Some thoughts on American issues and times for debate

[Osborn F Enready]

I would like to start this debate by presenting a topic:

The topic of this debate is the Federal Constitution, the role it plays in government in this nation, and how it is currently being used.

I would like to start the debate by focusing on just one issue, though I am sure it will blossom into more complex arguments as they usually do, and that is cool too. However, what I start with is one of the main problems in my opinion, and I would like to attempt to desribe the problem very clearly, yet in a short, succint description, and get feedback on that issue BEFORE we veer off of that topic individually. I would appreciate your input, all input, as long as you address the original issues put out for debate.

Thank you.

My issue of argument:
I fail to see how it is in the publics best intrest to have two, current, working theories of interpretation of the Constitution.

Is it not true that Constitutional Scholars differ on many fundamental basic issues of interpretation, depending on what "university" they come from, or teaching they ascribe to?

I contest that if the Constitution is to be interpreted any different than the founders intended (which that point of view can be ascertained from reviewing the combination of the document itself, and the founders surrounding writings on the topic, and the topics the document addressed.) then there must be a constitutional convention, or some official mechanism for which this "new interpretation" can be legally employed as per the Constitution in question.

If scholars can not agree, how can the government, or the public, when there are two opposed working versions? Does this not undermine the law, and demand a reformation of government, or a resurrection of the one that has been plundered and misinterpreted wrongly?

[Chancellor]

Your points and questions are reasonable. I happen to believe that the Courts do not have the authority (under Article III) to "interpret" the Constitution. They may interpret laws but they must use the Constitution as the basis for interpreting laws. This suggests to me that the Constitution has only one meaning, that this meaning is absolute, and that this meaning is exactly and only what those who wrote the document intended.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said: Your points and questions are reasonable. I happen to believe that the Courts do not have the authority (under Article III) to "interpret" the Constitution. They may interpret laws but they must use the Constitution as the basis for interpreting laws. This suggests to me that the Constitution has only one meaning, that this meaning is absolute, and that this meaning is exactly and only what those who wrote the document intended.

I say:
I totally agree, but that is why I fault a lot of your other expressed opinions, so I will reply later after more people contribute so as not to sideline the topic for now.

[Athena]

I think our constitution has been ignored for so long, it is meaningless.

For the constitution to have meaning, education must provide the education of its purpose and meaning. As long as some are willing to give power to a few, and ignore the education of the masses, the constitution of the US will remain a meaningless document.

How we understand something, depends on how we are taught to understand it. There have been undemocratic forces at work in the US since the beginning, and many strongly defend some of these undemocratic forces. I have to laugh when these people are displeased with how the few, who do have some power, are running things.

Exactly what is your objection to how the constitution is interpreted? How about using federal funds for a public education to produce products for industry? This is clearly unconstitutional and what has been happening. Welcome to the New World Order we stood against. The Bush and Cheney world power grab, seems to be failing. How many constitutional points were violated for this power grab to happen?

You ask if scholars should agree on the meaning of the consitituion. Just leave Bush to hand pick people a little longer and there should be scholarly agreement. I think you do not understanding the balance of power that is the ideal of democracy, an ideology of relationships, of which government is only one expression.

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena said: I think our constitution has been ignored for so long, it is meaningless.

I say:
I agree that it has been "reduced" due to multiple interpretations being allowed.

Athena said: For the constitution to have meaning, education must provide the education of its purpose and meaning. As long as some are willing to give power to a few, and ignore the education of the masses, the constitution of the US will remain a meaningless document.

I say:
It is the responsibility of parents to educate, and place their kids in society. Society is not a parent, it is a "partnership" between like minded peoples.

Government is force, and ONLY force, that is why it is best when limited to the smallest amount possible.

Athena said: How we understand something, depends on how we are taught to understand it.

I say:
Agreed, unless it is instinctual.

Athena said: There have been undemocratic forces at work in the US since the beginning, and many strongly defend some of these undemocratic forces. I have to laugh when these people are displeased with how the few, who do have some power, are running things.

