I thought Blackstone's work included a number of pages of comments concerning the rules regarding how to ascertain the meaning of a law.

What did he say was the generally understood meaning of the English law as it pertained to the interpretation of laws?

Show us evidence that Blackstone adhered to the following canons, and any others, you believe should be used to interpret the original Constitution and the first ten amendments:

Judges should strive to apply laws based on what the language of the law in question would have been generally and reasonably understood to mean at the time it was passed.

If one meaning is more sensible given the specific context (for example, a few terms ago, the SCOTUS heard a case involving a criminal statute which permitted more severe sentencing if a gun were "used" in the commission of a crime. The case in question involved a person who had traded a gun for drugs, and was sentenced more harshly under the statute. The majority found that this was perfectly acceptable under the language of the statute. Scalia disented, arguing that in ordinary discourse, if someone ask if you "use a cane" (for example) they mean for its intended purpose, and not if you perhaps "use" your grandfather's antique cane as a decorative piece in your home. He thus dissented arguing that the word "use" in the statute reasonably meant the "use" of a gun for its intended purpose--as a weapon--and not as it was in this case, as a medium of exchange.

By the actions promulgated by those who passed the law. For example, if the question is whether a particular law drafted 200 years ago permits X and the text is vague or ambiguous; but, we see that immediately following passage of that law, the congress did the very thing we are questioning the permisability of, that is clear evidence in support of that interpretation under the canons. For example, does the First Amendment prohibit spending ANY Federal funding that in any way, shape, or form promotes or supports religion. Well, the fact that the post of Congressional Chaplain was not viewed as proscribed by the First Amendment belies any such absolutist and draconian understanding of it.

The "long standing traditions and customs society". If something has been done in an unbroken chain before, and since the passage of an ambiguous text, it should not be construed as proscribed by that text. For example, it is not reasonable to conclude that equal protection language which has been in place for over a century proscribes the failure to recognize gay marriage. It is clear from over 100 years of history that it was not understood to mean any such thing by those who wrote or ratified it.

General deference to the interpretation of other branches of ambiguities in the text. Where there are multiple reasonable interpretations, judges should generally defer to the interpretation of other branches so long as they are not unreasonable.

Where do the canons you advocate the use of say Blackstone's great work is the source of the plain text of the U. S. Constitution?

How and when were they established?

I thought they were trained in the common law, including the common law rules of construction, as the existed in the late 1780's; which is to say as the rules were presented by Blackstone in his famous work, because in the late 1780's Blackstone was just about the only source of common law that American lawyers and judges had access to....

Are you absolutely sure Blackstone's Commentaries don't contain rules for how to interpret legal instruments?

Are you absolutely and positively certain that Blackstone's Commentaries don't contain rules for how to interpret legal instruments?

Are you totally and absolutely and positively certain that Blackstone's Commentaries don't contain rules for how to interpret legal instruments?

Show us the words of the Constitution that you believe grant the government power to engage in military actions independent of formal declarations of war.

Can we narrow the issue to what rules and principles should be used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution?

Mick, as I said, until you educate yourself, I see no further point in wasting my time with someone so clearly ignorant of legal and constitutional history who can offer up nothing of substance other than pointless and stupid questions that serve no purpose but to underscore your own ignorance and obtuseness.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Are you totally, completely, absolutely and positively certain that Blackstone's Commentaries don't contain rules for how to interpret legal instruments?

__________________
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?

What did James Madison say, during the making of the Constitution, that might shed some light on the rules and principles that should be used to interpret the Constitution?

__________________
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?

Learn to read:

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

What did Alexander Hamilton say about the rules that should be used to interpret the Constitution, Little Mr. Junior Constitutional History Expert?

__________________
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?

Really, because for something meant to be a "broad framework" they were amazingly specific about a great many things in this document.

And even if you accept that it is intended as a "broad framework", that doesn't mean it is intended to expand and contract over time at the whim of judges. Absent an Amendment the "framework" should not be any more or less "broad" today than it was when it was written. If it was "broad" enough to leave certain questions of public policy to the elected branches then, it still leaves those same matters to the elected branches now. If it was constitutional to restrict abortion then, it is constitutional to do so now. If it was constitutional to execute those found guilty of rape them, it is constitutional to do so now.

In fact, one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments people make against originalism/textualism is that it is contrary to the need for a "flexible" constituion. The very rulings which take advantage of this spirit of "flexibility" themselves make our constitution LESS "flexibile". Prior to Roe v. Wade was the constitution more or less "flexibile" on the matter of abortion?

Times change and so do laws, both statutory and constitutional, but changes to the law are only legitimately promulgated by the will of those who gave them effect in the first place, the people, through the acts of their democratically elected representatives, not by judicial disregard for the expressed will of the people.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Here's something James Madison said about "rules of construction" in 1799.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CCLXXXIV. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson.1

[Note 1: 1 Hunt, Writings, of Madison, VI, 329--330.]

Feby 8, 1799.

The idea of publishing the Debates of the Convention ought to be well weighed before the expediency of it, in a public as well as personal view be decided on. Besides the intimate connection between them the whole volume ought to be examined with an eye to the use of which every part is susceptible. In the Despotism at present exercised over the rules of construction, and [illegible] reports of the proceedings that would perhaps be made out & mustered for the occasion, it is a problem what turn might be given to the impression on the public mind. But I shall be better able to form & explain my opinion by the time, which now approaches when I shall have the pleasure of seeing you. And you will have the advantage of looking into the sheets attentively before you finally make up your own.

__________________
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?

And? What do you think those rules he was referring to were? If you had any background in this area you would know it is the canons of construction to which he refers.

Blackstone is not a list of rules for HOW to interpret legal texts, it was a compilation of commentaries on what English Common Law WAS (and as such as an excellent source when engaging in the act of trying to determine what various terms in the U.S. Constitution which were lifted from English Common Law were understood to mean. That you can't grasp the distinction just underscores your lack of knowledge in this entire area.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane