What's your brand of constitutional interpretation?

[JakeStarkey]

From the speech. "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens

Kevin, either you are immoral, unethical, unintelligent, or all three. That's despicable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We know what the Confederacy wanted to do. That's not the question.

It would have been the end of the United States because there would then have been precedent for simply terminating the agreement (easily and at whim) that formed ANY kind of "Union." We probably would have reverted back to some weak little loosely associated confederacy of our own and we knew from experience that didn't work too well. We in efffect would not be a Nation anymore, but a hodgepodge of sovereign states akin to the mess known as Europe.

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Is it YOUR contention that the end justifies the means?

 

[Liability]

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Is it YOUR contention that the end justifies the means?

Not generally, no.

But it is my contention that in that particular case, the means chosen by President Lincoln did result in a better outcome than one might ordinarily expect of such a manifest violation of the Constitution.

And by the way, sometimes the ends do justify the means. I recognize that many people steeped in platitudes will be shocked by that comment. So be it.

Now back to my question. Kevin still wishes to duck it. I understand.

Perhaps you are more comfortable ducking it too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Is it YOUR contention that the end justifies the means?

Not generally, no.

But it is my contention that in that particular case, the means chosen by President Lincoln did result in a better outcome than one might ordinarily expect of such a manifest violation of the Constitution.

And by the way, sometimes the ends do justify the means. I recognize that many people steeped in platitudes will be shocked by that comment. So be it.

Now back to my question. Kevin still wishes to duck it. I understand.

Perhaps you are more comfortable ducking it too.

Not being Kevin, I have no idea what question you're referring to.

But it's good to know you're not worried about going down the infamous road which is paved with good intentions. I'll be sure to remember that you think screwing people over is acceptable, as long as you personally have decided it's for a good cause. I also won't turn my back on you.

 

[Liability]

Is it YOUR contention that the end justifies the means?

Not generally, no.

But it is my contention that in that particular case, the means chosen by President Lincoln did result in a better outcome than one might ordinarily expect of such a manifest violation of the Constitution.

And by the way, sometimes the ends do justify the means. I recognize that many people steeped in platitudes will be shocked by that comment. So be it.

Now back to my question. Kevin still wishes to duck it. I understand.

Perhaps you are more comfortable ducking it too.

Not being Kevin, I have no idea what question you're referring to.

Oh CeeCee. You so silly. You don't know what my question was even though you have it in the quote box of my prior post?

You silly girl. Oh, and newsflash. You don't have to BE Kevin to answer a question posed openly on this very thread to Kevin. All you'd have to do is READ it. Silly girl.

You silly child. You DID read my question because you even parroted it's format. Tsk tsk for lying.

Here. I'll help you out. is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

But it's good to know you're not worried about going down the infamous road which is paved with good intentions. I'll be sure to remember that you think screwing people over is acceptable, as long as you personally have decided it's for a good cause. I also won't turn my back on you.

Oh, and you don't have far to go to reach imbecile status. But it will no do for you to try to put words in my mouth. What I meant is what I wrote. Your spin is neither.

What I DID say was that 'SOMETIMES the ends do justify the means.' I did not address which circumstances allow which means to justify which ends.

I knew a silly little mindless sheep like you would be all aghast at that notion. But it's still true.

 

[Vast LWC]

I find it interesting that traditionally religious types, Conservatives and such, are in more favor of a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

However, I am also in favor of a literal interpretation of the Consititution, strangely enough, I just have a different interpretation of what it "literally" says.

For instance, and what probably led directly to this thread, when I see the term "Provide for the General Welfare" I believe it means, literally, just that. Provide for the general welfare.

I happen to think that Health Care is included in the category of General Welfare, just like Machine Guns are included in the category "Provide for the Common Defense".

That is a literal interpretation, just not one that some people happen to agree with.

Now, the bible, on the other hand, is very open to non-literal interpretation, IMO.

Yet that's not how those who wrote the Constitution interpreted the general welfare clause.

I'm afraid you're confusing the term "those who wrote the constitution" with "SOME of those who wrote the constitution".

And, however they interpreted it, if they didn't think "General Welfare" included the health of the populace, than they were not using a literal interpretation.

Here, let me demonstrate:

Welfare (noun)

1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

Well-being surely includes being healthy.

Do you dispute this?

Or is it the word "general" that you dispute? Are you insinuating that the founding fathers meant the welfare of people who have attained the rank of "General" in some military organization?

Maybe it is the words "Provide for" that you're unsure of the meaning of.

To "provide for" someone or something, means to to supply the needs of someone or something. As in a father "providing for" his children.

Do you disagree? If so, what do you disagree with?

If it had been there would have been no point to having the Constitution at all as that clause would give unlimited power to the federal government.

No, it wouldn't. That's why the rest of the constitution, the bill of rights, and all those amendments (as well as the means to create more) exist. And the Supreme Court for that matter.

Plus, since we are a representative democracy, anyone in government who abused their power could be removed easily enough with the next election.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Any violation of the Constitution is a travesty.

Yes. It's the right of the states to secede, and to form their own union if they so choose.