I say:
Wow, seems you don't understand the evils of democracy, which is a shame, since many texts, observances, and historical fates rest on its failed ideas.

The only thing good about democracy, is it allows all people to participate in the system. Without areas of protectiion and isolation for rights of the individual, the individual fate couldl be decided by popular vote. If it weren't for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, democracy would have long ago destroyed this nation.

You talk often about the one sided praises of democracy, but you never want to admit its shortcomings. I talk of Constitutional government, and often address its shortcomings...... who is in denial here?

Democracy is mob rule, at the ballot box. Without secured rights, nothing is sacred, nothing is preserved, nothing will last, except mob rule from one extreme to the next as each side wittles down the other election after election.

Athena said: Exactly what is your objection to how the constitution is interpreted?

I say:
That there are more than one taught, and accepted interpretations, and they are not able to be co-existent because they contradict each other, which causes conflicting laws, due to conflicting interpretation.
We either need to go from the original interpretation, as founded by the writers, or we need to call another constitutional convention, and do away with the one we have now. We MUST do one or the other though, to have a workable system free of "documented hypocrisy".

Athena said: How about using federal funds for a public education to produce products for industry?

I say:
The Constitution does not advocate public funds for education. It was founded by anti-tax protesters, so they were quite anti-tax for anything not explicitly REQUIRED for government function.

Athena said: This is clearly unconstitutional and what has been happening.

I say:
The idea of FORCED deductions from all people, for public education of some, is unconstitutional, as is the removal of apportionment taxation.

So am I to assume you support the "new" interpretation of the Constitution?

Athena said: Welcome to the New World Order we stood against. The Bush and Cheney world power grab, seems to be failing. How many constitutional points were violated for this power grab to happen?

I say:
You are mistaken. Bush and his administration HAVE made several power grabs, but they are only ALLOWED to happen due to power grabs especially since 1913 on, but mainly 1913 and 1933. (Federal Reserve, and New Deal respectively) These should have been struck down immediately.

Athena said: You ask if scholars should agree on the meaning of the consitituion. Just leave Bush to hand pick people a little longer and there should be scholarly agreement. I think you do not understanding the balance of power that is the ideal of democracy, an ideology of relationships, of which government is only one expression.

I say:
I think you need to do more research, and be more open to the faults of your championed system, because obviously you are ignoring the very demise of your own designs. Denial is an ugly thing, but when you deny the shortcomings of democracy it can prove fatal.

By the way, I would think you know I don't support Bush, if you were implying that.

[Osborn F Enready]

For example everyone, I would like to ask you what is your opinion of this page of this website?

They breakdown the currently "accepted" forms of interpretation of the Federal Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

Originalism, or, Original Intent Originalists think that the best way to interpret the Constitution is to determine how the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted. They look to several sources to determine this intent, including the contemporary writings of the framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself. Originalists consider the original intent to be the most pure way of interpreting the Constitution; the opinions of the Framers were, for the most part, well documented. If there is an unclear turn of phrase in the Constitution, who better to explain it than those who wrote it? Opponents of originalism note several points. First, the Constitution may have been the product of the Framers, but it was ratified by hundreds of delegates in 13 state conventions - should not the opinions of these people hold even more weight? Also, the Framers were a diverse group, and many had issues with specific parts of the Constitution. Whose opinion should be used? Next, do the opinions of a small, homogeneous group from 200 years ago have the respect of the huge, diverse population of today? To a black woman, how much trust can be placed in the thoughts of a white slave owner who's been dead for generations? In truth, as with all of the following interpretations, most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance your point of view. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Modernism/Instrumentalism Those who most oppose the Originalist approach often consider themselves to be modernists, or instrumentalists. A modernist approach to Constitutional interpretation looks at the Constitution as if it were ratified today. What meaning would it have today, if written today. How does modern life affect the words of the Constitution? The main argument against originalism is that the Constitution becomes stale and irrelevant to modern life if only viewed through 18th century eyes. Additionally, we have more than 200 years of history and legal precedent to look back on, and that we are modern individuals, with as much difficulty in reasonably thinking like 18th century men as those 18th century men would have had trouble thinking like us. Modernists also contend that the Constitution is deliberately vague in many areas, expressly to permit modern interpretations to override older ones as the Constitution ages. It is this interpretation that best embodies the Living Constitution concept: the Constitution is flexible and dynamic, changing slowly over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift. Modernists do not reject originalism - they recognize that there is value in a historical perspective; but the contemporary needs of society outweigh an adherence to a potentially dangerously outdated angle of attack. Originalists feel that modernism does a disservice to the Constitution, that the people who wrote it had a pure and valid vision for the nation, and that their vision should be able to sustain us through any Constitutional question. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Literalism - historical Historical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution. The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words. The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words. The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions. For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Literalism - contemporary Very similar to an historical literalist, a contemporary literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for guidance, but this literalist has no interest in the historical meaning of the words. The contemporary literalist looks to modern dictionaries to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution, ignoring precedent and legal dissertation, and relying solely on the definition of the words. Just as the historical literalist view parallels the originalist view, but much more narrow in focus, so too does the contemporary literalist mirror the modernist; and again, the main difference is the literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for meaning. To expand on the 2nd Amendment example, the contemporary literalist will view the militia as the modern National Guard, and this will color that person's views on the 2nd. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Democratic/normative reinforcement Finally, the democratic interpretation is the last approach to interpretation. Democratic interpretation is also known as normative or representation reinforcement. Democratic proponents advocate that the Constitution is not designed to be a set of specific principles and guidelines, but that it was designed to be a general principle, a basic skeleton on which contemporary vision would build upon. Decisions as to the meaning of the Constitution must look at the general feeling evoked by the Constitution, then use modern realism to pad out the skeleton. As evidence, democrats point out that many phrases, such as "due process" and "equal protection" are deliberately vague, that the phrases are not defined in context. The guidance for interpretation must come from that basic framework that the Framers provided, but that to fill in the gaps, modern society's current morals and feelings must be taken into consideration. Changes in the Constitution that stem from this kind of philosophy will end up with principles of the population at large, while ensuring that the framers still have a say in the underlying decision or ruling. This interpretation is seen to enhance democratic ideals and the notion of republicanism.

Now, my question is, how is it possible to have a system where laws are based on the meanings of words, and the words are allowed to be interpreted differently depending on how YOU want to use them?

This is my point of comparison in many other threads when I talk of Neuspeak.

The Constitution is a contract, that must be interpreted in its original form, in my opinion, as it was intended by the people who wrote, read, agreed and signed to it. This document was signed into enforcement "until repealed" by proper process as described within its text, or be rebellion.

My accusation is that corporatist minded, socialist minded wealthy individuals started many of the "famed" universities in our nation, and are using those universities to subvert the system through INTRODUCING new interpretations, and preaching the tolerance, and acceptance of those interpretations as valid.

Education is nourishment for the individual, and is as important as liberty itself, but what, and how things are taught, as well as the systems founding and financial support play a big role of "what is being taught" and for what purpose it is being taught.

We all understand how competitive human nature is, and, we also know that people who have been rich for generations tend to lose sight of the value of labor, and the gift of wealth.

Why is it hard to understand for so many, that people started universities to see THEIR ideas carry on, through future generations, which is not BAD unless it is meant to subvert the very system of government that provides the ability to openly study that education.

Teaching multiple interpretations of the document, only serves to extinct and replace it and render its words useless in my opinion.

And I would ask you this:

When you as a parent, write a note to your child to take out the trash before bed, how many interpretaions would you accept?
*out the door all over the driveway.
*outside the room, but in another room.
*outside the house
*out of the can, but on the floor in the same room.
*out by the can, but not in.
etc, etc, etc, etc.

How about if the child attempted the same redefinition for the meaning of the word "trash", as they did the word "out"?

Same idea, different topic. Same flaws.

Anything more than one interpretation, is the definition of hypocrisy.

