Whaddaya mean, "unconstitutional"?

[Lulfas]

But the USAF is still funded and organized as an army, indeed the Constitution specifies "armies" plural. It just doesn't have the word "army" in its name. Presumably it is subject to the same 2-year restriction as the other US Army, for whatever that may be worth.

Right, but that's a bit of sophistry. The Founders said Army and Navy, and they meant for there to be a land based force and a sea based force. They never envisioned an air force, or planned one. Even the common definition of Army is specifically related to ground based forces. If you want to go PURELY by the text, you would have to consider the Air Force unconstitutional.

[Librarian]

Right, but that's a bit of sophistry. The Founders said Army and Navy, and they meant for there to be a land based force and a sea based force. They never envisioned an air force, or planned one. Even the common definition of Army is specifically related to ground based forces. If you want to go PURELY by the text, you would have to consider the Air Force unconstitutional.

On that reasoning you'd have to argue they never planned to govern more than 13 states.

[vincewarde]

I find it very interesting how many parallels there are

I find it very interesting how many parallels there are between constitutional law and Biblical Theology. Both involve the interpretation of written documents and many of the same rules apply. In addition, some of the debates are the same. For instance, is a text to be correctly interpreted by itself - based solely on the words - OR - does it have to be interpreted in light of the original author's intent and in the context of his culture? Are we bound by the governing documents (Bible or Constitution), or can we use reason and other documents instead? Are the source documents even relevant today?

Like I said, I just find the parallels interesting. It's easy to see how the Simon Greanleaf School of Law could offer a program that offered degrees in both law and theology. It takes the same kind of mind to do either.

[Lulfas]

On that reasoning you'd have to argue they never planned to govern more than 13 states.

Article IV would seem to cover that fairly well.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

[Tarn_Helm]

+ 1,000

The 'text' of the Constitution is written in plain, proper English. Doesn't require translation of any sort in my estimation. Only the common sense our Founders assumed we would maintain.

"A bill of rights may be considered, not only as intended to give law, and assign limits to a government about to be established, but as giving information to the people. By reducing speculative truths to fundamental laws, every man of the meanest capacity and understanding may learn his own rights, and know when they are violated . . . ."

~St. George Tucker, see here: http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

~See also U.S. Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook's article on this topic: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewconte...ntext=expresso

The people who argue against the underlined part above are lawyers who have appointed themselves to be members of a magical priesthood which must be paid by you and other persons of "mean" [=stupid] mental capacities to interpret what the words "keep" and "bear" signify in plain language.

The lawyers in the forum who disagree with what I have written need to explain to the rest of us why we should trust them.

After all, if we simple folk can know when our rights are being violated without hiring a lawyer, then we don't need the lawyer because we know where the line in the sand is drawn.

We know when it is time to stop using the first amendment and start exercising the second in our interactions with those who have been subjecting us to a long train of abuses.

But lawyers can only make money "representing" us and "litigating" for us if we are too stupid to get REALLY PISSED OFF AND HANDLE THINGS WITH DEEDS AND WORDS RATHER THAN MERE WORDS.

So the lawyers/litigators tell us that we need them to speak for us, but how can they be trusted if they gain financially by being the ones who "represent" us and "litigate" for us?

Can they be trusted?

Remember: Money is involved.

If we need them to speak for us, they get rich.

If we can speak and act for ourselves, we solve problems ourselves and they sit unemployed (or doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is performing tasks no more complicated than scribbling out boiler plate contracts and wills).

The problem is that as long as we the people (and I here exclude lawyers from this phrase) act like we don't know our rights, we remain dependent on lawyers for our freedom.

And lawyers don't give freedom away--they charge us for it. They charge us a lot.

As long as we continue to pretend that "keep and bear" need some special interpretation, we will continue to not be allowed to "keep and bear"

And this is exactly what Jefferson feared--it is exactly what motivated him to write in the Declaration of Independence:

“[A]ll experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms [of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed.”

And everyone knows you cannot "abolish" an armed oppressor (i.e., a government or portion thereof) with words alone.

[GettoPhilosopher]

I find it very interesting how many parallels there are between constitutional law and Biblical Theology. Both involve the interpretation of written documents and many of the same rules apply. In addition, some of the debates are the same. For instance, is a text to be correctly interpreted by itself - based solely on the words - OR - does it have to be interpreted in light of the original author's intent and in the context of his culture? Are we bound by the governing documents (Bible or Constitution), or can we use reason and other documents instead? Are the source documents even relevant today?

Like I said, I just find the parallels interesting. It's easy to see how the Simon Greanleaf School of Law could offer a program that offered degrees in both law and theology. It takes the same kind of mind to do either.

Yeah, why do you think I transitioned from a Christian university to law work so easily? ;D

It also hits the same problem....though I'd argue the Bible's harder due to the language issues and the vastly larger cultural/temporal separation. You have people arguing over what they feel is the "obvious" meaning of the text, people prooftexting and twisting it to mean what they want, you have "literalists" and "living document" people, there are people who view the source documents as fixed perfection and others that view them as good and noble but with room for growth....etc, etc, etc.

