Adhering to “legislative intent” is a fundamental feature of our system’s rule of law.
You apparently ignore that part of our Constitution which commands an adherence to “the rules of the common law”.
In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could “cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.”
This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:
“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.
And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858) confirms the truth of the matter as follows:
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.
You may also find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which the SCOTUS references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995)
And this is in harmony with what the Court stated in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
Also see the following:
Pfingst v. State, 57 A.D.2d 163, 165 (3d Dep’t 1977) (per curiam) (“It is a cardinal rule of construction that no part of the Constitution should be construed so as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people adopting it.”).
[i]"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed [u]as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.”[/u][/i] Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .
[i]"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”[/i]Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392. (1947)
[i]"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law."[/i] Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.
I could provide countless other quotes to establish the fact that enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which a Statute or our Constitution was adopted, is one of the courts primary functions, even our very own Congress is aware it is required to be obedient to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted although they ignore it today:
“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)
And let us not forget what is stated in American Jurisprudence:
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. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
The bottom line with your crowd, which rejects abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ 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.
.
.