[Keith Hamburger]

OK. Admittedly, I'm not contributing much here, just putting in my two cents and making sure that I can keep track of this discussion.

I agree that the Constitution should be read as originally written and intention should be derived from the writers other works. This isn't like the Bible where we don't know who specifically wrote what or what their meanings were, we have clear and readily available writings from those who started this whole thing. There is no reason for guesswork and the intentions of those who wrote the Constitution were that it be applied as written.

If you wish to "interpret" or otherwise change the meaning of what was intended and what was written they provided the means for doing so. Failure to follow those means is a clear violation of the Constitution, the ultimate law of these United States.

Keith

[Athena]

Osborn, a government that is force is a tyranny.

[Athena]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger OK. Admittedly, I'm not contributing much here, just putting in my two cents and making sure that I can keep track of this discussion. I agree that the Constitution should be read as originally written and intention should be derived from the writers other works. This isn't like the Bible where we don't know who specifically wrote what or what their meanings were, we have clear and readily available writings from those who started this whole thing. There is no reason for guesswork and the intentions of those who wrote the Constitution were that it be applied as written. If you wish to "interpret" or otherwise change the meaning of what was intended and what was written they provided the means for doing so. Failure to follow those means is a clear violation of the Constitution, the ultimate law of these United States. Keith

We need to pick one constitution issue. Than research it. What is the issue and who spoke to it, when the constitution was first under consideration? I have access to US documents and books at the University of Oregon library.

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena said: Osborn, a government that is force is a tyranny.

I say:
So, ignore all that I wrote above, and summarize to one sentence?

Aside from that, are you attempting to allude the belief that you can have a government with no force?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Athena We need to pick one constitution issue. Than research it. What is the issue and who spoke to it, when the constitution was first under consideration? I have access to US documents and books at the University of Oregon library.

This thread isn't about one issue, it's about how to apply the Constitution in general.

Most all of the documents surrounding the Constitution are available online, for free. No need to visit the library.

But, again, the question is, should the Constitution be subjec to interpretation or should it be read literally, and, if literally, as pointed out in an earlier post, is that literal to the definitions of the words, either as defined at the time of writing or today, or should it be literal to the meanings intended by the writers or ???

I agree with Osborn that there is no need to get into specific questions to answer this.

Keith

[Osborn F Enready]

My entire point of this thread is to bring reason to the argument of competing "interpretations" being allowed, especially if left to make law.

The Constitution is a contract, between a government created by the people, and the people who ratified it (and all those after them, who do not use a process prescribed ranging from voting, redress of grievance, and even revolt).

This document, being a contract, and written in legal terms, of common english in common law, must be interpreted as such. This means, it is to be interpreted AS WRITTEN, and the words mean what they were WRITTEN AS, in THE MEANINGS OF THE TIME it was written. Those things are not subject to change, except as the system the document describes allows, and under the conditions it allows. This would also mean that with every new amendment, of another time period, would have to take this rule to heart in creating new laws, in the same manner of meaning in common english, in common law, under the same limitations.

WE as citizens, demand this type of recognition everyday in contract law in our daily lives. Is it not only reasonable, but logical and dependent on the idea that we DEMAND this of government?

The very idea of education being used as a weapon, and interpretation being used as a weapon, against the rights of the individuals through the corruption of law and system, is to me not only abhorrent, but intolerable, and must be stopped after being understood. It must be understood however, to be stopped!

[SteveA]

Some disagreements over interpretation of the Constitution are inevitable, though we can rather safely agree there's an unchanging text to it. The arguments aren't over the text, but the intent of the agreement. We could read the text in many different contexts of intent. Someone could likely intend to show how the Constitution was intended to create slavery and maybe even convince themselves of this "truth". I'm certain some federal lawyers for Bush could agree that they'd "legally proved" that the Constitution allows all manners of invasion into everyones private lives but of course this would result in many problems and conflicts.

