I appreciate your response. In answer, I would like to pass along one of the most important things I was taught when studying constitutional law. Our Constitution is the “precedent”, and thus, when questions arise concerning what our Constitution means, they are best settled by a careful research of the debates during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified in order to document the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
Indeed, this happens to be the most fundamental rule of constitutional law and was summarized 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.
It should also be noted that this very rule is contemporarily summarized in the following words:
“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
Aside from confronting the Washington Establishment and compelling it to abide by our written Constitution, I believe a primary goal of ours ought to educating the people to the fundamental rules of constitutional law, which are no longer taught in our government schools or universities. Rather, our younger generation is taught to study case law and then apply “precedent” as set by our Supreme Court.
One thing is certain, we have an awful lot of work to do!
Regards,
JWK
"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.” ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
We have an Executive and a Legislative branch run amuck. When coupled with a preponderance of Supremes who similarly exchew original intent can there be any hope of maintaining Constitutional government?
Yes, if the people insist upon it and hold their representatives and appointed Supremes in contempt of the Constitution. Representative government can not stand if it is in conflict with the will of the people.
How, then, shall the people require their representatives to follow the mandates of the law? If a spirit of rebellion against tyrannical officialdom gains sufficient ground among citizens for their representatives to be held in contempt and their mandates be ignored or openly rejected those representatives will have no legitimate recourse but to resign from their elected or appointed positions. To do otherwise such as by enforcing hateful mandates makes of them enemies of the people. We are perilously close to this impasse.
Both the Executive and the Legislative bodies are held in absolute contempt by a substantial segment of citizens. Their response to date is to insist upon their absolute authority. Such a position cannot prevail.
Elections are not the only recourse of citizens. They may, if they so choose, demand that their representatives demure or step aside.
Acts of civil disobedience in which citizens in vast numbers refuse to respect odious laws creates an environment inimical to normal government. Antagonistic officials may, if they choose, establish martial law. Such actions amount to a declaration of war against the citizens. This must lead to bloodshed.
We are not yet at that point. That a civil war is brewing is not in question. What remains is for officialdom to acknowledge their obedience to the demands of the citizens. their failure to do so will not end well.
“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
Aside from confronting the Washington Establishment and compelling it to abide by our written Constitution, I believe a primary goal of ours ought to educating the people to the fundamental rules of constitutional law, which are no longer taught in our government schools or universities. Rather, our younger generation is taught to study case law and then apply “precedent” as set by our Supreme Court.
One thing is certain, we have an awful lot of work to do!
Regards,
JWK
“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.” ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
4 posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:57:27 PM by JOHN W K