[NewGuy1911]

"I use the term to refer to any law or regulation that is inconsistent with the general public meaning of the text of the constitution at the time it was ratified or amended. This is the method championed by Professor Randy Barnett in his book "Restoring The Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty". Professor Barnett argues that it was written to be plainly understood by the people and that the only way that we can assure a consistent application of the constitution is to read it via the lens of plain English as the average American of the time would have understood the words and phrases. He rightly argues that any other way of reading the constitution subjects it to the political whims and prejudges of later judges. In other words our current system of crystal ball gazing and navel contemplation to define meaning or intent. Or as we sometimes see from judges - just plain rejection of the limits imposed by the constitution in favor of a favored political cause."

This is my vote, has been for some forty years. Guess I have a book to read!
Thanks for posting this and the original question.

I tend to remember how some people where treated during the Second World War, and how the Native America's where treated. Would not like to see those "ways of reasoning" return. This post hits a tender spot for me.

[CalCop]

You left one out...I would vote for:
inconsistent with the intent of the writers of the constitution.

[Uxi]

1) A constitutional convention would never be called because of the concern that it could not be limited to the issues for which it was called. I would be opposed for this very reason.

It's come pretty close a couple times and I covered the ones I think are most necessary. It's definitely possible there would be more issues, but that's fine. If they can get 38 States to ratify THEIR issues, then it SHOULD be in the Constitution, even if the Congress will never do it on it's own and you or I don't approve of that particular instance. Circumventing Congress and it's political apparatus around it is necessary as we need a few things no self serving politician in either party will ever do for fear of compromising their own power.

2) The only way the 2nd Amendment will ever be revised by means of an amendment is if both sides in the debate want it and can agree on the revisions. This would mean that both sides would have to get something they want. I do not see that happening.

Again, 38 States need to ratify. This is in our favor on the RTKBA. I think we would see the law codified as somewhat closer to what it should be (completely uninfringed), but it'd be worth it to let every State know that this applies to them, too. So Free States may see some small backtrack but we could leap miles if it addressed both keep and bear and common military use and all that.

3) The left is very happy to change the constitution simply by putting justices on SCOTUS who do not care one bit what the constitution says or what the founders intended. That is why 4 more years of Obama would mean the end of the 2nd Amendment. Change one judge and the next 2nd Amendment case to go before the court will result in Heller/McDonald being totally reversed. We already have seen this in the minority opinion in McDonald. IMHO anyone who rules that the 2nd Amendment does not protect a personal right does not care one bit what the constitution says.

Agreed. That just means it's not Happily Ever After. Our enemies on the issues dear to us will always need to be opposed politically. I'm just saying we can frame the argument a bit better in our favor and a preponderance of States are more likely to codify say... Shall Issue CCW and LOC (in at least rural areas)... in the Constitution and let all the States know that this is the mininum standard to be in the Union.

[vincewarde]

Yeah, why do you think I transitioned from a Christian university to law work so easily? ;D

It also hits the same problem....though I'd argue the Bible's harder due to the language issues and the vastly larger cultural/temporal separation. You have people arguing over what they feel is the "obvious" meaning of the text, people prooftexting and twisting it to mean what they want, you have "literalists" and "living document" people, there are people who view the source documents as fixed perfection and others that view them as good and noble but with room for growth....etc, etc, etc.

Yes, obviously any analogy or parallel breaks down at some point - but IMHO "prooftexting" (in theology that's where you decide what position you want to take or preach and then look for a passage to support it vs. looking for the meaning of the text and letting that inform you) is EXACTLY how many, many liberals approach the Constitution. They first decide how they want the ruling to come down, then they go in search of support for their position, ignoring the obvious meaning of the text of the Constitution AND the intent of the founders. How else could they render the 2nd Amendment meaningless and interpret the 1st Amendment as banishing religion from the public square?

[Tarn_Helm]

reformation vs. counter-reformation

I find it very interesting how many parallels there are between constitutional law and Biblical Theology. Both involve the interpretation of written documents and many of the same rules apply. In addition, some of the debates are the same. For instance, is a text to be correctly interpreted by itself - based solely on the words - OR - does it have to be interpreted in light of the original author's intent and in the context of his culture? Are we bound by the governing documents (Bible or Constitution), or can we use reason and other documents instead? Are the source documents even relevant today?

Like I said, I just find the parallels interesting. It's easy to see how the Simon Greanleaf School of Law could offer a program that offered degrees in both law and theology. It takes the same kind of mind to do either.

This is not an accident.

Sanford Levinson has made explicit and has explored the nexus which you mention.

[GettoPhilosopher]

Yes, obviously any analogy or parallel breaks down at some point - but IMHO "prooftexting" (in theology that's where you decide what position you want to take or preach and then look for a passage to support it vs. looking for the meaning of the text and letting that inform you) is EXACTLY how many, many liberals approach the Constitution. They first decide how they want the ruling to come down, then they go in search of support for their position, ignoring the obvious meaning of the text of the Constitution AND the intent of the founders. How else could they render the 2nd Amendment meaningless and interpret the 1st Amendment as banishing religion from the public square?

I agree with your argument--though not with your characterization that only liberals do it--but that is not what prooftexting means. Prooftexting is when you drop a single out of context line or verse and assert that it proves your point without any argumentation or interpretation.

"Leviticus xx:xx says gays are an abomination", "John 3:16 says God loves the world, so calvinists are OBVIOUSLY wrong", etc. No theology, no argument, no context, no hermeneutics or interpretation, etc. If the verse or constitutional citation means what you think it means, do the work of using it properly.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk