The most damaging wrong interpretation of the Constitution.

Posted by jsw225 10 years, 11 months ago to Government
29 comments | Share | Flag

Hi guys!

Another blog post from me. This time I discuss what I believe to be the one misinterpretation that has caused the most damage.

-Dannes.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have a theory that ultimately, freedom must fail. My reasoning is (like you point out) that those who believe in freedom have little desire to impose such belief on others, letting them decide for themselves. Hence, they do not seek out elective office. While those who believe in ruling their fellow man actively seek out positions of political power so as to impart their will on their fellow man. In order to make the populace more amenable to this control, they enact policies to placate and mollify them. This makes the task of the liberty lover even more challenging.

    I believe that this is what has happened in the US and may be beyond a point of no return. I hope not, but am afraid that we passed the tipping point and are on the way down - we just haven't realized it, yet. There does seem to be some hope, 'though. Canada was at least as far along as we are, and they were able to turn around. The question is whether it is permanent or not. Collectivists do not give up so easily.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    While it's true that the Constitution didn't apply to the states, you are ignoring something else.

    When the Bill of Rights was being created, there were two factions. One faction was for the Bill of Rights. And the next was against it. Not because they didn't believe in it, but because they believed that the enumeration of Inalienable Human Rights would give the government a vehicle or an avenue to encroach on them.

    And the second faction was right. Take a look at the misinterpretations since that time. Putting words on paper allowed the lawyers to twist the words. Look at how Freedom of Religion became From Religion. How shall not be infringed became unless you're black.

    I'm currently considering writing a proposal to make a real Bill of Rights that would be entirely separate from the Constitution, and because they are inalienable, they would be unencroachable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In theory, the Articles of Confederation are a good idea. But they failed much quicker than Federalism failed. Why? Because it's the difference between 1 tyrant in Washington and 13 Tyrants each in their state capital. In my mind it proves that it's not the system that is broken, but the politicians. Anyone who seeks to become an elected government official is inherently not to be trusted with the power.

    And since they gave ultimate power to each state, instead of just to the country, it is only natural that inherently corrupt politicians would go to war with each other (figuratively).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 11 months ago
    We all read ourselves into the past and future. You think that you understand the Constitution; and I think that you do not. States collected taxes for churches and tortured people for confessions. They controlled and licensed the ownership of firearms.

    The Founders did indeed intend that freedom _of_ religion be freedom _from_ religion. Jefferson wrote about it much later.

    However, they did not frame the FEDERAL Constitution to apply to the states. Thus, states could and did have powers that the Federal government did not. Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congressional Church until 1838.

    A hundred years later, Mississippi still tortured people for confessions. (See here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/...) It was allowed by the FEDERAL Constitution which did not apply to the States. With "judicial activism" (so-called) in the English common law tradition the Supreme Court incorporated Federal recognition of rights to the States.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo