|
|
Our SCOTUS and our DOMESTIC
ENEMIES---the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system!
John William Kurowski
The discussion concerning the nomination to
the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) exposes and brings to light the
fact that we have extremists in our society--- left wing militants and right
wing militants, who ought to be viewed as domestic enemies of our constitutional
system!
What these militants have in common is their desire to use the SCOTUS to impose
their personal whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our
Constitution, even though their personal views are, without question, in direct
conflict with the intent of the Constitution and the beliefs under which it was
agreed to by the people when ratifying it, and can be documented from historical
records such as:
Madison’s Notes on the proceedings and debates of the convention of
1787; The
Federalists and
Anti Federalist Papers, recording public debate of the proposed
constitution in a series of newspaper articles; and
Elliot’s Debates, the actual ratification proceedings of several
states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles
sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state
ratification, and in many instances it is elaborated upon by the very delegates
who attended the Constitutional Convention!
Together, the above sources do in fact record a preponderance of evidence -- a
general consensus -- establishing the intent of the framers and ratifiers and
the beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to by “We the People.”
Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated
on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud
upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
And Jefferson tells us:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us 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.
But the domestic enemies of our constitutional system want to give new meaning
to our Constitution and do so without that meaning being accepted by the people
via the Constitution’s amending process. What these scoundrels pretend is that
the SCOTUS is not bound to abide by the intent and beliefs under which our
Constitution was adopted. They eagerly instruct us that the Court is not
required to adhere to the intent of the Constitution and support its opinions
with supportive references to the historical records mentioned above, because to
do so, would bind us to the “dead hand of its framers“.
This thinking disingenuously ignores the amendment process, designed by the
framers to allow the people, not renegade judges, to make changes to accommodate
changing times. But there is a reason for their thinking; it cleverly removes
the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system [abiding by its documented
intent] and sets folks in government free to make the Constitution mean whatever
they want it to mean.
The bottom line is, and should be remembered by all freedom loving people, the
most fundamental rule of our constitutional system is to carry out the intent
and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
“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, here is an example of the Court pointing to what the Founders intended by
referencing the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to find the legislative
intent of our Constitution. 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).
Regards,
John W K, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind
him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"Thomas
Jefferson
|
