.
On this afternoon’s show Mark Levine ___ not to be confused with the "great one" Mark Levin__ while having a debate about the 14th Amendment and citizenship said he was a “texualist” asserting he relies upon the text of our Constitution and not its legislative intent as expressed by those who actually authored and debated the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
Mark Levine would do well to read that part of our Constitution which recognizes an adherence to the “the rules of the common law”. The fact is, one of the long standing rules under the common law with regard to the meaning of statutory law 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 as 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, who perhaps had Mark Levine in mind when writing the following:
"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.
Mr. Levine may also find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which our SCOTUS references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).
In fact, being obedient to the legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N 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.
And if Mark Levine is not yet convinced being a “texualist” opens the door to judicial tyranny by dismissing the context in which our Constitution was adopted as expressed by its framers and those who adopted it, he should also consider the following references:
“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)
"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .
"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .
"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.
"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.
I could provide countless other quotes to establish the fact that enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted is one of the Court's primary functions, even our very own Congress is aware it is required to be obedient to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted although they ignore it today:
"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)
And let us not forget 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.
The irrefutable fact is, when the Court defies both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, and imposes its personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law, the Court has then engaged in judicial tyranny.
JWK
Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, 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.
On this afternoon’s show Mark Levine ___ not to be confused with the "great one" Mark Levin__ while having a debate about the 14th Amendment and citizenship said he was a “texualist” asserting he relies upon the text of our Constitution and not its legislative intent as expressed by those who actually authored and debated the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
Mark Levine would do well to read that part of our Constitution which recognizes an adherence to the “the rules of the common law”. The fact is, one of the long standing rules under the common law with regard to the meaning of statutory law 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 as 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, who perhaps had Mark Levine in mind when writing the following:
"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.
Mr. Levine may also find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which our SCOTUS references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).
In fact, being obedient to the legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N 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.
And if Mark Levine is not yet convinced being a “texualist” opens the door to judicial tyranny by dismissing the context in which our Constitution was adopted as expressed by its framers and those who adopted it, he should also consider the following references:
“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)
"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .
"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .
"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.
"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.
I could provide countless other quotes to establish the fact that enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted is one of the Court's primary functions, even our very own Congress is aware it is required to be obedient to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted although they ignore it today:
"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)
And let us not forget 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.
The irrefutable fact is, when the Court defies both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, and imposes its personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law, the Court has then engaged in judicial tyranny.
JWK
Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, 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.
Says the con-servative who is always complaining about too many threads about a certain topic.
