Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[johnwk]

Hi folks.

I must disagree. The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.

Consider please:

The constitution was written by a series of committees that overlapped in some areas and argued long into the night over the placement of words. I submit that if there were five members of a committee that there were five specific intents. I further submit that once the words were on paper, the intents could be said to have been reconciled. In other words, the completed passage was the intent.

This process went further and unto ratification. There were many arguments posted in the communications media of the day. Today one of those media would be this very board, and others like it. To ascribe the same level of meaning from the Federalist papers is to ascribe the same level of authority. Would we place the same level on the discussions in this forum? Of course not.

To quote one of the famous framers simply calls out the stated opinion of one member of the series of committees that drafted the document. Doing that places the person above all the others who contributed as well.

Finally, the verbatim reading of the literal words binds the federal government to a limited role. By divining the "intent" of persons long dead; or worse "interpreting" the document as if it were a foreign language, unshackles the limits and we arrive at today.

We can change the documents words. We cannot change it's "intent". If intent is all that matters why bother with an amendment process?

pegwinn,

You say you disagree and that ” The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.” But your opinion is immediately called into question when one reads U.S. vs. Lopez in which our Supreme Court cites the Federalist Papers 18 times when attempting to substantiate the intended meaning of “Commerce” as used by the founder fathers. This effort of course follows a fundamental rule of Constitutional law that requires
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) See, 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


You may also want to read 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

And then see: Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

In this process the historical record is carefully reviewed to establish a preponderance of evidence documenting the very intentions for which a particular word or provision of our Constitution was adopted. For example, in POST NO.232 which you seem to have ignored, I documented the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified. If that meaning is allowed to be expanded by our Courts with impunity so as to include the Court’s personal whims and fancies, the Constitution then becomes a meaningless document divorced from the very intentions under which it was agreed to. The only lawful way to change the meaning of words in our Constitution is by the amendment process and that requires consent of the governed as outlined in Article V.

Do you now see how ignoring the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted can quickly lead to a system of government in which the American people are made subservient to folks in government who were intended to be the people’s servants and not their masters?


JWK



Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

 

[paperview]

Hi peg.

Yo PPV what's up

OK. Back to where I started from earlier.

Not sure what you mean so I guess I missed that. Got Link?

Give us the LITERAL meaning of "cruel and unusual punishments" as penned in the Constitution.

Go 'head. Be SPECIFIC. I am looking forward to your...dare I say...interpretation.

Obviously you dared. Good question.

It means any punishment that meets the definition of cruel and said punishment is not the usual recourse. So, I may impose a cruel punishment. I may impose an unusual punishment. But not both.

I tried to find a 1770's give or take dictionary. The best I found was the 1828 Websters online. A trip to the local library might prove worthwhile. But since today is my last day of time off.... taint happenin. If you have an older online dictionary that refutes my answer I will be really interested in scoping it out.

Cruel: According to 1828 Websters
Unusual: According to 1828 Websters

Glad to help.

Well, that's about as simplistic as you could get.

This addresses nothing as to how SCOTUS has to look at the Constitution regarding waterboarding, for example. Or different forms of torture; if a state decided castration was a punishment, or whether it is cruel and unusual to execute a prisoner for a crime he committed when he was a minor, or a mentally retarded person, or...I could go on...

That's why often Constitutionalists look to the debates in congress, or the contemporary writing to yes...interpret what was meant when judging a case.

The phrase itself is vague. What is the exact meaning? That's subject how it is viewed in context of the act, and perhaps what some consider an "evolving sense of decency," in this slim portion of the Constitution.

In the debates of the First Congress that discussed the 8th Amendment Representative Livermore complained about the vagueness of the amendment's language: "It is sometimes necessary to hang a man, villains often deserve a whipping, and perhaps having their ears cut off, but are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting those punishments because they are 'cruel'?"