The importance of the Constitution is truly in the efforts placed into resolving disputes over what an acceptable form of government would be for most the people at the time. Truthfully only a small number of people directly signed the document, though the wisdom contained in it has been seen as valuable by many people over time. It's not an infallible document and the meaning can be warped in various ways by people, but the reality still exists that it reflects the detailed results of the thoughts of many people, complied over hundreds (or even thousands) of years into what's a good "gameplan" for government. Sure, it could be made better but recognize that the Constitution represents an agreement between people (not simply government but citizens) and individuals or small 'elite' groups of them shouldn't assume a warped interpretation of this will automatically be agreeable to everyone else. Technically, the provisions for alterations to the Constitution are already explicitly spelled out, as the manner in which Constitutional Amendments are added, and it requires a very large majority support of Congress as well as the states and their legislations to change. This process has been respected in the past, though currently this Amendment process is being continually ignored. Not recognizing this need to govern by the consent of the people (or at least a large majority of them) is one way to destroy this agreement and see chaos erupt over this conflict. So people are free to interprete things however they want, but that liberty goes more than one way and a "loose" interpretation can be seen as a "violation" of it by someone else, who can no longer be automatically expected to agree to the new terms or be supportive of them.

If people really want to defend the Constitution, defending the original intents of the agreement is the key. For those wanting to destroy it, you can simply reinterprete it to mean something opposite to the original intent and then watch everyone disagree and toss the new revision out as worthless and non-binding.

Alternately, the Consitution could be viewed in a more symbolic sense, as an agreement between many people over the general character of legitimate actions between themselves. This agreement is upheld to the extent that people continue to see benefit from it but if the intent is warped into implying it justifies placing excessive burdens on those supporting it, then the value and support of the agreement decay and can be lost. Noone that signed it is still alive today, nor have most parents signed their children into virtual slavery to anyone and if people attempt to imply the Constitution allows this, then you'll find people 'opting out' of their support for an abusive relationship.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger This thread isn't about one issue, it's about how to apply the Constitution in general. But, again, the question is, should the Constitution be subject to interpretation or should it be read literally, and, if literally, as pointed out in an earlier post, is that literal to the definitions of the words, either as defined at the time of writing or today, or should it be literal to the meanings intended by the writers or ??? I agree with Osborn that there is no need to get into specific questions to answer this. Keith

I'm with you here fellas. This is I believe the ducument is not a living document, and was never intended to be so. It should be interpreted exactly as the framers intended. Very strictly, with no compromise.

[pubmanager]

I have always thought that the constitution contains withinin it the answer to this question:

This is the constitution. It has been approved and sanctioned by the people. It is as clear as language can ever be with regard to meaning. Live with it, use it and if you don't like it, or it's not really working, change it.

It makes no sense to argue over the original meaning and twist the interpretation of language to fit your point of veiw when the document can just be ammended (in accordance with the practices laid out in the constitution) to say anything you like.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: pubmanager I have always thought that the constitution contains withinin it the answer to this question: This is the constitution. It has been approved and sanctioned by the people. It is as clear as language can ever be with regard to meaning. Live with it, use it and if you don't like it, or it's not really working, change it. It makes no sense to argue over the original meaning and twist the interpretation of language to fit your point of veiw when the document can just be ammended (in accordance with the practices laid out in the constitution) to say anything you like.

However, it is notoriously difficult (and, I would say, rightly so) to amend the Constitution. Not only do you need a 2/3 majority vote in both the House and the Senate, but 3/4 of the state legislatures must also approve the law. In fact, the amendment procedure for the Constitution is about the only thing left in the way of states' rights.

Therefore, it seems that every effort has been made to bypass the amendment process itself. Instead of amending the Constitution outright, the federal courts simply reverse the procedure of their branch of government. That is, instead of deciding whether a law is expressly within the bounds of the Constitution, they decide whether the Constitution can be interpreted such that the law can be allowed, if they want that law to remain in effect.

