Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RJWILSON6200
Cohen v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
The Court Ruled, That “THE FEDERIALIST PAPERS” are…. [came from the primary objective of THE MAGNA CARTA …. to protect the people from summary judgements, that is, you being ripped off…no due process]….. THE EXACT RECORD of the intent of the lawmakers.
[Intent of the lawmaker IS the LAW!]
|
If this is supposed to be a quotation, it's a fake.
The decision in Cohens [with an s] v. Virginia did say that the Federalist (which it did not call "the Federalist
Papers", although it twice mentioned the alternative title of "the Letters of Publius") expresses the intention behind the framers of the Constitution, but it doesn't claim it to be an exact record. In fact, the whole decision doesn't once use the word "exact".
As for the bracketed slogan, it's a bit misleading. The intent of the
legislature - not just the one member who wrote a proposal - is very important, and the collective intent is usually expressed in such things as committee reports and (in the last half-century) explanatory statements. But even the clearly stated intent cannot prevail over a contrary clear text of the law itself.
As for the author's emphasis on the Seventh Amendment, you'll find it's applicability is limited. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury in a civil lawsuit "at common law". The guarantee only applies to those cases "at common law". Tax cases and traffic cases are
not "common law", and therefore the Seventh Amendment is unavailable for them.