I hope by now, you get the point: Of Course the constitution is subject to interpretation, and why you have split decisions on rulings. Does one Justices' interpretation override another? Are they both right? Is one less knowledgeable about the Founding document than the other, or is it just how they view the language?

Jjust about all we do in, in general, period - is subject to interpretation.

This exact post, literally, is subject to your interpretation.

That's why your little meander to the concept of "everything must be ruled from the literal words" just sounds, well, stupid.

 

[pegwinn]

Hi peg.

Yo PPV what's up

Not sure what you mean so I guess I missed that. Got Link?

Go 'head. Be SPECIFIC. I am looking forward to your...dare I say...interpretation.

Obviously you dared. Good question.

It means any punishment that meets the definition of cruel and said punishment is not the usual recourse. So, I may impose a cruel punishment. I may impose an unusual punishment. But not both.

I tried to find a 1770's give or take dictionary. The best I found was the 1828 Websters online. A trip to the local library might prove worthwhile. But since today is my last day of time off.... taint happenin. If you have an older online dictionary that refutes my answer I will be really interested in scoping it out.

Cruel: According to 1828 Websters
Unusual: According to 1828 Websters

Glad to help.

Well, that's about as simplistic as you could get.

This addresses nothing as to how SCOTUS has to look at the Constitution regarding waterboarding, for example. Or different forms of torture; if a state decided castration was a punishment, or whether it is cruel and unusual to execute a prisoner for a crime he committed when he was a minor, or a mentally retarded person, or...I could go on...

That's why often Constitutionalists look to the debates in congress, or the contemporary writing to yes...interpret what was meant when judging a case.

The phrase itself is vague. What is the exact meaning? That's subject how it is viewed in context of the act, and perhaps what some consider an "evolving sense of decency," in this slim portion of the Constitution.

In the debates of the First Congress that discussed the 8th Amendment Representative Livermore complained about the vagueness of the amendment's language: "It is sometimes necessary to hang a man, villains often deserve a whipping, and perhaps having their ears cut off, but are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting those punishments because they are 'cruel'?"

I hope by now, you get the point: Of Course the constitution is subject to interpretation, and why you have split decisions on rulings. Does one Justices' interpretation override another? Are they both right? Is one less knowledgeable about the Founding document than the other, or is it just how they view the language?

Jjust about all we do in, in general, period - is subject to interpretation.

This exact post, literally, is subject to your interpretation.

That's why your little meander to the concept of "everything must be ruled from the literal words" just sounds, well, stupid.

You asked and I answered. Of course it was simplistic, because the Constitution itself is simple to read and understand. I can't help it that an uneducated jarhead gets it and those with multiple degrees don't.

I have explained in this thread and on other message boards (not gonna link publically since I am not sure how folks here view that) my personal reasoning. I don't begrudge you the right to read into it, to elevate other documents to it's level, or to even cherry pick around it to support your philosophy. I think it is wrong and short sighted to be sure. And I think it is a part of why we are off the rails.

 

[pegwinn]

Hi folks.

I must disagree. The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.

Consider please:

The constitution was written by a series of committees that overlapped in some areas and argued long into the night over the placement of words. I submit that if there were five members of a committee that there were five specific intents. I further submit that once the words were on paper, the intents could be said to have been reconciled. In other words, the completed passage was the intent.

This process went further and unto ratification. There were many arguments posted in the communications media of the day. Today one of those media would be this very board, and others like it. To ascribe the same level of meaning from the Federalist papers is to ascribe the same level of authority. Would we place the same level on the discussions in this forum? Of course not.

To quote one of the famous framers simply calls out the stated opinion of one member of the series of committees that drafted the document. Doing that places the person above all the others who contributed as well.

Finally, the verbatim reading of the literal words binds the federal government to a limited role. By divining the "intent" of persons long dead; or worse "interpreting" the document as if it were a foreign language, unshackles the limits and we arrive at today.