And then it would be the right of the remaining union to invade said new union, if they considered it a threat, and "re-conquer" it, would it not?

Or is it your contention that the invasion of Nazi Germany was in fact un-constitutional?

 

[Vast LWC]

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Is it YOUR contention that the end justifies the means?

That would be entirely dependant on the situation at hand.

Killing Osama Bin Laden to prevent a terror attack, for instance, would certainly be an example of the ends justifying the means.

 

[Oddball]

Didn't one or another of our far-far-far-leftist nutburgers post around these parts that parsings and fudgings on the meanings of words is indicative of losing the argument???

Yup...I believe that did happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude, words have meanings. Rush taught us all that. Kevin Kennedy has very hard time undestanding that. Goes to show that even the dark force of RushbinLimbaugh can give us something worthwhile

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Is it YOUR contention that the end justifies the means?

Not generally, no.

But it is my contention that in that particular case, the means chosen by President Lincoln did result in a better outcome than one might ordinarily expect of such a manifest violation of the Constitution.

And by the way, sometimes the ends do justify the means. I recognize that many people steeped in platitudes will be shocked by that comment. So be it.

Now back to my question. Kevin still wishes to duck it. I understand.

Perhaps you are more comfortable ducking it too.

I haven't ducked the question. You're asking me to answer a "What if...?" question. I can't predict whether or not we'd be better off. I know that it doesn't matter because the southern states have the right to self-government, and we don't have the right to force them to remain in this Union just because it might make us better off.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I find it interesting that traditionally religious types, Conservatives and such, are in more favor of a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

However, I am also in favor of a literal interpretation of the Consititution, strangely enough, I just have a different interpretation of what it "literally" says.

For instance, and what probably led directly to this thread, when I see the term "Provide for the General Welfare" I believe it means, literally, just that. Provide for the general welfare.

I happen to think that Health Care is included in the category of General Welfare, just like Machine Guns are included in the category "Provide for the Common Defense".

That is a literal interpretation, just not one that some people happen to agree with.

Now, the bible, on the other hand, is very open to non-literal interpretation, IMO.

Yet that's not how those who wrote the Constitution interpreted the general welfare clause.

I'm afraid you're confusing the term "those who wrote the constitution" with "SOME of those who wrote the constitution".

And, however they interpreted it, if they didn't think "General Welfare" included the health of the populace, than they were not using a literal interpretation.

Here, let me demonstrate:

Welfare (noun)

1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

Well-being surely includes being healthy.

Do you dispute this?

Or is it the word "general" that you dispute? Are you insinuating that the founding fathers meant the welfare of people who have attained the rank of "General" in some military organization?

Maybe it is the words "Provide for" that you're unsure of the meaning of.

To "provide for" someone or something, means to to supply the needs of someone or something. As in a father "providing for" his children.

Do you disagree? If so, what do you disagree with?

If it had been there would have been no point to having the Constitution at all as that clause would give unlimited power to the federal government.

No, it wouldn't. That's why the rest of the constitution, the bill of rights, and all those amendments (as well as the means to create more) exist. And the Supreme Court for that matter.

Plus, since we are a representative democracy, anyone in government who abused their power could be removed easily enough with the next election.

The states never would have ratified the Constitution if the general welfare clause was truthfully intended to give the federal government the power to do anything it wants so long as it can say it's in the general welfare of the nation. So I can say that the framers of the Constitution never meant it to mean that, and we can look at the words of James Madison himself in the Federalist Papers regarding that subject.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Any violation of the Constitution is a travesty.

Yes. It's the right of the states to secede, and to form their own union if they so choose.

And then it would be the right of the remaining union to invade said new union, if they considered it a threat, and "re-conquer" it, would it not?

Or is it your contention that the invasion of Nazi Germany was in fact un-constitutional?

No, where do you get that one nation has the right to invade another nation that has done no harm to it?

 

[Oddball]

Dude, words have meanings. Rush taught us all that. Kevin Kennedy has very hard time undestanding that. Goes to show that even the dark force of RushbinLimbaugh can give us something worthwhile

Who said anything about Rush Limpbag??

Oh yeah, you did......Invoking the strawman argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, pay attention. You have not addressed Vice-President Stephens "cornerstone speech" that knocks your assertion about Negro chattel slavery into the trash bin.

From the speech. "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens

Kevin, along with the silly kitten, you are immoral, unethical, unintelligent, or all three. That's despicable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude, words have meanings. Rush taught us all that. Kevin Kennedy has very hard time undestanding that. Goes to show that even the dark force of RushbinLimbaugh can give us something worthwhile

Who said anything about Rush Limpbag??

Oh yeah, you did......Invoking the strawman argument.

You don't even make sense, Dude. Do you understand what a strawman argument really is?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rush taught us all that.

Well that just about closes the book on THIS one - imho

 

[Diuretic]

How "useful" is a document people simply ignore the wording of entirely in favor of what they WISH it said? Why even bother having the sucker?

That would be entirely useless if it were the case. It isn't the case so your point is irrelevant.

In fact, that isn't entirely the case is it? In fact, cases like United States v. Darby Lumber Co. and Wicker v. Filburn make a mockery of the written Constitution. In much the same way as Griswold v. Connecticut does on another front. The fact is that an oligarchical Supreme Court took the opportunity to strike down Stare Decisis in the case of Darby, mangle interpretations in Wicker and manufacture a brand new right in the case of Griswold.

How are those not ignoring the wording to do what they wish? Because they had to mention the wording to ignore it? Please.

Now we're getting into actuality rather than assertions.

I'm not at all familiar with those cases. But I'd be happy to learn about stare decisis being struck down. I think a court can distinguish and therefore not be bound by stare decisis but it can't actually destroy a doctrine.

As for "manufacturing a brand new right" that's fascinating. At first blush it seems to me that a new right is good, but of course I suppose it depends on the context. I'm just one of those people who think more rights are good, but I accept context is important.

I know courts can get up to all sorts of tricks, rescuing offences from desuetude is one that always interests me (the courts in England some years ago "rediscovered" some old offences relating to major public disorder that just happened to deal with some problems that were occurring in society. And The Carrier's Case and the Doctrine of Continuing Trespass have been described as "convenient legal fictions" are classics.

But sometimes a criticism is based not on legal but ideological grounds. A case might be decided on valid legal grounds but because it upsets a section of the community who disagree with the effect of it, it can become subject to calumny. That's when I see invented criticisms and they're not very helpful. Then come the cries of "judicial activism" - code for "we just don't like it!"

 

[Diuretic]

Didn't one or another of our far-far-far-leftist nutburgers post around these parts that parsings and fudgings on the meanings of words is indicative of losing the argument???

Yup...I believe that did happen.

Unless you can point it out we have to assume it's a product of your fevered imagination

 

[Intense]

To help contrast a specific disagreement between Jefferson and Hamilton, and to bring attention to the thought and language characteristics of each of these men, I submit these examples, from Their own Words, in part.

Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791.
The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:

1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.

2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.[1]

3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage.

4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.

5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat, and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.

6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution.

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.

8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

I They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.

2. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

3. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `' productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.


Jefferson: The Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791



Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791
[Given while he was Secretary of the Treasury under the First Administration, George Washington, President, Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, and Edmund Randolph, Attorney-General.]

The Secretary of the Treasury having perused with attention the papers containing the opinions of the Secretary of State and Attorney General, concerning the constitutionality of the bill for establishing a National Bank, proceeds, according to the order of the President, to submit the reasons which have induced him to entertain a different opinion.

It will naturally have been anticipated, that in performing this task, he would feel uncommon solicitude. Personal considerations alone, arising from the reflection that the measure originated with him, would be sufficient to produce it. The sense which he has manifested of the great importance of such an institution to the successful administration of the department under his particular care, and an expectation of serious ill consequences to result from a failure of the measure, do not permit him to be without anxiety on public accounts. But the chief solicitude arises from a firm persuasion, that principles of construction like those espoused by the Secretary of State and Attorney General, would be fatal to the just and indispensable authority of the United States.

In entering upon the argument, it ought to be premised that the objections of the Secretary of State and Attorney General are founded on a general denial of the authority of the United States to erect corporations. The latter, indeed, expressly admits, that if there be anything in the bill which is not warranted by the Constitution, it is the clause of incorporation.

Now it appears to the Secretary of the Treasury that this general principle is inherent in the very definition of government, and essential to every step of progress to be made by that of the United States, namely: That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.

This principle, in its application to government in general, would be admitted as an axiom; and it will be incumbent upon those who may incline to deny it, to prove a distinction, and to show that a rule which, in the general system of things, is essential to the preservation of the social order, is inapplicable to the United States.

The circumstance that the powers of sovereignty are in this country divided between the National and State governments, does not afford the distinction required. It does not follow from this, that each of the portion of powers delegated to the one or to the other, is not sovereign with regard to its proper objects. It will only follow from it, that each has sovereign power as to certain things, and not as to other things. To deny that the government of the United States has sovereign power, as to its declared purposes and trusts, because its power does not extend to all cases would be equally to deny that the State governments have sovereign power in any case, because their power does not extend to every case. The tenth section of the first article of the Constitution exhibits a long list of very important things which they may not do. And thus the United States would furnish the singular spectacle of a political society without sovereignty, or of a people governed, without government.

If it would be necessary to bring proof to a proposition so clear, as that which affirms that the powers of the federal government, as to its objects, were sovereign, there is a clause of its Constitution which would be decisive. It is that which declares that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of it, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, shall be the serene law of the land. The power which can create the supreme law of the land in any case, is doubtless sovereign as to such case.

This general and indisputable principle puts at once an end to the abstract question, whether the United States have power to erect a corporation; that is to say, to give a legal or artificial capacity to one or more persons, distinct from the natural. For it is unquestionably incident to sovereign power to erect corporations, and consequently to that of the United States, in relation to the objects intrusted to the management of the government. The difference is this: where the authority of the government is general, it can create corporations in ad cases, where it is confined to certain branches of legislation, it can create corporations only in those cases.

Here then, as far as concerns the reasonings of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the affirmative of the constitutionality of the bill might be permitted to rest. It will occur to the President, that the principle here advanced has been untouched by either of them.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791