Comments on: How should we interpret the Constitution?

By: New Podcast Episode: How should we interpret the Constitution? – Wisconsin Tenth Amendment Center

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:49:51 +0000

[...] How should we interpret the Constitution? written by Michael Maharrey of the Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center was featured recently on the Tenth Amendment Centerâ€™s main site. The audio version is also available through the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center Podcast. [...]

By: DerekSheriff

DerekSheriff — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 04:25:34 +0000

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!

By: New Podcast Episode: How should we interpret the Constitution? – Arizona Tenth Amendment Center

Sun, 03 Oct 2010 03:18:15 +0000

[...] How should we interpret the Constitution? written by Michael Maharrey of the Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center was featured recently on the Tenth Amendment Center’s main site. The audio version is also available through the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center Podcast. [...]

By: B. Johnson

B. Johnson — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:51:15 +0000

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.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:46:40 +0000

Sometimes I wonder if people on the left really do believe in democracy when they establish so many undemocratic forms of government. Look at how many institutions in the government have the power to lay down laws without congressional approval. The EPA can declare what is safe for the enviroment without the democratic process getting involved.

By: TextualistDude

TextualistDude — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:12:03 +0000

RB
You write that "People starve while new policies are debated and made and wars lost."

This shows a sad bias in your thinking and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution. Our government was not intended to solve every problem people face. If people are starving, they need to do something about it THEMSELVES! Government is not the answer. (This lesson was hammered home when Hurricane Rita landed.)

Further, in the case of conducting a war, the dithering, debate and delay of Congress is EXACTLY why President is the Commander in Chief under the Constitution.

It's hard to give any credence to your consistently negative comments when they offer no solutions and reveal such a complete lack of understanding.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:15:27 +0000

The constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land and the law can't be moved around when it is inconvenient. It does not matter if it is life or death because it is the law which is unmovable so the consequences be damned.

"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. " I doubt this statement is true.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:11:48 +0000

The fabric of life changes the constitution? That is not in Article V of the constitution and quite frankly saying that the 'fabric of life' determines the constitution is like saying the collective spirit of our civilization determines the constitution. Again–its not in article V of the constitution but if you insist then where and how do we decide what is the 'fabric of life'?

By: Richard Burnett

Richard Burnett — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:49:21 +0000

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.

By: Richard Burnett

Richard Burnett — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:41:36 +0000

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.