# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  the Constitution is open to interpretation

## danberkeley

the myth that "the Constitution is open to interpretation" is really hurting us. 
many people are turned off by the fact that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. 
we need to dispell this myth in order to convert more people to Ron Paulism.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

Unfortunately, it's no longer a myth.  The people who lied about that won a long time ago.  Or, at least they're winning at the moment.

But, the way I usually forward that idea is to explain that the constitution is there to protect citizens from an out of control or oppressive government.  There's a mechanism in place to change the constitution, and we shouldn't allow politicans to change it without going through that process.  If we allow that, then why have a constitution at all?  Government is supposed to be a servant of the people, and we should expect them to obey the laws, just like citizens are expected to obey the laws.  If I told a cop that I had a different interpretation of the law, they'd laugh all the way to jail.  Shouldn't we expect our elected officials to respect the law too?

----------


## nodope0695

Most people have never read the document.  Be sure to carry a copy with you for those moments when the topic comes up.  Show them Art. 2, Sect. 8.  Explain to them what it means, and that everything in the constitution not changed by ammendment is still in effect, and NOT open to interpretation.

----------


## Steve_New_Jersey

The funny part is the people who put it together wrote many things. This leaves it closed for interpretation. All people have to do is look to the work of the founding fathers and there it is case closed. This type of history is left out of schooling as it would empower people to think for themselfs and have a good understanding of what is around them. How can the elite rich like Mit manipulate people if they know the facts?

----------


## ToryNotion

"Once the people wanted help from the government more than they feared harm from it, there was no stopping the accumulation of overwhelming power in the hands of the central administration".  The Anti-Federalists: Selected Writings and Speeches, Regnery Publishing, edited by Bruce Frohnen, page xxxiii

And there was no stopping the disregard for the Constitution that enabled  the increase in the size of the 'Federal' Government.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> the myth that "the Constitution is open to interpretation" is really hurting us. 
> many people are turned off by the fact that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. 
> we need to dispell this myth in order to convert more people to Ron Paulism.


:O so I guess George Bush will soon say our right to bear arms is just to hang a few bear arms in our living room.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

I believe the answer is to make it a treasonous crime to violate the constitution's principals, perhaps by amendment, which would limit government and assure prosparity forever. Make no mistake, congress, the WH & courts are guilty as hell of treason, by violating the Bill of Rights and expanding government. They also should be prosecuting lies and propaganda in the media.

----------


## Ira Aten

> the Constitution is open to interpretation


Regarding the need for interpretation I have some good news for everyone!

Recently, an exact copy of the Constitution of the United States, along with the attachment (often refered to often as the "Bill of Rights") was located.

It is written in the English language.  Thus, no need for any Spanish interpreters, or Farsi interpreters, or any type of interpreters.

It is written in English.  So for anyone who thinks it needs to be interpreted, don't worry any longer.

Just get a copy of the English Language version, and when some idiot says "well, we have to wait till nine government paid lawyers in Washington tell us what it says" you can give them the good news!  You already KNOW what it says, because you have a copy of the damned thing in English!

In all seriousness, it ain't that hard to understand, unless you are trying to change the meaning of the words "The People" to mean "The Government".

There are only seven articles, and ten amendments in the Bill.

Not too hard to grasp, if we have an English language copy of it.

----------


## Cjays

There are parts that are ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation, such as "cruel and unusual punishment." What qualifies as cruel and unusual? Today's meaning is different than that of 100 years ago.

There are other parts that are written in stone and unambiguous, and can't be any more clear, like the 10th Amendment.

----------


## seapilot

> I believe the answer is to make it a treasonous crime to violate the constitution's principals, perhaps by amendment, which would limit government and assure prosparity forever. Make no mistake, congress, the WH & courts are guilty as hell of treason, by violating the Bill of Rights and expanding government. They also should be prosecuting lies and propaganda in the media.


