Thread: Today is Constitution Day

People seem to have a lot of opinions about the Constitution. Some think it's like the Bible, and we need to "get back" to it, but most everyone wants to change some parts. Like getting rid of certain Amendments, or adding new ones.

A few that are being promoted- Term Limits for Congress, Balanced Budget Amendment, Right to Life, getting rid of Anchor Baby language in the 10th Amendment, restoring State's Rights, abolishing the Income Tax, limiting the Commerce Clause.

What are your thoughts about restricting or expanding the Constitution? How would you alter the present day mix of written text and SCOTUS interpretations that define what is Constitutional?

(I put this subject here because of the sub-category Political Theory, though it might be more apt in the Political Parties forum).

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ution-day-2011

A person's views on Constitutional amendments will reflect their views on the Constitution itself. People who just view the Constitution as, essentially, an interesting historical document that is open to interpretation will say "any Amendment is OK, that process was built into the Constitution." People such as myself who are strict Constitutionalists disagree. The Constitution is not a list of laws. It's a framework that guides our governing. Therefore, if there is a fundamental problem with it, an Amendment should be passed. Otherwise, it is unnecessary. I don't see any new Amendment that needs to be added to it at this point in time. As I see it, any question that one has can be answered by the Constitution as it is currently framed. (Most of these answers, by the way, are in the form of "this has nothing to do with the Constitution, take it up with your state legislature and stop bugging me.")

Originally Posted by C-B-M

A person's views on Constitutional amendments will reflect their views on the Constitution itself. People who just view the Constitution as, essentially, an interesting historical document that is open to interpretation will say "any Amendment is OK, that process was built into the Constitution." People such as myself who are strict Constitutionalists disagree. The Constitution is not a list of laws. It's a framework that guides our governing. Therefore, if there is a fundamental problem with it, an Amendment should be passed. Otherwise, it is unnecessary. I don't see any new Amendment that needs to be added to it at this point in time. As I see it, any question that one has can be answered by the Constitution as it is currently framed. (Most of these answers, by the way, are in the form of "this has nothing to do with the Constitution, take it up with your state legislature and stop bugging me.")

I've noted in your replies elsewhere on USPO that you believe that much of what the Federal Government does is in fact Unconstitutional. Obviously most if not all of Obamacare.

Would you mind just listing some of the laws, Federal Departments, and/or Amendments, that need to be repealed or challenged, based on your strict interpretation?

I think we have come too far to keep up this lie that govt is being run according to the constitution. And that you cant go back. As such, it should be done away with and new one written, and the states required to accept it or seperate.

term limits, term limits, term limits.....although it will never happen.

Originally Posted by mahayana

I've noted in your replies elsewhere on USPO that you believe that much of what the Federal Government does is in fact Unconstitutional. Obviously most if not all of Obamacare.

Would you mind just listing some of the laws, Federal Departments, and/or Amendments, that need to be repealed or challenged, based on your strict interpretation?

Sure. Pretty much all social programs (e.g., food stamps, WIC, welfare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Obamacare) are not the province of the government. As well, Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. That's just off the top of my head, but if you want to ask me specifically about any program, I'll be happy to give you my opinion.

I guess we could lay it out by Administration, start with things Obama's done or proposed that are unconstitutional (Individual Mandate, Auto bailouts, Fed Reserve bailout to foreign Banks, War in Libya), things Bush did (Patriot's Act, Dept of Homeland Security, Medicare Part D), Clinton (???), Bush Senior (???), Reagan, FDR, etc.

Can someone list the Constitutional positions of Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann? I know they all want to push back on SCOTUS decisions and various Amendments.

My view of the Constitution of course is a very strict adherence to what it actually says because to me, it's not just the Constitution and the words that are in it that are important, it's also the historical context in which it was written and it's original purpose. People who believe in the "living document" theory fail to understand the importance of why the document was written in the first place and the reason it was written the way it was written. I believe very plainly that the Constitution simply means what it means, i.e., it says what it says in plain English, no interpretation is needed. If you understand English and grammar, then you should know what it says. But the context is important too, and this is where knowing the history behind the Constitution, the over-arching philosophy that ruled its creation, and the reason particular things were put in it and left out are all critical to our current understanding of the document. For instance, understanding the philosophy of John Locke and its influence on the Constitution is critical to understanding why it was structured the way it was, particularly with regard to enumerated powers and the concept of property rights. Then, one must understand the arguments for and against the Constitution during the time of its ratification by the states. If one understands that the vast majority of people during the time of ratification were afraid that the Constitution would give TOO MUCH power to the Federal government rather than the other way around and if one then looks at the counter-arguments (the Federalist papers), it is clear that the people defending the Constitution and pushing for its ratification were saying "no, the Federal gov't won't have too much power because"....then they would defend certain clauses like the general welfare clause, necessary and proper, etc. by saying "here is the plain language of the Constitution, if we meant for the government to have unbridled powers, we wouldn't have put such and such in here, we wouldn't have listed specific powers, etc". Very clearly it was written for a concise reason using concise, specific language and they defended it against critics (once again critics who said it provided too much leeway and power to the Federal government) by using common sense arguments and the plain language of the document. So to me, one must understand the underlining philosophy, the historical contexts of the period, first hand accounts during and after its creation/ratification, and the plain language of the document itself to fully understand the Constitution. It's actually quite simple to understand but so many people on both sides of the isle are clueless and are taught the wrong thing, if anything at all about the Constitution.

Having said this though, I think the other piece of the puzzle is the concept of "judicial review" which not only is not granted to the Supreme Court in Article 3, but which was actually left out of Article 3 on purpose by the founders (read the notes from the Constitutional Convention). The S.C. gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, so pretty much every decision to "interpret" a law as Constitutional or not is actually not even valid using the existing language and the historical context of the Constitution.

So in my opinion, amendments are the only way to change the document (this is the opinion of those who wrote it as well) and frankly I'd like to stay away from "policy" amendments like "banning gay marriage" or "abortion" amendments, these things are the domain of the states. What I think we do need are amendment clarifying very clearly just exactly what the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and the "general welfare" clause actually mean (that is, the original purpose of them). These things desperately need to be defined in an amendment so that the S.C. can't use an illegitimate power to stretch their meaning.

Wipe it out and start fresh.

We have gone so far past the original mindset of the framers of the Constitution that we cant even guess as to what they'd say about our current situation.

We have a modern country and we need a modern Constitution.

Not sure why we have a consitution day any longer. Republicans and Democrats both enjoy pushing us continually off the constitution the further we go.