Fundamental question: How should one interpret the Constitution?
Ok, most missed my question and then you froze up the thread because of those misunderstandings. So I'll say it again a different way:
The Fundamental question for all candidates and for voters of lawmakers and presidents is:
What are the rules of interpretation that govern how we shall interpret the Constitution?
Never mind this in relation to the bible. We are opposed to all the other candidates because they ignore or set aside the Constitution even though they swear to defend it. How is that so I ask. I bet few have really reflected upon this. Why are the others wrong? What are the rules people? SPECIFICALLY, what does Ron Paul do differently? If people do not discuss this out INTELLIGENTLY then there is little hope for this country. Just how should someone interpret the constitution? How can we get it back if people just ignore the specifics? Ron Paul is not a one man show. It does not come down to making him an Universal King for us. Each of us must learn these things or there is no hope. Fair enough???
Memories
This thread puts me in mind of Filthy Pierre and The Connection.
This is an adult forum.
Troll alert. Warning... Critical Factor Bypass
Nice try, rickfriedrich, Go pound sand.
Interpretation is an attempt to change it without amendment
Screw interpretation. If you think it should be so, amend it so.
The constitution is clear.
If you read it and still don't understand.Then take the time to read the historic documents the precede it.
-Declaration of these 13 States.
-Articles of Confederation.
- Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers.
Take a course in the Constitution. www.constitutionpreservation.org
Answer this Question. Does it make any sense that our government could violate the constitution? Ans. No. Our government is defined by the Constitution.
Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
The Constitution
is not clear. Indeed, there are many aspects of life then, and obviously now, that it does not address. Despite being amended it still has holes.
Of course, in their collective wisdom. the founders of this country established a judicial system with powers of interpretation.
h-daddy
try liberty
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty.
Rickfreidrich you ask a salient question.
For various reasons the Constitution needs interpretation. Although many of the posters below insist that it is written in "plain english" it is not the English we are familiar with today. For example, consider the 2nd amendment:
to "bear arms" original meaning is to serve in the military. It does not mean "own a gun"
the use of capital letter and commas is archaic and makes it difficult to understand. Also the sentence structure is not familiar to most of us but would be those who have studied Latin. Also, the version ratified by the states had some variations!
Many believe the Constitution is a "living"document and is intended to be interpreted to suit present day conditions.
h-daddy
So amend it don't bend it
Considering it's ridiculous to say we have to interpret when there are plenty of actual letters where they spell out what they meant, I think bear arms = service is wrong.
BTW, how can you serve without owning one?
It does mean that the government will not and can not take away
your guns. In most states you will find a lot hunters.
TheKingIsComing
I have to say it, sorry.
But your question is too stupid. You interpret the Constitution the way it was written, allright. HAVE YOU READ IT? IF YOU CAN READ YOU DON"T HAVE TO INTERPRET IT!!
It is a legal document
It is a contract. Period.
How do you interpret the deed to your house? How do you interpret your mortgage? How do you interpret the contract you have with a client or a supplier?
There is no interpretation to be done. Those that say they want to "interpret" the constitution want to get around it, subvert it, ignore it. They don't want to be bound by it, but that's exactly what it was written to do: to bind the government. The constitution is the chains that we place on our government to keep them from becoming what they have become. A previous poster hit it dead on: read the tenth amendment. If the constitution doesn't explicitly grant a privilege to do something, you can't do it! Hands OFF!
For a masterful lesson on the constitution, I would highly, highly recommend that everyone please watch Michael Badnarik's constitution class, available on Google Video. Worth every second.
Powers not specifically delegated to the congress by the constit
Congress derives it's authority from the Constitution so does the President, Senate and the judicial branches of Government.
Since all power is delegated by the constitution to the various branches of government then powers not specifically delegated to the Congress by the constitution they simply don't have.
So when Congress gives authority to the president to start wars does the Constitution say they can give that authority to the president. No, it does not.
Then they can't do it. But they ignored the Constitution and did it anyway.
When in fact the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war.
So the president went to war without congress having declared war so you have an illegal war.
So you see all you have to do is read the constitution and follow it which is what Ron Paul does the rest do not. That is the difference!
Tenth Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's it. That is the 10th Amendment. Is it clear enough? Do we need a bunch of Supreme Court judges - appointed by a traitorous and bloodthirsty dictator - to "interpret" it for us?
Get a grip. READ. Think. Speak out.
Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28
We interpret foreign languages not english instructions...
There is nothing to interpret!! We interpret foreign languages but we follow the instructions written in English in the Constitution.
What do you think the constitution is, the dead sea scrolls or something?
There is nothing to interpret!!!
Just read it and follow it and don't be fooled by those that want to complicate straight forward English to confound you.
Be wise it was written for the common man to understand.
If a law law is too complicated for the common man to understand it is null and void.
Why don't you just read it is straightforward and understand it with the language of the day it was written.
Constitution
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to enable "citizen service", so it is plainly worded.
They envisioned ordinary citizens would be called to serve their districts, and uphold it, and return home after their terms were complete.
The writers were very aware of the philosophy of Machiavelli, and how power corrupts. They did their best.
Now, the constitution has been under assault by those in power for 150 years, and like rain on a rock, it's their goal is to slowly erode it. They are succeeding, and we are living in the end times of it.
The question is not how to interpret the Constitution, that is a simple task for any educated citizen, as per it's writer's intentions.
The real issue is the 100+ years of case law that has undermined it.
Remember the Dred Scott decision? The US supreme court decided that slaves where not human. we look at this today as wild, but there were many in the US that agreed with this idea at the time.
This slow decomposition of the Constitution, via obfuscation, and power grabs masked as populist case law, is what we have today.
America is sick, call a doctor! Dr. Ron Paul.
Last I checked...
The constitution was written in English wasn't it? Not in german, or swahili, or mandarin just plain english.
read it..It wasn't written by today type of Lawyers
Someone made it clear... when they start twisting and turning.. and justifyinging... and making exceptions...
THEY HAVE TRASHED OUR CONSTITUTION... and lawyers like Alberto.. will TWIST SHIT INTO ANYTHINNG...
Then say.. see a "valid" legal argument exisits to allow us to do this...
They become evil..
Read it... DO IT... simple\\
Ask the people who wrote it?
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)
“Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected”~ Mahatma Gandhi
but, that's not his point for the entire thread...
he wants you to have a "moral foundation" or "context" for your interpretation. Because without it, you're just "opinionizing."
C'mon, people... don't be so blind. This entire thread was just intended to make the same point in a much subtler manner than the one that was deleted.
He's good, he's clever... a very good propagandist for his point of view. Much better than the Huckster, in my opinion, who is a blunt instrument compared to this guy's surgeon's knife.
"Cheers for liberty, my man."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qpVWPlqSAw&feature=related
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." - Ayn Rand
http://www.myspace.com/goldenstategalt
"Cheers for liberty, my man."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qpVWPlqSAw&feature=related
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." - Ayn Rand
http://www.myspace.com/goldenstategalt
Understanding
If one understands the true definition of "sovereignty", then you don't even need to ask the question as to how it is to be interpreted. You already know. The point that I am making is that the "context" that one should use should be the same "context" that was used by the people who wrote it.
“Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected”~ Mahatma Gandhi
Just amazing
It is amazing that people like you are given to opinions. Someone comes a long to make people think about fundamental issues and you call names? Just look how much good this thread has done so far. For one, it shows how ignorant so many people are and how much work we need to do. There has been very little discussion about the Constitution more than superficial mentioning of it. You are just a troublemaker.
Interpretation of the spirit.
Without it the constitution can not be relevant in this ever-changing world. Maybe we can start to see the places that require interpretation now, as things have changed so much since 1776.
Example,
2nd amendment right to bear arms. Does that mean that I want a corner store to sell nerve gas? Or grenades? Should my neighbor be able to keep explosives in his back yard big enough to take out the whole block? The town? I don't think so. We are meant to take the spirit of the law and interpret it for as we see fit. Should he be able to get a firearm? Yes, I think so.
This will be as important in the next 200 years than the last because the changes will be very dramatic. This stuff has to be fought about all the time, I don't think one can just say "this is it... do what it says." The founding fathers understood that it was the responsibility of the people to govern themselves, and made a system that could be changed when needed. I think that it's not the fact that we have changed the constitution is the problem, but how much we have moved away from the spirit of that great document.
what?
I don't get you. *I* have enough firepower to take out the entire block, easily...probably two or three, and I have harmed no one, and unless they attempt to harm me, will not harm anyone. The government has the ability to take out entire cities at a time, should we take away that ability? Oh wait a minute, THAT'S the government, we should trust them to do the right thing, right? But we shouldn't trust the people who instituted the government.
Because you have the means to do wrong, it doesn't follow that you WILL do wrong. You could actually do good instead. Every woman in the world has the ABILITY to be a prostitute....does it follow that they WILL be a prostitute?
Does it follow that everyone with a weapon will commit a crime? The Second Amendment was put in place for the people to keep the government in check. I think it's a little one sided in favor of the government these days.
It has to be interpreted like a poem
Flowing out of your emotions, reading its worn pages with revrence and care that each word would flow one into another untill the fiinal signeture is read.. only then will you understand the secret..oh and you have to rub a lemon on the back and magical lottery numbers will appear..hehe.. sorry too much wine...
interpretation
There is none, it is the blueprint of our God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as Soverign U.S. Citizens.
Interpertation?
It is not open for interpretation. It says what it says. Anyone who can read and understand English, should not have a problem with any of the meaning.
The Constitution
is really simple and clear and easy to understand. The reason long winded arguments over interpretation arise is 'cause no one wants to obey it, and they try to think of ways to get around it !
You said it!
But this is nothing new, it is done to other great works, too
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Now finally
some, common sense. I thought it was completely lost. Thank goodness I was wrong.
Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself.
This is what I think
I think intellectuals just love to over analyze everything. They like to hear the sound of their own voice and/or read their own words. I'm surprised they haven't gotten hold of a flea to analyze how many teeth they have to bite you with.
This is why we have a government, including the Supreme Court that usually gets it wrong. They have lost all common sense. What other conclusion can you come to, when they look to international law to make a decision about American law. Some may believe they have not only lost all common sense, but their minds as well.
Common Sense, wasn’t there a little pamphlet by that name?
My suggestion is, just get a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, sit down and read them. They are still printed in English. If you still think you need to know more, read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.
There now what’s so difficult about that?