There doesnt need to be an amendment as it already should be regarded as the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary branch is supposed to enforce it, which was supposed to be a boring job if congress and the executive actually followed it. They are all law breakers according to the constitution for passing sweeping laws without the amendment process.

----------


## danberkeley

i had this problem with an obama supporter. his argument was that the federal government 
has the duty to circumvent our rights (i.e. PATRIOT Act) in order to protect us from having our
 violated. but my argument was that how do you protect our rights by violating them?

----------


## benhaskins

the constitution is open to amendments ?

----------


## Crickett

> There are parts that are ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation, such as "cruel and unusual punishment." What qualifies as cruel and unusual? Today's meaning is different than that of 100 years ago.
> 
> There are other parts that are written in stone and unambiguous, and can't be any more clear, like the 10th Amendment.


I think most of us would agree within a very small degree on what was cruel and unusual. That part, however, was left a bit open. However, anyone who violates their oath of office should be thrown into a big vat of boiling oil.

----------


## Goldwater Conservative

You can only interpret something so much before you're basically ignoring it. We can debate, for example, at what point the president is no longer defending the country from an invasion but starting an offensive war (and thus requiring a declaration from Congress), but we can't debate that it's the job of Congress and no other government branch or agency to start a war like the one in Iraq.

----------


## Tugboat1988

There is a method necessay for interpreting the Constitution, it is called contract law. The Constitution is a Pact, and a pact is treated the same as a contract.

Under that process, the provisions are to be held true to what the makers understood when they made it. Changes are possible by amendment. In a formal document, the changes need proper handling and proper documentation as part of the original.

Examples of what the founders understood can be found in historical documents. They are available on the web. One writer using the pen name John DeWitt wrote to the people of Massachusetts 1787 when they were considering the Constitution. You can find it in the "Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates"

DeWitt wrote: "All contracts are to be construed according to the meaning of the parties at the time of making them.... There is no difference in the constitution of government"

Another document, concerning the Bill of Rights, can be found in Yales Avalon Project collections. This document is a represtation of the "Resolution of the Firts Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution: March 4, 1789" 

In that Resolution you will read what the people understood about the proposed Bill of Rights. It reads: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstrution or abuse of it powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added...."

They believed that they were doing something that presented positive denials of power by declaring them for the reason to prevent misuse of government powes. What could be clearer? Attorneys, judges, even the Supreme Court needs to be consistant with what the founders agreed upon and made a part of the pact that created the central government. BTW, the Bill of Rights, all ten articles ratified were and remain necessary to validate the Constitution and thereby the government and Union it forms. The only way to change it is to ask the people via their State governments, or open a new Constitutional Convention that may change everything.

Tugboat

----------


## Angel

"All contracts are to be construed according to the meaning of the parties at the time of making them.... There is no difference in the constitution of government"

There are a lot of great arguments and evidence of violations of the Constitution being committed by our government today. Now, this may sound a bit insane, but...

What if there was a class action lawsuit brought against the government for violating their contractual obligations stated in the Constitution?

Is there even a precedent for that???

If the Constitution IS a contract with the American People, then can they not be sued for breach of contract? How many people would have to sign up in order for it to be relevant?

Just a thought.

----------


## danberkeley

> What if there was a class action lawsuit brought against the government for violating their contractual obligations stated in the Constitution?
> 
> Is there even a precedent for that???


Yes. It's called the American Revolution.

----------


## IPSecure

> the myth that "the Constitution is open to interpretation" is really hurting us. 
> many people are turned off by the fact that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. 
> we need to dispell this myth in order to convert more people to Ron Paulism.



"The Constitution is just a G.D. piece of paper." - President George W. Bush

----------


## Deborah K

> the myth that "the Constitution is open to interpretation" is really hurting us. 
> many people are turned off by the fact that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. 
> we need to dispell this myth in order to convert more people to Ron Paulism.




