Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What the Constitution means is always a controversial topic and it has been a long time since it has been as controversial as now. So let's have a civil discussion about the U.S. Constitution. But remember, any discussion of the Constitution requires not only discussing what the Constitution says but the how the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, so to discuss one, you have to be prepared to discuss the other.
I believe that the Constitution was a great document and the principles presented within were inspired of men seeking freedom for all. Unfortunately, these principles were cast before swine--meaning, in this case, a society or perhaps species that just isn't up to the task of embracing the ideals in the spirit they were intended.
The problem as I see it is that of selfishness. It can't and never will work if everyone in the society holds nothing dear, save selfishness, power (which is a form of selfishness), and single-minded pursuit of wealth (another form of selfishness). In our time we have two extremes pulling the house apart: on the one hand we have hard-core capitalism that rapes the populace for profit. The whole world is about nothing but money and accumulation of wealth only for wealth's sake. On the other hand we have those who willingly trade their freedom for a government butt wiping. As long as their butt is wiped, they couldn't care less about the next guy's freedom. The government is their God, and another rule, regulation, or 'handout' is the answer for every detail of their lives. And everyone has to walk down that same road because of them.
These extremes are in a tug of war and the Constitution was long ago thrown under the bus--outright scrapped for personal preference and philosophy. My opinion is that the original intent of the Constitution (and related documents) was to insure self-determination for the common man (let each decide for themselves), driven by limited federal government and much more empowered state, county, and local governments. Hypothetically, if the states held all the power, those who prefer government control could find a state that exercised heavy control and socialization, and those who preferred a capitalistic free-for-all money-fest could find a state leaning that way. Or, for those who preferred that the government basically did nothing other than basic services... well, they could find that state. That cannot work with both party's federal 'castle' that has been constructed over the years brick-by-brick by both sides, which, in my opinion was NEVER intended. As it stands, we have several main 'camps' that cannot coexist without stepping on each others' toes. All because of selfish people who insist on bending the Constitution in ways never intended on a FEDERAL level, rather than letting states, counties, and municipalities decide their social models for themselves.
As it is, we have several main political philosophies forced upon us in a lame sort of half-assed shoe-leather stew.
Is the Constitution to be adhered to as read or within the context of a changing society?
How's that?
Both.
Article 5 gives the tool to alter the Constitution, if necessary.
Until that point of time, however, something like Article 1 section 8, cannot be altered. This is the limit of congressional power. Checks and balances.
The entirety of the intent and the spirit if the Constitution is contained in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
All the rest of the Constitution is just procedural boilerplate, and the Amendments, as stated in their own Preamble, are provided as safeguards against the "misconstruction or abuse" of the Constitution.
So, the correct interpretation of any clause in the Constitution is the interpretation that supports and defends the principles delineated in the Preamble. And those are principles that would continue to apply in full, regardless of how "times change".
It is also important to read the wording of the Ten Amendments. They are not about the rights of the people. Those are already granted by default. The Ten Amendments are about limiting the state's power to infringe on those rights.
On the 10 Amendments, we have many that have been incorporated. Initially, they were not to include the you and I of it, however, that has changed starting with Twining v New Jersey 1925. Right now, the second amendment is on the table with the Supreme Court.
On the preamble, the intention is found in the documents preceding the constitution and cannot rely just on the the constitution alone.
On the preamble, the intention is found in the documents preceding the constitution and cannot rely just on the the constitution alone.
But the Preamble is the law of the land. Anything that preceded it is not, and can only be used as a guide into what the founders might have been thinking. The Declaration of Independence and other documents that preceded the Constitution are not the law of the land, and have no force of law nor evidence of constitutionality.
Given that the founders did write many things before the Preamble to the Constitution, it must be conceded that the Preamble reflects a concise summary of their intent. The founders knew they were writing a constitution, and it must be presumed that they thought the matter through.
Anything you discover that was written before the Constitution can very well be a minority opinion, and as such, cannot be used to infer the intent of the writers of the Constitution itself.
The entirety of the intent and the spirit if the Constitution is contained in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
All the rest of the Constitution is just procedural boilerplate, and the Amendments, as stated in their own Preamble, are provided as safeguards against the "misconstruction or abuse" of the Constitution.
So, the correct interpretation of any clause in the Constitution is the interpretation that supports and defends the principles delineated in the Preamble. And those are principles that would continue to apply in full, regardless of how "times change".
It is also important to read the wording of the Ten Amendments. They are not about the rights of the people. Those are already granted by default. The Ten Amendments are about limiting the state's power to infringe on those rights.
Exactly right.
The way the system was set up, was that the government had wide, sweeping powers during war, to tax for the common defense, and to ensure that everyones freedom was protected.
Thats it, thats the federal governments job.
The states are supposed to do everything else. All amendments and laws were supposed to be there to limit states from infringing on peoples personal liberties.
Instead, our system has been twisted into what it is today. Where the states have no real power, and the federal government is where everyone looks to in order to get what they want.
Things like abortion, thats a federal thing, because it should be a personal freedom "What I do with my body, is my business" and no state should infringe on that. However, a national welfare system, in my opinion, is unconstitutional, regardless of the "general welfare" line in the preamble, that has been used to allow such a system in place. Child welfare systems too, should be state based, not federally. Regulating interstate commerce is a federal job, so regulations on banks and things to keep the entire system from crashing are important as well.
There is a thin line between liberty and tyranny, and we've crossed it on more than one occasion.
Constitution? Oh ya, didn't we have one of those once?
The only changes I am for are if the change increases the rights of the peacefull individual, I am against any change that takes away rights.
Your post is so amorphous as to have little real meaning. For example the recent debate concerned with the remarks made by Rand Paul regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 involves increasing the rights of individuals which Paul believes limits the rights of another. Your comment is silent regarding which increase of individual rights you would be in favor of, the rights of those to be free from racial discrimination of the individual right of those who would discriminate.
The Constitution is a political document, that grew out of the political compromises need to reach a political consensus. In doing so the Framers found it necessary to balance the rights of one against the rights of another, a balance that the Congress and the Court have had to weigh since the Constitutions ratification. Simply stating that you are for the increase of individual rights with out a contextual backdrop is simply not sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
