The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers have a great deal to do with how we ‘interpret’ the Constitution – as does the Declaration of Independence. They are interdependent with regard to how we understand the intentions of the founders. Thomas Jefferson wisely instructed that, "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 invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." What has occurred through manipulation and injection of humanism, progressivism, lust for power, and greed is the systematic divergence from the founders original intent. Society will cease to function without a constant order…when the law becomes a moving target – those without integrity will surely take advantage of the chaos that ensues.
In his FNP As I See It column, Mark has accurately laid out the overarching problem that we face as a nation. Until this is addressed and we decide what guidelines to follow – our exchange of power from one side to the other will ultimately divide us beyond repair. WST Frederick has the goal of bringing this topic into the local and national conversation and ultimately bring us back to our roots of a limited Federal gov’t and robust State gov’t.
Please read Mark's article here: http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=95470
I just have a question as I'm interested in the recent push to return to a strict interpretation and consultation of the Constitution: Which version of the Constitution are we talking about? The original plus the Bill of Rights? Do all the ratified amendments still count? Are further amendments allowed?
ReplyDeleteGlenn Beck recently vilified President Obama's statement that he sees the Constitution as a flawed document, but you only have to read as far as Article I, Section 2 to see that, at the time it was passed, a slave was to be counted as 3/5 of a person (And neither slaves nor women were allowed to vote). This wasn't changed until the 14th Amendment in 1868, so to me it doesn't seem like such an awful thing to say that the Constitution is a living document that must be allowed to change to meet new needs and moral sensibilities.
I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking anyone. I'd just like to know which Constitution, or which part of the Constitution--you're saying we should return to. Thanks.
Pure Onsense - This is a topic the heart of the debate. What we argue for in the founders intent related to the Constitution along with the Bill of Rights, of course. Any amendments are certainly constitutional as they are prescribed within the Constitution. That said, for example, the amendments must be applied with proper intent. For example, the 14th amendment was redefined through case law to apply the Bill of Rights to the states (that wasn't its purpose). Original intent is the key.
ReplyDeleteThe term "living constitution" isn't exactly how you described. It is atributed to an openness to interpretation as the culture evolves over time, inclusion of non-US charter law, etc. If we want to change our constitution, so be it - as long as we do it through the appropriate amendment process.
I hope this helps clarify.
This is also a good commentary about the topic of slavery: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html#const
ReplyDeleteAlso, google "Constitution Slavery Issue" and you can find a great deal of articles all about this topic (especially about how abolitionalists used the court system to win a lot of cases related to slavery).
Joshua, thank you for your response. I am familiar with the ongoing debate between those who argue for following the intent of a law versus those who argue for a strict adherence to the law, as written. The advantage of the latter is that there is, of course, less room for disagreement--you just point to the words on the page and that's it.
ReplyDeleteWhat you seem to be favoring, however, is the interpretation of intent method, which I think is the more reasonable way to go. It's not as easy to achieve a consensus through it, though.
In the video where you confront Sen. Cardin, for example, I think he raises a perfectly valid interpretation of Article I, Section 8. The wording of the power to provide for the "general welfare of the United States" is conspicuously wide open to interpretation, which would make a good case for the opinion that the Founders didn't intend to place shackles on the legislative branch.
If, on the other hand, you would say something like, "Cite the passage in the Constitution that gives you the power to do X," as you did with Cardin, then you're closer to going the route of strictly adhering to the text, rather than arguing that it's about interpreting the intent of the lawmakers.
Basically, I'm not quite clear on which approach you favor. It's possible I misunderstood your confrontation with Cardin, but it seems like to make an argument regarding the intent of the Founders would require a more nuanced discussion of the political climate of that time than what you offered.
Another possibility is that I'm following a false dichotomy in thinking that one can either favor a strict reading of the written law or an interpretation of the intent. Perhaps you see a way in which the two are not mutually exclusive?
I hope all this makes some sense! Thanks.
Pure - I don't see it as intent vs. as written. I would say that it's as written by the writer and those who debated the law. I'm not trying to play a game of semantics here, I promise. :-) I see the debate between what I described and those who want to interpret the law as written in the context of what those words may or may not mean as of that moment (and determined through case law).
ReplyDeleteYou see, we have moved away from Constitutional law to Case law; it's now primarily about precedent and the justices interpretation. This is the response that Cardin provided (by way of ridiculously citing the Articles of Confederation). It's the usual answer of 'General Welfare'; one of three answers I knew I would get from him. My purpose was to get him on video/audio recording citing this in an unedited, non-combative setting. We should all be doing this with our representatives. It will set the stage for us to oppose them on this topic in the future.
About his 'valid' interpretation. It's not his interpretation...it's how he and just about all legislators use case law to subjugate all of us through the General Welfare clause (as well as the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause). Our founders never intended Article 1 Section 8 to be broad in nature. Here's an excellent commentary that reviews this is fair detail (I highly recommend that every citizen read this).
Once we the people understand what our founders try to give us, we have every reason and right be be angry at ourselves for letting this occur - and those who have taken direct advantage of us!
Does this help explain at all?
I left out the link to the 'excellent commentary'... :-)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/04/congress-a-wealth-eating-virus/
Thanks again for another thoughtful response. Indeed, it does clarify your position, and the article you link to was particularly interesting. As I am not a Constitutional law scholar, I am not able to refute it or the opinions of the author. I even agree with it in regards to the need to restrict the use of earmarks and pork barrel spending as political bargaining chips (although I don't think they need to be stopped all together).
ReplyDeleteBut now that we've done some looking back in time, I wonder what you see in the future. Say that your interpretation of the Constitutional limits caught on and became popular enough that someday the major federal spending programs created since the New Deal were declared unconstitutional. Where would that leave us?
Whether because of it, or in spite of it, America rose to superpower status only when the federal government increased in size and power. Things have been going this way, as the article points out, for most of the last century now, and very few people seem at all interested in unraveling the tapestry that got us to where we are, but instead favor trying to improve what we've got.
So my next question is in two parts: 1) What is your vision for how the country ought to look? Which and how many programs would you want to see dismantled? Why are you so sure that setting the clock back on decades of legislative and judicial consideration and adaptation would be beneficial? And 2) How feasible is this vision, given the ways in which the US and the rest of the world have transformed since the Founders' time? Are there any examples of other countries where a limited federal government has been successful? (Again, I'm no scholar in such matters, so I honestly don't know.)
Hopefully I'm not asking you to repeat material you've already covered elsewhere, but if so, feel free to reply with a link! And again, thanks for responding to my questions--it's been pleasant and thought-provoking.