Sunday, October 10, 2010

A More Perfect Union

With the mid term elections closing in the mud is really starting to fly. Incredible accusations are being made. I hear a lot of arguments supported with the phrase, “the intentions of the original framers of The Constitution!”

If an argument is made against their point, they’ll back it up with a quote from a founding father. I’ve done this myself, although I’ve never lied that I knew the founders intentions. I consider anyone who uses the phrase to be a liar and can not respect anything they say.

The original states, except Rhode Island, collectively appointed 70 individuals to the Constitutional Convention. Several could not attend. Those who did not attend included Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Samuel Adams and, John Hancock.
55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention sessions and only 39 actually signed. Delegates ranged in age from Jonathan Dayton, aged 26, to Benjamin Franklin, aged 81, who was so infirm that he had to be carried to the sessions.

Almost to a man, there were disagreements. The articles were deliberately left a little vague to be argued. The Bill of Rights and further amendments would have to be added.

Constitutional originalism is an incredibly shallow way to view or Constitution.

It’s sad that our “non political” branch of government, The Supreme Court, has gotten so politicized.

The Constitutional constructivist view favored by the conservatives on the court is presumably to keep current justices from creating law. I can respect that, but it’s wrong. Our Constitution is a living document and the court doesn’t get off that easy. The Bill of Rights proves it’s a living document. Real justice will always be a work in progress.

You can’t simply quote one of the founding fathers to prove an argument. That would be like backing an argument with a passage from the bible. You can support any argument that way. The Constitution’s preamble says it all………………

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think “more perfect” makes my point.


Anonymous said...

"I consider anyone who uses the phrase to be a liar and can not respect anything they say."
While I'm not sure I have used the term with you, I have come pretty close. I do look to the framers original intentions when reading the Constitution. I hope you don't consider me a liar and without respect.


Doggie said...

If you think think you know the framers' original intent, I do!

Anonymous said...

I don't pretend to know the Framers original intent. I'm not a constitutional scholar and, forutnately, I'm not a supreme court justice. If I were, original intent would certainly be high on my list of things to research when reviewing a case. The Founders wisely built a process in the constitution to amend it when it doesn't suit our needs. We should be more willing to amend the constitution than interpret it in a manner that blows with the political wind.


Doggie said...

I half agree. The framers were an incredibly diverse group. There will always be an interpretation to suit any agenda. Rather than looking to their individual meanings we should try to do justice to the preamble that they could agree on. Blacks are now considered 100% citizens rather than 60%. There are several examples of deliberate vagueness and you're right we have the bill of rights and subsequent amendments which prove our Constitution is a living document.