"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
Jul 28
RSS feed
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 11:28pm
Here here. And AMEN!
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 8:30pm
At the risk of being thought simple I would share my opinions on governments in general and our government in particular: I believe governments and religions came to be so that great numbers of people could live together in fairly close proximity in reasonable harmony.This requires promoting a definition of harmony and internalizing what is "reasonable."
As to reasonableness I agree with Queen Elizabeth I that government should not try for a "window into men's souls", but concern itself with a person's, or a people's actions. I offer the thought that actions which harm no other citizen are not the legitimate concern of government.
I believe our system of checks and balances was set up intentionally to make certain government actions procedurally difficult to permit time for reflection, and prevent usurpation of one branch's function and role by another branch.
I believe the founding fathers predicted factionalism and a hunger for power, and did their best to create ways to limit both. I would that all members of each branch guard their prerogatives jealously and that all citizens guard their rights and prerogatives with equal zeal.
If citizens are dissatisfied with their government, there are ways set up to make changes wihout resort to revolution, assassination or other forms of violence. But "We the People" must have the coururage of our convictions. I am as remiss as others in being complacent. Perhaps this will spur me to action.
- Highly Opinionated Curmudgeon
Wed, 08/27/2008 - 8:17pm
To a Brit on foreign soil,
No, of course, we couldn't ignore the needs of laws on identity theft, international travel regulations, gas emissions and the many other modern concerns.
Yes, the Constitution does work because a provision for amendments is part of this great document. It is sad that it took so long to correct the humanity of African slaves and to make them full citizens under the Constitution. In the case of women's suffrage, I would tend to think John Adams went to his grave knowing how disappointed Abigail was with this failure.
You say the the Bill of Rights is a different document. That is not correct, as an Amendment to a document becomes part of that document -- it is not a separate document. Our freedoms origins were clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution clearly presented the powers and authorities of the three branches of the federal government. These were clearly stated and minimal. All other powers and authorities were reserved to the people and to the states respectively. The Bill of Rights were added to make certain that the federal government had only those clearly stated and minimal powers and authorities.
Unfortunately the three branches of the federal government have, through broad applications of the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have usurped most of the powers and authorities of the people and the states. Then through the supreme court's broad and egregious application of the so-called "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the powers and authorities of the states have been nearly erased.
What action would we take if we to again apply the introduction to the Declaration of Independence? "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
LeRoy Paul
Thu, 08/21/2008 - 8:57pm
I believe if our Founding Father's were to sit in on our government, see this country as it is now, do you not think they would be appalled that "these future Americans" are becoming what we left England for? Many of our issues currently in dealing with politics and society are based on an arrogance of individuals, that as individuals they are out for "their" rights and not for America as a whole.
When we fought the Revolutionary War, we fought as a country. I love my country, I respect the Constitution. But I am saddened as I watch patriotism in households diminishing, that patriotism is "for the moment" and used as a celebrity opportunity. That people choose to call themselves a democrat or republican, when in fact "We are Americans" first. I feel these men of integrity would cringe to know that our political environment is based on popularity and what celebrity figure is promoting them.
Do those that hear the national anthem, still get emotional? Do they display their flag prominently? Do you still teach the Pledge of Allegiance to your children and grandchildren irregardless that the current legal system in some states have banned it in schools? Bring back that which makes a leader: Integrity, love of GOD and Country, compassion, and the understanding that the essence of the Constitution addresses the individual that supports the country.
I think that we will never be able to "look back" at the heart and soul of the Constitution, as it has bled too much with selfish endeavors to ensure exactly what we fought against. Arrogance and self importance in the ability to control others for self gain. We need to remember, great leaders are made by what they accomplish for the good of the country, which in turn is good for the individual, not what Hollywood and celebrities promote through propaganda avenues and who has the most money in their campaign fund.
