Does The Constitution Need To Be Interpreted?

Does The Constitution Need To Be Interpreted?

Ever since the US Constitution was ratified the question asked over and over is: who has the prerogative and responsibility to interpret the Constitution? Early on, the Supreme Court assumed the right to exercise this function but nowhere in the words of the Constitution (the document itself) is this practice authorized.

Before jumping to the conclusion that the Constitution requires interpreting and accepting anyone’s interpretation, I would ask what I consider a much more pertinent question and its corollary: Does the Constitution need to be interpreted, and if so why?
I can think of only three possible reasons why our Constitution would need interpreting which I will list and examine in the increasing level of likelihood and incidence of interpretation.

• The way a clause is worded doesn’t make sense.
• The way a clause is worded is ambiguous or imprecise.
• Part of the Constitution doesn’t say what we want it to say.

As I will demonstrate, interpret generally is used as a euphemism for disregard or make the Constitution say what its actual words don’t.

Case 1 – The way a clause is worded doesn’t make sense.

I can’t think of an example of such gross incompetence in the original Constitution, but the Twelfth Amendment states that a presidential Elector can’t vote for a presidential and vice-presidential candidate both from his own state.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

If you assume that the Electors were designed to cast a final vote, (which I don’t), that means that if the Electors are given a list of candidates and one presidential and one vice-presidential candidate are from Delaware, all of the Electors except those from Delaware could vote for both. What sense does that make? Someone needs to interpret some sense into that one.

Case 2 – The way a clause is worded is ambiguous or imprecise.

Probably the most glaring example of this concerns the issue of slavery, the worst blight in our history as a nation. This ambiguity allowed practice to continue beyond the 20 year period that barred the federal government from interfering while giving time for the states to get rid of that abhorrent practice. (see Article I Section 9, also Article V)

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Even though they couldn’t bring themselves to write the words slave or slavery in the Constitution, by dancing around the issue with euphemisms, a conversion time was allotted. The only part of the system that ended up being addressed was the foreign slave trade which to the credit of Congress was abolished in January of 1808. It took a horrible war which devastated the nation and claimed the lives of 620,000 Americans to finally resolve the issue.

Case 3 – Part of the Constitution doesn’t say what we want it to say.

Now we come to the part of the issue that seems both most pervasive and most perversive. This is the problem with most interpretations and interpreters. Rather than studying the Constitution and trying to figure out what it is saying, we usually try to find a way to make it say what we want it to say. By our “cut and paste” methodology—taking a piece here, ignoring a piece there, and interpreting a piece somewhere else, we arrive at a system of government that is a modified democracy rather than the modified federation that the original Constitution defined.

To illustrate this point, we can look at the First Amendment and the way that it has been interpreted.

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.

This amendment contains a list of things that Congress may not do. Rather than follow the Constitution, our government has declared a wall of separation between church and state and made themselves the arbiter of that separation. Freedom of speech is now interpreted to include disruption of the daily activities of others and even destruction of property, and not only are we free to petition government but the First Amendment supposedly allows rowdy gathering and protesting of any entity or organization that seems to be doing or not doing things the particular mob assembled wants them to do or quit doing. How does that become peaceably assembling? What freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not include are things like prayer in schools and expressions like “Merry Christmas” or “God Bless You”. If Congress can make no law concerning these things, where did all this nonsense come from?

Probably the most common interpretation given to the Constitution by educated people who should know better is the notion that it defines a two-party (or any party) system of government. Unfortunately the “two-party system” is the system that supplanted “Constitutional Federalism” when America turned its collective back on the original Constitution. It happened so early in our history that Americans almost without exception assume that party politics is constitutional. It led to replacing the recommendations of the best presidential candidates by independent Electors to the confirmation of the least-worst options as determined by a party-controlled popular vote between self-nominated and self-interested demagogues who bribe the people with legislative promises which they have no constitutional authority to fulfill if they do get elected.

Most of the time the popular vote for President coincides with the party manipulated electoral votes, but the election of 2016 was an exception. Now there are many who are trying to manipulate the vote of the Electors in different directions. It will be interesting to see how this works out. There is some hope that this confusion will lead to a study of the actual words of the Constitution and the concepts that those words convey. Time will tell.

Article VI of the Constitution reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;…

which invites this rhetorical question: when the officers take the oath to support this Constitution, are they bound by the words of the Constitution or by some interpretation; and if so which one?

Having analyzed the reasons why the Constitution could need some interpretation, I conclude that what is needed most is a careful study of the actual words of the Constitution by both the elected officials and all Americans. This study must include a look at the whole picture, not just a few select pieces. If the incumbents do not follow the Constitution, they must be replaced. If after careful study, changes seem appropriate, let them be made by amendment, not by interpretation.

As George Washington said in his farewell address:
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.

A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Source:

❦❧❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦

Article V Is Deliberately Vague

There seems to be needless concern over Article V, the amending clause of the U.S. Constitution. Both friend and foe of the Constitution complain that, while the Founding Fathers gave the people a way to initiate the convention process, they dropped the ball by failing to establish procedures and regulations for the convention itself.

Was the omission of regulations a mistake? No. Article V is wisely, purposely, and deliberately vague. Those who complain that our founders left Article V strangely incomplete, fail to understand the most fundamental principle of a free and sovereign people.

