Do politicians read the U.S. Constitution?

The Charlotte Observer ^ | Thu, Jul. 03, 2003 | DANNY BROOKS

[gitmo]

Do politicians read the U.S. Constitution?
They ignore fact that it limits what government is legally allowed to do

I've finally figured out why politicians seem to be confused and utterly unaware of what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Either they never took the time to sit down and read it, or they have their own version.

Note: "Politicians" includes Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are to blame for most of our current problems.

Please take a few minutes and read the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It won't take long, and if you have Internet access or a library card, it's free. It might be painful psychologically only because it will clash with many myths you have been exposed to in the -- sorry, but it's true -- liberal media.

Pay close close attention to the following words in the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."

Notice, too, that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are found in the Declaration of Independence as certain unalienable rights, not to be confused with "life, liberty and property" in the Fifth Amendment.

Some additional points:

• The idea of "separation of church and state" is not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
• The U.S. Constitution is not a living, breathing document that is open for interpretation. It is written in plain English, not Latin, Spanish, French, Swahili or any other language. It is very easy to understand. While it doesn't legislate things not around in the 1700s, such as planes, trains and automobiles, it was written to be amended and to allow Congress to enact legislation above and beyond the 17 enumerated powers. The "necessary and proper" clause gives Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper ."
• This may shock you, but it doesn't give Americans our freedoms; it limits what the government is allowed to do! Keep this in mind as you read the Constitution. In essence, it is simply a rulebook for our government to follow. Even the Bill of Rights follows this premise. For instance, the First Amendment begins with the phrase "Congress shall make no law " as opposed to "The people have the right to ."
• As stated in the Declaration of Independence, everyone is created equal and with certain unalienable rights. The purpose of government is simply to protect these rights, not to try and make everyone equal.
  
  In a civilized society, laws are needed to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others. Otherwise, there would be chaos and anarchy. However, these laws should not violate our basic human rights and should fall within the guidelines of the Constitution. If Congress only passed legislation based on what it is permitted to do, not what would give its members the most power or what their constituents want passed, then we would be living in a more Libertarian America.
  
  Libertarians' core beliefs are very much in line with the Constitution. People are born free and should remain free. We should be allowed to do whatever we want, so long as it doesn't hurt others or infringe upon their rights or property.
  
  The solution for 99 percent of our problems is very simple -- vote for every Libertarian candidate on the ballot and stop voting for the lesser of two evils. This would lead to the complete and immediate elimination of all income and Social Security taxes, regardless of salary.
  
  This would remove the funds that politicians use to cause so many of our problems. Without billions of dollars being pumped into unconstitutional agencies such as the Department of Education, politicians would no longer threaten our personal freedom and national security.
  
  Our military should provide a strong national defense, not a national offense that makes enemies by placing armed troops in more than 100 countries and makes us susceptible to hijackers with boxcutters. Out military could be adequately funded by tariffs and excise taxes, as it once was.
  
  There are several rights you won't find in the Constitution:
• Education, which is a state's right.
• The right to be liked. It is not a violation of anyone's rights if someone doesn't like you for any reason whatsoever, including your skin color, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, etc.
• Living wages.
• Houses.
• Cars.
• Prescriptions.
• Health insurance.
  
  These things would be nice and some argue they should be available to everyone. But they should not be awarded by using the force of government to steal from those who produce and give to those who don't.
  
  If government derives its just power from the people, then government should not do what the people cannot do themselves -- namely, steal -- regardless of how good it makes some people feel. You can't give something to someone without taking it from another else.
  
  

[gitmo]

Note: "Politicians" includes Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are to blame for most of our current problems.

I would include the Judiciary (including SCOTUS) to this list.

[Servant of the Nine]

They read it, they just don't think it applies to them.

So9

[gitmo]

They think it's outdated and irrelevant.

[JusPasenThru]

Good post. I remember back in the Dark Ages of Clinton that he would often quote "the Constitution" when he was really quoting the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independance. The mainstream media (which according to Phil Donahue and his ilk is tilting dangeroudly to the right) completely ignored these gaffes, and it took Rush to bring any attention to them whatsoever. I had the distinct impression that Clinton had never read the Constitution at all, or if he did, it was long ago and he really didn't care much for the document.

[phelanw]

Wow. This article really points out just how freaking socialist our society is. Sometimes I fear that I am the proverbial "frog in hot water". For those of you who haven't heard- "Throw a frog in boiling water and he'll jump out. Put him in lukewarm water and put it on the stove and he'll swim around happily until he's dead."

