Well see here’s the thing. The Framers specifically said they never intended for there to be hundreds of Federal laws. The only Federal laws that were EVER supposed to be written were supposed to be those needed to support the Constitution. Even the power to write Federal laws is an enumerated power under Article 1, Section 8 and is specifically limited to the other enumerated powers under Article 1, Section 8, or any other powers specifically enumerated under the Constitution. Nowhere else. When we change the meaning of words in the Constitution, that allows us to write laws that were never permitted to be written by the Constitution in the first place which is why we now have hundreds and hundreds of laws on the books contrary to the Constitution. See how that works? Like I said, the Founders warned us about people like you. You’re either too blind to see it or a willing participant in tearing it all down. Either way…
Ahh the infallible slave holding framer Gods
So your unaware that language changes. Got it.
The constitution.
The Constitution commands the legislative intent of our Constitution is to be followed under “the rules of the common law.” Keep in mind our Constitution specifically recognizes the supremacy of “the rules of the common law” . . . see Amendment VII.
And with regard to the “rules of the common law” the irrefutable fact is, one of the long standing rules under the rules of the common law with regard to the meaning of laws is to enforce “legislative intent”. 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.”
It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."
And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is a priority of the Court:
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
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.
In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION 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.”
Why do you reject abiding by the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and embrace the rule of a rubber ruler?
JWK
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.— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
I reject YOUR interpretation.
Then why are they still driving 1950’s Chevy’s
Are you joking? “Common law” in the context of the 7th amendment guarantees a jury trial if it would have had a jury trial under English common law. Very precise. Now you’re interpreting it to mean the entire constitution falls under some nebulous common law? Word find “common law,” find it in the seventh amendment, and now it magically applies to everything you want it to. And you accuse others of interpreting and bending words to their own desires? Jeez…
What does your above post have to do with the post you were responding to? Is this your way of ignoring my evidence regarding the rules of constitutional construction, and then switching the subject?
If you are incapable of defending your posts, simply move on and accept that you are wrong.
JWK
You said:
Common law in the seventh amendment applies to the right to civil trial. Your claim that it means anything other than that is nowhere in the Constitution. That’s your interpretation.
You then posted a Jefferson quote which contradicts other Jefferson quotes. Then you quote non-founding fathers and their opinions/interpretations as to what they think someone else means. Exactly what you’re trying to say people shouldn’t do.
My goodness. Do you even read what is posted? What I wrote was:
The Constitution commands the legislative intent of our Constitution is to be followed under “the rules of the common law.” Keep in mind our Constitution specifically recognizes the supremacy of “the rules of the common law” . . . see Amendment VII.
And with regard to the “rules of the common law” the irrefutable fact is, one of the long standing rules under the rules of the common law with regard to the meaning of laws is to enforce “legislative intent”. 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.”
It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.”
And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is a priority of the Court:
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”
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.
In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION 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.”
Why do you reject abiding by the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and embrace the rule of a rubber ruler?
JWK
There is an important distinction between “common law” which you mentioned, and, “the rules of the common law”, which is what I mentioned. The rules of the common law basically relate to procedure, while common law relates to the law itself.
Under the rules of the common law, observing and enforcing legislative intent is a priority.
Our Constitution established and recognizes “the rules of the common law”.as a priority:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and 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.
Yeah. I did. Once more. The Constitution is not “commanded” by common law, it is it’s own law. The seventh amendment uses common law as an example to guarantee a trial by jury. That’s it. End of story.
Justices Story and Marshall and whoever Chancellor Kent is, neither wrote the constitution nor have any more insight or weight into constitutional matters than a modern day Justice or scholar.
Contrary to your uniformed assertion, the Seventh Amendment acknowledges the supremacy and use of “the rules of the common law”.
Additionally, I’ll take the word of those notable men I mentioned over your premise which advocates the rule of a rubber ruler, or finger on the scale of justice approach to advance you personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice, while you reject the very intentions and believes under which our Constitution was adopted.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
False. You are interpreting the seventh amendment to fit your ideals. If the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be an extension of common law, they would have said so plainly and simply in the body of the Constitution. It would not have been an afterthought in the seventh amendment. Common law in the seventh amendment is simply to give a basis for civil trial. Sorry.
There you go again. Admitting you’re using the views and interpretations of others to fit your own ideology. The exact same thing you accuse others of doing. If the Constitution was as plain and deliberate as you like to state it is, you would have no need to quote ad nausea “notable men.” It would speak for itself.
[quote=“SottoVoce, post:263, topic:166043, full:true”]
False. You are interpreting the seventh amendment to fit your ideals. [/quote]
No interpreting on my part.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and 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.
No interpreting? How could anyone reasonably say the text you quoted plainly states common law not only pertains to the entirety of the Constitution, but “commands supremacy?”
“Rules of the common law”, my friend,___ "… and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Just say you do not agree with abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction:
6 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”
Par. 88–Proceedings of conventions and debates.
Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )
Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )
Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers.
JWK
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.— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
Alrighty then my fellow Americans…I’ve got to run, participate in capitalism and stimulate the American economy. It’s the American way…don’tcha know. 
As expected, you continue to interpret something to mean what is not explicitly stated. Then you site other sources’ interpretations to further your claims. I would say the hypocrisy is stunning, but it has become known and anticipated.
Just say you do not agree with abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction:
6 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”
Par. 88–Proceedings of conventions and debates.
Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )
Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )
Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)
JWK