That's why we have the Supreme Court, they are _supposed_ to determine the Constitutionality of a law.  Anyone who has a problem with the Good Doctor's stance on adherance to the Constitution doesn't understand that the reason we are in the mess we're in is because instead of following it over the last 95 years, we've allowed the government to subvert it.  

It's time to get back on track.

----------


## Mini-Me

> There doesnt need to be an amendment as it already should be regarded as the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary branch is supposed to enforce it, which was supposed to be a boring job if congress and the executive actually followed it. They are all law breakers according to the constitution for passing sweeping laws without the amendment process.


Unfortunately, the Constitution does not expressly supply us with punishments for government officials who violate it.  This is different from most laws, which have the "this is the law" part and the "this is what will happen to you if you break it" part.  The Constitution really needs an amendment that explicitly makes it a treasonous crime to knowingly violate it and an easily impeachable crime to violate it unknowingly (thus, NSA wiretapping falls into the first category for violating the Fourth Amendment, but stretching the elastic clause too far and creating an unauthorized bureaucracy would fall into the second category).  This should apply to legislators who introduce or vote for unconstitutional laws, executives who enforce them without question, and judges who neglect opportunities to rule them unconstitutional.  Since the judicial branch can become corrupted, there should be a provision where states or individuals can file some kind of suit to nullify unconstitutional laws (and prosecute offenders) without the cooperation of the federal government.

Under our current system, when a judge declares a law unconstitutional, everyone who put it into effect just says, "Oh, whoops!  My bad - won't happen again, *wink*."  There's no punishment for officials who violate their oaths of office, so there's no reason for them to fear doing so!  Many of our officials should be tried for treason (there are ways to wage war on the United States without instigating armed conflict against its government), and almost all of them should lose their positions and be permanently banned from further public office.  This needs to change...but first we need to get constitutionalists in power who will support such measures to *enforce* the supreme law of the land.

----------


## IPSecure

> That's why we have the Supreme Court, they are _supposed_ to determine the Constitutionality of a law.  Anyone who has a problem with the Good Doctor's stance on adherance to the Constitution doesn't understand that the reason we are in the mess we're in is because instead of following it over the last 95 years, we've allowed the government to subvert it.  
> 
> It's time to get back on track.




Do not forget that the Supreme Court is Irrelevant!


Prosecutor: "Objection! Irrelevant!"

Judge Dawson: "Sustained!"

Irwin Schiff: "The income tax law is irrelevant?"

Judge Dawson: "I will not allow the law in my courtroom!"

Irwin Schiff: "But the Supreme Court said in the Cheek decision . . ."

Judge Dawson: "Irrevelant! Denied!"

Irwin Schiff: "The Supreme Court is irrelevant?"

Judge Dawson: "Irrevelant! Denied!"


http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=26549

----------


## Tugboat1988

The problem with the idea of suing for breach of contract seems to follow the idea that it is difficult to have a principal of government to call default of a contract that he is subject to.  It would continue to be difficult to have a group of principals like the Supreme Court  make the call as well. Even to ask them to deal with it, would likely bring a response that it would be conflict of interest for them to do so. Besides, in finding default, the entire pact could be made void. I think the Supreme Court would hesitate. 

So, there would probably be a need for an alternate way to accomplish the desired force to end unconstitutional acts. Consider the following potentials available in the Constitution:

The first route could concern the president. Article 2, Section 3 requires the president as he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed Now consider the word faithfully for its meaning and application. First it is necessary to refer to a legal dictionary; and it happens I have Blacks Law, the Deluxe edition. Then, following contract law, one should consider any clarifying comments of the founders to find what they agreed to concerning its meaning. 

Blacks Law defines Faithfully: Conscientious diligence or faithfulness in meeting obligations, or just regard of adherence to duty, or due observance of undertaking of contract. And it gives cases supporting the manor of undertaking, etc. 