[Dr Warmoose]

Now for a response by the Loyal Opposition and Resident Ankle-Biter of the Libertine Party. (aka The party of Self Absorbed Spoiled Brats that never grew up.)

Libertarians' core beliefs are very much in line with the Constitution. People are born free and should remain free. We should be allowed to do whatever we want, so long as it doesn't hurt others or infringe upon their rights or property.

Except they have a special interpretation of the 1st Amendment that totally ignores the framer's intentions and instead inserts the politics of atheism.

The cognitive dissonance of the Libertine Party is rarely this obvious than it is in this unpaid Political Announcement

Through the post we are lectured that government can't be trusted and must be limited. No suggestion or explanation of the fundamental reason why government seeks to encroach and dominate is ever mentioned. It is as if it is common knowledge that the nature of man is such that whenever installed in position of power, he will manipulate the laws and the sentiments of the people, and conspire with those of like mind to serve his own selfish goals.

Then the Libertine, recognizing that elections are based on winning a plurality of votes, and only recognizing two other parties, pretends that there is this critical mass of fellow travelers who consider each of themselves as mere islands, and are willing to install these same kinds of people attracted to political power to force this ideal on the rest of this country. So much for "respecting the rights of others".

It seems that we are trading group 'A' for group 'B', and the only compelling reason is the Libertine's core beliefs are very much in line with the Constitution. If that is the primary argument, then showing it to be a bald faced lie would then seem to take take the wind out of those political sails.

People are born free and should remain free.

This, of course, is a lie straight from the pit of Hell. We are born under some authority. No child emerges from the womb and is completely autonomous from his parents. If he was, he would die because the child is completely helpless and dependant on at least his mother. Even under constitutional government, we are under the authority of law and contracts. If the Libertine Party awoke out of their collective daze, they would note that the framers of the Constitution accepted as an undeniable fact that their rights came from a Creator God. In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, whose birthday we are allegedly observing today, freedom was qualified as being under the authority of the Creator. Thus the Libertine party, in defense of their rampant immorality and vice says "100% Constitutional agreement", but disagrees on the absolute fundamentals that constitute freedom and liberty.

The author criticizes the two party system politicians for ignoring the Constitution and considering it "living document", but in typical Libertine Party gross hypocrisy, they ignore the Declaration of Independence, and rewrite the definitions of liberty and freedom that makes the result alien, if not opposite of what the framers intended. From this massive distortion of what is liberty and freedom, they build their altars of self-worship.

So where are we? We have the Libertine Party correctly identifying corrupt human nature not trustworthy to uphold law and contracts when that particular human collects a government paycheck, but strangely enough people automatically become pure and trustworthy to forever avoid doing anything that would harm their neighbor or effect his property when they are not employed by government.

This is an enantiometer of socialism. Socialists believe government is perfect and everyone else is flawed. Libertine's believe that government is flawed and everyone else is perfect. The framers of the Constitution thought that both government and everyone else was flawed, the flawed people would elect flawed representative and the end result would be a body of laws reflecting the subjective mores of both flawed government and The People. To counter this historically reproducable effect, they recognized that the ultimate authority was the Creator, and from the Creator, not government, not, as the Libertine's vaguely puts it, "rights due just because we exist", but are unalienable from an immutable and thus absolute authority.

Libertines atheistic sense of "rights" gives them the ludicrous assumption that they are their own authority (as if their own existance came about because they willed it). They are in total opposition to the framers of the Constitution because the framers acknowledged that freedom and libery come with responsibility, and that responsibility is to the ultimate authority - not fickle government, but the immutable, omniscient, Creator.

The next line, supports my assertion that Libertines are merely reprobated spoiled brats who have a greatly inflated sense of self-worth and feeling of flawless morality in that they despise authority and hate social responsibility they come up with the matra "We should be allowed to do whatever we want..." which eerily looks like the description of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the antediluvian people "each man did what was right in his own eyes". And we certainly found out how successful that political strategy was.

[rebel]

Well said!

Freedom without any moral basis? Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.

[CyberAnt]

"read the Constitution"

You mean they were supposed to read it ...?? I hate what that happens ...!!

[Political Junkie Too]

Chuck Schumer, on Fox News last month, said, "The Constitution, to me, is a sacred document."

Perhaps it is too sacred to read.

-PJ