Replies

That is incorrect. It is interpreted all the time. By people, by the Congress, by the Executive. The Constitution was deliberately left ambiguous because the founders new that the 3 branches would have to fight it out (checks and balances).

It's all becoming clear to me now.

"We the people" could mean anyone. It depends on who's interpreting it.
"Shall not infringe..." is ambiguous, it depends on whether you put the emphasis on shall or not.

It's even worse if you read a whole paragraph at a time.

ARTICLE I
Section I
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

I never noticed how vague this was before.

ARTICLE 11
Section IV
The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

How could anyone but a genius, nay nine geniuses, sort out all this gobbeldy gook of fancy words and trick phrasing? Does it mean that the Pres., Vice-Pres. and all civil officers have to be impeached, convicted and removed together? And just who are the civil officers? What are civil officers? Policeman who are never rude? I know what high crimes are at least but do you have to catch them all smoking dope at the same time to impeach them? It's all so confusing! Thank God for politicians and bureacrats to tell us what these arcane quatrains mean!

Thirty, my dear, you were right. It is all over but the crying and trumpet calls. That anyone would come on a political forum, let alone a conservative forum, and make a statement like this........%$##$#!!!
Public education and television have rotted out the very heart of the Constitution. It is nothing more than a hollow tree filled with termites, grubs and mildewed sawdust.

It's all becoming clear to me now. "We the people" could mean anyone. It depends on who's interpreting it. "Shall not infringe..." is ambiguous, it depends on whether you put the emphasis on shall or not

I'm afraid you've committed the fallacy of reductio absurdum, by reducing the argument into a cascading series of absurd effects or consequences.

Not to mention you've taken my argument out of context and all in the name of conservatism. You man not like it but the founders did indeed leave the Constitution vague in parts. It was brilliant of them, using checks and balances teeter back and forth so no MAN with radical or fringe beliefs (LOL) could get the better.

Back on topic...the Constitution does not bar or deem that a COG is unconstitutional in any way. They have in fact existed unattacked since at least the Cold War.