Quote:
Very well. Let's take a closer look at the "cannons of construction" you claim prevailed at the time the Constitution was made. First up is the Plain Meaning rule. Here's what you posted.
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 "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."
Are you claiming that the above rule was law at the time the Constitution was made?
|
Yes, this canon far predated the Constition. Unless otherwise indicated specifically in the text, terms used in laws are to be construed in their generally understood sense. This, like most of the other canons which followed it, are so deeply rooted in common sense, even if they had never been specifically uttered as "canons" (which they have been), most reasonable people would simply do it out of sheer common sense.
It should also be noted that in many of the contemporaneous writings before and during the ratification of the Constitution, when they speak of the "intent" of the legislature or drafters or those who give effect to the law, it is with this rule in mind, that the "intent" is clearly expressed by the LANGUAGE of the statute, quite the opposite of the modern usage of the term, which at times ignores the clear "intent" as expressed in the text of the statute and instead tries to go beyond (and often in contradiction to the actual text) and discover some unexpressed "intent".
No, it is time for you to either bugger off, or start answering questions yourself. What, if not the canons of construction, do YOU believe were the "rules" for interpreting laws when the constitution was ratified. I want specifics, just as I have provided specifics. If you think Blackstone contains it, provide specific quotes from Blackstone which you believe support your position.