Interpreting the Constitution is not based on the personal opinions of anyone. Interpreting the Constitution is solely within the province of the courts and they held that personal opinions of members of congress are irrelevant in determining the meaning of language in the Constitution.<quoted text>John Bingham was the absolute expert on immigration,as it applied to The Constitution.
Justice Scalia reminds us that "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself ...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history....
Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (Scalia, J., concurring)
Moreover, "While it is generally true that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. Binns v. United States, 194 US 486 , 495(1904)(internal citation omitted)
Finally, the piece de resistance "By repeated decisions of this court it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the law-making body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24; United States v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 79; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443, 474 (1923)