|
Re: What is your view on appropirate Judicial Philosphy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
You mean YOU'VE got it, as it means that it is the original understanding of those who gave the law effect (in the case of the Constitution "We the People of the United States") and not the original "intent" of those who wrote or voted on it proceedurally.
Well, let me refer you back to post #34, which--although by no means exhaustive--covers all of the major canons as they have been practiced for well over 400 years |
I just want the "cannons of construction" that you believe prevailed at the time the Constitution was made.
Quote:
Plain Meaning
When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the plain meaning rule in Caminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470 (1917), reasoning "[i]t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion."
|
The Plain Meaning Rule was not even adopted until the mid 1800's, Marcus. I want the "rules of construction" that you believe existed in the late 1700's when the Constitution was made, and I want them in the form, that is to say in the words, they existed, at that time. I want to compare what you believe the rules were to what I believe they were...
__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?
Last edited by Mick Jagger; 06-23-2008 at 01:37 PM.
|