It was the letter written by Jefferson that gave rise to the concept of separation that has been used in the court rulings (a letter that has been misinterpreted, nay, twisted, into saying something that it didn't), so don't try that 'their private writings don't control..." line. Those writings give us the insight into why they wrote what they wrote, and they gave further reasons and intentions of that document. To disregard them would be like taking the 10 Commandments alone and saying, "We don't need the rest of the Bible".
The Constitution was never meant to be 'interpreted'. It was meant to be the limiting factor upon the government (all 3 branches), jealously guarding against the predations of power hungry men. Now comes people like you saying that the Constitution needs 'interpreting', as if it is written in a foreign language. The judges aren't interpreting it at all, but twisting to mean what they WANT it to say, based upon their own political philosophies. Rule of MAN, not rule of LAW is what we are getting here.
You claim I am out of substantive arguments, but you have yet to present anything beyond "people like me say so, so it is so." Ever larger percentages of the population are coming to the conclusion that the judiciary has to be reined in, for it has gone far beyond the powers given it. It is now MAKING law, not interpreting it (even though that wasn't its intended purpose.) You cannot point to any portion of the Constitution that says it was, other than a claim that 'judicial power' means what YOU and your fellow lawyers say it means. Well, the private writings show that wasn't the intent of that phrase, but of course you know better than the men who wrote it.
Courts have said that they divine the 'intent' of the Founders. Well, why not use the very words of those men? Why not? Because those words would limit the power of the men 'interpreting' them. And since honor and integrity is sorely lacking in your profession, they chose to ignore those words limiting their power. So do not equate yourself with those men. Some of them may have had a background in law, but they knew the concept of honor, and they didn't seize power FOR themselves, but for the people they represented.
I think the "rule" that judges be practicing attorneys is wrong. Should be an elected position and let the electorate on whatever the election level is ( local, state, etc... ) decide if a person is qualified to be a judge. Term limits should also apply. Having a 80 year old on the bench who can barely parambulate to the restroom or carry on a conversation is ludicrous at best when everyone knows the clerks do all the work anyway and the judge signs off on it. Terms would also remedy the ability to "unbench" judges who have lost touch with the pulse of the law as willed by the people.
Going to law school does not make you better at "rendering fair and impartial rulings". It only allows to to write laws so convoluted that you need to hire an attorney to interpret them if you are not one to make sure another attorney and teh courts ( another attorney who by the way plays golf with the other attorneys, so he'll be impartial yeah, right ) doesn't screw you. Damn right or wrong as long as the wherefores and billable hours are covered. Job security/creation at best.
Rant over.
It was the letter written by Jefferson that gave rise to the concept of separation that has been used in the court rulings (a letter that has been misinterpreted, nay, twisted, into saying something that it didn't), so don't try that 'their private writings don't control..." line.
There's a significant difference between 'control' and 'provide guidance on' (which I address below), and moreover you seem to think the phrase from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists as quoted by Justice Black in Everson is a much worse summary of the First Amendment's intent than I do. But those things are beside the main point.
The main point is this: as Madison himself wrote (apparently in the part of his private writings that you didn't read), and as the framers agreed, the 'meaning' of the Constitution was its meaning as it would be understood by the ratifiers and by the courts that would have the job of applying it. No one among the framers thought that their 'intent' mattered a whit; what mattered was what they put into words, and more precisely what the ratifiers and the courts would understand those words to mean.
Those writings give us the insight into why they wrote what they wrote, and they gave further reasons and intentions of that document.
Again, this is beside the point. No one has argued that their private writings don't provide any insight or guidance into what they meant. What I, at least, have claimed is that their writings do not control the courts' interpretation of the Constitution. The courts are entitled to look at those writings if they think they're relevant (as Justice Black obviously did), but they don't have to and they're not bound to follow them if they do look at them.
The Constitution was never meant to be 'interpreted'.
Of course it was. Unless, that is, you think that all the delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed about the precise meaning of phrases like 'necessary and proper' and 'privileges and immunities' and 'due process', and all the courts had to do was stick to what these phrases clearly and obviously meant.
As with their understanding of the judicial power, there was almost certainly a common 'core' of meaning that everybody intended (and, more importantly, that the ratifiers would have understood their words to include). But the suggestion that there was no room for interpretation by the courts, and that there wasn't supposed to be any, is hard to take seriously.
I don't think you have much appreciation for the amount of sheer compromise that went into the crafting of a document that delegates from the free states and the slave states could all agree on. There is a lot of 'play in the joints', and it's there deliberately.
You claim I am out of substantive arguments.
Yes, I do. I find that to be the case with people who resort to insulting my profession (or to insulting me based on my profession); it always, and I mean always, means that they can't think of anything to do but attack what they imagine my motives must be, because they don't see a way to address the substantive points at issue. It doesn't even pretend to be a reasoned response; it's nothing more than a nasty attack.
You cannot point to any portion of the Constitution that says it was, other than a claim that 'judicial power' means what YOU and your fellow lawyers say it means. Well, the private writings show that wasn't the intent of that phrase.
No, they do not. And more importantly, the debates on the Constitution do not. You will find the delegates rejecting a judicial veto (in which the judiciary would be involved in the actual process of legislation), but you will find time after time that they simply presume (and count on) that the judiciary has the power to refuse to enforce, even to strike down, unconstitutional laws. If you want references, go get a copy of Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution and read chapter six; it's an excellent summary.
Courts have said that they divine the 'intent' of the Founders.
Have they? Which courts have said that?
So do not equate yourself with those men. Some of them may have had a background in law, but they knew the concept of honor, and they didn't seize power FOR themselves, but for the people they represented.
More insults (again in lieu of arguments, and again directed both at me personally and at my fellow skunks). I haven't seen any reason to change my mind about your lack of substantive arguments.
I generally give people three chances before I put them on my Life Is Too Short To Waste It Responding To These Idiots list. You've used up two of them. If you're going to use up your third one, there's no need to waste your time posting a reply.