Didn't misquoted you, just expanded beyond it. If you are against those radicals, then you must be against those radicals too...

Posted by johnwk:
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.


Posted by johnwk: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:


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 ……….

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. In this case, the documented and preponderance of evidence establishes the 14th Amendment was intended to accomplish a very narrow objective which I stated above. If you have documentation to the contrary, please feel free to post your documentation.

The fact is, even Bingham, who wrote the 14th Amendment, emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292

Bingham goes on to say:

Even our SC, in the Civil Rights Cases noted the intention was to secure “those fundamental rights which are the essence of civil freedom, namely, the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue … to inherit, purchase … property as is enjoyed by white citizens. (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.W. 3, 22 (1883).

The 14th Amendment, as exhibited by a preponderance of evidence had a very narrow objective and was intended to ‘incorporate’ the guarantees of the first Civil Right Act into our Constitution, nothing more. And what were the intended guarantees? Mr. Howard, sums it up as follows:
“I do not understand the bill which is now before us to contemplate anything else but this, that in respect to all civil rights___and those are some of the civil rights which I have just enumerated___there is to be hereafter no distinction between the white race and the black race. It is to secure to these men whom we have made free the ordinary rights of a freeman and nothing else. See Gong. Globe, Jan. 30th page 504

As I correctly stated, the People, when adopting the 14th Amendment intended to prohibit state sponsored discrimination, “black code laws“, [discriminatory law based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery] and insure that all people, regardless of race, color, or former condition of slavery, would enjoy a constitutional guarantee to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to inherit and purchase property, etc., as was then enjoyed by white citizens. This was the prevailing and narrow objective of the Fourteenth Amendment and was repeatedly stated during the debates.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to allow Roe vs. Wade, allow the SC to allow Martin, a cripple, to ride around in a golf cart during the PGA event, nor did it support Misssssssss Ginsburg’s opinion commanding VMI to admit females into the Institute. All this and more has been invented by subversives who work to overturn federalism, our Constitution’s plan.


Your opinions are not in harmony with the documented evidence taken from the Congressional Globe concerning the 14th Amendment.


JWK



Intent of constitution


16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Your impression is incorrect.

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?

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.

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.

John, I probably agree with about half of the things you say... but I have to use the word "probably" because I just don't know. Your vanities are incredibly long.
Only a professional writer, and too few at that, can keep a person's interest for that long.

Brevity is your friend.

__________________
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? - Psalm 27:1

You seem to be great at posting you personal opinions, but continually fail to provide supportive documentation to qualify your opinions.

As I correctly stated above, 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.

Intent of constitution


16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution was adopted in order to then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean. Let us look at some authoritative sources:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], 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.

“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, with regard to the Federalist Papers and other historical sources to determine the “intent“ of our written Constitution, I suggest you 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.”

In addition, to the above documentation, you may find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which the SCOTUS references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to document the legislative intent of our Constitution and enforce it. 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).



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 so as to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

This is an internet message board. What do you expect, full legal briefs?

So in the hypothetical I described above, Ted Kennedy's big speech should trump the actual written words of the Constitutional amendment? Thank you for clarifying your opinion.

What I would expect are a few quotes from those who participated in the framing of the 14th Amendment at the time it was being debated which would support your currently unsubstantiated interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

You did assert that I ignore the actual text of the 14th amendment in favor of a narrow interpretation that my political ideology requires. I responded in POST NO. 12 with three quotes from those who participated in the passage of the 14th Amendment, and even provided a quote from the S.C.____ each of which outlines the narrow and prevailing intention of the 14th Amendment, as understood by those who framed and participated in the amendment’s passage, which was to make certain that if a State did enact discriminatory law, “it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery“ ____ this was the object of the 14th Amendment as generally understood by those who participated in its passage, and is confirmed by the preponderance of evidence taken from the Congressional Globe during the time period the proposed amendment was presented to Congress and then debated for passage.

No! Kennedy’s speech would not be enough. In compliance with the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, there must be a preponderance of evidence, a documented consensus among the law makers, establishing the intentions and beliefs as generally understood by those who participate in the passage of the amendment.

As I mentioned above concerning the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, which is to carry out the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, the SCOTUS referenced the Federalist Papers 18 times in the case UNITED STATES vs. LOPEZ in order to document the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted and enforce those intentions and beliefs.

Why you seem to have such a difficult time in supporting the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, a rule which has over three hundred years of practice on American soil, is beyond me.

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.

Since the United States Supreme Court and the courts under it have held that the Equal Rights Amendment is just fine under the 14th Amendment, your assertions about the "consensus among lawmakers" and "preponderance of evidence" concerning the 14th Amendment is clearly wrong.

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:
"There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law. There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions."

Here's another:
"Textualist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution. Textualists often are skeptical of the ability of judges to determine collective 'intent.'"

For an example of a Textualist, you need look no further than those liberal radicals Judge Scalia and Judge Thomas.

From that link, there's some further discussion:
"Originalism is a family of theories, principally:
- The 'original intent theory', which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.
- The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is with this view that most originalists, such as Justices Scalia and Thomas, are associated."

"A number of problems inhere in intentionalism, and a fortiori when that theory is applied to the Constitution: most of the Founders did not leave discussions of what their intent was in 1787, and while a few did, there is no reason to think that they should be dispositive of what the rest thought."

So your big list of citations, only two of which actually came from the Supreme Court, is clearly culled from the judges subscribing to the original intent view, and conspicuously leaves out all the cases using the original meaning view. If your big list of citations was an accurate description of the law, surely it would have been easy to find dozens of cases from the Supreme Court, rather than having to rely on obscure opinions in obscure courts. Most of those cases are from State courts, which have no authority whatsoever when it comes to U.S. Constitutional law!

I just took a look at the Lopez case you cited. In it, the court did not look at the Federalist to find the "legislative intent" behind the commerce clause. The court looked at the Federalist when discussing some background basics about the structure of the constitution, and then used it in its decision to determine what the ambiguous word "commerce" would have meant at the time of the drafting.

In other words, the court was most concerned about what the text of the constitution actually said. They just had the problem that "commerce" is a rather vague word, so they looked to contemporary writings to find the 'original meaning' of "commerce" at the time of drafting. They used it resolve ambiguity, not to blatantly ignore the textual meaning of the Constitution as written, as you're suggesting the courts should do with the 14th Amendment.

If we are going to use original intent shouldn't Congress and the Supreme Court hold a seance in every session to contact the founding fathers?

Or shouldn't we go back to the Old Testament since the founding fathers used the Bible as a guide? So I guess only rabbis can sit on the Supreme Court?

__________________

All I said was that intellectuals are like the Mafia, they only kill their own.

Woody Allen
Stardust Memories