- In contract law that would be correct or in the case of Congressional actions after the Constitution and amendments were approved and ratified. Any post ratification congressional verbal or actual laws passed have no import nor can they alter the meaning and structure of the Constitution.Limits on CongressNo Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. So, what they have to say about the meaning of the Constitution is hearsay and not admissible as such. JMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Context, intent of any law or the Constituion is valid. many of your very own interpretations of the construction/intent of the constitution come from the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.I suppose these type of over complicated attorney parsed dissussions are why the people avoid discussing the Constitution at all - Not enough straightforward common sense to keep their attention.On the birth issue, the intent was that a foriener would not be eligable to be President. Only natural born American citizens. All the legalise crap in defining what they saw as simple does not change the intent.Trying to resolve it is an excersise in futility IMO.Thats all I have to offer on the subject, as a common citizen who believes Thomas Jefferson when he said the document was intended to be readily understood by the common citizen.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Yes, for contract law or regular laws passed by Congress you would be correct. However what is said on the floor of Congress or the Executive office can have any effect on the Constitution after Ratification. In fact the Constitution prohibits Congress from those acts:No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I'll address your first postThe intent of the law, in court, can be used to determine findings. Therefore the intent of the Congress, in Federal law should be in consideration IMO.The intent of congress is only made clear when a vote has taken place. Just like a SCOTUS ruling. Prior to that everything is exploratory. There is no relevance to what one says in a congressional debate because the speaker is speaking for himself and not for the group. The speaker can change his mind if convinced by a more powerful argument, he may also tweek his opinion, thereby negating his first position. The rules of the SCOTUS do not allow it to consider congressional debates as evidence. The meeting of the minds you talk about comes into play after a vote has been taken.2nd PostThe Federalist Papers were written with the intent to guide future generations as to the intent of the authors. I have no knowledge of any passages which address the issue of Natural Born Citizen.On the birth issue, the intent was that a foreigner would not be eligable to be President. Only natural born American citizens.You claim that it was not straight forward, or muddled in legalese language, but the truth is, if the framers felt definition was necessary they would have. Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and many others, some founders, some not, all made statements to support my position. If you like I will post 30 or so.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ..."There is no definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution and i did not intend to claim there is.The continuation of the sentence specifying an existing citizen, clearly acknowledges that those citizens at the time of Adoption of the constitution were essentially all from other countries (no one would qualify otherwise). It does not extend beyond that point in time in regard to non-natural born citizensThere is no language in relation to native citizen, nor naturalised citizen in the clause, nor the Article referring to presidential qualifications.So it is evident to me, a layman citizen, that the intent was for the president to come from the natural citizenry (prodgny) of those initial citizens and not from a foriegn nation, whether foriegner was naturalised or prodgny of native citizen (singular) or any other situation other than natural. Natural born would mean a child of two legal US citizens born on US soil. I am positive that single parenthood was not taken into consideration.I will not be continuing with this. As i stated its a rathole I'm not willing to travel at this juncture. I apologize as i should have just not opted in to start with.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Federalist Papers were written with the intent to guide future generations as to the intent of the authors.
Uh...no, it was not HR. It was written to convince the State of New York to ratify the Constitution; whether they would or not was seriously in question at the time.
It would be accurate to say 'TFP have been used as a guide by later generations as to intent'.
- Permalink Reply by on
- From wiki...The authors of The Federalist wanted both to influence the vote in favor of ratification and to shape future interpretations of the Constitution.You guys are rough...
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Federalist papers were written to SELL the Constitution to sell enough States to ratify the document without modifications. The anti Federalist papers were written to force the bill of rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Federalist papers were written to SELL the Constitution to sell enough States to ratify the document without modifications.
That is only partially true, Lock. It was written to 'sell' the Constitution but not to 'enough States to ratify'. According to Madison the primary objective was "to promote the ratification of the new Constitution by the State of N.York where it was powerfully opposed, and where its success was deemed of critical importance." Only twenty four of the eighty five essays were republished outside of New York during the ratification process. Madison's #10 was only republished once outside of N.Y. during ratification (in the Pennsylvania Gazette).
The collected works were not published until 1788, the first volume in March the second in May, so the evidence of them having a great effect on the ratification debates (outside N.Y.) is questionable at best.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I hope this post gets to where is should be -You talk of the Federalist paper being written to get NY, that would be IMHO the opinion of the one source - for there were to my memory many that had issues and it is said that Hamilton fooled them all by changing from adopting the Confederation at the convention to adoption of the Constitution, so it seems that there were some other States involved other than NY. JMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,
There were several States that were 'ify' about ratification however, widespread distribution of the Federalist Papers did not happen until the ratification debates were over and I am unaware of any documentation that suggests otherwise. If you know differently I would appreciate you pointing me to the source as I am presently rereading/researching the ratification process.
- Permalink Reply by on
- hope this button gets close or we need to start a new one. I would refer you to B Franklin bio free on amazon PC kindle. He talks a lot abut the importance and the distribution of news papers in that time period. Populations were concentrated for the most part as defense was important so news was discriminated quickly - much more quickly than we would imagine.Were you aware Franklin was a Postal official for many years? he created quite a deliver system so his newspaper could be delivered instead of his competitors. It was an interesting exchange as I recall.
No comments:
Post a Comment