The "national emergency" in the context of Constitutional Governance


Labels are not only irrelevant with respect to constitutional construction, they are a clever distraction from focusing on what our Constitution means.

The bottom line is, when a dispute arises as to the meaning of the text of our Constitution, its meaning is to be discovered and documented by researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified which sheds light on the purpose for which the provision was adopted.

To put this into different words, we need only to read Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in which our Supreme Court notes the following:

‚ÄĚBut 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."

Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.


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 ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


Exactly. Like supporting the Executive Branch circumventing the Constitution to become the authority with the power of appropriations. A power that resides with the Legislative Branch. Either you support and defend the Constitution and you oppose this obvious unconstitutional power grab by the Executive, as they do NOT have the power of appropriations, or you stand against the Constitution and pretend the Constitution means whatever you wish it to mean, to accomplish your campaign promises.

Good point here John.


My way or the highway?

I’ll stick with route 666 and current SCOTUS opinions for 200, Alex.

There is more than one way to interpret on much beloved US constitution.

Obviously with all the divided OPINIONS between the 9 US Citizens who serve on the Supreme court.

What was good for year 1800 America obviously might not be good year 2019 America, duh…



You apparently ignore the most fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction.


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‚Äôs framers.‚ÄĒ numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


By bringing up the point that rulings are often split with dissenting opinions? Are the dissenting opinions ignoring those fundamental rules by pretending the constitution means what they want it to mean?



But hearing the Left cry out about such delararations is laughable. Of course it may just be that like 8 of 10 of Obama‚Äôs national emergency declarations the Left supports protecting foreigners in their lands (‚Äúextranational emergencies‚ÄĚ?) rather than defending US territory and sovereignty.


I have no idea what you are asking.



The Supreme Justices who offer dissenting opinions are pretending?


Hang on. Are you saying that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and all the fellas had different opinions and different interpretations of things? That they actually fought about stuff?


Jefferson and Madison had very different views about the interpretation of the constitution and the role of government…

Only the utterly ignorant would claim they had a unified view…


I still have no idea what you are asking.


It was 2019 when an ongoing invasion of America’s borders swelled to tens of thousands a month, not a shot was fired to defend the borders of the United States, and America’s domestic enemies, many in Congress, were successful in conquering a prosperous and freedom loving people.


yep. :slight_smile:

even back then the constitution wasnt cut and dried.



And your examples are?


"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."‚ÄďThomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


The correspondence they had with each other for starters…

Thw actions they did while president as a continuance…


According to your previous post anyone who ‚Äúpretends‚ÄĚ the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean is standing against it but that would include every single Supreme Court Justice ever since no court has ever had 100% unanimous decisions


How so. The only mention of Speaker in the original constitution was the House to chuse the speaker.

other then that there is no mention of duties etc of the speaker.

Thats why the founding fathers gave the two branches of congress the leeway to make their own rules.



You are not giving examples. Do you have an example where they disagreed upon Amendment 7 and adhering to ‚Äúthe rules of the common law‚ÄĚ, the most fundamental rule being to adhere to legislative intent?





You might want to read up on, say, the first ten congressional sessions…

You will be very surprised just how contentious they were…

The states just barely agreed to form a union. They had extremely different views on the path the union should take right from the start…


You are using inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. Additionally, you need to cite a specific case, and then draw your conclusion.