“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
The constitution is the act of the people speaking in their original character, and there can he 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.”(my emphasis) Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
One thing I don’t get, the SC is not the court of origin in this but the final authority on an appeal. Does not the lower court record count? In other words, why is the government now allowed to change its stance on the issue? First, it was not a tax, then it was a tax. First it was the commerce clause than it is the proper clause. Why go through the charade of two inferior courts to get to this point and of what value was the record of the inferior courts?