Custom Search

Friday, March 26, 2010

The Constitution and what it means

In today's society, interest in the constitution has risen dramatically due to recent events involving the Iraq War and with Obama's health care bill. Before that, the Constitution was largely ignored by people who pretended to not see it but acknowledged it's existence. In this time frame, such things as the FCC Act and other unconstitutional laws and bills have been passed by congress that have restricted our freedom, the freedom promised to us in the Constitution. There once was a time in which the constitution had meaning to people, people who remembered what it was like to be ruled by a centralized government that largely ignored them and was too far away to run efficiently. In the 20th century the US has slowly found itself back in this situation it once faught so hard to escape from. The only difference is, before the despotic opressor was the British Empire, today it's Washington DC.

Many myths about the constitution have arisen over the last few years. One of the biggest examples of one of these myths that have arisen is the unfounded myth of the Constitution being a living document. It is in fact not a living document, and is not up for debate. Primary documents from the era in which the Constitution was framed and documented, including, but not limited to, court decisions, pamphlets, and addresses given by the presidents shows clearly that the framers did not have the "living document" idea in mind, nor the idea of it being up for interpritation so broadly. On the matter, Thomas Jefferson said, "Let us not make it a blank paper by construction," meaning that he didn't intend for it to be so broadly opened to interpritation that anyone could make any claim about it that they wished, just to fit a political agenda.

While some people, mostly neo-conservatives, treat the constitution as a "living document," others, such as liberals, tend to view it as a Wikipedia entry. They pick at the constitution and take things to mean what they want it to mean as apposed to the actual meaning behind it. In affect, they're interpreting such laws to read like, "Don't murder," into, "Don't murder if you can help it." This is a bit of an exaggeration, however it's not too far from the truth. The idea that the Constitution need be read differently today because it's a different world than when it was written is the absolute most foolish thing a person can say. The fact is that the wisdom found in the actual meaning behind the Constitution could be applied to this day.

The Constitution has been used as of late by both major parties as a way to justify their horrible deeds and opression on the US people. The idea that the government knows what's best for us and has to save us from ourselves by a series of laws that make things that harm no one illegal is not what the founders had in mind. They also did not have "social justice" in mind, and is an ignorant thing to believe that they wanted it. The term "social justice" implies that it's illegal to be successful and to make money, which is wrong and limits the economic freedom of the individual. A document such as the Constitution that was written to expand the freedom of the individual is in no way supportive of so called "social justice." In no way, shape, or form is "social justice" supported by the Constitution, nor is it moral by any respects.

The role of the government is laid out clearly in the Constitution as well. The government may have to deal with foreign affairs, take active role in how to collect and apropriate taxes, and to make legal decisions, however it is not allowed to tell states how to run their government. As stated in Amendment X, Article 1:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, the federal government is not allowed to force a law that requires a state to act in accordance to it's will. This is a simple, and obvious, way of thinking. The central government, is far too large to govern by a central power. It must be divided and have states that are allowed to govern themselves respectably. It is effecient and is cost effective, and it allows for greater freedom.

No comments:

Post a Comment