johnwk wrote:
Quote:
|
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
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Tree
Psst, the constitution is only 219 years old. 
|
Pssst, and as I correctly stated, the most fundamental rule of constitution law has
over three hundred years of practice on American soil. The rule dates back to English common law and was recognized with reference to legislative acts passed under the legislatures of our original thirteen colonies.
I suggest you study what our lower state courts have stated, our lower state supreme courts have stated, our united States Supreme Court has stated, our Congress of the United States has stated, and even the American Law Review has stated with regard to the most fundamental rule of constitutional law to be followed when questions arise as to what the Constitution means. What they all point out is summarized as follows:
Quote:
|
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. ___16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Intent of constitution, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
|
Regards,
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 mean whatever they wish it to mean.