1st Amendment
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.
McCain
Q: Does posting the Ten Commandments in schools invalidate the religious expression of children who are not in the Judeo-Christian heritage?
A: We begin our proceedings every day in the US Senate with a prayer. Now, it doesn't have the beneficial effect that some desire, but it seems to be acceptable for the Senate to do that. Virtues [like telling the truth are] exemplified in the Ten Commandments. They could be and should be taught in every school in America.
Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa Jan 16, 2000
Analysis: The first 4 commandments are:
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
By what evasion can John McCain think that teaching this in government (public) schools is not "respecting an establishment of religion". That the other 6 commandments address interpersonal ideals that are firmly established in culture or law is not the point, unless of course he is suggesting that we post the "6 commandments" in public schools. Somehow I doubt that is what he has is mind.
This is the very first enumerated restriction. You would think a Senator would have read and understood that. I propose to give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that he has read and does understand; he just doesn't want to put off his hordes of religious supporters who haven't and/or don't. How else might he ignore the Constitution for votes?
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Obama
Q. Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers [emphasis mine] an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Analysis: The amendment acknowledges the right "... shall not be infringed". It doesn't confer (grant) anything. It doesn't say "the people shall have a right to bear arms", or some such nonsense. Nowhere in the BOR does the government grant anything to the people. It is a document granting powers to, and enumerating restrictions on, government. These powers and restrictions flow from the people to government, not the other way around; such an understanding installs the government as master, and relegates people as slaves; it is the opposite of "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
How can someone who taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago not know that? I think the answer to that question is that he does. This is not a minor issue; it is a huge clue into his mindset. It indicates contempt for the job description. The Constitution and BOR aren't difficult to understand. He seems like a very intelligent man, as I would expect from a professor at a major university. I believe he does understand it; he just doesn't agree with it, and I believe he has no intention of being guided by it, which is a major problem.
This man wants to be dictator, like I would accuse most who seek this office, and intends to hide behind the noble ideals of the Constitution in doing so. Shame on you if you are even the least bit fooled.
Conclusion:
The Constitution is an obstacle to both of these candidates. It is also a document most Americans look to with pride; it being perceived as critical to our way of life, our freedoms, our prosperity. So the problem: how to have their cake and eat it too? How to ignore the Constitution and still have considerable citizen support? For the answer to that question, see my previous article here.
©2008 James Goodfellow, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of James Goodfellow only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. James Goodfellow is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by James Goodfellow of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By James Goodfellow |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-11-04 15:37:03
The average American doesn't give a rat's ass about the constitution and wouldn't know it if it bit him. Want proof? Try asking some of your friends a few questions:
What is habeas corpus?
How many articles are in the constitution?
What do any of those articles deal with?
Can you recite the preamble or even come close?
Your Libertarian friends might know the answers and if you have friends who are lawyers they might know. But most Americans would not have a clue. That is the fundamental problem.
Posted By: James Goodfellow
Date: 2008-11-04 16:07:33
To David S. I agree. That is the problem. I'm guessing most would have problems with answering the most basic question of all: what is the Constitution? Pretty sad. What did Thomas Jefferson say? "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free...it expects what never was and never will be." If the bar is set too high with that question, we're doomed. I'm not sure it has to be; I have to believe the argument is simple enough for most to understand. The overwhelming problem is exposure, which is why Ron Paul's effort is so appreciated.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-04 20:52:07
Dear James,
You know, you guys who think that Americans have to have the constitution memorized, or have to be able to recite definitions of things before we can say that we care about it, are just elitist prudes. You say that proves something, and all it proves is that we haven't taken the time to memorize a lot of useless (yes, useless because it in NO WAY affects our daily lives) crap. If we need to know the information, we can easily look it up.
I could give you the same quiz. What's the opening line of "Moby Dick"? Said to be the most famous opening line of any novel ever written. Or, how about telling us the real name of Mark Twain. Or telling us if Edgar Allen Poe was an American or British? How about, who wrote "The Hound of the Baskervilles?"
Now, if you CAN'T answer those questions, does that mean that you're a literary IGNORAMIS? How about some math questions? Who invented Calculus? Who invented algebra? Does that mean you don't know how to use it? What about the Bible, or whatever religious book you think is important? Want to try some questions from there?