The reason this behavior has become so commonplace over the last century or more is because the idea of states' rights was swept away by the so-called "Civil War". Prior to that conflict, the state governments served as a check against increasing federal power. There was a philosophy called the doctrine of nullification which stated that, if a state government ruled against a given federal law, it was free to abstain from it. When a group of states, mostly in the South, decided to act out this doctrine, they were ultimately met with military force. After that, the federal government increasingly turned the tables against the state governments, so that nowadays it gives money "back" to the states instead of vice-versa, as was originally intended.

Thus, today the federal government stands as its own single judge, which means it can define itself however it wants to.

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

Rob is absolutely right here. Tyrants don't have time for the democratic process, and have no desire to be limited by the constitutional limitations. These kleptocrats are far to busy practicing nepotism, and attempting to enrich their friends with fat contracts to be limited by a piece of paper. Particularly when the people seem powerless to demand the rules be followed short of violence, or withholding taxes.


Either way, they have they have usurped the power, and aren't shy about wielding it against whomever opposes them.

[pubmanager]

So what you are saying is essentially, if you can't beat them join them?

Am I over-simplifying?

I have no doubt that the US system has been thoroughly manipulated by many self-serving groups over time. That I think most of us can agree on.

The system at its inception and in principle is a thing of beauty. The 'people' have always been the weak link. Wether that be a body of voters, citizens in general or those drawn from 'the people' who have been elected to serve and to represent the people. All have failed to preserve the balance of the system.

So the question is, why such reverence for a system that does not maintain itself as it should?

The market has spoken. The US political experiment has failed.

Stop tinkering with it by playing semantic games, either fix it properly or change it completley.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: pubmanager So what you are saying is essentially, if you can't beat them join them? Am I over-simplifying? I have no doubt that the US system has been thoroughly manipulated by many self-serving groups over time. That I think most of us can agree on. The system at its inception and in principle is a thing of beauty. The 'people' have always been the weak link. Wether that be a body of voters, citizens in general or those drawn from 'the people' who have been elected to serve and to represent the people. All have failed to preserve the balance of the system. So the question is, why such reverence for a system that does not maintain itself as it should? The market has spoken. The US political experiment has failed. Stop tinkering with it by playing semantic games, either fix it properly or change it completley.

I think that's a topic for another thread, one to which many of the posters in this thread are participating, the one on revolution.

And, I don't think that many of us who have posted to this thread are of the "if you can't beat them, join them" mindset. We are working and arguing for changing the situation, returning it to its principles.

Keith

[Autolykos]

Quote by: pubmanager So what you are saying is essentially, if you can't beat them join them? Am I over-simplifying? I have no doubt that the US system has been thoroughly manipulated by many self-serving groups over time. That I think most of us can agree on. The system at its inception and in principle is a thing of beauty. The 'people' have always been the weak link. Wether that be a body of voters, citizens in general or those drawn from 'the people' who have been elected to serve and to represent the people. All have failed to preserve the balance of the system. So the question is, why such reverence for a system that does not maintain itself as it should? The market has spoken. The US political experiment has failed. Stop tinkering with it by playing semantic games, either fix it properly or change it completley.

To me, it stands without question that the US Constitution was flawed from its inception. Thus, I have no special reverence for the US Constitution. It was a good attempt, but still a compromise. The Confederate Constitution was superior in many respects, as it corrected some of the flaws the US Constitution has.

I imagine that several of the Founding Fathers, if not more, were skeptical of the final result from those hot, sweaty days during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia. Over a quarter of the 55 delegates to the Convention did not sign the final draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philade...s_Who_Attended). Patrick Henry, famous for his "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" harangue, did not attend the Convention, for he "smelled a rat... tending towards the monarchy". Then, of course, there was Ben Franklin's statement that they had created "a Republic, if you can keep it", which suggests that he was more than a little cynical about the long-term prospects of their creation.

Franklin's cynicism turned out to be justified. The Republic died on March 4, 1861, the day Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. The ensuing "Civil War" that he spawned resulted in the de facto erasure of the previous federal system and put a unitary system in its place, which has remained with us to this day. Thus, it stands to say that there is no Republic, and hasn't been for some time.

- Rob