the people.

Bottom line holmes . . . rub your racism on your chest

JWK

They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are Socialist Revolutionaries, the very kind who took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist.

 

[White 6]

Limited terms possible? You mean as was done in the Kelo decision where Justice Stevens actually indicates the Court will ignore the meaning of “public use” as it was understood when our Constitution was adopted, justifying such judicial tyranny because of the “evolving needs of society”!

Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:


while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose."

The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:

”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?


“Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption… (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


The bottom line is, there are fundamental rules to be followed when determining what our Constitution means, and every Supreme Court nominee ought to be able to explain those rules and how one legitimately determines when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers. Unfortunately, not one Senator questioned Ketanji Brown Jackson's understanding of those rules, nor asked her to explain how one goes about to legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated 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)

Term limits refers to how long somebody can keep holding an office. I did not bring it up. I am not changing for you. I am pretty resistant to change. Why don't you bother somebody else?

 

[bodecea]

Attacking Ketanji was the right thing to do. Unfortunately Republicans backed off after Hawley, Blackburn, and Cruz had their say. The media implied Senators were being racist and the other Senators got timid.

Afraid of strong black women, eh?

 

[johnwk]

Term limits refers to how long somebody can keep holding an office. I did not bring it up. I am not changing for you. I am pretty resistant to change. Why don't you bother somebody else?

What on earth are you talking about? No one on this end is talking about "Term Limits".

What we are talking about are the fundamental rules of constitutional construction and how one goes about determining the true meaning of our Constitution's passages, and, why this line of questioning was absent during the Ketanji Brown Jackson nomination hearings.

JWK

"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?"___ Justice Story