It has become blasé to buttress one's position on any interpretation of the Constitution of Jamaica with the hallowed but hackneyed phrase "the intent of the framers". Perhaps the best way to clarify any ambiguity arising in the interpretation of the actual words and phrases employed in the document is to consult the said framers who are still alive, or their memoirs, personal notes, or interviews if the framers are no longer available. As regards the "dual citizenship" vis-a-vis membership in either house, we have referred to the intervention of at least one of the framers - the Most Honourable Edward Seaga. Such a source may prove politically inconvenient to some, but in the absence of public interventions from a more politically convenient source, we are forced to accept Seaga's clarification . Another method of ascertaining the "intent of the framers" of the Constitution of Jamaica rests with the application of one the cardinal principles of in
Posts
The Court of Appeal did not address the interpretation of the phrase " foreign Power or State " in S.40(2)(a) of the Constitution of Jamaica. This was a missed opportunity since the interpretation to be accorded to the said phrase is central to any discussion of "dual citizenship" in the Jamaican polity. This omission may be justified by the fact that the issue was not raisd before the Court in the Dabdoub/Vaz appeals as it was fully recognized that the USA was a " foreign Power or State ." The issue not being properly before the Court, the matter should have been avoided. Indeed it is only Smith J.A. who did not venture an opinion on divided loyalty as regards membership in the House of Representatives. Panton P. : 35. " The framers of the constitution clearly intended that Jamaicans who by their own act sought and received non-Commonwealth citizenship, or having not so sought it, nevertheless voluntarily acknowledged allegiance to such countries, sh