Gorsuch condones usurpation of power in Civil Rights case, ignores oath of office

[johnwk]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[johnwk]

People are being denied their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Bull. All rights have limits and conditions. People do not have a right to discriminate. If you are in business you must treat everyone equally

While no State should be prohibited to

4. ”… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” it is a far different matter when government force is used to impinge upon the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Why do you object to a homosexual business owner to only hire other homosexuals, or a lesbian business owner to only hire other lesbians? Why do you support impinging on the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations? Why not allow the market place do its magic?

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations

 

[johnwk]

People are being denied their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Bull. All rights have limits and conditions. People do not have a right to discriminate. If you are in business you must treat everyone equally

People do not have a right to discriminate? Where is that found in our federal Constitution?

People "discriminate" countless times in the course of a day. Is there something inherently evil that a Black male chooses to only marry a Black female, or a female chooses to only marry a male?

It appears you detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations and you have the wrong headed notion the word "discriminate" is an evil word.

JWK

 

[Jets]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

People are being denied their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Bull. All rights have limits and conditions. People do not have a right to discriminate. If you are in business you must treat everyone equally

People do not have a right to discriminate? Where is that found in our federal Constitution?

People "discriminate" countless times in the course of a day. Is there something inherently evil that a Black male chooses to only marry a Black female, or a female chooses to only marry a male?

It appears you detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations and you have the wrong headed notion the word "discriminate" is an evil word.

JWK

Dude. First of all the Supreme Court has ruled that the Civil Rights act is constitutional. That means that it is supported by constitutional law which carries the same legal weight as anything in the articles or amendments.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Understand Civil Rights Act of 1964, LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789, its processes, and crucial LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789 information needed.

constitution.laws.com

Secondly, to reference to people making a choice as to who they marry is a nonsensical false equivalency logical fallacy. You can't compare personal choices and associations to business situations

 

[80zephyr]

Let’s cut to the chase here. Gorsuch relied on a broad textual view to reach his conclusion. The dissent relied on a narrow textual view to reach theirs. I don’t think either one is “wrong” per se. it’s just a matter of interpretation.

Wrong! Gorsuch ignored our Constitution's command to adhere to "the rules of the common law", the most fundamental rule being, to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which our constitution was adopted, and, in addition, he ignored the fact Congress never had constitutionally authorized power to add "sex" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

JWK


"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." ___
Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

Gorsuch ruled in a way originalists disagree with. Textualism doesn’t make him wrong. The word “sex” is in the CRA.

Yes, textualism makes him wrong.

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of 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

Textualism was invented by the left to shape the Constitution the way they want it to be, not the way it was meant to be.

Mark

Yet, Justice Scalia expoused textualism. Is he the “left”.

Nope. He was simply wrong.

Mark

That’s an opinion, not fact.

No. It is not an "opinion".

Justice Scalia's reliance upon "textualism" to determine the meaning of our Constitution violates that part of the Constitution requiring an adherence to "the rules of the common law" ___ the most fundamental rule being is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted.

The irrefutable fact is, one of the long standing rules under the rules of the common law with regard to the meaning of laws is to enforce “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is a priority of the Court:


”But 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."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated 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.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:


"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.


In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


”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.”


It should also be noted our Supreme Court cited the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution in order to enforce it, see UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).


Those who have actually studied Constitutional Construction and the rules of English Common Law, ought to remember what is stated in American Jurisprudence:


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

Our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law, but are tied to adhering to our Constitution's text, and documented "legislative intent" which gives context to its text.


JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Excellent. You win this thread.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. After all, only the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the President. If judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations. See New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 6–7).”

Gorsuch is absolutely correct in pointing out the Court “… normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment.” And the explanation Gorsuch gives for doing so is only too obvious to create any contention. But every now and then a word or term used in legislation may be construed in a manner that if applied to the statute, would pervert the evil intended to be addressed by the legislation at the time of its adoption, and it would allow judicial decisions which neither the legislature or public at large would have embraced at the time of the legislation’s adoption. In other words, it would allow our judicial branch of government to force upon the people that which neither the legislature nor public at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

I support legislation to protect people based on facts. Trans sexuality is a feeling, not a fact. I couldn't support a law like that any more than I could support a law that compels me to call Progressive Patriot "Mr. President" because he believes himself to be Abe Lincoln.

