This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: Constitution Lesson: Why a Tenth Amendment? http://bit.ly/7uC4UP...

And now, Tom Walker: My previous reply to you was not as polite as it should have been. But you do illustrate the problem with our culture: “subjectivism” or “existentialism”. We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, a product of our times; and the prevailing dogma of OUR time is existentialism. In a nutshell, existentialism is the rejection of an objective basis for life in favor of a subjective basis. Ayn Rand discusses this in her novel, Atlas Shrugged; and C.S. Lewis, in his essay, The Abolition of Man.

Suppose you are a federal judge and a case comes before you where the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, which purports to be made under the authority of Art I, §8, cl 3, is the issue. That constitutional provision reads:

“Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce…among the
several States…”

What does the quoted language mean? You have to decide the case, so what are you going to do?

Here are various approaches (stripped down to basics):

1. The subjectivist looks to his own personal thoughts on the subject and rules in accordance with those: “Well, I think it means …[fill in the blanks]…”

2. The corrupt judge rules according to his own self-interest (e.g., bribes, favors, etc.)

3. Others look to prior court decisions on the subject and rule mechanically in accordance with those.

4. The “strict constructionist”, “originalist”, the one looking for the “genuine meaning” of the clause – the “objectivist” – looks primarily to The Federalist Papers & an old American Dictionary to determine the meaning of the clause. One’s personal feelings or thoughts about any of the men who wrote The Federalist Papers are not relevant!

Now, Listen up: The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution to the People, who actually read them, and who then (via their respective States) ratified the Constitution. THIS is what elevates the Federalist Papers FROM being expressions of individual men TO THE most authoritative commentary on our Constitution.

“Subjectivism” holds that texts have no fixed or objective meaning: readers may interpret texts anyway they like. The view of the village idiot is as “good” [remember, there are no objective standards] as that of the most profound student of the subject. So people who know nothing at all about a subject are not hindered from opining!

The “strict constructionist” holds that texts have a fixed objective meaning, and it is the task of the reader to determine what that objective meaning is.

Subjectivism isn’t limited in application to construing writings. Like cancer, it spreads throughout mans’ souls; and as Ayn Rand & C.S. Lewis show, it ultimately destroys them and their countries. PH

Your comments about The Federalist Papers reveal profound ignorance, and a mindset which is not open to rational discussion.

But you have caused me to revise my opinion: I no longer believe that everybody can understand The Constitution.PH

I would have to add that Publius, you sure make it seem like that the only thing worthwhile studying is the federalist papers and your class. To hold the federalist as the bible of constitutional study is totally wrong.

Now maybe that’s not your intention, but that’s how it’s coming off. You’ve called original meaning and understanding “irrelevant” You’ve claimed that the federalist papers are the “definitive authority” to understanding what the constitution means. But that’s a very limited way of looking at it, and wrong.

The federalist papers tell us what those 3 people who wrote them meant. And personally, I think Alexander Hamilton was a criminal, so why should I care what his opinion on the meaning of the constitution was?

The Federalist Papers have significance which far exceeds the light they shed on the “ratifying process”. They are THE most authoritative commentary on The Constitution.

And just where, pray, did I say they were the “sole” explanation of the Constitution? Where they speak, they are authoritative. But sometimes, they don’t address a point; and, as I have pointed out in my various posts in the TCOT Constitution Classroom, sometimes one has to refer to other contemporaneous works, as well as to an old American Dictionary.

I am not interested in impressing people with my extensive & profound knowledge, or in making learning the Constitution seem so complex that only brilliant people with degrees can understand it. That is elitist nonsense! I do not want to discourage The People from learning it. My goal is for every person in this country to have a good understanding of our Constitution. I WANT TO SHOW THEM HOW TO READ & STUDY THE CONSTITUTION ON THEIR OWN! If they will read (1) The Declaration of Independence (2) The Constitution (3) Use the Federalist Papers to explain the Constitution, and (4) use a late 18th or early 19th century American Dictionary for word meanings, THEN, they will know the Constitution better than most law school graduates, including most of the judges on the US Supreme Court.

So! Why not focus on how to teach The Constitution to The People instead of trying to show that you are more knowledgeable than I? This is not about You; it isn’t about Me. OUR COUNTRY is rapidly being turned into a totalitarian fascist dictatorship [in addition to everything else, I spent years in E. Europe during the Cold War & I have seen it first hand]; and here you are quibbling about irrelevant distinctions and patronizing an old lady!

Our friend Allan is the one I take my hat off for. He nailed it in his last post, & he is doing much to educate the People by showing them it is THEIR responsibility to vote the jerks out of office! PH

What is to be enforced is the only thing that can be enforced, the Oath of Office. The People have absolutely no say so on anything else concerning government action and or the Constitution. The People cannot make a law (legislate) and they cannot amend the Constitution. The Force of the People to control government is limited too, limited to who gets into Office, especially the House of Congress and every two years.

As for definitions of the Constitution I am all for looking into all of them but do not believe we will find better constitutional scholars than the Authors.

Allan

IMO you are correct. My GED (1968) education finds the Federalist Papers much more difficult to comprehend than the Constitution itself.

However, I do believe the FPs are the only reliable source to research for clarification of any misunderstood word, sentence, or paragraph of the constitution.

The Constitution is the People’s Law to rule their government and the People are obligated to enforce it, certainly not government (fox & hen house, LOL).

For instance the word Militia is mentioned only a few times in the Constitution and without a definition. Every American in 1787 knew what the Militia was. I have the FPs in one document on my computer, so searching the word Militia in the FPs reveals 65 occurrences throughout most of the FPs. That’s quite a bit of reading on the Militia.

BTW I do not recommend “studying” the FPS, search and use them only for definitions.

Allan

Period.

I do strongly recommend that you do some further study on this topic. The links I left above will give you a wealth of information from some of the most respected Constitutional scholars in the country. I’m looking forward to discussing more of these important issues with you on future articles as well…