If that question was to be asked, it would go something like this.


Sonia, will you please articulate to this Committee the most fundamental rule of constitutional law and then give your assurance to this Committee to abide by that rule if you are approved to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?


Will you give this committee and the American People who we represent your assurance to abide by the most fundamental rule of constitutional law regardless of your personal sense of justice, regardless of public opinion, and regardless of whatever pressure may be put upon you to ignore the foundation upon which honorable S.C. decisions are made when a particular part of our Constitution is brought before the Court and is alleged to have been violated?


The sad thing is, Sonia Sotomayor, while sitting on the 2nd Circuit Court, has already proven to be disloyal to the oath of office she took, has ignored our written Constitution and the intentions under which it was adopted, and, she blatantly thumbed her nose at the most fundamental rule of constitutional law when she refused to address a specific 14th Amendment claim brought before the Court in the case Ricci v. DeStefano and sided with public servants of New Haven, Connecticut, who refused earned promotions to 18 firefighters because they were not the right skin color!



And just what are the intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted? A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, which was intended to incorporate the objectives of the first Civil Rights Act into the Constitution and make them constitutional, documents the very intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted and were very limited in their scope. The objective was to prohibit state legislation and government force to be used to advance discrimination based upon “race, color, or previous condition of slavery…” This protection was blatantly ignored by Sonia Sotomayor --- a protection summed up as follows up by Rep. Shallabarger, a primary supporter of the 14th Amendment when it was being debated:



“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


And just what is the most fundamental rule which our Judiciary Committee will, in all probability, not raise and question Sotomayor on? That rule was eloquently articulated more than two hundred years ago by Thomas Jefferson:


"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.


Heck, as impossible as it may be to believe, even our Senate Judiciary Committee is aware of the most fundamental rule of constitutional law even though I have yet to hear any member ask a Supreme Court nominee if they will follow it:


"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),



Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution [each article, section, clause and amendment] was adopted in order to then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean. Let us look at some additional authoritative sources:


Intent of constitution


16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.

“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)


"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .


"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.


"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .


"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.


"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.


“The intention of the law maker constitutes the law.” U.S. vs. Freeman, 3 HOW 565; U.S. vs. Babbit, 1 Black 61; Slater vs. Cave, 3 Ohio State 80; Stewart vs. Kahn, 11 Wall, 78 U.S. 493, 504


“The intention of the legislature, when discovered, must prevail, any rule of construction declared by previous acts to the contrary notwithstanding.” 4 Dall 144


"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?" ___ Justice Story


Now ask yourself, which Senate Judiciary Committee member will have the fortitude to question Sonia Sotomayor on the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, and ask her why she was derelict in not applying it in Ricci v. DeStefano? Perhaps you may want to forward this post to your favorite member of our Senate Judiciary Committee and see if they respond to your inquiry.


Regards,


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.