Replies

I hadn't welcomed you to FR, MW2006. I just noticed the 2006 on your name. Welcome.

Grammatico-historic

What principle do you follow?

"Henry Abbot to James Iredell (from the N. Carolina Convention, 1788), "I am for my part against any exclusive establishment, but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal."[2]

I thank you, sir, for the warm welcome.

When interpreting the Constitution, I follow the principles set forth by Joseph Story in the chapter on "Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution" in his "Commentaries on the Constitution."

What principle do you follow?

These are first several rules I use to construe the Constitution. They are derived from Story's Chapter on Interpreting the Constititon:

The first and fundamental rule of interpretating the U. S. Constitution is that our ultimate object is to construe it according to the meaning of the words and the intention of the bodies that gave it legal effect.

The intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, and the reason and spirit of the law.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

If the words are ambiguous, the next step is to determine if their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument.

If the word(s) are still ambiguous, the next step is to examine other writings upon the subject-matter of the provision which we are trying to interpret, to see how the word(s) are used in those writings.

If the word(s) are still ambiguous, the next step is to consider the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment. These are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application.

At this point, examine the effect and consequence of your construction. If its literal meaning involves a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted

If there is still uncertainty, more interpretation is necessary. Go back to Story's chapter on Interpreting the Constitution.