We can change the documents words. We cannot change it's "intent". If intent is all that matters why bother with an amendment process?

pegwinn,

You say you disagree and that ” The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.” But your opinion is immediately called into question when one reads U.S. vs. Lopez in which our Supreme Court cites the Federalist Papers 18 times when attempting to substantiate the intended meaning of “Commerce” as used by the founder fathers. This effort of course follows a fundamental rule of Constitutional law that requires
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) See, 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


You may also want to read 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

And then see: Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

In this process the historical record is carefully reviewed to establish a preponderance of evidence documenting the very intentions for which a particular word or provision of our Constitution was adopted. For example, in POST NO.232 which you seem to have ignored, I documented the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified. If that meaning is allowed to be expanded by our Courts with impunity so as to include the Court’s personal whims and fancies, the Constitution then becomes a meaningless document divorced from the very intentions under which it was agreed to. The only lawful way to change the meaning of words in our Constitution is by the amendment process and that requires consent of the governed as outlined in Article V.

Do you now see how ignoring the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted can quickly lead to a system of government in which the American people are made subservient to folks in government who were intended to be the people’s servants and not their masters?


JWK



Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

JWK I didn't ignore #232. I answered it. And my answer is posted here, along with your answer to that.

We disagree. Words have meanings which string to sentences, to paragraphs, all the way to "War and Peace". You are attempting to find meaning in the words as if reading between the lines will do anything. I, OTOH, simply read the words. If I don't get it I may consult a dictionary to be sure I understand the definition.

I have no beef with the USSC arbitrating. I do have a beef with the whole "This is how it was handled before and so it has to be right" methodology. Precedence, History, The various secondary records, etc are all great from an academic and historical view. But, the answer to the question is still in the literal words in my opinion.

FWIIW you and PPV may now breathe a sigh of relief that I am not a judge.

 

[paperview]

Yo PPV what's up

Not sure what you mean so I guess I missed that. Got Link?


Obviously you dared. Good question.

It means any punishment that meets the definition of cruel and said punishment is not the usual recourse. So, I may impose a cruel punishment. I may impose an unusual punishment. But not both.

I tried to find a 1770's give or take dictionary. The best I found was the 1828 Websters online. A trip to the local library might prove worthwhile. But since today is my last day of time off.... taint happenin. If you have an older online dictionary that refutes my answer I will be really interested in scoping it out.

Cruel: According to 1828 Websters
Unusual: According to 1828 Websters

Glad to help.

Well, that's about as simplistic as you could get.

This addresses nothing as to how SCOTUS has to look at the Constitution regarding waterboarding, for example. Or different forms of torture; if a state decided castration was a punishment, or whether it is cruel and unusual to execute a prisoner for a crime he committed when he was a minor, or a mentally retarded person, or...I could go on...

That's why often Constitutionalists look to the debates in congress, or the contemporary writing to yes...interpret what was meant when judging a case.

The phrase itself is vague. What is the exact meaning? That's subject how it is viewed in context of the act, and perhaps what some consider an "evolving sense of decency," in this slim portion of the Constitution.

In the debates of the First Congress that discussed the 8th Amendment Representative Livermore complained about the vagueness of the amendment's language: "It is sometimes necessary to hang a man, villains often deserve a whipping, and perhaps having their ears cut off, but are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting those punishments because they are 'cruel'?"

I hope by now, you get the point: Of Course the constitution is subject to interpretation, and why you have split decisions on rulings. Does one Justices' interpretation override another? Are they both right? Is one less knowledgeable about the Founding document than the other, or is it just how they view the language?

Jjust about all we do in, in general, period - is subject to interpretation.

This exact post, literally, is subject to your interpretation.

That's why your little meander to the concept of "everything must be ruled from the literal words" just sounds, well, stupid.

You asked and I answered. Of course it was simplistic, because the Constitution itself is simple to read and understand. I can't help it that an uneducated jarhead gets it and those with multiple degrees don't.

