How should we interpret the Constitution?

Just wanted to let folks know that the audio version of this article was featured on the latest episode of the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center Podcast! Hope you will check it out here:
http://arizona.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/a...

Or here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/arizona-tenth-...

Thanks!

Questions like, "how should we interpret the Constitution?," and "is it constitutional?," all inadvertently sidestep the following point. The Constitution is amendable, evidenced by Article V. So if the Article V majority doesn't like how the USSC interprets the Constitution, then the Article V majority can quit sitting on their hands and amend the Constitution.

In fact, the 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of the states amending the Constitution to "overturn" USSC case decisions.

Jefferson had put it this way about the states ultimately calling the shots in the good old USA.

"If the two departments [Federal and State] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided not compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

Finally, don't overlook that in all discussions concerning constitutional limits on the powers of the Oval Office and Congress, you will rarely hear any reference to Article V, the Congress's best kept secret.

If the law were some copybook, with language easily definable, such as that speeding law, then we would have few problems--but the Constitution has few such easily definable phrases--therefore the court cases, the vexed arguments over federal-state relations, war powers, spending programs etc. Indeed, the amending process itself was violated by Thomas Jefferson, with a Congress full of Framers and Founders, with the Louisiana Purchase, and for one of the reasons that the amending procedure, the use by the States of their Reserved Powers under the Tenth, would have taken too long, that the opportunity to get that land would have been lost. Jefferson noted that Necessity trumped the normal amending process or the use of the Tenth.
No, I well aware of the amending procedure and the use of the making of the laws--but people starve while new policies are debated and made, and wars lost. If anything at all, this was the reason for that energetic Executive that Hamilton(with Jefferson in agreement) argued for. This is the problem of law and "lawlessness" that Plato note in his Statesman--the issue is that old.

As to those "specific words" and their meanings--read the 37th Federalist
As to changes to these words outside of the formal amending process, well, I give you a recent work, The Federalist Papers Written in Contemporary English" by some female scholar who simply inserted different words that she thought were more in line with today's English--but in so doing, she altered the arguments of Madison and Hamilton. Indeed, we are fortunate that the Constitution was written in a still alive language, unlike say, the Bible, much of which is unintelligible because of the many translations over time, giving rise to a plethora of opinions about everything Christian. And it takes more than the mere "democratic" process to change these words, it takes a societal change, to include the way the language is used, the courts and the executive, the very fabric of life in America. And therein lies the changes to the Constitution.

Indeed, the opportunity presented by the Obama Presidency and the current economic situation gives that opening for that change--but the problem with national-state relations aka federalis, or the problem of power and corruption, or whatever else, have always been with us--from at least FDR's days
The difficulty the Center and its allies will have is that if the economy revives, willy-nilly, the opportunity to make changes in the public mind about nullification, interposition and state's rights will fade. In the last several decades, such opportunities have arisen, notably during the Carter administration, the Clinton administration, to name but two. And in these cases, well, one can hardly say that Reagan or Bush were improvements over the prior administrations. Indeed, if anything, the national govt got larger, the state's power got less, in the opinions of those who hold the current view of this Center.
But there's an interesting question: what if the people, the ordianry Joe the Plumber, with all of this increase in federal power and decrease in the state's power, got what he wanted? .

A third problem has to do with that change in the generations. It will do no good to refer to an original meaning on the words of the Constitution if the current generation, or indeed, those in the recent past, have broken with it in critical understandings. Aristotle noted that change can come from revolutions and from slow changes through the changes in generations--changes in not only economies, but the very life-styles of those high and low. To appeal to some original idea. some notion of nullification, even if this original concept as you all argue was ever true, as an example, is to confront the current understanding of that issue held by all. The practical political question is, for all too many, are you better off with the current political arrangement than you might be with that older or different(this Center's ideas are not necessarily in line with the original intent) arrangement--would you like to see such things as Social Security and other "unconstitutional" entitlements go away? The Center and its allies have taken the opportunity presented by the adverse reaction to Obama and the economic crisis to propose that change from the current understanding and political arrangement.

As to poer corrupting, there's another view, that of Aristotle, who stated that "the office(or use of power) shows the man"--that when a good man uses power, it improves him, and when a bad one uses power, it makes him worse (see the Nocomachean Etnics). Acton thought that almost all emn were bad, and especially those who were in authority or might become in authority--to contrast with those described by Aristotle. This current opinion of Acton's wrecks any idea of any kind of representative government, as since there are no good men, their use of power will be an evil thing. What if Acton was wrong and Aristotle right, that there are good men, and more of them than Acton theorized?

The extreme opposite these days of what seems to be described simply as tyrannical government is what we have when government has no spine...A government bought and sold by multi-national corporations. A relationship that on the surface appears to offer "freedom"...freedom from regulation that restrict businesses rights to whatever they feel is best for the bottom line. The bottom line isn't necessarily the problematic aspect, but when the bottom line effects my right to basic freedoms of clean air, water...privacy issues relating to electronic media, corporation being considered "people", legally allowing bribing politicians for quid pro co. I personally agree that big government is problematic, but alas, so is the so called "freedom" that is being peddled by the extreme right. Unbridled capitalism certainly isn't what I call freedom either. Monsanto is a perfect example. I don;t trust the government, but I certainly don't trust that multi-national corporations have my best interests in mind either.

"A Constitution that doesn’t mean what it says, means nothing at all." I believe this quote comes from an article on this site but it says it all.

I agree with the quote from TJ that the goal in every constitutional question should be the original intent as evinced by the words of document itself. This, at least, gives us a limit. If that is not the question, then why do we even have a constitution?

While people of good will and normal intelligence can differ, an honest debate about the meaning of a given phrase is healthy and enlightening. I welcome such debate!

Instead of healthy, honest debate about the original intent behind the words of the Constitution, we get Nancy Pelosi ridiculing and laughing at someone who asks where in the Constitution Congress has the power to legislate national health care. The idea that her power is limited in ANY way, is simply laughable to her.

How is this even possible? How does she remain in office? Where is the outrage? Where are the pitchforks and torches?

In a sane world of informed citizens, Pelosi would be removed immediately for such behavior. But, that didn't happen. Instead, she is lauded as a template of a powerful woman in America as she effectively says to the citizenry, "Let them eat cake!"

Sadly, we don't have a country of informed citizens and the maxim of power=corruption is proven, to those of us who are aware, every day. For a recent example, look at the leaders of Bell, California who were arrested for taking outrageous salaries approaching $1 million per year for jobs that normally pay 1/10th or less of that amount. These vermin had some power and the people of the city and the state auditors, as usual, were not paying attention. Look at the faces of power and corruption:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39311302/ns/us_news-c...

You have to be living in a fantasy world to think big government solves problems. Sadly, people are very flawed and cannot be trusted with power.

"That government is best which governs least."

That's what the US Constitution is all about and we ignore it at our peril.