Constitutional conventions are the government-making systems of free citizens. Conventions are sovereign assemblies. They comprise all power, including the power to establish the agenda, the rules, the regulations, the ratifying method, and all procedures by which the people might create, modify, or abolish their government. The convention system is the concentration of sovereign power by which “WE THE PEOPLE….[did] ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Why does Article V lack instructions for future conventions? — because no sitting convention can dictate to the next convention. The 1787 Convention could not make regulations for the next convention because the next convention would be just a sovereign as the first Convention — just as free to make its own rules as was the Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. For that reason, Article V is purposely, deliberately, and brilliantly vague.

The following is found in the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787:

Mr. Madison did not see why Congress would not be as much bound to propose amendments applied for by two-thirds of the States as to call a Convention on the like application. He saw no objection however against providing a Convention for the purpose of amendments, except only that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, and etc. which in Constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided. (author’s emphasis)

Why, despite foreseeable difficulties, should constitutional regulations be avoided? — because, as we have already noted, today’s convention cannot establish procedures for tomorrow’s convention. For that reason Article V requires the state legislatures only to apply, only to initiate the convention process. Article V provides no instructions regarding the form, the quorum, or regulations regarding the control of the convention which the state is simply asking Congress to call. The reason for this is simple: State legislatures have only the statutory power granted by their state constitutions; they have no structural authority, no government-making power.

As a general rule, when one principle is understood, it casts a little light on related principles. For example, State legislatures are not greater than their creators. This principle was affirmed during the 1787 Convention while the deputies were considering resolutions on who should ratify the new plan.

The record states:

Col. Mason considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators…. Whither then must we resort? To the people with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them. It was of great moment he observed that this doctrine should be cherished as the basis of free Government.

During that same discussion (July 23) James Madison made a similar observation:

Mr. Madison thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State constitutions, and it would be a novel and dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence.

The basis of free government is that neither the legislature nor the Congress can determine the power and scope of the Constitution to which they owe their existence. A system under which lawmakers determine the limits of their power is the definition of a dictatorship. The doctrine that legislatures were not qualified to legislate changes in the constitutions under which they serve, was well-established at the founding of our country.

Today’s state legislators who seek to bring about a “limited” convention ignore the fact that during the first 100 years of American history all state applications for a convention were brilliantly vague — purposely absent even the subject for which the convention had been called.

A constitutional convention is not “simply an extension of the state legislature.” This widely asserted idea is a corruption of the authority of a free and sovereign people. Only the people have government-making and government-modifying authority. A state legislator has only the powers delegated to him by his state constitution, which most assuredly excludes the power to regulate a constitutional convention, or make rules for a “convention of states,” or to run an “Article V convention,” or to exercise structural authority in any form or under any pretext.

A state’s application for a convention that does anything more than initiate the convention process, as required by Article V, amounts to a usurpation of the authority of the people who alone have the power to set the terms and determine the scope of their convention. Government is nothing more than the creature and cannot be greater than its creator.

Most current applications for a convention contain rules, regulations, and limitations on the purpose and scope of the requested convention. The “limitation language” in these bills is calculated to allay the very real concerns of state legislators who have been reluctant to support the uncharted road to a modern convention.

In addition to illegal (completely unenforceable) limitations contained in the state resolutions, the convention lobby is pushing “delegate responsibility” bills that impose severe penalties on convention delegates who might stray into constitutional changes not specifically authorized by the state’s resolution. It would be hard to find a more serious violation of the doctrine of civilian sovereignty than is found in such bills. Convention limitation bills, in any form, constitute the “novel and dangerous doctrine” of which James Madison has spoken.

It is a curious thing that after 227 years the convention lobby has “just discovered” that state legislatures have an amazing array of powers unknown to America’s Founding Fathers. And it is equally curious that the convention lobby ignores the authority of a sovereign people which in 1787 was “cherished as the basis of free government.”

Source:

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato (429-347 BC)

TRY THE PATRIOT AD FREE

THE PATRIOT

 "FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY"

and is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, In God we trust

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy

Knowledge Is Power And Information is Liberating: The FRIENDS OF LIBERTY BLOG GROUPS are non-profit blogs dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

                                                                                                    

NEVER FORGET THE SACRIFICES

BY OUR VETERANS 

Note: We at The Patriot cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability, and accuracy of this information.

Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest, Twitter, Tumblr, Me We and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

LibertygroupFreedom    

The Patriot is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to Educate, protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 

Join The Resistance and Share This Article Now!

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Help us spread the word about THE PATRIOT Blog we're reaching millions help us reach millions more.

‼️️ ♻️ PLEASE SHARE ♻️ ‼️️

Please SHARE this now! The Crooked Liberal Media will hide and distort the truth. It’s up to us, Trump social media warriors, to get the truth out. If we don’t, no one will!

Share this story on Facebook and let us know because we want to hear YOUR voice!

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share with your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you

❦❧❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦❧❦

For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.

  Coningsby: Or The New Generation And, The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings, and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments’ plans. — Benjamin Disraeli, Speech at Aylesbury, Great Britain, September 10, 1870

◈ ◈ ◈ ◈ ◈ ◈ ◈ ◈