I have explained in this thread and on other message boards (not gonna link publically since I am not sure how folks here view that) my personal reasoning. I don't begrudge you the right to read into it, to elevate other documents to it's level, or to even cherry pick around it to support your philosophy. I think it is wrong and short sighted to be sure. And I think it is a part of why we are off the rails.

While your platitudes are all soft and squishy sounding, it really never addresses the meat of the matter, does it?

How about you try analyzing an actual case, or cases and see where it goes...because that is how SCOTUS operates....or are vagaries and simplistic "easy buttons" the way you think Constitutional law should be addressed?

 

[pegwinn]

Well, that's about as simplistic as you could get.

This addresses nothing as to how SCOTUS has to look at the Constitution regarding waterboarding, for example. Or different forms of torture; if a state decided castration was a punishment, or whether it is cruel and unusual to execute a prisoner for a crime he committed when he was a minor, or a mentally retarded person, or...I could go on...

That's why often Constitutionalists look to the debates in congress, or the contemporary writing to yes...interpret what was meant when judging a case.

The phrase itself is vague. What is the exact meaning? That's subject how it is viewed in context of the act, and perhaps what some consider an "evolving sense of decency," in this slim portion of the Constitution.

In the debates of the First Congress that discussed the 8th Amendment Representative Livermore complained about the vagueness of the amendment's language: "It is sometimes necessary to hang a man, villains often deserve a whipping, and perhaps having their ears cut off, but are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting those punishments because they are 'cruel'?"

I hope by now, you get the point: Of Course the constitution is subject to interpretation, and why you have split decisions on rulings. Does one Justices' interpretation override another? Are they both right? Is one less knowledgeable about the Founding document than the other, or is it just how they view the language?

Jjust about all we do in, in general, period - is subject to interpretation.

This exact post, literally, is subject to your interpretation.

That's why your little meander to the concept of "everything must be ruled from the literal words" just sounds, well, stupid.

You asked and I answered. Of course it was simplistic, because the Constitution itself is simple to read and understand. I can't help it that an uneducated jarhead gets it and those with multiple degrees don't.

I have explained in this thread and on other message boards (not gonna link publically since I am not sure how folks here view that) my personal reasoning. I don't begrudge you the right to read into it, to elevate other documents to it's level, or to even cherry pick around it to support your philosophy. I think it is wrong and short sighted to be sure. And I think it is a part of why we are off the rails.

While your platitudes are all soft and squishy sounding, it really never addresses the meat of the matter, does it?

How about you try analyzing an actual case, or cases and see where it goes...because that is how SCOTUS operates....or are vagaries and simplistic "easy buttons" the way you think Constitutional law should be addressed?

Soft and Squishy sounds like fun. Jello wrestling? Occams Razor.

I don't care how SCOTUS operates. They have job security and so will do as they do whether you and I approve, or not. I don't agree with their methodology.

You don't like the easy button? I don't like living a complicated life when there is an easier option that provides the same or better result.

 

[johnwk]

Hi folks.

I must disagree. The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.

Consider please:

The constitution was written by a series of committees that overlapped in some areas and argued long into the night over the placement of words. I submit that if there were five members of a committee that there were five specific intents. I further submit that once the words were on paper, the intents could be said to have been reconciled. In other words, the completed passage was the intent.

This process went further and unto ratification. There were many arguments posted in the communications media of the day. Today one of those media would be this very board, and others like it. To ascribe the same level of meaning from the Federalist papers is to ascribe the same level of authority. Would we place the same level on the discussions in this forum? Of course not.

To quote one of the famous framers simply calls out the stated opinion of one member of the series of committees that drafted the document. Doing that places the person above all the others who contributed as well.

Finally, the verbatim reading of the literal words binds the federal government to a limited role. By divining the "intent" of persons long dead; or worse "interpreting" the document as if it were a foreign language, unshackles the limits and we arrive at today.

