QUESTION: What is a Supreme Court Justice’s fundamental job?


#41

Actually, FC. The 2nd DOES specify a limitation to the actions of Congress. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That means Congress is LIMITED as to what it may do vis a vis the people’s right to keep and bear arms. In short, it is PROHIBITED from infringing (interfering) with that right and IMPLIES that NO ONE can.


#42

John Bingham stated that " privileges or immunities of citizens" refers to the 1st 8 ammendments.

Here’s one of the times he did that:

I hope the gentleman now knows why I changed the form of the amendment of February, 1866. Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”

According to him, that’s what the privileges & immunities clause in the 14th meant.

In Garnes v. McCann in 1871, one of the first cases to invoke the 14th amendment, the judge specifically mentioned the aforementioned clause as protecting enumerated constitutional rights.

If this wasn’t the intent of the amendment, why was there no outcry or appeal? It was a mere 3 years after the amendment was ratified.


#43

Bingham said a lot of things, e.g., “. . . the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292

Bingham goes on to say:

“I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe.

"Now, what does this bill propose? To reform the whole civil and criminal code of every State`s government by declaring that there shall be no discrimination between Citizens on account of race or color in civil rights or in the penalties prescribed by their laws See Cong. Globe page 1293

And this is in harmony with another supporter of the 14th Amendment who stated with regard to the amendment:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

Now, instead of beating around the bush, point to the words in the 14th Amendment declaring the first ten amendments are enforceable upon the states by the federal government.

BTW, if you are going to quote someone, provide a link to the original quote.

JWK


#44

Supreme Court Justices’ are supposed to support “this Constitution” and only those laws made in “pursuance thereof”. But there are countless cases which can be pointed to in which the majority opinion blatantly subjugates both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution, and many of these cases, e.g., Helvering v. Davis and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, which upheld the Social Security Act, ignored the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction and opened the door to and introduce the deadly virus of socialism at our federal level.

The sad thing is, we were warned about submitting to oppressive acts passed in violation of our constitution, but have stood by idle while a government created with defined and limited powers has grown into an oppressive monster which now controls and regulates almost every aspect of our lives; has all but snuffed out federalism, our Constitution’s plan; and has turned American citizens into tax slaves to support the whims and fancies of those who hold and exercise federal power.

“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787

JWK

Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.


#45

The intent of the amendment, which was no secret at the time, was to Constitutionalize the Reconstruction Act which had been struck down by the Supreme Court. Outcry or Appeal? Why then did several Northern States rescind their prior ratifications? There were several legal actions taken in the 1870’s and 1880’s which questioned if the 14th was actually ratified. The Supreme Court refused to hear these cases as it was “a political question”.


#46

To the decision I cited on the 14th ammendment, in case that wasn’t clear.

Rejection of the 14th amendment in 1868, implies it did precisely what Bingham described (push the bill of rights upon the states), which again, I’am not in support of, I’m merely pointing it out, and how doing that informs the constructionist attitudes of the Supreme court today, even on the Conservative wing.


#47

Your above nonsense about the 14th Amendment “push the bill of rights upon the States” has been refuted in THIS POST

Now, as I have asked you before, point to the wording in the 14th Amendment declaring the first ten amendments are enforceable upon the states by the federal government.

Finally, your nonsense about the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the thread which is: What is a Supreme court Justices’ fundamental job?

JWK


#48

It wasn’t, no where in your quote of Bingham is he denying that the 14th doesn’t force the bill of rights upon the States.

Rather, he saying that the States have to enforce them. That’s why he also said what I quoted from him, which you didn’t respond to.

It doesn’t seem like he changed his mind John.

A more constrained version of the 14th was offered, and in a more ideal world, it would have been the one adopted. Bingham ensured it wasn’t.


#49

The discussion is connected directly to the topic.

This was AS’s entry into the discussion and

He was responding directly to and disputing the “answer” you posted in the OP:

This topic is very much on track.


#50

Readyyyy, FIGHT! :wink:


#51

What a Supreme Court Justices’ fundamental job is, has absolutely nothing to do with the notion “the text of the Constitution now conflicts because of the Progressive amendments.” Whether or not there are conflicts in the text of the Constitution, a Justices fundamental job remains constant.

So, what on earth does an “alleged” conflict in the text of the Constitution have to do with identifying a Justices fundamental job?

AS is, as many times in the past, is using a thread to discuss the 14th amendment which he constantly misrepresents.

JWK


#52

Which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread!

Just for the record, AS pulled this same crap a long time ago, posting a quote from Bingham to support his notion the Fourteenth Amendment made the “Bill of Rights” enforceable upon the States by the Federal Government.

I have asked AS to provide a link to his quotes which he neglects to do. And there is a good reason AS has not provided that link because I provided that LINK a long time ago, and it was made by Bingham during the 42nd Congress, years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, which makes the quote irrelevant in determining the legislative intent under which the amendment was adopted. And yet, AS once again posts the same quote, knowing it is irrelevant under the rules of constitutional construction ___ rules which Supreme Court Justices are to follow when determining what the Constitution means ___ rules which are fundamental to a Supreme Court Justice’s job . . . and this is the subject of the thread, not the 14th Amendment.

JWK

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], 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.”– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


#53

Game, set, match! :volcano:


#54

Missed that.

1871 - just 3 years. The same year the first (well, State) supreme court decision happened determining the amendment’s application.

I don’t follow how this is a counter argument, when no one decried his meaning here, nor the decision calling it out. It’s pretty evident States rescinded their support for the amendment in 1868, because they recognized it had made this overreach.

Again, I’m not defending his position, but if someone was looking for justification that the 14th meant what he said, the evidence is there.


