Rate this post:
|The SCOTUS: Its Fundamental Duty
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Our President has recently announced Harriet Miers as his nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. In making this nomination, president Bush has stated:
"In selecting a nominee, I've sought to find an American of grace, judgment and unwavering devotion to the Constitution and laws of our country. Harriet Miers is just such a person. I've known Harriet for more than a decade. I know her heart, I know her character. I know that Harriet's mother is proud of her today, and I know her father would be proud of her, too. I'm confident that Harriet Miers will add to the wisdom and character of our judiciary when she is confirmed as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court."
--President George W. Bush
October 3, 2005
It is sad to report that our politically controlled big media, in its extensive coverage of our President’s nomination, has neglected to expound to the public the most fundamental duty which Harriet Miers would have, if appointed to the SCOTUS.
Our media, and especially our “talking heads” on TV, appear to be quite comfortable in speculating as to this nominee’s political ideology, unearthing her past and predicting how she may rule in certain cases. Of course, this type of reporting creates a wonderful distraction from a productive and informative discussion as to just what is the most fundamental duty which Harriet Miers would have, if appointed to the SCOTUS, and, is she aware of what that duty is?
So, let us explore just what is the most fundamental duty of those appointed to the SCOTUS.
Thomas Jefferson informs us that:
"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 invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Indeed, this is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law___ carrying out the intent of those who framed and ratified the Constitution. Even Congress is aware of this rule although Congress ignores it on a regular basis:
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967).
Although there is over three hundred years of American history documenting the most fundamental principle of constitutional law requires an adherence to the “intent of the framers and ratifiers” of a constitution, it is quite fashionable these days for law students, political pundits, and especially the subjugators of our Constitutional system, to question this rule and even attack it on a number of inapplicable and/or thoughtless grounds. For example, one may question:
“Which framer's intent, and at what time? The framers had tons of different views on the law and the Constitution. They were far from being in agreement, so there is no clearly defined "intent of the framers and those who ratified our Constitution."
As a matter of fact, the above misconceptions are merely a reflection of what law professors have been indoctrinating their students with for many years. Whether it is done out of sheer ignorance, or as part of a conspiracy to intentional undermine the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system in order to subjugate the protections afforded the American People under it, is insignificant at this time. What is import, however, is to rely upon historical facts, documentation, and always use the rules of common sense in arriving at one’s conclusions, especially when determining what our written constitution was intended to accomplish.
We do know the constitution did not suddenly appear out of thin air; there is a history behind it and a wealth of recorded evidence documenting its day-to-day framing See Madison’s Notes on the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1787; see the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, recording public debate of the proposed constitution in a series of newspaper articles; and also see Elliot’s Debates, the actual ratification proceedings of several states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state ratification, and, in many instances, it is elaborated upon by the very delegates who attended the constitutional convention!
Together, the above sources do in fact record a preponderance of evidence___ a general consensus___ establishing the intent of the framers and ratifiers and the beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to by We the People.
Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
So, two of the most important questions to be answered with regard to Harriet Miers are: Does she understand the most fundamental rule of constitutional law? And, will she support every one of her decisions, if appointed to the SCOTUS, with documentation from the words of those who framed and ratified our Constitution, showing their intent of any article, section or clause of the Constitution which has been asked to be reviewed by the Court?
In closing, another glib remark made by the subjugators of our constitutional system is: “It is stupid for us to be ruled by the dead hand of our founding fathers.” But this comment merely shows an intentional misapplication of our Constitutional system to support an allowance for judges to make law to accommodate changing times. But the wise framers of our Constitution provided the amendment process allowing future generations to make changes to their Constitution to accommodate changing times, and not be subjected to open ended judge made law “to accommodate changing times“. And, it is this amendment process, in which the reason and choice of the people is intended to prevail, rather than those who would re-write our Constitution via judicial opinions, which the subjugators of our Constitution hate with a passion, and wish to overrule with judge made law.
Let us put an end to this subjugation and demand the intent of our Constitution, as contemplated by those who framed and ratified it, and is found in the historical records, be made the cornerstone of every decision handed down by the SCOTUS!
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]