goodfielder wrote:Seemed pretty clear to me.
As far as I know the Federalist Papers never became law so therefore no-one could be imprisoned for disagreeing with them.
Just one point. Given that these documents are a couple of hundred years old have they been updated? Or are they just interesting historical documents?
Well, to put the matter into perspective, goodfielder, and establish why the federalist papers and other historical documents concerning the framing and ratification of our Constitution are quite relevant these days, one must first understand a fundamental principle of constitutional law!
The most fundamental principle regarding constitutional law is to carry out the intent of the constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who ratified it. To do otherwise is to view the constitution as nothing more than a list of suggestions subject to the whims and fancies of those in political power. Fact is, the “intent” is what is to be followed, and not that which may be “squeezed” out of the text as Jefferson has informed us:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us 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.
Justice Story writes in his commentaries:
"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?"
“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)
"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .
"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.
"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .
"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.” Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.
"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.
And, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838), in which the Supreme Court has pointed out that construction of the constitution
"...must necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always resorted in construing the Constitution."
Fact is goodfielder, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they no longer follow it.:
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
In addition, goodfielder, to the above documentation, you may find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which
the Court references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to find the legislative intent of our Constitution. See:
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)] Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
Also see vol.16, American Jurisprudence, "Constitutional Law", Par. 130 "The Federalist and other contemporary writings." which are acknowledged sources from which to determine the “intent” of those who framed and ratified the constitution.
JWK
ACRS
