Thread: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

Here's James Madison, as a member of a legislative committee in 1782, indicating that the rules of construction should be used to interpret an agreement between the United States and Great Britain.

That although by the articles of capitulation of York Town, the Capitulants were to be supplied with the same rations as were issued to our own soldiers, yet on every rational and known rule of construction, it must have been understood that the same was to have been done at the expence of the enemy, therefore...

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html">Journals of the Continental Congress</a> --MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1782

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or a debate on anything being constitutional. You are seriously stretching your logic, this in no way proves that the Founders expected us to interpret the Constitution using Blackstone's rules.

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

Here's George Mason, at the Constitutional Convention, taking for granted that rules of construction would be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

Mr. MASON doubts the safety of it, considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases. He doubted also the propriety of taking the power, in all these cases, wholly from the states.

Here's James Wilson pointing out to George Mason that the "strict rule" applies to the interpretation of penal statutes but not to a constitutional grant of authority over penal matters.

Mr. WILSON was in favor of the motion. Strictness was not necessary in giving authority to enact penal laws, though necessary in enacting and expounding them.

Wilson was a lawyer. Mason wasn't, but he still knew that there were rules of construction and took for granted that they would be used to interpret the Constitution.

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html">Elliot's Debates</a> --Friday, August 17.

Once again this has nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution, it's talking about criminal cases, nothing about whether a law passed by Congress is constitutional or not. Once again it is not even clear if it is Blackstone they are talking about. There could be other "rules" being used considering how old Blackstone's rules were even then.

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

Here's Elbridge Gerry, in 1780, indicating that the rules of construction should be used to ascertain the meaning of a congressional resolution.

With Respect to the Resolution of Congress of the 22d of Feby last, relative to the Mode of hearing a Member who thinks himself aggreived, It may suffice to shew, that it does not apply to the present Case. The Resolve is as follows "That any Member thinking his privilege infringed by anything said or done in the House, ought of Right to be heard in his Place." It appears by the Journals of that Date, that the Words "& not otherwise" were moved as part of the original Proposition,(3) & rejected by a Division of the House; by What Rule of Construction then does the Resolve determine, that a Member shall not "be heard" unless "in his Place"?

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html">Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 15 April 1, 1780 - August 31, 1780</a> --Elbridge Gerry to Samuel Huntington

First of all, I don't even know what this is talking about, so please tell me in what context it is in. Secondly, Elbridge Gerry did not help write the Constitution, Madison did. What does using these rules, which once again are not identified as Blackstone's, used in the apparent context of a member of Congress speaking about a problem he's having have anything to do with interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution very clearly lets the houses of Congress establish their own rules and procedures, so a complaint process (I guess that what is being talked about above) would be within the bounds of Congress to make it's own rules regarding sessions and how they carry on business. Once again, nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution.

ericams2786
I don't know because it does not say. It could literally mean ANY rules of interpretation, not necessarily just Blackstone. And besides, the rules in this case were actually against your argument.

Well, in Mick's defense, when the founders refered to the "rules of construction", there were referring to the same set of established legal principles referenced in Blackstone. Where Mick has his head totally up his ass is in knowing what those rules comprised. For example, one of those rules that was firmly established in English Common Law was that a document should not be interepreted if at all possible within reason in a manner which renders parts of it inoperative or void of any substantive meaning. Mick simply is ignorant of the fact that this rule (which his interpretation of the general welfare clause clearly unneccesarily violates) was one of the rules of construction he keeps quoting references to.

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

I know, dude. Everyone claimed that the used the rules. But, often they lied.

You shouldn't rely on Madison's, or Henry's or any other person's claim that they used the rules to obtain their interpretation. You should learn the rules and apply them yourself.

Oh so you interpret the rules the way you want, then apply them in a subjective manner. So really they aren't objective rules of construction; they are but whatever you want them to be, yet I should believe you, not Madison. Oh ok I get it. Sounds like that is what you are doing with the Constitution, just making up your own interpretation.

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

Keep in mind that there are 221 years of legal opinions interpreting the Constitution. Today, in most cases, the courts are actually interpreting legal opinions that interpreted the Constitution or legal opinions interpreting legal opinions that interpreted the Constitution.

In those rare cases - where 1) a court, or judge or lawyer wants to go all the way back to the original words, or 2) where the language has never be interpreted by the court, such as the recent Supreme Court case involving the Second Amendment - the Court or judge or lawyer should apply the rules of construction, as they existed at the time the language being interpreted was ratified.

Today, in most, if not almost all, cases, the court or judge should just follow rules and principles established by previous judicial opinions. That can be a bitch, because often, the case law isn't clear.

Yeah but those 221 years of legal opinions were made AFTER the creation of the Constitution, ex post facto, and thus INADMISSIBLE, according to your logic.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

I don't know because it does not say. It could literally mean ANY rules of interpretation, not necessarily just Blackstone.

If you learn what they were, I hope you'll share the knowledge with us.

the rules in this case were actually against your argument.

What rules, case and argument are you referring to?

PS: I'm not here to win an argument, bro. I'm here seeking truth.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Well, in Mick's defense, when the founders refered to the "rules of construction", there were referring to the same set of established legal principles referenced in Blackstone. Where Mick has his head totally up his ass is in knowing what those rules comprised. For example, one of those rules that was firmly established in English Common Law was that a document should not be interepreted if at all possible within reason in a manner which renders parts of it inoperative or void of any substantive meaning. Mick simply is ignorant of the fact that this rule (which his interpretation of the general welfare clause clearly unneccesarily violates) was one of the rules of construction he keeps quoting references to.

I figured, but I decided to use the liberal tactic of "asking constantly for exact, nonbiased sources for every single argument or part of an argument" against him the way it is always used against me. He said there is "abundant evidence" that the Founders used Blackstone. I want to see the "abundant evidence" not just cherry picked quotes, half of them actually confirming my argument. I'm sure they used Blackstone, but I want that "abundant evidence".

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

If you learn what they were, I hope you'll share the information with us.

What rules, case and argument are you referring to?

PS: I'm not here to will an argument, bro. I'm here seeking truth.

Burden of proof is on you, you made the claim that it is abundantly clear that the Founders intended for future generations to use rules of interpretation. Not me. You have to prove it if you made the claim.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or a debate on anything being constitutional. You are seriously stretching your logic, this in no way proves that the Founders expected us to interpret the Constitution using Blackstone's rules.

I'm saving the best evidence for last.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

There could be other "rules" being used considering how old Blackstone's rules were even then.

I agree, there could have been other rules of construction. In fact, I know there were others.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

First of all, I don't even know what this is talking about, so please tell me in what context it is in. Secondly, Elbridge Gerry did not help write the Constitution, Madison did. What does using these rules, which once again are not identified as Blackstone's, used in the apparent context of a member of Congress speaking about a problem he's having have anything to do with interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution very clearly lets the houses of Congress establish their own rules and procedures, so a complaint process (I guess that what is being talked about above) would be within the bounds of Congress to make it's own rules regarding sessions and how they carry on business. Once again, nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution.

I'm just warming up, bro.

Are you sure Gerry didn't help write the Constitution?

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Oh so you interpret the rules the way you want

I guess they should have established rules to interpret the rules.