CONSTITUTION, DEFINITIONS, MEANINGS, INTERPRETATION BY JUDGES RULES
The government is powerless to change the Constitution; and this applies
to the Judiciary, acting alone or in collaboration with the other
branches. A particularly impressive restatement by the Supreme Court -
of the basic rule the "the original meaning is controlling" - in the
1905 South Carolina case, is presented in a special section of the
Appendix (page 291, post)
The original meaning is ascertainable from the Constitution's own words -
construed in the light of the intent of the framing and ratifying
bodies with respect to the provision (of the original instrument, or any
amendment) under consideration - as supplemented by all pertinent
historical records which cannot change or be changed just as the intent
is unchangeable.
The strictly limited role of the judges in "interpreting" the
Constitution - the role as clearly defined under the constitutional
system and well understood by all competent and reliable authorities
since 1788 -is to ascertain, define and apply this intent and meaning
solely on the basis of it's words and the mentioned historical records.
That is, to merely clarify- not to make - the fundamental law (which the
Constitution itself determines) as intended by those who framed and
adopted it (per pars. 2 and 3 above). As explained particularly in the
Federalist number 78 by Hamilton, in so doing judges are obligated to
apply their honest Judgment to such ascertainment, definition and
application; and not to indulge their will, or whim, in disregard of the
original and meaning mentioned above. As Hamilton there also
emphasizes, in deciding cases thus involving principles of the
Constitution, judges chief of all those on the Supreme Court as the
highest judicial authority - are obligated to respect precedent (to
abide by prior decisions which have so ascertained, defined and applied
that the unchangeable intent and meaning on the basis of those
historical records). Therefore, they may not change their minds as and
when the please concerning the meaning of this fundamental law,
concerning the definitions of these principles. Any such power so to
change their minds could not but result in its belittlement, if not
doom, as the intended source and basis of stability of limited
government in America - as the reliable guide for the conduct of the
people and the dependable bulwark of their liberties. In this
connection, decisions by the Supreme Court must be mad impartially,
"according to the rules of the Constitution," as Madison asserted in The
Federalist number 39. (See also number 81, by Hamilton.) From THE AMERICAN YARDSTICK by Hamilton A. Long (1963)
Clearly it was intended that the Constitution was to be a "forever"
document and very difficult to change, alter from, deviate, usurp, or
amend. Now the question comes how can the Progressives call the
Constitution a "living" document or a simple out line for Congress to
expand as desired. It appear that the "COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE GENERAL
WELFARE CLAUSE" have clearly been changed in scope, meaning, and extent
of applications. This constitutes a usurpation of powers that neither of
the three branches possess as individuals or a collective. It appears
that they have changed word meanings, modernized, altered intents and
have changed the Constitution and the rule-by- Law to the rule-by-man.
Without a strict enforced Constitution as defined above we are not
protected and could be changed into country of limited freedoms and a
failed state.
to the Judiciary, acting alone or in collaboration with the other
branches. A particularly impressive restatement by the Supreme Court -
of the basic rule the "the original meaning is controlling" - in the
1905 South Carolina case, is presented in a special section of the
Appendix (page 291, post)
The original meaning is ascertainable from the Constitution's own words -
construed in the light of the intent of the framing and ratifying
bodies with respect to the provision (of the original instrument, or any
amendment) under consideration - as supplemented by all pertinent
historical records which cannot change or be changed just as the intent
is unchangeable.
The strictly limited role of the judges in "interpreting" the
Constitution - the role as clearly defined under the constitutional
system and well understood by all competent and reliable authorities
since 1788 -is to ascertain, define and apply this intent and meaning
solely on the basis of it's words and the mentioned historical records.
That is, to merely clarify- not to make - the fundamental law (which the
Constitution itself determines) as intended by those who framed and
adopted it (per pars. 2 and 3 above). As explained particularly in the
Federalist number 78 by Hamilton, in so doing judges are obligated to
apply their honest Judgment to such ascertainment, definition and
application; and not to indulge their will, or whim, in disregard of the
original and meaning mentioned above. As Hamilton there also
emphasizes, in deciding cases thus involving principles of the
Constitution, judges chief of all those on the Supreme Court as the
highest judicial authority - are obligated to respect precedent (to
abide by prior decisions which have so ascertained, defined and applied
that the unchangeable intent and meaning on the basis of those
historical records). Therefore, they may not change their minds as and
when the please concerning the meaning of this fundamental law,
concerning the definitions of these principles. Any such power so to
change their minds could not but result in its belittlement, if not
doom, as the intended source and basis of stability of limited
government in America - as the reliable guide for the conduct of the
people and the dependable bulwark of their liberties. In this
connection, decisions by the Supreme Court must be mad impartially,
"according to the rules of the Constitution," as Madison asserted in The
Federalist number 39. (See also number 81, by Hamilton.) From THE AMERICAN YARDSTICK by Hamilton A. Long (1963)
Clearly it was intended that the Constitution was to be a "forever"
document and very difficult to change, alter from, deviate, usurp, or
amend. Now the question comes how can the Progressives call the
Constitution a "living" document or a simple out line for Congress to
expand as desired. It appear that the "COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE GENERAL
WELFARE CLAUSE" have clearly been changed in scope, meaning, and extent
of applications. This constitutes a usurpation of powers that neither of
the three branches possess as individuals or a collective. It appears
that they have changed word meanings, modernized, altered intents and
have changed the Constitution and the rule-by- Law to the rule-by-man.
Without a strict enforced Constitution as defined above we are not
protected and could be changed into country of limited freedoms and a
failed state.
No comments:
Post a Comment