I fear that there will never again be a great leader that will truly take us away from the path of destruction of our civilization, as history has shown through the stages of most of the great civilizations: they endured, peaked, then were defeated by greed, gluttony and immorality. I pray my grandchildren have an America they can be proud of. In the meantime, they know they are Americans and are taught to have pride in their country and to love GOD.
Oh, where are the Jeffersons,Washingtons, Monroes, Franklins and the rest of the patriots of this, our time in history?
Sun, 08/10/2008 - 12:16pm
I would maintain the founding fathers would view international jet travel, germ theory, interstate highways, national funding of public schools, space exploration, etc as encroachments on individual liberty if taken outside the context or free enterprise and voluntary participation by the States.
Put another way, they'd not be against advances in medical science, interstate highways, space exploration etc if left up to individual states to decide whether to participate and individual capital enterprise to fuel and drive the advances based on the common sense notion of achieving return on investment and recognized utility or desire of the populace to go forward. They would definitely be against federal funding of public schools. They would be against a federal government mandating diversion of capital and private wealth to federal programs in these regards.
The basic bottom line position of the founders was what is good for the individual is good for the whole, but that denying the individual FOR the goood of the whole (the collective concept) was what they had rebelled against. There is little difference between the concept of everything belonging to the King, and everything belonging to the collective whole except the semantics of the ideology. We once were living as subjects to the Crown, and property was distributed at the forebearance or direction of the Crown. We now live in a state wherein property is distributed at the forebearance or direction of the federal State, and are subjects of the federal government. What's the difference between those two tyrannies really, except the words chosen to support them and the rationales given? It's a simplistic Hollywood statement, but a lot of truth lies in it - that comment given by Mel Gibson in Patriot - why is it better to have 3000 tyrants living a mile from me ruling me, than it is to have a single tyrant living 3000 miles away ruling over me?
Another Pennsylvanian
Thu, 07/31/2008 - 1:30pm
In a democracy, debate is an essential part of the process of governing. The intent of the authors, when it can be ascertained, can and should be a part of the debate, but it need not be dispositive. Also, since the Constitution was created by committee, and often left intentionally vague, there is not always or necessarily a single intent behind its words.
The Constitution embodies a spirit of balance: checks and balances among the branches of government, states' rights versus federal powers, the ideals of democracy versus protections for individual and minority rights. Perhaps the ultimate intent of the authors is that we continue to struggle to achieve the best balance.
A Virginian by choice
Thu, 07/31/2008 - 10:50am
It is a puzzle to me why it seems so difficult to understand the only parameter to amending the Constitution is to remain true to its founding principle! Human value and human rights are constants. That is why the freedom and liberty of the individual is sacrosanct -- to our Founding Fathers and to the Almighty. Mr. Jefferson believed in the future. He believed, too, the people, with education, would know power is theirs thus able to elect politicians who would serve the country before themselves.
Unfortunately, We haven't done so well. The "government should take care of me" philosophy is trying to take over, and personal responsibility is in danger of disappearing. With it, of course, our freedom to be self determiners and the state becomes the power and the people become the chattel of the state. Where's our freedom and liberty then? An American in Florida
Thu, 07/31/2008 - 8:17am
Good old T.J. He had a quote for everything, then he went out and did something else! In principle, Mr. Jefferson may have been a strict constructionist when it came to the Constitution, but when he was in power, he did what he wanted, i.e. the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark, The Barbary Pirates War, etc.
Under Mr. Jefferson's interpretation, none of these actions are allowed and yet he did them anyway. And thank goodness he did; which leads me to believe that the Constitution must be a "flexible", "living" document, open to interpretation.
Admittedly, this interpretation can be dangerous, especially when one individual is doing the interpreting as opposed to say, 9 Supreme Court Justices. Constitutional interpretation cannot be taken lightly. However, the fact remains that the issues of our time are coming at us way too quickly, demanding immediate answers.
It would be nice to “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted”, but the times have changed and the issues won’t allow it. Personally, I think the Constitution calls out for amendment, but that takes time and politicians with the intestinal fortitude to see the process through. That doesn’t happen much these days.