#55

JWK, I look at it when people think a thread is off track especially. If they actually want to move it back on track, I’ll move it back on topic. I looked at it. It’s on track. That’s my ruling on it. You can keep writing whatever you like about it, but you’ll be derailing your own thread. My decision is based exactly on what you wrote:

The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution

As disputed your assertion, supported his position, and the conversation proceeded from there.

I don’t care about links or the content of your conversation, and there are no rules requiring him to produce links. I’m not weighing in on that. I don’t have enough information to form a strong opinion. That’s one of the reasons I was reading this thread. You should continue the discussion because it’s informative instead. You should continue to address the points AS is making instead of complaining. He’s making the case, and you appear to be trying to dismiss his arguments based on how he’s posting instead of tackling those points. It appears to me that AS agrees with you and RET and a whole lot of other folks on how things ought to be, but he seems to suggest that the text of the 14th Amendment causes conflicts that make it difficult for judges to apply the Constitution consistently, correctly and in the manner that both you and he both prefer.

But do, carry on in whatever manner you wish.


#56

You miss a lot of things when it’s convenient for you to do so. The Bingham quote you provided is not acceptable “evidence” to document the intentions and beliefs under which the amendment was framed and ratified. Under the rules of constitutional construction, comments made regarding the purpose of the 14th Amendment, made after its adoption, even when made by those who were present during the framing and ratification process of the amendment, carry far less weight, if any, than the actual framing and ratification debates.

The fact is, one of the most fundamental functions of a Supreme Court Justice, when determining what the Constitution (or any part thereof means) is to research and document its meaning as it was understood during its framing and ratification debates. And this is what the subject of the thread is about ____ articulating a Justice’s fundamental job.

JWK


#57

The text of the 14th Amendment does not “cause conflicts that make it difficult for judges to apply the Constitution consistently”, when they follow the rules of constitutional construction and they rely upon the framing and ratification debates for their answers, which gives context to the 14th Amendment’s text. The difficulty comes when judges and Justices attempt to make the Constitution mean what they want it to mean, instead of attempting to find its true meaning and intent by following the rules of constitutional construction.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.


#58

No, the problem is that you copy-paste large portions of your posts so I skim the contents, because it doesn’t seem to be containing anything new.

Ergo, I made a bad adjustment, to your habit, and overlooked a question.

A question you should have lead with, if you were seriously asking it.

Nonetheless, I did overlook it, I admit that. Thus, I apologize John.

Fair, so here’s a quote of him from 1866, 39th Congress, 1st session:

pt%201%20Bingham

Pt%202%20Bingham

pt%203%20bingham

pt%204%20bingham

He basically states this over and over again, you can see it all for yourself here:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=131

Congressional Globe, 1089-1093.


#59

Another rule of constitutional construction is, when the text of the constitution is clear, it is to be enforced. And, with regard to 14th Amendment, there is nothing in its text to remotely suggest a grant of power is delegated to the federal government to enforce the Constitution’s “Bill of Rights” upon the states. If you contend there are such words (words suggesting the 14th Amendment grants power to the federal government to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the States), post the words which suggests this, which would then open the door to further investigation to discover this alleged “legislative intent”. It may have been Bingham’s desire to allow the federal government to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the states, and one can even arrive at this conclusion by generously “interpreting” various comments made by Bingham. But Bingham also made various other comments which contradict such a notion. As I previously documented, Bingham also stated:

“. . . the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292

Bingham goes on to say:

“I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe.

"Now, what does this bill propose? To reform the whole civil and criminal code of every State`s government by declaring that there shall be no discrimination between Citizens on account of race or color in civil rights or in the penalties prescribed by their laws See Cong. Globe page 1293

And this is in harmony with another supporter of the 14th Amendment who stated with regard to the amendment:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted if the 14th Amendment delegated a power to the federal government to make the federal “Bill of Rights” enforceable upon the States, the first sitting Congress after the Amendment was adopted was unaware of such power or they were derelict in their duties as there was no mention of this in the enforcement Acts Congress passed just after the 14th Amendment was adopted!

Likewise the Supreme Court must also have been ignorant of the alleged grant of power because several months after the 14th Amendment was adopted the S.C. decided Twitchell v. Pennsylvania (1869). Twitchell was convicted of murder which his lawyer appealed to the S. C. claiming the conviction relied upon violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court rejected the appeal by emphasizing the federal Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not the States. Did someone forget to tell the Supreme Court Justices that the 14th Amendment made the Fifth and Sixth Amendments enforceable upon the States?

And one must also ask, if the 14th Amendment granted a power to our federal government to enforce the federal Bill of Rights upon the States, why did Congress debate and attempt to pass a constitutional amendment, the Blaine Amendment, in 1876, making the First Amendment’s religious prohibition enforceable upon the States if the 14th Amendment already made the First Amendment enforceable upon the States?

The bottom line is, there is no textual evidence in the wording of the 14th Amendment which remotely suggests it grants a power to the federal government to enforce the federal Bill of Rights upon the states. And when judges and Justices follow their fundamental job, part of which is to adhere to the rules of constitutional construction, there are no conflicts as to the true meaning of the Constitution.

JWK


#60

And this doesn’t contradict. Bingham believed States could not write laws in the first place that could violate the first 8 amendments. If they did, Congress would then have the power to interdict them.

If it’s a private violation, the States would handle it. If State laws are making the violation, the Feds can intercede. That’s his logic.

But this man was also referring the bill to committee to be altered, as the section he talks about, is far longer, and different, than the actual 14th amendment:

It’s also more specific. You can see outright stated in the text, that what this “section” is concerned with, is discrimination.

This may in fact be the earlier version of the amendment Bingham pushed them to move away from.