Mark Levine showed his ignorance on today’s Sean Hannity show! (anchor baby debate)

[jon_berzerk]

Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens,

you are miss quoting the opinion

and it has been miss applied since

Sorry, but those are verbatim from the opinions.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

There was no such thing as legal status then. There were no green cards.

the opinion said they had been there legally

although they could not be granted citizenship

It also said they were Chinese. Is that a fact that was relevant to the decision? Who do you think has a better grasp of the constitution, the nine justices in Pyler and the nine in Rios who agreed that the only requirement for citizenship is being born on our soil or you? Be careful here or you will demonstrate complete and utter arrogance?

yes it was relevant to the case since at the time chinese folks could not become citizens of the United States

 

[jon_berzerk]

n INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

it also needs to be noted that this was

in dicta

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

--LOL

far from settled

Not settled? Find one case in any federal court at any level where it is not considered settled. Four million children of illegal immigrants, currently living here are citizens. That would seem to make it settled.

certainly not settled

how many times has the 2nd amendment been to court

your reasoning is not sound

How many times has the Second Amendment been to the Supreme Court? Two or three. And the latest decision settled that issue of whether it applied to private ownership. That is now settled law. Just like birthright citizenship is settled law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. In fact, Wong Kim only validated what has been understood since the founding, that if you are born here you are a citizen. You seem to be too fucking stupid to understand that the principle of illegal immigration is a product of the last century and laws designed to slow the tide of immigration.

how many laws does/has congress made in regards to the 2nd amendment

the 14th amendment has limits as well

 

[paddymurphy]

Sorry, but those are verbatim from the opinions.

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

There was no such thing as legal status then. There were no green cards.

the opinion said they had been there legally

although they could not be granted citizenship

It also said they were Chinese. Is that a fact that was relevant to the decision? Who do you think has a better grasp of the constitution, the nine justices in Pyler and the nine in Rios who agreed that the only requirement for citizenship is being born on our soil or you? Be careful here or you will demonstrate complete and utter arrogance?

yes it was relevant to the case since at the time chinese folks could not become citizens of the United States

No, his Chinese ethnicity was not relevant to the decision because he was deemed to be a citizen. Had he not been a citizen, he would never have been permitted to become one because of the hateful and racist chinese exclusion laws. His ethnicity was not relevant to the decision, thought it was a fact noted by the Court; just like his parents status, though mentioned by the Court, was not relevant to their decision. What was relevant was the fact that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of" simply meant subject to the law of the United States. You ignore the Court's review of English Common law as well as the initial decision of the United States Supreme COurt regarding citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark court wrote:

"In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."
Now, explain that holding and how it does not mean that the law in the United States was consistent with English Common Law which held that person's born in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation are citizens of that nation?

Next, explain this from Wong Kim Ark:
"Mr. Justice Johnson [i.e. Supreme Court Justice Johnson] said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Tell us, on brilliant legal scholar, how the bold language does not mean what it says..."the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth"?

Here is some more Supreme Court authority you can only ignore to maintain your idiotic construction of the opinion from which this language comes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The fact is you cannot reconcile these passages with your claims so you ignore them. You will not even try to do so now. You can't. You will just repost the same nonsense you copied from some partisan hack.

 

[paddymurphy]

All nine justices agreed to this language. It is settled law.

--LOL

far from settled

Not settled? Find one case in any federal court at any level where it is not considered settled. Four million children of illegal immigrants, currently living here are citizens. That would seem to make it settled.

certainly not settled

how many times has the 2nd amendment been to court

your reasoning is not sound

How many times has the Second Amendment been to the Supreme Court? Two or three. And the latest decision settled that issue of whether it applied to private ownership. That is now settled law. Just like birthright citizenship is settled law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. In fact, Wong Kim only validated what has been understood since the founding, that if you are born here you are a citizen. You seem to be too fucking stupid to understand that the principle of illegal immigration is a product of the last century and laws designed to slow the tide of immigration.

how many laws does/has congress made in regards to the 2nd amendment

the 14th amendment has limits as well

They have made no laws in regards the Second Amendment.

