Our SCOTUS and our DOMESTIC ENEMIES---the anchor and rudder

Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 03:28 pm
Our SCOTUS and our DOMESTIC ENEMIES---the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system![/i]

The discussion concerning the nomination to the SCOTUS exposes and brings to light we have extremists in our society--- left wing militants and right wing militants, who ought to be viewed as domestic enemies of our constitutional system!

What these militants have in common is their desire to use the SCOTUS to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, even though their personal views are, without question, in direct conflict with the intent of the Constitution and the beliefs under which it was agreed to by the people when ratifying it, and can be documented from historical records such as:

Madison’s Notes[/u] on the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1787; The Federalists[/u] and Anti Federalist Papers, recording public debate of the proposed constitution in a series of newspaper articles; and Elliot’s Debates[/u], the actual ratification proceedings of several states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state ratification, and in many instances it is elaborated upon by the very delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention!

Together, the above sources do in fact record a preponderance of evidence___ a general consensus___ establishing the intent of the framers and ratifiers and the beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to by “We the People.”

Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:

"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?"[/i]

And Jefferson tells 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."[/i]--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

But the domestic enemies of our constitutional system want to give new meaning to our Constitution and do so without that meaning being accepted by the people via the Constitution’s amending process. What these scoundrels pretend is that the SCOTUS is not bound to abide by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. They eagerly instruct us that the Court is not required to adhere to the intent of the Constitution and support its opinions with supportive references to the historical records mentioned above, because to do so, would bind us to the “dead hand of its framers“.

This thinking disingenuously ignores the amendment process, designed by the framers to allow the people, not renegade judges, make change to accommodate changing times. But there is a reason for their thinking, it cleverly removes the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system [abiding by its documented intent] and sets folks in government free to make the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean.

The bottom line is, and should be remembered by all freedom loving people, the most fundamental rule of our constitutional system is to carry out the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

“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, 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),

Now, here is an example of the Court pointing to what the Founders intended by referencing 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).

John W K, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service

Those who reject abiding by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our system and set folks in government free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.----JWK, ACRS
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 547 • Replies: 2
No top replies

Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 03:50 pm
Well yes, I see where you are going with this and I readily agree. Personally, I found that a regular morning constitutional keeps me on the straight and narrow avoiding extremes from either side. I also find that a breakfast of bran and raisins with a fine quality tea serves as both my anchor and my and my rudder. Jolly good show JWK, keep up the good works.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 04:14 pm
Good grief. Don't we have enough conflict that we now have to debate the Constitution Originalists vs the Living Constitution advocates? Which side do you line up with? Scalia or Breyer?

0 Replies

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
  1. Forums
  2. » Our SCOTUS and our DOMESTIC ENEMIES---the anchor and rudder
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 03:23:57