View RSS Feed


California’s Top Judge Tells ICE To Leave Courthouses As State Readies Sanctuary Law

Rate this Entry
[QUOTE=PierzStyx;6517077]Responses in bold.

[QUOTE=Swordsmyth;6517048]"you may not go outside OR play video games" means plying video games=going outside?

[B]Not necessarily. Which is why context is important. Here the context is given clearly in the first paragraph I quoted, which I will do here again for you:

[QUOTE]As to the intention of the framers of the Constitution in the clause relating to "the migration and importation of persons, &c" the best key may perhaps be found in the case which produced it. The African trade in slaves had long been odious to most of the States, and the importation of slaves into them had been prohibited. Particular States however continued the importation, and were extremely averse to any restriction on their power to do so. In the convention the former States were anxious, in framing a new constitution, to insert a provision for an immediate and absolute stop to the trade. The latter were not only averse to any interference on the subject; but solemnly declared that their constituents would never accede to a Constitution containing such an article. Out of this conflict grew the middle measure providing that Congress should not interfere until the year 1808; with an implication, that after that date, they might prohibit the importation of slaves into the States then existing, & previous thereto, into the States not then existing. [/QUOTE]

Given the fact that he is talking about one group as being the target of Article 1, Section 9 -African slaves- then it seems obvious that migrationa is being used synonymously to importation here. But let us take your argument and assume that he IS using the synonymously. What would that mean?

It means that even if he is talking about two different things, migration AND importation, it would be in the context of African slaves. Meaning that Article 1, Section 9 would only be applicable to banning the migration of African slaves and the importation of African slaves. It still doesn't give you the authority to broadly regulate immigration in any manner.

This by teh way was Madison's point. He was being asked if the Federal Government could regulate the internal movement of slaves by force using Article 1, Section 9 and he is saying no, that Article 1, Section 9 only applies to African slaves entering the country.

Honestly, you should probably read the full context of a quote before you use it.[/B]

It has to do with others who were involved in drafting the language used, so it does have to do with what it means.[/QUOTE]

[B]No, it doesn't. The intent of an author doesn't matter when it comes down to interpreting a text, only what is actually in the text matters. The Founders understood this which is why they strove to be so explicit in the Constitution and why the Tenth Amendment was considered so important. The Founders understood that what they "meant" wasn't going to matter if what they encoded into the Constitution ended up saying something completely opposite.

Therefore it doesn't matter if some at the Convention wanted something different than what was ultimately written. Hamilton wanted Washington to be a king after all, yet what he got was a President with few and extremely limited powers. Some may have wanted the power to regulate immigration, but that isn't what ended up in the Constitution.[/B][/QUOTE]