OK, so the president is required to sign bills into law. In doing so, the president has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. Doesnt that carry a requirement to make sure the bill is unquestionably (faithfully rendered) constitutional before it becomes law? Maybe it does, but what do I know being a mere hairy legged guy trying to find his way in life. Can the president be held faithfully to the provisions therein? Its not up to me, I only suggest the possibility as a point of consideration. If it is, then it would make the point in a meaningful way. That is, if a point being made is a desirable thing.

Then, there is the Senate to consider. This one is a little more complicated but should be considered non-the-less. The Constitution, Article V, the last sentence reads, and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of it equal suffrage in the Senate. Gosh, here we go again to the Law Dictionary, and the founders explanations. 


Blacks Law defines Suffrage: A vote; the act of voting; the right or privilege of casting a vote at public elections. The last is the meaning of the term in such phrases as the extension of the suffrage, universal suffrage, etc. 

But wait, the Constitution applies suffrage to a States exercise in federal government. That implies more that Blacks Law admits. In that case a visit to the original wording in the constitution is necessary, and a study of the founders comments becomes necessary. But I will only recap here. 

The US Senate was filled by two people from each State appointed by the State legislatures, and was intended to be their representation in congress. But things changed with an Amendment in 1913. Senators, after that date, would be elected by popular vote. So, designing people with potentials dangling before their eyes, considered the Amendment to change the nature of the Senate in just another legislative body. But, looking back at Article V, one must admit that the purpose of the Senate to represent the State, and viewing the wording of Amendment XVII, the purpose did not change. 

If we look deeper into the purpose of a State being represented in government as Senators, wed probably find that its ongoing requirement was to be guards of the pact that created the Union of States. Well, if thats true, the Senate is likewise responsible to weed out unconstitutional provision from Bills before it even gets to the president for signing into law. And that also ties the legislatures into the process of interest in constitutionality. 

I told you that its more complicated. But again, Im just a hairy legger just trying to find my way. Even so, Id rather consider this kind of approach than something more, well, strenuous. Besides, this is getting longer that the average sound bite.

Tugboat

----------


## Broadlighter

The reason people feel the constitution is irrelevant today is because they have become so accustomed to the arbitrary nature of government and the use of political law.

The Constitution was founded on the principles of common law, which is based on the idea that a) no one is above the law and b) the process making law requires the pursuit of discovering truth.

The Constitution was coopted by forces that placed social and political strategic objectives ahead of seeking truth. Reason and good faith have been replaced by coercion and people now accept that as standard operating procedure.

The founders were very wise men. They didn't create an arbitrary document, they thought it through very carefully, debated over it and prayed over it. Everything that's in it was put there for a reason. People today have lost sight of those reasons. The founders wanted to create a society based on freedom and today people equate freedom with a lack of government protection.

We have to get back on track toward freedom.

----------


## Conza88

Open to interpretation? fk nah.
It's called the preamble.

----------


## WilliamC

> the myth that "the Constitution is open to interpretation" is really hurting us. 
> many people are turned off by the fact that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. 
> we need to dispell this myth in order to convert more people to Ron Paulism.


I've had two different "Conservative" talk show hosts make this exact argument to me. One said that the world today is too complex for the USA to strictly follow the Constitution anymore, the other said that the founding fathers couldn't have imagined the times we live in so we have to be able to interpret the Constitution according to the times.

These are talk radio hosts who rail on day after day about "Conservative" issues, yet who don't have a clue as to the true source of their Conservatism and spout a liberal view of the Constitution established by FDR back during the New Deal era.

Heck, even the so-called "Conservative" position of spreading democracy is a liberal idea taken from Woodrow Wilson, who certainly was as anti-Constitutional as Presidents come.

I think too many people who really want to do the right thing have been mis-educated for so long they do the wrong thing and think they are being faithful to the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Problem is that they don't have the attention span required to read these documents and reflect on how their political philosophy actually is significantly different from them.

They are too busy with the day-to-day work and family and, of course, television.

