The Constitution. The law of the land by which the United States of America is granted it's freedoms. Freedoms that our founders did not have before leaving on their journey to the new world. Freedoms that they wished to live under and wished for their children to live under. Freedom from the rule of one leader to rule by the people. The Constitution.
There have been many arguments regarding the Constitution and the many political interpretations therein. Some see it as a literal document, meant to be followed to the letter and only changed when amended to do so as laid out in it's pages. Some see it as a living document, meant to be interpreted with the times by those in power at the time. It is the latter vision of the constitution that I desire to address in this blog. Not because I carry the literal vision of the Constitution, but because some that carry the living vision have forgotten one small detail that makes their view a hypocritical one. A living Constitution must live for BOTH sides.
Case 1: War. According to the Constitution, Congress is to declare war and the President, being the commander in chief, is to direct the war once it is declared. This premise was followed to the letter up until the Korean war. Now the belief that the President has the sole authority to take the country to war has become conventional wisdom on both sides. When Ron Paul asked that Congress declare war on Iraq in 2002, he was told by the Chairman of the International Relations Committee that, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them."
Liberals were up in arms to the fact that the Republican administration went to war without following the letter of the law as laid out in our founding document. The cries of "illegal" and "unconstitutional" were loud and frequent throughout the Bush administration.
Case 2: Health care. This is the debate that sparked my feeling the need to write this blog. It came up in a debate about the AG of the United States being publicly against a law he was sworn to uphold. Keeping right with the times, the subject soon turned to health care and the belief from the left that the government forcing everyone to carry insurance was the best thing to do. This premise was questioned on constitutional grounds which brought up the term "living document" from the gentleman who was advocating the right of the government to force citizens to purchase health care. Who knows if it will pass. However, that is not the point here.
This is:
The same side that was against a "living" interpretation of the Constitution when it involved going to war was now advocating a "living" Constitution to allow the government to force insurance upon it's citizens. On he other side, the same individuals on who advocated a "living" interpretation of the Constitution going to war with Iraq was arguing about the unconstitutional "living" interpretation in regards to health care. It's called having your cake and eating it too. You cannot have it both ways. If you advocate a "living" document in one instance, you must advocate it when the shoe is on the other foot.
That is why I am strongly against giving any additional power to the federal government. Those powers can also be used by whomever takes power next and that person may not be to my liking. If interpreted literally, that possibility will be taken out of play. If we follow the constitution to the letter, amending it if we see necessary change to be inevitable, it shouldn't matter who is in power. the Constitution delegates very few powers to the federal government so who is in office should be indifferent.
The founding fathers came to this great nation to escape the rule of monarchs and tyrants. Interpreting the Constitution as a "living" document grants powers to those in charge that our founders were trying to avoid.
Just remember this when advocating your sides interpretation of the Constitution: The opposing side will also get it's chance to interperate it as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty clear.
diagramming sentences gives everyone flashbacks anyways. lol
when i read it- i just get flashbacks of the evil nuns making me diagram sentences. also i like to make up my own rules. like i said- keep your gun- its cool with me, as long as i dont get shot....
Yes, you are right ... the whole document is littered with commas that are questionable. They are placed all over the place in places where commas don't normally appear. I think the grammar rules have changed a bit in the last 200 years.
well damm
KT ... following your same grammar rules ... half of our freedoms would be taken away. Try applying that same rule to the 14th Amendment and see how fast you just lost the right to vote. :)
i am not knocking the right to bear arms- i think it could be worded better.
NO KT. A comma doesn't void it. The comma has nothing to do with it. It is clear. The term militia means any able bodied citizen between the ages of 17 and 45. The US Govt. has defined a militia as - "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." I am a militia member. I am trained to use guns ... so that would make me eligible. I don't think its up to the government to tell individual citizens that they are not well organized. lmfao. So in essence ... a militia member is just an ordinary citizen that is not a professional member of the service. Definition: militia - 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Very good blog and point Smashey. I totally agree with you on it. Those that used the excuse of Congress not declaring war as being Un-Constitutional should apply that same position to health-care and everything else. You are totally right that the Constitution should not be interpreted differently just because new people come into office. They can and will abuse those powers that they grant to themselves. Amendments should be added but in very rare circumstances (such as voting rights for women and minorities).
Im doing great :)
I don't think the Iraq War was unconstitutional and I don't think congress will pass an unconstitutional health reform bill either.
the 2nd part can not stand as its own sentence. but whatever- you never look at what i am actually trying to say- you can argue symantics all night- but at the end of the day it was an example- dont be such debbie downer all the time
Its been debated if the 2nd part is contigent on the 1st part and its not.
#= 3 oops
so a comma voids what the 1st part says?? do you know what commas are used for? It is still all one sentence and following the rules of sentence structure all things contained in the sentence -um have to make sense. i really dont want to go into a grammar lesson here- so explain what the hell you mean. there are actually 3 commas- so does that mean it has # parts?? sheesh.
I am glad Smashey wrote this blog. some folks on u4prez like chronic like try to say that the consitution is living and yet then get passed when someone not on their side uses it like a living document. As for the 2nd amendment its 2 parts thanks to a comma.
Smashey, I agree with your post- for the most part. but like you pointed out all sides of the spectrum use it as a living document when it suits them. I for one do not believe the issue is black and white. i think there is some grey area with the living v. literal camps. For instance........"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think this has been interpretted by many people on both sides of the gun control fight. I honestly have stopped debating it b/.c i dont pick and choose the rights Americans get to have. However, I kow for a fact my neighbor with the aresenal is not part of a well regulated (or trained- depending on which copy you pick up)militia. but it has been interpretted that the definition of militia is whatever you pretty much want it to be- to suit you purposes. so i guess i am agreeing with you - i just like to ramble at times.....
I agree 100% Tali. Why anyone would want to give that power away to be molded by whatever political party happens to be in power is a mystery to me.
Exactly. Making it a "living document" simply gives the power to those interpreting it to emasculate it and destroy the very laws that assure our freedom. It is NOT a living document.
Thanks Tali. It is almost comical to sit back and watch both sides argue that their 'living' interpretation is right and the others is wrong. If we interperate the document literally, we don't have the opinion of those in power telling us what is right and wrong. The Constitution itself takes care of that. Of course doing so would render the federal government almost powerless to push private agendas. Same document, same interpretation takes away the need for agendas.
I agree Smashey.
|
<< Home