-A Student of Virginia
Wed, 07/30/2008 - 7:19pm
To JB~
Would you really like a country where there is no legal opinion on identity theft, international flight regulations, gas emissions, and countless other modern concerns that were not even dreamed at the time the constitutuion was written? I would not.
Not to mention the fact that the constitution still works because, and only because there is the posibility of amendments, women and African Americans would still be unable to vote and there would be no promise of the 5 essential freedoms listed in the 1st amendment.
Do not forget that the bill of rights is a different document to the constitution. The constitution does not protect us against unjustifiable raids on our homes or other such breaches of freedom.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet in this constitution it denied the rights of African Americans, Native Americans and women. Without the ability amend the constitution- Ms. Nogood is right, hindsight is 20-20 - we would have no way of fixing the imperfections of this document. And it is imperfect as all things that come from the hands and minds of humans must be.
When all is said and done, it is my belief that a strict interpretation of the constitution is a brittle interpretation, and it will break as the times change and put new stresses on our country.
A Brit on foreign soil
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 9:29pm
The quotation cited is pretty explicit. The Constitution’s foundation that the people are sovereign is its strength and uniqueness. When making any addition to the Constitution itself, first know the founding principle of the Constitution, whether the contemplated addition is about space travel to Mars, or the use of umbilical cord blood to save lives.
In the present, in order to 'form a more perfect union', we may include amendments that enhance that foundation, never one that tailors it to a specific political party or corporate interest. As Mr. Jefferson is quoted:
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson 1793.
An American in Florida
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 10:00am
For those of you interested in the Founders' views on interpretations of the Constitution, I recommend Jack Rakove's "Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution." May I also add the caveat to keep in mind that "hindsight is 20-20".
--"Silence Nogood"
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 4:28pm
What do you suppose the Founding Fathers thought about intercontinental jet travel, the germ theory of disease, national funding for public schools, interstate highways, space exploration, or any of the other matters barely dreamed of in 1789 but which we now see deserve federal encouragement under the provisions of the Constitution?
If the Constitution was such a bang-up job, why did the Framers find it necessary to begin its amendment almost immediately? Indeed, in the interests of adapting it to America's changing needs, we've been "messing" with it ever since. And thank your stars for that. It had to be "messed" with to among other things, end slavery and to enfranchise women, to desegregate schools and to do away with poll taxes, to extend the vote to 18 year olds and to provide for popular election of United States senators.
Except that the Supreme Court "messed" with it, First Amendment freedoms—all of the freedoms of the first eight amendments—would not be protected from encroachment by the individual states. There would be no "one-man, one-vote" rule, no federal guarantee of the right of the accused to counsel or a fair trial or to equal protection under the law.
Fact is, the Constitution was imperfect from the outset—a set of sometimes unworkable compromises (for examples, the original method of electing the executive, and the original rule against citizens suing states in which they weren't citizens)—and didn't work for long at all.
—A Virginian
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 2:08pm
Why would anyone want to mess with something that has worked so well for so long? The Constitution should always be what the Founding Fathers thought.
-JB
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:45pm
Whether the Constitution is a moribund parchment whose construction should be limited to its precise words, or a living document written with room for the future is a debate waged by second-year law students the first semester of a every constitutional law class.
Strictly construed—to use the term of Richard Nixon and Jefferson Davis—the constitution by its silence on the point, permits secession. As Thomas Jefferson would have said, there is no requirement that the states remain within the union after that ceases to be to their advantage. Of course, the power to secede implies the fundamental power of the states to resist an overreaching federal government. But it also implies a power to preserve such institutions as slavery.
Liberally construed, the constitution admits of a right to privacy—to use the term of Justices Douglas and Brandeis—a guarantee mentioned nowhere in the text. The right to privacy prevents the states from limiting access to birth control, but it also prohibits them from forbidding abortion.
Pick your poison.
Jefferson also wrote, in an 1816 letter to William Plumer:
"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living."
Post new comment