>It is woven into the law to the extent that courts will usually defer to legislative intent when enforcing and apply statutory law. Intent can usually be found in the annotated codes (committee, advisory notes, etc.)

Is that why the Bush DOJ reversed the Clinton DOJ in the Microsoft monoply case?

>
>Felix Frankfurter, one of the great supremes throught that framer intent was irrelevent. Current state of affairs and the assocated impacts should be the driving force.


So self-evident truths are irrelevent according to Felix, eh? It OK for congress to abridge rights that the Bill of Rights says shall not be abridged? That's the problem. That's why several thousand American of Japanese ancestry were herded into concentration camps (no matter how plush, if machine guns keep you fenced in).


>
>This only forestalls the issue because committee notes and the like are only persuasive authority. Intent can still be open to interpretation.
>
>I agree with Frankfurter in part. I do think intent lays down the principle, which should endure. The rules in carrying out the rules should be and are subject to change as time and circumstances change.

Finding shawdows in penumbras is not finding enduring principals it is finding excuses to justify poltical expediencies. The "HomeLand Defense" is more scary than el-quade (sp?). Violation of person and property without due process or warrants is frightening. If presidents since Nixon can use the IRS as a poltical tool againsts their enemies what they can now do by merely declaring a person or group of people 'terrorists' or just dangerous is the beginning of the end of Democracy.