Re-posted from (before this particular blog site existed) 4/29/2013
And It's still relevant!
NOTHING BETWEEN THE LINES.
I love it when people volunteer to interpret the U.S. Constitution for me. It causeth me much ranting.
On one side you’ve got Liberals who try to peddle the Constitution as a “Living Document” which means it says something other than what it says. Apparently the Constitution lives and breathes and changes itself (without changing the actual words on the document) to mean whatever a Liberal wants it to mean at any given moment. This is so convenient that I myself briefly considered becoming a liberal just to take advantage of the highest law in the land saying that that cute redhead has to go out with me Saturday because it’s the law…. Eh, maybe when I get my nerve up.
Not to be outdone, Conservatives try to interpret the document using the “Intent of the Founders.” Well, which Founder? Leaving aside the fact that they are kind of hard to talk to at this point, the Founders were rarely if ever of one mind about anything. They spent the majority of their time screaming at each other. The Constitution was the best compromise these stubborn men could make. And it was painful all around.
My pedestrian opinion about these things is that if it is not in the document, it’s not covered.
I call myself a “Constitutional Literalist;” maybe the term will catch on.
I think the biggest problem has to be that lawyers tend to think that if an argument is clever it is automatically a good one, even the lawyers on the Supreme Court. This means that the document gets twisted into positions it simply does not cover. For example:
Abortion – not covered
Healthcare - not covered
Education – not covered
Food Stamps – not covered
Marriage – not covered
Also, pending a Constitutional Amendment, we are stuck with the Post Office. It’s in there.
There are many laws regarding these issues that may or may not be allowed by the Constitution, but they are not “Constitutional Rights.” If you want them to be added to the Constitution, by all means, try to amend the Constitution. That is difficult and it is supposed to be. Instructions for that are in Article V, and if you are reading this, you can look it up at will.
Thus endeth the rant.