----------


## Flash The Cash

> the myth that "the Constitution is open to interpretation" is really hurting us. 
> many people are turned off by the fact that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. 
> we need to dispell this myth in order to convert more people to Ron Paulism.


What exactly is a strict constitutionalist?

----------


## Flash The Cash

> I believe the answer is to make it a treasonous crime to violate the constitution's principals


What rules and principles should be used to determine what the constitution means?

----------


## Kade

> the myth that "the Constitution is open to interpretation" is really hurting us. 
> many people are turned off by the fact that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. 
> we need to dispell this myth in order to convert more people to Ron Paulism.


Not open for interpretation?! There are people on this forum who don't believe in the separation of Church and State... even people here are guilty of it... sorry.

----------


## WilliamC

> the myth that "the Constitution is open to interpretation" is really hurting us. 
> many people are turned off by the fact that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. 
> we need to dispell this myth in order to convert more people to Ron Paulism.


Oh it's deeper than that.

The root problem is that people have been taught that words themselves do not have fixed meanings.

Kind of hard to know what you're supposed to think when the powers-that-be keep changing the very definitions of the words you use to think with.

----------


## WilliamC

> What rules and principles should be used to determine what the constitution means?


A dictionary, preferably a bit older one from the early 1800's or so.

That's all you need.

And the ability to critically think for yourself of course.

----------


## ARealConservative

yes - it is open to interpretation.

Legal contracts must be interpreted based on original understanding of the parties involved where possible.

----------


## Flash The Cash

> A dictionary, preferably a bit older one from the early 1800's or so.
> 
> That's all you need.
> 
> And the ability to critically think for yourself of course.


Now, show us evidence that the lawmakers intended for your method to be used.

----------


## Flash The Cash

> yes - it is open to interpretation.
> 
> Legal contracts must be interpreted based on original understanding of the parties involved where possible.


What rules should we use to do that?

----------


## ARealConservative

> What rules should we use to do that?


rules?

This is the criteria we need to use to elect judges.

Most members of SCOTUS don't agree with the above method of judicial review.  Our goal is to appoint more judges that agree with this basic concept.

----------


## Flash The Cash

> rules?
> 
> This is the criteria we need to use to elect judges.
> 
> Most members of SCOTUS don't agree with the above method of judicial review.  Our goal is to appoint more judges that agree with this basic concept.


Shouldn't we use the common law "rules of construction" which the lawmakers, when they made the Constitution, took for granted would be used to construe the meaning of the Constitution?

----------


## familydog

Technically the Constitution is open to interpretation. At least according to the Marshall court.

----------


## WilliamC

> Now, show us evidence that the lawmakers intended for your method to be used.


You obviously didn't meet the second criteria.

----------


## Flash The Cash

> You obviously didn't meet the second criteria.


Huh?

----------


## kgiese

Myth?  What myth?  Use it or lose it.

----------


## QCB79

if you want to get technical everything ever written is open to interpretation, The Bible, every law ever passed, the constitution, you name it you can probably have three lawyers read it and get three different interpretations but without trying to find a way to twist the words around people can unterstand the intent. like "the right to bear arms" we all know what was ment when it was written...not the right to own an ICBM or nuclear warhead  and put it in your backyard.

----------


## Flash The Cash

> if you want to get technical everything ever written is open to interpretation, The Bible, every law ever passed, the constitution, you name it you can probably have three lawyers read it and get three different interpretations but without trying to find a way to twist the words around people can unterstand the intent.


You will never be able to ascertain the the will of the lawmakers at the time they wrote the Constitution until you know the rules they intended us to use.




> like "the right to bear arms" we all know what was ment when it was written...not the right to own an ICBM or nuclear warhead  and put it in your backyard.


What rules did you follow to arrive at that interpretation?

----------


## QCB79

like "the right to bear arms" we all know what was ment when it was written...not the right to own an ICBM or nuclear warhead and put it in your backyard.



