| Subject: |
|
The case for public literacy |
| Name: |
|
Lewis Baggett |
| Date Posted: |
|
Oct 27, 05 - 7:38 PM |
| Email: |
|
Editor@clarksvillejournal.com |
| Message: |
|
Have you been following the debate about the nature of the U.S. Constitution? Is it an "Original Intent" fixed document or is it a "Living Document"? Like everyone, I also have and opinion, but unlike some, my analysis is based upon the plain meanings of the words (See Webster’s) in the Constitution and logic.
The Founding Fathers answered that very question in the document its self. The procedures setup to amend the Constitution are hard evidence that the founding father understood that the document might need to be changed over time and designed procedures by which such changes could be made. The Founding Fathers also added the final point to the argument by adding the 10th Amendment that in essence states that unless powers were specific granted to the branches of the federal Governments in Constitution, then they “are retained to the states or the people”.
Amendment X
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.
The Founding Fathers defined in specific terms the powers of each of the three branches of federal government and thereby set limits on the powers of each. The Legislative branch formulates laws, the executive branch enforces those laws, and the Judiciary Branch administers those same laws. The Constitution did not grant to the Judicial Branch the power to interpret laws in such a way as to in effect write or formulate new laws, no more that it granted such powers to the Executive Branch.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
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.
The power to make law was retains to the Congress alone – period.
The debate as often turns to the question of the “Separation of church and State” and I dare you to find that in the often-quoted Amendment below.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Article above prevents the Congress from establishing a national religion. It in fact restricts all of the branches of the Federal Government as it pertains to the enumerated rights (see Article I Section 1 above), because only Congress can write laws. While many states have adopted similar language, this Article on its face, does not restrict religious rights of the states or the people, but specifically restricts the Federal Congress because it is the only law making body. The Congress through negligence has however allowed the courts continue to make decisions “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” religion. Please, just read the Article for yourself.
While some people will interpret this discourse as political, it is not intended as such. It is intended to ask questions about our standards of literacy and intellectual honesty. We see the freedom of speech misused to allow the misstatements of fact and to redefine words without ever directly facing a challenge by anyone.
As an example, several years ago, I was watching C-Span and the Speaker of the House was speaking passionately about a pending bill when he said something to the effect that “the constitution demands that we guarantee the general welfare”. My instant reaction was “say what”. When you read the following, you will see the problem. I am sure that a legislative aide has corrected the official record, but that is in fact what he said. We all support the general welfare but the document says “promote” not “guarantee”
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.
When we hear court using the Federalist Papers or Thomas Jefferson’s letters or even European Law to justify their decisions, it should concern all of us. Why you say? It is fundamental logic. The states of this Republic ratified “The Constitution” based upon the plan language understanding of the words in that document. They did not ratify the Federalist Papers or any Letters of Thomas Jefferson, nor European Law. To try and justify a court decision based upon something not agreed to by the states inside the four (4) corners of the Constitution is a "legislative act" and thereby prohibited by the very document that was ratified (Article I, Section 1).
We need to advocate a literary program and evaluation for Legislators and Judges. They really should be able to read and understand t |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com