Is the Constitution Senile?

The congressional Republicans' decision to read the Constitution aloud on the floor of Congress has forced some Constitution-contemptuous liberals further out of the closet, which is an instructive development to behold.

Blogger Ezra Klein of The Washington Post told MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell that the constitutional reading is "a gimmick," and "the issue of the Constitution is not that people don't read the text and think they're following; the issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."

Columnist E.J. Dionne, also with The Washington Post, expressed similar irreverence for our founding document. Dionne lamented that the tea party movement has treated the Constitution "as the equivalent of sacred scripture. Yet as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the Revolutionary era has noted, we 'can recognize the extraordinary character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those 18th-century political leaders were not outside history. ... They were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness.'"

understand a lot of American Jews— and an equal number of those who profess to be Christian can’t understand the sacred texts of their professed religious faith. Does that make these sacred writings invalid?God-Forbid. It is the idiots who fail to understand hermeneutics /Biblical interpretation.those who apply metaphysical refinements and tests of logical skill to terms understood when adopted and understood long after they were adopted and terms that equally ought be easy enough to understand if only the individual was not too busy to be bothered with straining their brain.Same exact problem with our US Constitution—It is not the age of the instrument it is the neglect and ignorance and apathy of those looking at such today that is the real problem Mr.Klein.

Due to many years of postings by other FReepers, I finally got a chance to read, in detail, the Anti-federalist versus Federalist Papers of the 1780’s and believe me, it was very informative.

As retired military, I took an oath to the US Constitution (multiple times!), and still uphold that oath, and will do so to my last breath. However, the Anti-federalists had a number of issues they feared would occur because of the way our Constitution was negotiated, and sadly, some of those fears have come true.

I think their biggest fear was that the federal government would become too big, too powerful, too beholden to special interests, all at the expense of the rights of the several states and the people within them. That is why the pushed for, and got(!) the Bill of Rights, i.e., the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, which made them PART of the Constitution.

However, what do we do when the government, either through the power of the courts, or through the various administrations or legislatures, simply ignores them?

I believe the 10th amendment of the Constitution makes most of the laws post Civil War times unconstitutional. Too bad no legal scholar in power agrees!

“the issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.”

No, the problem for these idiots is that it means exactly what it says and cynical, self-serving politicans and “Living Constitution” tyrants have made it regular practice to read ambiguities into it that simply are not there for expedience sake, and that is why they are confused. It is a document of absolutes, not abstracts and so if what “they want to get done” isn’t there it has to be put there through the amendment process for the States to grant the Feds authority to do it. The amendment process, by the way, doesn’t mention the judicial branch at all, and so with all of the judicial activism over the 80 yrs or about, taking liberties with our document that were never conferred upon SCOTUS, I can see why many are confused by the difference between what it says and what the government actually does. That’s not a problem with the consitution, it’s a problem with government.

The Constitution is America's contract with the Federal government. If the Constitution is “dead letter” or meaningless — then the Federal government must cease to exist.

As a matter of fact much of the Constitution is a dead letter. Its words are faint constraint upon State action. Those who disagree are either ignored or mocked with the question "Are you serious? Are you serious?" by the nation's highest officers. US courts routinely ignore the plain meanings of the Constitution's words. And even in the rare instance when the Supreme Court issues an opinion unfavorable to State, the ruling elite ignores it with impunity.

Most Americans believe that the Federal government is America, that they are one and the same, that America is one nation indivisible.

According to the left,Other ‘senile’ books and documents that are gimmicky:

1) The Bible

2) Wealth of Nations

3) Capitalism and Freedom

4) The Road to Serfdom

5) Give me liberty, or give me death — Patrick Henry’s Address at the Second Virginia Convention (1775)

6) Remember the Alamo— Captain Mosley Baker’s Speech at San Jacinto

7) A rendezvous with destiny — Ronald Reagan’s A Time for Choosing

8) Warnings of a parting friend — George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)

9) Second Treatise of Government by John Locke

10)

The Constitution is America's contract with the Federal government.

The Constitution is absolutely NOT a "contract" with the federal government. A contract is a "an agreement between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable consideration." The entire point of the United States framework of government is that government is not an entity that exists or pre-exists on its own volition. It is not sovereign king ruling by devine right, and we are not subjects who must wrest the "rights of Englishmen" from the king like some of our ancestors did starting with the Magna Carta.

The United States is founded on the basis of "compact." In a compact, "each stipulates to part with, and to receive the same thing, precisely, without any distinction or difference in favor of any of the parties." (Blackstone' Commentaries.) The thing each American parted with to government was the exercise of individual action to protect each ones right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What each got in return was group protection of public health, safety, peace and morals from substantial injury and a legal process to adjudicate individual injuries.

The Constitution is a written delegation of authority based on the consent of the people through special conventions. It is sort of like a power of attorney that sets forth the framework of government, enumerates its powers and establishes its limits of authority. Our federal government has no power or authority of its own that is not set forward in that document. When it exceeds those limits, it is operating illegitimately without the consent of the governed.

As was said by Alexander Hamilton: "[E]very act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

From its many actions, Congress and the Administration do not seem to understand this. They all took a solemn oath of office to "protect and defend" the Constitution, and "bear true faith and allegiance to it." Shouldn't they understand what it says and be able to cite the authority for the bills they are introducing?

As far as federal agencies are concerned: "When Congress passes an Act empowering administrative agencies to carry on governmental activities, the power of those agencies is circumscribed by the authority granted...," 321 U.S., at 309. Obviously, neither Congress or the Administration can enlarge government authority through that delegation.

Although the Administration may impose duties of a political nature upon an executive office, the departmental agency, itself, is a creature of Congress, derives its power solely from the delegation of authority by Congress and its actions are subject to Congressional supervision and restricted by the control of the law as enacted by Congress. Kendall v. U.S. Ex Rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. 524 (1838,)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.