- Thread starter
- #21
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)