Mark

The question was: Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people? Or, do you just complain about the courts "legislation from the bench" as a cover for your not really wanting them to have rights. Trans people are real and they are indeed people, regardless of what you think you know about them

I gave you my answer. They don't get rights for what they think they are. No one should. Everyone of us is a person, but we should not have rights carved out for our individual idiosyncrasies.

Mark

Thank you for admitting that your original reply, railing against the court was just a smoke screen to avoid saying that you just don't think that LGBT people should be treated with equality. You finally maned up. I suppose that you deserve some credit for doing what most bigots will not do.

Lol. The left is a hoot. Disagree, and you're a bigot or a racist. When you have NOTHING else to back your argument, you turn to it, like a fish to water. You know that my analysis is 100% factual, and that eroding our system of law and of justice will cause incalculable damage to our country.

You don't care. Easier to just call someone a bigot, feel morally superior, and continue to live the lie you believe. The nice thing is, is that the country you are creating is also the one your children will live in. I hope they hold you personally responsible.

Mark

Please describe in detail what incalculable damage has been done tto our country as a result of the rights that have been extended to LGBT folks.

Lol. This isn't about gay rights. This is about how they were gotten. The ends do not justify the means. You are more than happy that the Constitution wasn't followed in this case, but you'll cry like a schoolgirl when a case goes against you under the same circumstances.

Mark

I'm willing to bet that your whining about this is very much about gay rights. I find it hard to believe anyone who gets all bent out of shape by this decision would have supported a legislative remedy. And you claim that the decision was unconstitutional is merely an uninformed opinion based on how you think that it is supposed to work

You can believe what you want to. As to it being just my opinion, JohnWK is doing such a good job describing my position, that I really don't have to debate it anymore.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Your point was the thing I was trying to say as well, only not as eloquently. How people can't see that by allowing justices to parse the words to make a mockery of our law is a mystery to me.

Mark

 

[PoliticalChic]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Your point was the thing I was trying to say as well, only not as eloquently. How people can't see that by allowing justices to parse the words to make a mockery of our law is a mystery to me.

Mark

The Supreme Court, the power that it has stolen, is not authorized by the Constitution.

Their pronouncements should be considered as no more than suggestions.

 

[johnwk]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[johnwk]

People are being denied their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Bull. All rights have limits and conditions. People do not have a right to discriminate. If you are in business you must treat everyone equally

People do not have a right to discriminate? Where is that found in our federal Constitution?

People "discriminate" countless times in the course of a day. Is there something inherently evil that a Black male chooses to only marry a Black female, or a female chooses to only marry a male?

It appears you detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations and you have the wrong headed notion the word "discriminate" is an evil word.

JWK

Dude. First of all the Supreme Court has ruled that the Civil Rights act is constitutional. That means that it is supported by constitutional law which carries the same legal weight as anything in the articles or amendments.

And by what Constitutionally authorized delegation of power did the 88th Congress add "sex" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

Justice Gorsuch and the Majority, in doing for the people what they have refused to do for themselves under Article Five of our Constitution, have not only used and abused their judicial power, but usurped legislative power as well, and this borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin

 

[Jets]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

 

[johnwk]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

 

[Jets]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

 

[johnwk]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Jets]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

 

[johnwk]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Jets]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Nope, you have a perspective and so do I. Obviously, someone needs the last word here, so take it and have a nice day.

 

[johnwk]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Nope, you have a perspective and so do I. Obviously, someone needs the last word here, so take it and have a nice day.

We are not talking about differences in perspectives. We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

Why do you find it necessary to deflect?

JWK

 

[Jets]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Nope, you have a perspective and so do I. Obviously, someone needs the last word here, so take it and have a nice day.

We are not talking about differences in perspectives. We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

Why do you find it necessary to deflect?

JWK

No deflection at all. You are entitled to your OPINION on how a justice should interpret the Constitution. The problem is that the SC did not do what you wanted.

Not quibbling over this any further.