 

[jon_berzerk]

only thing is in the wong kim case

the parents had legal status in the states

There was no such thing as legal status then. There were no green cards.

the opinion said they had been there legally

although they could not be granted citizenship

It also said they were Chinese. Is that a fact that was relevant to the decision? Who do you think has a better grasp of the constitution, the nine justices in Pyler and the nine in Rios who agreed that the only requirement for citizenship is being born on our soil or you? Be careful here or you will demonstrate complete and utter arrogance?

yes it was relevant to the case since at the time chinese folks could not become citizens of the United States

No, his Chinese ethnicity was not relevant to the decision because he was deemed to be a citizen. Had he not been a citizen, he would never have been permitted to become one because of the hateful and racist chinese exclusion laws. His ethnicity was not relevant to the decision, thought it was a fact noted by the Court; just like his parents status, though mentioned by the Court, was not relevant to their decision. What was relevant was the fact that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of" simply meant subject to the law of the United States. You ignore the Court's review of English Common law as well as the initial decision of the United States Supreme COurt regarding citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark court wrote:

"In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."
Now, explain that holding and how it does not mean that the law in the United States was consistent with English Common Law which held that person's born in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation are citizens of that nation?

Next, explain this from Wong Kim Ark:
"Mr. Justice Johnson [i.e. Supreme Court Justice Johnson] said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Tell us, on brilliant legal scholar, how the bold language does not mean what it says..."the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth"?

Here is some more Supreme Court authority you can only ignore to maintain your idiotic construction of the opinion from which this language comes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The fact is you cannot reconcile these passages with your claims so you ignore them. You will not even try to do so now. You can't. You will just repost the same nonsense you copied from some partisan hack.

his parents stupid

had been here legally

 

[jon_berzerk]

--LOL

far from settled

Not settled? Find one case in any federal court at any level where it is not considered settled. Four million children of illegal immigrants, currently living here are citizens. That would seem to make it settled.

certainly not settled

how many times has the 2nd amendment been to court

your reasoning is not sound

How many times has the Second Amendment been to the Supreme Court? Two or three. And the latest decision settled that issue of whether it applied to private ownership. That is now settled law. Just like birthright citizenship is settled law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. In fact, Wong Kim only validated what has been understood since the founding, that if you are born here you are a citizen. You seem to be too fucking stupid to understand that the principle of illegal immigration is a product of the last century and laws designed to slow the tide of immigration.

how many laws does/has congress made in regards to the 2nd amendment

the 14th amendment has limits as well

They have made no laws in regards the Second Amendment.

only 22 thousand laws or more

 

[paddymurphy]

There was no such thing as legal status then. There were no green cards.

the opinion said they had been there legally

although they could not be granted citizenship

It also said they were Chinese. Is that a fact that was relevant to the decision? Who do you think has a better grasp of the constitution, the nine justices in Pyler and the nine in Rios who agreed that the only requirement for citizenship is being born on our soil or you? Be careful here or you will demonstrate complete and utter arrogance?

yes it was relevant to the case since at the time chinese folks could not become citizens of the United States

No, his Chinese ethnicity was not relevant to the decision because he was deemed to be a citizen. Had he not been a citizen, he would never have been permitted to become one because of the hateful and racist chinese exclusion laws. His ethnicity was not relevant to the decision, thought it was a fact noted by the Court; just like his parents status, though mentioned by the Court, was not relevant to their decision. What was relevant was the fact that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of" simply meant subject to the law of the United States. You ignore the Court's review of English Common law as well as the initial decision of the United States Supreme COurt regarding citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark court wrote:

"In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."
Now, explain that holding and how it does not mean that the law in the United States was consistent with English Common Law which held that person's born in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation are citizens of that nation?

Next, explain this from Wong Kim Ark:
"Mr. Justice Johnson [i.e. Supreme Court Justice Johnson] said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Tell us, on brilliant legal scholar, how the bold language does not mean what it says..."the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth"?

Here is some more Supreme Court authority you can only ignore to maintain your idiotic construction of the opinion from which this language comes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The fact is you cannot reconcile these passages with your claims so you ignore them. You will not even try to do so now. You can't. You will just repost the same nonsense you copied from some partisan hack.

his parents stupid

had been here legally

Thanks for proving your inability explain away the passages I cited above. I suspect I am not dealing with an attorney here, am I?

 

[paddymurphy]

Not settled? Find one case in any federal court at any level where it is not considered settled. Four million children of illegal immigrants, currently living here are citizens. That would seem to make it settled.

certainly not settled

how many times has the 2nd amendment been to court

your reasoning is not sound

How many times has the Second Amendment been to the Supreme Court? Two or three. And the latest decision settled that issue of whether it applied to private ownership. That is now settled law. Just like birthright citizenship is settled law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. In fact, Wong Kim only validated what has been understood since the founding, that if you are born here you are a citizen. You seem to be too fucking stupid to understand that the principle of illegal immigration is a product of the last century and laws designed to slow the tide of immigration.

how many laws does/has congress made in regards to the 2nd amendment

the 14th amendment has limits as well

They have made no laws in regards the Second Amendment.

only 22 thousand laws or more

No. they have not passed 22 thousand laws regarding the second amendment. Not a single one.

 

[jon_berzerk]

certainly not settled

how many times has the 2nd amendment been to court

your reasoning is not sound

How many times has the Second Amendment been to the Supreme Court? Two or three. And the latest decision settled that issue of whether it applied to private ownership. That is now settled law. Just like birthright citizenship is settled law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. In fact, Wong Kim only validated what has been understood since the founding, that if you are born here you are a citizen. You seem to be too fucking stupid to understand that the principle of illegal immigration is a product of the last century and laws designed to slow the tide of immigration.

how many laws does/has congress made in regards to the 2nd amendment

the 14th amendment has limits as well

They have made no laws in regards the Second Amendment.

only 22 thousand laws or more

No. they have not passed 22 thousand laws regarding the second amendment. Not a single one.

bs and you know it

everyone else knows it

 

[paddymurphy]

How many times has the Second Amendment been to the Supreme Court? Two or three. And the latest decision settled that issue of whether it applied to private ownership. That is now settled law. Just like birthright citizenship is settled law and has been since Wong Kim Ark. In fact, Wong Kim only validated what has been understood since the founding, that if you are born here you are a citizen. You seem to be too fucking stupid to understand that the principle of illegal immigration is a product of the last century and laws designed to slow the tide of immigration.

how many laws does/has congress made in regards to the 2nd amendment

the 14th amendment has limits as well

They have made no laws in regards the Second Amendment.

only 22 thousand laws or more

No. they have not passed 22 thousand laws regarding the second amendment. Not a single one.

bs and you know it

everyone else knows it

Still too much of a pussy to actually respond to the post where I quoted at length from Wong Kim? So you go off on this tangent? Grow a pair. Or, better yet, a brain.

 

[jon_berzerk]

how many laws does/has congress made in regards to the 2nd amendment

the 14th amendment has limits as well

They have made no laws in regards the Second Amendment.

only 22 thousand laws or more

No. they have not passed 22 thousand laws regarding the second amendment. Not a single one.

bs and you know it

everyone else knows it

Still too much of a pussy to actually respond to the post where I quoted at length from Wong Kim? So you go off on this tangent? Grow a pair. Or, better yet, a brain.

your desperation and attention seeking is apparent

 

[johnwk]

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."

What you forget is America divorced itself from England's law in 1776 and although our courts are required to adhere to the "rules of the common law", which is adhering to "process", and that means adhering to "legislative intent", the issue of birthright citizenship was specifically addressed by the 14th Amendment and so, we are bound to enforce the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as expressed during the crafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment, and this in turn requires us to find our answers in the debates of the 39th Congress and not the ancient customs of England who we are divorced from. And this is where the Wong court went astray. It dismissed the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as expressed by those who crafted it and tied us to ancient custom when rendering its opinion which is not applicable to the meaning of citizenship within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


JWK



"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.



JWK

 

[hazlnut]

.

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.

Anyone who goes on the fear-mongering, race-baiting Faux news is a loser.

And I thought Mark Levin admitted to having sex with his mother.

 

[johnwk]

.

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.

Anyone who goes on the fear-mongering, race-baiting Faux news is a loser.

And I thought Mark Levin admitted to having sex with his mother.

You must be confusing Mark Levine with Mark Levin.


JWK



To support Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!