We can change the documents words. We cannot change it's "intent". If intent is all that matters why bother with an amendment process?

pegwinn,

You say you disagree and that ” The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.” But your opinion is immediately called into question when one reads U.S. vs. Lopez in which our Supreme Court cites the Federalist Papers 18 times when attempting to substantiate the intended meaning of “Commerce” as used by the founder fathers. This effort of course follows a fundamental rule of Constitutional law that requires
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) See, 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


You may also want to read 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

And then see: Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

In this process the historical record is carefully reviewed to establish a preponderance of evidence documenting the very intentions for which a particular word or provision of our Constitution was adopted. For example, in POST NO.232 which you seem to have ignored, I documented the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified. If that meaning is allowed to be expanded by our Courts with impunity so as to include the Court’s personal whims and fancies, the Constitution then becomes a meaningless document divorced from the very intentions under which it was agreed to. The only lawful way to change the meaning of words in our Constitution is by the amendment process and that requires consent of the governed as outlined in Article V.

Do you now see how ignoring the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted can quickly lead to a system of government in which the American people are made subservient to folks in government who were intended to be the people’s servants and not their masters?


JWK



Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

JWK I didn't ignore #232. I answered it. And my answer is posted here, along with your answer to that.

We disagree. Words have meanings which string to sentences, to paragraphs, all the way to "War and Peace". You are attempting to find meaning in the words as if reading between the lines will do anything. I, OTOH, simply read the words. If I don't get it I may consult a dictionary to be sure I understand the definition.

pegwinn,


This is not about you and I disagreeing. You disagree with the fundamental rules of constitutional law which have over three hundred years of practice on American soil, and date back to English common law. I have quoted specific provisions of constitutional law, and likewise quoted specific Supreme Court cases in which the fundamental rules of constitutional law are followed. And that is what you disagree with, and you set your personal opinion above what has been documented as fact. And that’s ok, so long as you are comfortable ignoring the very foundations which control and regulate that application our constitutionally limited system of government.

JWK

Those who reject 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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hi peg.

Yo PPV what's up

OK. Back to where I started from earlier.

Not sure what you mean so I guess I missed that. Got Link?

Give us the LITERAL meaning of "cruel and unusual punishments" as penned in the Constitution.

Go 'head. Be SPECIFIC. I am looking forward to your...dare I say...interpretation.

Obviously you dared. Good question.

It means any punishment that meets the definition of cruel and said punishment is not the usual recourse. So, I may impose a cruel punishment. I may impose an unusual punishment. But not both.

I tried to find a 1770's give or take dictionary. The best I found was the 1828 Websters online. A trip to the local library might prove worthwhile. But since today is my last day of time off.... taint happenin. If you have an older online dictionary that refutes my answer I will be really interested in scoping it out.

Cruel: According to 1828 Websters
Unusual: According to 1828 Websters

Glad to help.

Because the terms "cruel" and "unusual" are not absolutes, there in lies the opportunity for interpretation of their meaning.
I believe the Framers intention was to prohibit government from exacting types of physical or psychological punishment that is so repulsive, demeaning or violent so as to outrage the people.

 

[pegwinn]

pegwinn,

You say you disagree and that ” The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.” But your opinion is immediately called into question when one reads U.S. vs. Lopez in which our Supreme Court cites the Federalist Papers 18 times when attempting to substantiate the intended meaning of “Commerce” as used by the founder fathers. This effort of course follows a fundamental rule of Constitutional law that requires
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) See, 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


You may also want to read 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

And then see: Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

In this process the historical record is carefully reviewed to establish a preponderance of evidence documenting the very intentions for which a particular word or provision of our Constitution was adopted. For example, in POST NO.232 which you seem to have ignored, I documented the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified. If that meaning is allowed to be expanded by our Courts with impunity so as to include the Court’s personal whims and fancies, the Constitution then becomes a meaningless document divorced from the very intentions under which it was agreed to. The only lawful way to change the meaning of words in our Constitution is by the amendment process and that requires consent of the governed as outlined in Article V.

