If youāre going to continue to quote modern sources (American Jurisprudence) when making claims as to constitutional law and process, it most certainly does.
Only if they support your argument.
Only in your mind.
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 constitutionās framers.ā numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Wow. Still wonāt answer the yes/no question.
You do realize that any time a Conservative asks this question on this site to a Liberal, that all theyāre going to do is reply with one case of Socialism or two tops, that partially works, and expect everyone to believe reading it, that is how and why Socialism works. lol.
Just because they can mention one or two things that have partially worked in other countries. lol. But once again, Democrats are obsessed with what has worked in other Countryās, even if they donāt work in America. lol.
Letās seeā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦America, Other Countriesā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦America, Other Countries.
Nope! America isnāt Other Countries, no matter how bad Bernie boy, and the rest of the Dem Dems want it to be. lol.
shhhhh, Socialists have their Dem Dem voters believing those things are Socialism.
They donāt know the difference. lol.
A lot of those Democrat run programs are so far in debt, that the Dem Politicians will
always come up with an excuse for them. They donāt know that those things
are paid for by Americans I guess.
So other countryās arenāt populated by human beings?
We get it, any govt program you donāt like is socialism.
Wow! You still will not come out of the closet and admit you do not support adhering to the fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction, the most fundamental rule being summarized as follows:
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 constitutionās framers.ā numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
JWK
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._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSāN v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
By your continued use of the modern and privately published American Jurisprudence as a guide for Constitutional process, it is safe to conclude you approve of non-Constitutional sources in matters of the Constitution. Again, welcome to modern Constitutional interpretation. It seems Iām not the one who just came out if the closet.
Are you now indicating you do agree with adhering to the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?
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 āinterpretā the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Guys, many of the western nations have a mix of capitalism+socialism. Social democracies. This SOCIALISM!!!1 alarmism is a bit histerical.
Fundamental rules as in basic guidelines, sure. Some silly notion that it is an all-encompassing document which can only be taken in the context of a fictional telepathic time machine as to the intentions of the founding fathers, hell no. The Constitution is a framework which is to be taken in context with the present and living, not those who have been dead for 200 years.
Tell that to the people of Cuba, Venezuela and China.
JWK
In every communist dictatorial oppressive country, like Cuba, China, and Venezuela, the people are disarmed. Forewarned is forearmed.
Thank you for your novel opinion which I might add was totally refuted by Chief Justice Marshall:
"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." _ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
JWK
āThe 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 voidā. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
And weāre back to non-Constitution sources for interpretation of the Constitution. Just canāt resist?
No. You are back to ignoring the fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction.
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 āinterpretā the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
āFundamental rules.ā Where in the Constitution can I find an all encompassing list of these rules? If theyāre there, why do you keep quoting people and sources outside the Constitution? Seems to me people after the Constitution was enacted have tried to define and give opinions on these āfundamental rules.ā
