Quote:
Originally Posted by john w k
I get the distinct impression you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations and thus portray this unalienable right and liberty as inherently evil.
|
Your impression is incorrect.
Quote:
|
What I wrote is factually correct concerning the limited intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted, and can be documented from the words of those who framed and ratified the amendment. For example, one supporter of the 14th Amendment put it this way:
|
Factually correct? I assume that you have statements from every single House Representative and Senator who voted for the amendment, and statements from every single legislator from every single state who voted to ratify? I assume that among those, no one had any differing intentions for ratifying the 14th amendment?
You quoted a very interesting statement... from Representative Shallabarger. Do you have statements from all the other Representatives, and Senators, and States, showing that they all completely agree with him in every respect?
To put it another way, if a new constitutional amendment is ratified, and Senator Ted Kennedy talks at great length about what his intentions are, does Ted Kennedy become the voice of the constitution? Is every future court bound by Sen. Kennedy's speech when deciding cases? Or should they follow what the text of the amendment actually says?
Quote:
|
I am glad you have quoted part of the 14th Amendment, but you did so out of its context and that context reveals it is a prohibition placed upon a State‘s laws. It is not directed at people in their ordinary relationships with each other: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ……….
|
Your reading is incorrect, grammatically and legally. The text of that section is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The "No state shall make or enforce any law" part only applies to the privileges or immunities clause. The operative verbs in the equal protection clause is "nor deny to any person".
As for "ordinary relationships", as soon as the government is asked to take action, like to enforce a contract or provide funding, it's not a private relationship anymore, but a matter of state action.
Quote:
|
In addition, you forget the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is to carry our the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution [each article, section, clause and amendment] was adopted.
|
The actual text of the Constitution is far more important for constitutional law than legislative intent. As I pointed out above, we can never be entirely certain of the intent of everyone involved in drafting and ratifying an amendment, but we can be absolutely certain about what the constitution actually says. We should only look to intent when the actual text is ambiguous, but the 14th amendment referring to "any person", without any qualifiers or limitations, is unambiguous.