Do you now see how ignoring the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted can quickly lead to a system of government in which the American people are made subservient to folks in government who were intended to be the people’s servants and not their masters?


JWK



Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

JWK I didn't ignore #232. I answered it. And my answer is posted here, along with your answer to that.

We disagree. Words have meanings which string to sentences, to paragraphs, all the way to "War and Peace". You are attempting to find meaning in the words as if reading between the lines will do anything. I, OTOH, simply read the words. If I don't get it I may consult a dictionary to be sure I understand the definition.

pegwinn,


This is not about you and I disagreeing. You disagree with the fundamental rules of constitutional law which have over three hundred years of practice on American soil, and date back to English common law. These rules that you and others tout; do they have a higher legal authority than the Constitution itself? Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer in any form. I am asking to ascertain your thought process.

I have quoted specific provisions of constitutional law, and likewise quoted specific Supreme Court cases in which the fundamental rules of constitutional law are followed. I get that. We are not, in my view, actually arguing right and wrong so much as how and why. You've demonstrated your "how and why" very well. My "how and why" is based on common sense and my own core values. Yours is based on procedure. Cool.

And that is what you disagree with, and you set your personal opinion above what has been documented as fact. And that’s ok, so long as you are comfortable ignoring the very foundations which control and regulate that application our constitutionally limited system of government. My opinion is neither above nor below. It's more like a note scribbled in the margin. Any regulation must point backward to a properly enacted law as its' authority. Any Law/Statute must point backward to the Constitution and fall inside its' limits. The Constitution points back to nothing as superior because it is the foundation.

JWK

Those who reject 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.

-

 

[pegwinn]

Because the terms "cruel" and "unusual" are not absolutes, there in lies the opportunity for interpretation of their meaning.
I believe the Framers intention was to prohibit government from exacting types of physical or psychological punishment that is so repulsive, demeaning or violent so as to outrage the people.

You are correct. You cannot be for the verbatim reading of the literal word if you don't understand the definitions of the words. And, your personal opinion of "Cruel" is subject to change.

You may very well be right on as to the intention. My goal was to demonstrate that you don't need to know "intent" to apply the words verbatim in a literal manner.

 

[paperview]

Can I ask you a question, pegwinny:

I do not mean to disparage in the asking.

Are you a high school student?

 

[pegwinn]

Can I ask you a question, pegwinny: Sure thing papery, but i get to ask one as well.

I do not mean to disparage in the asking. Oh no, never, nuh uh, I am sure you are a nice nice person. Actually, you do mean to disparage because I am not that stupid and don't believe you are either.

Are you a high school student? Nope. Do the math from now, minus when I became a member here. Then read my older posts to see if a fourth grader would've written it. Finally, if all else fails, take a look at the signature. Therein lies a clue. Question for you: Are you a girl and is that you in the avatar?

 

[paperview]

I am neglectful in looking at signature lines.

Forgive me.

 

[pegwinn]

I am neglectful in looking at signature lines.

Forgive me.

No worries.

 

[johnwk]

JWK I didn't ignore #232. I answered it. And my answer is posted here, along with your answer to that.

We disagree. Words have meanings which string to sentences, to paragraphs, all the way to "War and Peace". You are attempting to find meaning in the words as if reading between the lines will do anything. I, OTOH, simply read the words. If I don't get it I may consult a dictionary to be sure I understand the definition.

pegwinn,


This is not about you and I disagreeing. You disagree with the fundamental rules of constitutional law which have over three hundred years of practice on American soil, and date back to English common law. These rules that you and others tout; do they have a higher legal authority than the Constitution itself? Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer in any form. I am asking to ascertain your thought process.

I have quoted specific provisions of constitutional law, and likewise quoted specific Supreme Court cases in which the fundamental rules of constitutional law are followed. I get that. We are not, in my view, actually arguing right and wrong so much as how and why. You've demonstrated your "how and why" very well. My "how and why" is based on common sense and my own core values. Yours is based on procedure. Cool.

And that is what you disagree with, and you set your personal opinion above what has been documented as fact. And that’s ok, so long as you are comfortable ignoring the very foundations which control and regulate that application our constitutionally limited system of government. My opinion is neither above nor below. It's more like a note scribbled in the margin. Any regulation must point backward to a properly enacted law as its' authority. Any Law/Statute must point backward to the Constitution and fall inside its' limits. The Constitution points back to nothing as superior because it is the foundation.

JWK

Those who reject 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.

-

pegwinn,

You wrote: We are not, in my view, actually arguing right and wrong so much as how and why. You've demonstrated your "how and why" very well. My "how and why" is based on common sense and my own core values. Yours is based on procedure. Cool


Common sense tells me when a dispute arise as to what a specific word, phrase or provision in our Constitution means, recourse to the historical record during which time the Constitution was being framed and debated is the most authoritative source to settle the dispute. And this, my friend, is precisely what Jefferson concludes:

"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.


QUESTION: In 1913 the word “incomes” was introduced into our Constitution. What is its meaning within our Constitution? How does one determine its constitutional meaning?


JWK

 

[NYcarbineer]

pegwinn,


This is not about you and I disagreeing. You disagree with the fundamental rules of constitutional law which have over three hundred years of practice on American soil, and date back to English common law. These rules that you and others tout; do they have a higher legal authority than the Constitution itself? Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer in any form. I am asking to ascertain your thought process.

I have quoted specific provisions of constitutional law, and likewise quoted specific Supreme Court cases in which the fundamental rules of constitutional law are followed. I get that. We are not, in my view, actually arguing right and wrong so much as how and why. You've demonstrated your "how and why" very well. My "how and why" is based on common sense and my own core values. Yours is based on procedure. Cool.

And that is what you disagree with, and you set your personal opinion above what has been documented as fact. And that’s ok, so long as you are comfortable ignoring the very foundations which control and regulate that application our constitutionally limited system of government. My opinion is neither above nor below. It's more like a note scribbled in the margin. Any regulation must point backward to a properly enacted law as its' authority. Any Law/Statute must point backward to the Constitution and fall inside its' limits. The Constitution points back to nothing as superior because it is the foundation.

JWK

Those who reject 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.

-

pegwinn,

You wrote: We are not, in my view, actually arguing right and wrong so much as how and why. You've demonstrated your "how and why" very well. My "how and why" is based on common sense and my own core values. Yours is based on procedure. Cool


Common sense tells me when a dispute arise as to what a specific word, phrase or provision in our Constitution means, recourse to the historical record during which time the Constitution was being framed and debated is the most authoritative source to settle the dispute. And this, my friend, is precisely what Jefferson concludes:

"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.


QUESTION: In 1913 the word “incomes” was introduced into our Constitution. What is its meaning within our Constitution? How does one determine its constitutional meaning?


JWK

Since the Constitution provides for Justices to be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, those two branches already had their fair share of input as to who sits on the bench and who doesn't.

 

[pegwinn]

pegwinn,

...


QUESTION: In 1913 the word “incomes” was introduced into our Constitution. What is its meaning within our Constitution? How does one determine its constitutional meaning?


JWK

It's obvious. That someone would actually ask and take it to court is ludicrous in my view. I'm not ducking your question, because I have read the definitions of "income" in various places and times. I understand that some challenged it.

But, the literal sentence is obvious about what income is, and even clarifies it by sourcing. That it is about taxing makes it obvious as well.

Just my take.

 

[johnwk]

pegwinn,

...


