blah blah...Federalist Papers...blah blah...Madison...blah blah...ban public breast feeding...

__________________
Drown the fishes.

And if Madison gives one answer, and Hamilton says the exact opposite, do we have to conjure up John "I like my name BIG!" Hancock for a tiebreaker? If we summon Ben Franklin, what will the court do when he possesses the medium and starts seducing the female clerks? Is it constitutional to tell the ghost of Ben Franklin that he can't have an affair with a younger woman 250 years his junior?

And yet he still hasn't said why he doesn't think blacks, asians and hispanics shouldn't have equal rights..

tsk..

__________________
Old City: Suburban Paradise in the city. Only a couple of years away.

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:

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.

I never said blacks, asians and hispanics shouldn't have equal rights. As a matter of fact, unlike those who here attack me, I do in fact support the protection of the unalienable rights of all, and the protection of the unalienable rights of mankind under our system of government is one of government’s primary functions!


The argument here is not about the rights of blacks, asians and Hispanics, it’s about identifiable special interest groups such as homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals and lesbians jumping on the ERA bandwagon with the intention of infringing upon the unalienable rights of others!

For a number of years this identifiable group [homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals and lesbians ] under the banner “Equality Florida” pushed for what they called a human rights ordinance in the city of Gulfport in Pinellas County Florida. But, when one analyzes the touted “human rights ordinance” it turns out that Gulfport’s City Council, in approving the ordinance, has decided to ignore its oath to support and defend the constitutionally protected rights of all. In essence, the ordinance creates a favored class and allows this class to impinge upon the unalienable rights of others such as their freedom of choice, individual liberty, and rights associated with property ownership.


What the ordinance does is to allow the identifiable groups characterized in the ordinance [homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered, and even those having unique "physical characteristics"], to invoke the force of government as a favored class against owners of property and business owners who may be unwilling to enter into contractual agreements or business associations with the favored class created by the ordinance. Under the ordinance business and property owners can be fined for not hiring the protected class or renting their homes or other property to them. The ERA would accomplish the same goal!


Make no mistake, such an ordinance in general should be applicable to publicly owned property and government operations, but not applicable to privately owned property and businesses.


Since the founding of our nation, inalienable rights of mankind have been repeatedly recognized which include, among other things, the right to life, liberty, rights associated with property ownership and the pursuit of happiness. And, within the meaning of “liberty” the U.S. Supreme Court has properly noted that the right to contract is within the meaning of liberty:


In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 , we are reminded by the Court:


But even more important, let us not forget what Florida’s own Court stated in the Terri Schiavo case. The Court declared that a government act “impinging” on a fundamental right is “presumptively unconstitutional” and requires the state to carry the burden to show the act does not violate the Constitution.


So, as it turns out, the ordinance in question, which impinges on the fundamental right to contract, impinges upon fundamental liberty and impinges upon rights associated with property ownership, is therefore “presumptively unconstitutional”!


Those who promoted and supported the ordinance, and are now supporting the ERA, have pretended to take a high moral ground and denounce the immorality of discrimination. But the Court has succinctly addressed this frivolous and misleading claim.


In Lawrence vs. Texas, an opinion well known by the supporters of the ERA we find:

The Gulfport ordinance, an unmistakable “moral code”, is intentionally designed by political advocates to interfere with and impinge upon the fundamental rights of an identifiable group, and specifically, property and business owners who loose their unalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and business associations..


If the belief in `equal protection of the laws' means anything, surely it must at the very least mean that a politically unpopular group, such as “homophobes”, should not be singled out using the force of government in a manner which deprives them of irrefutable unalienable rights such as the right to mutually agree in contracts and business associations as well as their rights associated with property ownership.


The question is, why is there such a fervor among homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals to impinge upon the fundamental rights of a politically unpopular group who may choose to avoid any dealings with them? Does this unpopular group not deserve the same equal protection under the law in pursuing their happiness as those who assert a different life-style than theirs?


JWK

More Original Intent questions:

Did Founding Fathers want women to vote?

Did Founding Fathers want an end to slavery?

Since all mail delivery was the responsibility of the government, maybe phone, internet service should be nationalized?

__________________

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

Woody Allen
Stardust Memories

Yeah, I hear that from the people who used to love golf before Tiger Woods dominated it...They still don't know why they had to open their privately owned property to those people.





Hey, I'm all for government having limited power, but don't think the homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals started this, all they want is their fair cut.

__________________
Old City: Suburban Paradise in the city. Only a couple of years away.

That's exactly what you suggested. You said that courts should ignore the meaning of the actual text of the 14th amendment, which says absolutely nothing about it "applying only to race and color," and instead inject a bunch of extraneous extra-constitutional stuff.

Or, in other words, you're right about constitutional law, and every Supreme Court Judge and legal scholar over the past 100 years is an extremist who clearly got it wrong.

You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence. But since it contradicted your preconceived conclusions, you rejected it without even reading it.

Psst, the constitution is only 219 years old.

johnwk wrote:
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:


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.