Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Tree
As for your assertions about intent being the one and only things that judges should ever look at, actual text of the Constution be damned, even a quick google reveals that your view is rather narrow and incomplete, if not outright wrong.
Here's one section from it: |
Gee, now you are making things up about what I stated. I never even remotely suggested what you state above, and, I merely provided you with the most fundamental rule of constitutional law as stated in 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law:
Quote:
Intent of constitution
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
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.
|
Too bad for you that you should ignore the most fundamental rule of constitution law, a rule which has over three hundred years of practice on American soil.
As to your “Theories of Constitutional Interpretation” which you linked to, that is just what they are, theories, and are relatively recent creations used to attack the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which I documented above.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.