It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Posted: Sunday, May 16, 2010 12:00 am | Updated: 7:09 am, Sun May 16, 2010.
By FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake
One of the most worrisome social trends today is that many Americans no longer claim ownership of the Constitution.
Every time I write about some constitutional issue, I inevitably hear from some smug liberal scoffing at how "Frank the Constitutional Scholar" knows more than the judges and congressmen who reign in Washington. Apparently we are supposed to be comfortable with the idea of letting President Obama, Harry Reid and the judges they appoint and confirm tell us what the Constitution means.
This is a scary thought. First, it is the judges, congressmen and presidents in Washington which the Constitution is supposed to protect us from. It codifies the LIMITS of their power over "we the people." Second, why should anyone in America be made to feel ashamed for holding up the Constitution as their shield of liberty? Should it not be as familiar to us, and as vital, as the air we breathe?
If "we the people" surrender interpretation of the Constitution to those in power, then we have abrogated our responsibility as sovereign citizens.
Indeed, the fact that people in this country don't understand their responsibilities as the guardians of the Constitution is a damning indictment of our educational system.
As much as anything, the Tea Party Movement is a reaction to just that haughtiness of Washington, D.C. The ruling elites have used the Constitution as their equivalent of a get-rich scheme for too many years, and the people are sick of it. Now, finally, we are seeing signs that "we the people" will not go down without a fight.
And a terrific fight it promises to be. We could even be in the midst of the country's most serious constitutional crisis since the 1800s.
Indeed, some politicians seem to find the Constitution a bit inconvenient, whether it was George W. Bush with the Patriot Act or Barack Obama with the Health-Insurance Mandate. There is an oft-repeated story that President Bush dismissed the Constitution as a troublesome "piece of paper." That may be apocryphal, but there is ample evidence that his successor did call the Constitution "an imperfect document and ... a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture."
Perhaps that view of the Constitution is why President Obama once famously pledged that if elected that he would be "fundamentally transforming" the United States of America.
Which is to say we have been sold out somewhere.
One day it will reach a tipping point and either freedom will win or the interests of the Corporate/Banker/Oligarchs will.
Originally posted by onequestion
I don't understand why we need a document to define our "rights" as humans.
What is real?
I am not trying to put you down in the least bit, i am just trying to have an alternative perspective.
Divide an conquer -
Give them rules to fight over and they will fight over them.
[edit on 16-5-2010 by onequestion]
It codifies the LIMITS of their power over "we the people.
Do we not have an intuitive ability to care about other people unconditionally? Mybe this whole idea of our need to have a written definition to guide people away from sadistic, selfish behaviors is apart of the problem to begin with.
Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by Libertygal
Good job and THANK YOU! Libertygal. I hate the thought of disregarding or subjugating the Constitution of the United States of America.
I have to disagree a tad with the quote from the site you posted though........... I believe the Constitution IS a living document in that it can be modified or amended with a majority vote "of the people". What really @#$@#%s me off though, is the notion that and end-run can be made around it.
The Constitution has -- unlike most modern legal documents -- very clear and precise language. It leaves little to interpretation. Much has been said about the 2nd Amendment, for example....... whether it grants American citizens the right to own guns, or whether it refers to a standing militia. I've read it dozens of times. It is clear. So are all the other preceps of this precious document. It can be amended. It cannot be tricked, nor fooled, nor danced around.
Q87. "How long did it take to write the original Constitution?"
A. The question is not as straight forward as it might sound. The Constitutional Convention made many drafts and many revisions to the Constitution. Better, perhaps, to note when the Convention started, May 25, 1787; and when it adjourned, September 17, 1787, or 116 days.
The author of your link said something like, "if anyone tells you that the Constitution is a 'living document' they are deceiving you. Well, I understand where they are coming from in that many people view that term -- living document -- as meaning that it is flexible and interpretive.
I wish we had folks of the ilk of the founding fathers (and mothers) within our system today. People who wanted to honor the ideals of Constitution and enforce them. It's not a perfect document. It is nearly so. It should be honored.