> What rules did you follow to arrive at that interpretation?


the rule of common sense

----------


## Flash The Cash

> like "the right to bear arms" we all know what was ment when it was written...not the right to own an ICBM or nuclear warhead and put it in your backyard.
> 
> the rule of common sense


You're getting warm.  Was there just one rule of common sense?  If. so what was it.

----------


## Tugboat1988

> You're getting warm.  Was there just one rule of common sense?  If. so what was it.


You challenge without taking responsibilty to offer your own concept. What's your point?

Tugboat

----------


## Flash The Cash

> You challenge without taking responsibilty to offer your own concept. What's your point?
> 
> Tugboat


At the time the Constitution was being made, there were common law "rules of interpretation" that were so generally agreed upon by the lawmakers that they were more or less non controversial or taken for granted.  This general agreement was due to two factors.  First, there were generally accepted rules for interpreting laws and legal document, that were applicable to constitutional interpretation.  Second, these rules were intended for a common purpose agreed upon by all, namely, ascertaining the will of the legislator at the time the law was made.

----------


## Tugboat1988

> At the time the Constitution was being made, there were common law "rules of interpretation" that were so generally agreed upon by the lawmakers that they were more or less non controversial or taken for granted.  This general agreement was due to two factors.  First, there were generally accepted rules for interpreting laws and legal document, that were applicable to constitutional interpretation.  Second, these rules were intended for a common purpose agreed upon by all, namely, ascertaining the will of the legislator at the time the law was made.


Thanks. Now I'm less frustrated with your previous lack of offering something. And that helps me to know where your are coming from. But, I'm bothered by your last comment, 'ascertaing the will of the legislator at the time the law was made.' 

Without the will of the people, the legislature has no will, or at least has no cloths. The proposed Constitution was transmitted to the State legislatures but the legislatures went to the Citizens to gain an up or down will by voting. Same thing happened with the Bill of Rights. Fact is, the people showed their will that the Constitution was not acceptable by them without a Bill of Rights. It was only with a promise that a BoRs would be added that several States legislatures ratified the document. Some States actually threatend to withdraw by calling a new convention after the first congress drug its feet thinking it was more important to raise money than fullfill its obligation to even consider a Bill of Rights. 

But, the Constitution is a pact between the States and it provides for a central government, (and Union), that is regulated by the Constitution, all of which required authorization of the people. But I'd be repeating myself from earlier comments if I went into it at this point. Suffice it to say, interpretation of the document, then, follows the structures of contract law. 

I do appriciate your return with a positive comment with some substance.

Tugboat

----------


## Flash The Cash

> Thanks. Now I'm less frustrated with your previous lack of offering something. And that helps me to know where your are coming from. But, I'm bothered by your last comment, 'ascertaing the will of the legislator at the time the law was made.' 
> 
> Without the will of the people, the legislature has no will, or at least has no cloths.


The Constitutional Convention that framed the Constitution and the State Ratifying Conventions spoke for the people.  So did the First U. S. Congress and the State legislatures that ratified the Bill of Rights.




> The proposed Constitution was transmitted to the State legislatures but the legislatures went to the Citizens to gain an up or down will by voting.


The States called Conventions to ratify or reject the Constitution.




> Same thing happened with the Bill of Rights.


The Bill of Rights was ratified by the State Legislatures.




> Fact is, the people showed their will that the Constitution was not acceptable by them without a Bill of Rights.


Eight of the thirteen states had no problem whatsoever with no Bill of Rights.




> It was only with a promise that a BoRs would be added that several States legislatures ratified the document.


The Constitution wasn't ratified by the State legislatures.   It was ratified by State Conventions.  




> But I'd be repeating myself from earlier comments if I went into it at this point. Suffice it to say, interpretation of the document, then, follows the structures of contract law.


The Constitution was framed and ratified with the general understanding that it would be construed according to the common law rules of construction.

----------

