My discussions regarding the interpretation and application of Constitutional principles have tended to go only one way: What does the Constitution really say? I wonder, to what extent if any, there is concern that the constitution may simply be wrong about one or more issues. Is the constitution right in every case and must simply be read in the right way or is it possible that it may be incorrect or antiquated beyond usefulness in one or more places?
Yes, what would an error be in this context? Presumably you want some policy or another that the constitution doesn't allow for. Insofar as it's a negative rights document meant to limit the powers of government the constitution is simple and perfect. Concepts such as the "aggregate effect upon interstate commerce" and so-on may have errors but those are judicial interpretations and not the constitution itself.
You assume that I am looking to pick some argument over your belief. I was simply and genuinely interested in whether you believe that the constitution is without error and is totally sufficient, given a certain interpretation. Thanks for your input!
I am not sure what you mean by 'right'. The Constitution just is. It is our controlling legal document. If at any point Americans decide that any part of the Consitution is not 'right' we have the power to amend the Constitution to make it 'right'.
I do not dispute that it is our controlling legal document, of course. My point is that in political discussions, the constitution is always interpreted in radically different ways (Different schools of constitutional legal thought) to support political opinions. I wonder if Americans are past the point where they would ever decide that the constitution was misguided in favor of simply adhering to divergent interpretive dogma. There is a fairly sizable body of evidence to suggest that substantial amendment is more and more unlikely and even repellant as a concept in the American psyche. The constitution continues to approach a level of reverence that, in the past, has been reserved only for sacred Scripture. Naturally I have opinions on the matter, but I made this a poll because I am not trying to argue any major thesis or point, at the moment. Rather I want to see if my hypothesis on contemporary, popular attitude can be empirically demonstrated.
Seems to me you're conflating two potential problems that ought to be considered separately. The fugitive slave clause, e.g., was wrong by any sane reading, and owed its existence to bad intent on the part of some of the Founders. By contrast, any legal provision can merely be incompetently drafted so as to grant unintended powers, but there is no question of bad intent in such instances. As for "confidence in the Constitution", I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean; but seeing the Constitution is the supreme expression of the will of the People, and seeing increasing numbers of Americans are forgetting who they are, I may perhpaps be forgiven for having decreasing confidence that We mean what We say.
Then perhaps you can explain why the general welfare clause was such a point of contention right out of the gate, and how Madison's interpretation of it in Federalist #41 can be reconciled with his conduct as Secretary of State under Jefferson WRT the Louisiana Purchase.
My only concern is that we've strayed too far from it on too many occasions. It was bound to happen over time, and it is sad to see taking place. That stuff about the constitution somehow being wrong about certain issues is just the sort of thing you could expect to hear from people who are inconvenienced by it in the pursuit of their ideological agendas.
The general framework the Constitution sets for the government is not the only framework that would work but it is certainly workable. The three equal parts balancing power makes sense if we had continued that way The real genius of the Constitution was the recognition that the corrupting influence of power was inevitable and the Constitution seeks to put limits on the power of the government over people. And that has been the crux of all the bickering. Some want the government power to be absolute. They would like to see the first ten admendments, the Bill of Rights, done away with.
I voted that the Constitution may be unhelpful or antiquated in one or more ways. The specific thing that I think is unhelpful is the vague language that allows certain parts to be subverted. There is too much room for interpretation. On the whole, the Constitution is very good. But when it comes down to 9 unelected people deciding what it says for the entire country, there really shouldn't be that much room for disagreement on the meanings of the words.
You don't have to explain a damned thing, obviously. However, if you don't make the attempt, you'll never know why your claim is questionable. Maybe you prefer it that way. <shrug> It's not the least vague to anyone who has thoroughly read the exchange between Hamilton and Jefferson WRT the GW cluase, and Federalist #41 (I can quote the relevant passage if you like), and who has ever considered the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase.
I have ultimate confidence in the constitution and understand it better than most Americans. I have no confidence in the author of the OP. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=357763&page=5&p=1064166102#post1064166102
Obviously I'm not a member of that group. Why anyone should give a diddly damn whether you have confidence in the either the OP or yours truly is a complete mystery.
The government must follow the constitution or be abolished. But as individuals we're allowed to think for ourselves. Some scribbles on paper does not give thugs the right to rob you, as per the 16th amendment.
As long as we have a Constitution that is interpreted by Supreme Court Justices that are appointed by people who have ideological agendas, liberal or conservative, then a Constitution is useless.
But, there always will be as long as we have people who say, with a perfectly straight face, "It all depends on what the meaning of is, is." I would prefer having nine Justices defining the Constitution than one King, which seems to be the preferred alternative.
My preferred alternative is to have clear language. If it still needs interpretation, then it should be interpreted by people who are elected and must face re-election.
I have not been on the forum in a very long time, so I apologize to all of the posts I never replied to. Thanks, though, to all who gave their opinion. It was just the sorts of belief explanations that I was looking for, generally.
I, for one, am glad for the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our social Contract and supreme law of the land. They though of almost every Thing and any Thing.
Agreed! I too feel as you posted ie ; "My only concern is that we've strayed too far from it on too many occasions." An aggressive supreme court doesn't help matters either. reva
What could be more clear than "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."? Yet, that clear statement is constantly abused by the government. Perhaps rather that rewrite the Constitution with, "See the President. See him rule without Congress." we should start teaching people to read and reading and discussing the Constitution in school again.
I agree. Our federal and State Constitutions along with the Federalist Papers should be required reading before voting.
