American Justice for Americans Citizens Act (Introduced in House)

THOMAS DATABASES ^ | April 1, 2004 | Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mrs. MUSGRAVE)

[Bonddad]

Returning to the original intent of the 14th amendment is terrible idea because it would cause chaos in the legal system. First, the Slaughterhouse cases best states what the court implied the original intent of the 14th Amendment. "But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth." In short, the 14th Amendment only appliled to blacks. However, equal protection now applies to discrimination based on sex and country of origin. If the court ruled the Slaughterhouse cases as the new precedent, entire areas of law would be relitigated.

Secondly, the Constitution is supposed to be ambiguous. What does Liberty mean? Does it mean liberty as defined in 1776 or as defined today 200+ years later. This is the beauty of the Constitutional language. It allows interpretation based on the times in which the interpretation is made.

The failure of ten consecutive appointments by four Republican Presidents. Maybe they have failed because they are wrong.

[delacoert]

In addition, this is a blatant attempt by the legislature to begin to whittle away at the Court's discretion.

Pffft

The "Court's discretion" isn't sufficient cover for judicial activism.

Troll.

[OldSgt.]

I'm not disagreeing with the specific issue your addressing. My position is of the Whole.

I first hand saw how a Party makes politicians, before you ever get the chance to vote for or organist.

Be they on a county, State or Federal level. It happened in conjunction with each other, and was sanctioned. It crosses party lines and people look the other way. the thank yous are bartered. It's the way it works, and if you were ever up close at the Top state level. It would sicken you, I'd hope!

Laws are applied to politics only when they step out of line.

I'm not cynical, I'm a realist.

[Ed Current]

Secondly, the Constitution is supposed to be ambiguous.

Clarence Thomas

When interpreting the Constitution and statutes, judges should seek the original understanding of the provision's text, if the meaning of that text is not readily apparent.

This approach works in several ways to reduce judicial discretion and to maintain judicial impartiality. First, by tethering their analysis to the understanding of those who drafted and ratified the text, modern judges are prevented from substituting their own preferences for the Constitution.

Second, it places the authority for creating the legal rules in the hands of the people and their representatives, rather than in the hands of the judiciary. The Constitution means what the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention and of the state ratifying conventions understood it to mean; not what we judges think it should mean.

[ The "Federalist" may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal Constitution as understood by the Body [Constitutional Convention] which prepared & and the Authorities [state ratifying conventions] which accepted it. James Madison Letter to Thomas Jefferson, February 8, 1825 (Peterson, 1974, 2. page 383)

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823]

Third, this approach recognizes the basic principle of a written Constitution. We "the people" adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning, a meaning that does not change. Otherwise we would have adopted the British approach of an unwritten, evolving constitution. Aside from amendment according to Article V, the Constitution's meaning cannot be updated, or changed, or altered by the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the President. [ Of the written national constitutions, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest and shortest. Do Laws and Standards Evolve? , Evolution and the Law: , Darwinian Roots of Judicial Activism ]

[monkeywrench]

"The US is already enmeshed with various foreign organizations -- especially in the area of trade. For example, NAFTA states that international standards are the minimum standard of all signatories standards."

NAFTA is not the supreme law of the land.

[Bonddad]

Justice Thomas States: The Constitution means what the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention and of the state ratifying conventions understood it to mean; not what we judges think it should mean. The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention felt that blacks were not free people and should be counted as 3/5 a person for apportionment purposes. Art I, sec (2)(3) Using Thomas's own reasoning, he is not even a complete person, let alone a judge. More to the point, the opinions varied among the framers. There were true monarchists (Hamilton) and true Democrats (Jefferson) and all points in between. The framers represented all points of the political spectrum, with no one holding a monopoly on truth.

[Bonddad]

Actually, a Federal Treaty ratified by the Senate is the Supreme Law of the Land.

[Bonddad]

Of course abortion was unknown the drafters of the amendment. It wasn't an issue in the late 1800s.

That is the point of ambiguous language. It allows the court to embrace societal changes in its rulings.

[monkeywrench]

Not if it conflicts with the Constitution. Where would they get the authority to sign a treaty that went beyond the bounds of the Constitution, without taking that authority upon themselves?

[Bonddad]

It's a point of law In addition, NAFTA does not conflict with the Constitution.

[monkeywrench]

I was referring to this,

"Actually, a Federal Treaty ratified by the Senate is the Supreme Law of the Land."

[delacoert]

Actually, a Federal Treaty ratified by the Senate is the Supreme Law of the Land.

What has that got to do with NAFTA?

[Bonddad]

NAFTA = Federal Treaty.

The Senate ratified NAFTA.

Therefore, it is the SUpreme Law of th Land.

[Ed Current]

The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention felt that blacks were not free people and should be counted as 3/5 a person for apportionment purposes. Art I, sec (2)(3) Using Thomas's own reasoning, he is not even a complete person, let alone a judge.

Vindicating the Founders: Read the Preface

[mrsmith]

"The Constitution means what the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention and of the state ratifying conventions understood it to mean; not what we judges think it should mean."

It's always a laugh to see people like you who think it should instead mean whatever it is 'best' for it to mean.

[Navy Patriot]

That is the point of ambiguous language. It allows the court to embrace societal changes in its rulings.

A "living" Constitution is not worth the parchment it is written on.

[monkeywrench]

http://www.markforusrep.com/International_Treaties_and_the_Big_Lie.html

[delacoert]

How many votes does it take for the U.S. Senate to ratify a treaty?
ANSWER: 67

How many votes did NAFTA receive when the the U.S. Senate passed the bill?
ANSWER: 61

You insist on using the term ratified. With that I diagree.

[Bonddad]

I am well aware of the societal realities of the era. Regardless of their intentions, the 3/5 requirement was still placed in the document to appease Southern Representatives. And it became the law of the land. In addition, the Constitution required an additional set of amendments after the civil war, indicating that the document did not adequately address these concerns.

Central to your argument is the idea there is 1 central truth or interpretation of what the framers intended. This is simply not the case with any historical interpretation of anything, let alone the Constitution. There are multiple truths to any situation.

[delacoert]

I am guessing you are referring to the idea of "judicial activism" in the courts, especially in issues like abortion and gay marriage.

I am guessing that your use of diacriticals to emphasis the term judicial activism indicates that you dismiss the concept.