QUESTION: In 1913 the word “incomes” was introduced into our Constitution. What is its meaning within our Constitution? How does one determine its constitutional meaning?


JWK

It's obvious. That someone would actually ask and take it to court is ludicrous in my view. I'm not ducking your question, because I have read the definitions of "income" in various places and times. I understand that some challenged it.

But, the literal sentence is obvious about what income is, and even clarifies it by sourcing. That it is about taxing makes it obvious as well.

Just my take.

If the "literal sentence is obvious about what income is" then why did you not post it and its meaning within our Constitution. You may want to review Eisner vs Macomber which follows the rules of constitutional law in arriving at the definition.


In EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) the SCOTUS gave the characteristics defining “income” as follows:

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).
Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy.

So, we now learn that all money that comes in is not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, but only that portion which represents a “profit” or “gain” And, “profits“ or “gains, are calculated by deducting all necessary expenses and outlay from gross receipts …the remaining portion being “profits” and or “gain“!

It should also be noted that the income from a business which is wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to income tax in that case .

Finally, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded:

“No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”

The point is, there is a lot more when it comes to our Constitution and meaning of words than what you may conclude the "literal" meaning of "incomes" is within the definition of our Constitution, and it begins with following the fundamental rules of constitutional law which is to determine its meaning as understood during the time the 16th amendment was adopted and also includes the legislative intent for which the 16th Amendment was adopted.

As to the intentions of the progressives behind the 16th Amendment, and what they attempted to accomplish with the 16th Amendment, those intentions were succinctly stated as follows during the debates when the 16th Amendment was before Congress and being debated;

Mr. HEFLIN. “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording unearned wealth

Also see:

Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).

At the time, progressive political pundits wrote about high tariffs burdening poor working folk and that Corporations were viewed as not paying their fair share from their profits and gains, collectively referred to as “income“. The 16th Amendment was sold as a way to lower tariffs and get corporations to pay their “fair share” from unearned profits and gains. The 16th Amendment was never intended to tax the working person's earned wages, which were not included within the meaning of "income". However, before the 16th was adopted, the Supreme Court ruled in the Flint Case, 1911, that Congress already had power to lay and collect the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 which calculated the tax from profits and gains, (unearned income) and was found to not violate the rule of apportionment as the tax was not a direct tax, but indirect and laid upon the “privilege” of being a corporation, the measure of the tax merely being calculated from profits and gains realized under the Corporate Charter granted by government.

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?


JWK

 

[pegwinn]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. What the founders meant is not and never will be relevant. What was written is what counts. Just. read. it. not into it.

I do know the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

This rule is also stated by Jefferson in the following words: ....

.... A literalist reading was no more viable in 1791 than in 2011. Can't and won't be done, pegwinn. The Jeffersonian Republicans, after Marbury, demonstrated that impeachment is a political tool.

End of story.

Hi folks.

I must disagree. The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.

Consider please:

The constitution was written by a series of committees that overlapped in some areas and argued long into the night over the placement of words. I submit that if there were five members of a committee that there were five specific intents. I further submit that once the words were on paper, the intents could be said to have been reconciled. In other words, the completed passage was the intent.

This process went further and unto ratification. There were many arguments posted in the communications media of the day. Today one of those media would be this very board, and others like it. To ascribe the same level of meaning from the Federalist papers is to ascribe the same level of authority. Would we place the same level on the discussions in this forum? Of course not.

To quote one of the famous framers simply calls out the stated opinion of one member of the series of committees that drafted the document. Doing that places the person above all the others who contributed as well.

Finally, the verbatim reading of the literal words binds the federal government to a limited role. By divining the "intent" of persons long dead; or worse "interpreting" the document as if it were a foreign language, unshackles the limits and we arrive at today.

We can change the documents words. We cannot change it's "intent". If intent is all that matters why bother with an amendment process?

Intent depends on narrative and interpretation and events over time. We are not going back to 1789, pegwinn.