The ability to answer TRIVIA questions ~ and, I call them trivia questions because they are NOT pieces of information that you need to have at your beck and call in ordinary life ~ is just a fondness that some eggheads think is important. If we NEED the information, or WANT the information, we'll look it up.
What is actually more troubling to me is that those of you who think you KNOW the constitution only SAY you do. When we see how it is implemented, how other scholars interpret various parts of it ~ even those on the Supreme Court ~ we see a different result.
You're just crybabies who think that if you know what habeas corpus is you know that the constitution doesn't allow the Federal Reserve to control monetary policy in this country. Well ~ HELLO! It does! And, it isn't unconstitutional!
We don't have to have the constitution memorized to know what is intended anymore than we have to have the Bible memorized to know what is intended. And, if you think knowing the answer to some trivia questions gives you some RIGHT to complain about the ignorance of others, maybe you should let me ask you some questions about science, or history, or geography, or psychology, or philosphy. If you can't tell us who Archimedes was, does that make you ignorant of math and science? Or if you can't rattle off the 12th, 13th, and 14th amendments, does that mean that you don't care about them?
Master C
Posted By: James Goodfellow
Date: 2008-11-05 10:09:25
To Master C. Man I don't even know where to begin with your comment. If you really think that a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution is an unnecessary requirement to holding public office, then you are unqualified to vote. You have a civic duty to question these candidates, to assure yourself that they understand what is being asked of them. I haven't memorized the Constitution, and I don't expect candidates, or you, to either. I do expect them, and you, to understand the basic principles behind it though.
I mean, if we are to hand over control of the US government to someone, do you really think that anything less than a solid understanding of the core principles of the job is trivial? An interpretation of any of the original 10 amendments as the government somehow granting rights to citizens exposes gross ignorance of the principles the federal government is supposedly ruled by. Outright ignoring the plain english of the very first restriction placed on that government is plain crass. There are many more examples of McBama's contempt for the Constitution - these are simply 2 incriminating clues.
Wake up! It is not trivia, it is a basic job requirement.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-05 12:49:28
Dearest James,
You spit and spout like a whale about to breach the surface, yet your comments are about as effective. "Why, if you don't think that knowledge of the constitution is required for..." blah, blah, blah. We hear you paddling around like a baby in an inner tube.
That's right. Just as I don't think that knowledge of the core banking legislation is necessary to be president of a bank, or that knowledge of business law is necessary to be a CEO of a corporation, or that memorizing Shakespeare is necessary to teach Shakespeare, I don't believe that someone has to adopt YOUR view of the constitution to be President.
You've got some idiotic notion that these are straightforward issues, with no nuances or interpretations, that NEW LAWS are less important than properly interpreting the OLD ONES. And, I'm sure that YOUR interpretation of what the constitution says is VASTLY DIFFERENT from many, many other (non-Libertarian) advocates.
What we need is a man in the Presidency who understands the needs of PEOPLE not of the Constitution. What we need is a man who STRETCHES the law to make it fit our expanded nation and our expanded needs, not a constitutional scholar (which Barack Obama is, by the way ~ even TAUGHT Constitutional Law for many years at the University of Chicago; I suppose YOUR credentials top that.). If we needed a constitutional scholar, we would probably get Alan Dershowitz or some elitist geek who could quote section and verse but didn't have the slightest idea about APPLICATION to be our President.
You backseat drivers, who are always yelling that the person driving doesn't know what they're doing, are the real crybabies who NO ONE listens to. Barack Obama knows more about the constitution ~ and how to put it to use ~ than you will EVER know!
Master C
Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-11-05 13:53:24
Master C you've made it quite clear that you don't give a hoot about the constitution. But if you don't know what's in the constitution, how will you know what your rights are? And how can you defend those rights if you don't know them? If you allow your rights to slip away you may one day find yourself in jail for no reason. But the ultimate reason for it will be that you tossed your rights away as if they were no more important than pocket lint. If that's the fate you choose, its your business. But unfortunately the same constitution that protects your rights also protects mine. So if you find yourself in jail the guy sitting next to you may be me. That part I object to. BTW Moby Dick is a worthwhile read but in no way does it affect the well-being of the American people. The constitution very definitely does. The fact that you don't see that illustrates the problem.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-06 12:14:12
Dearest David S,
The constitution affects the American people the same way that traffic lights regulate traffic. You don't have to know how they work to obey them. And you certainly don't have to bow down to them at every street crossing.
If it's a good document, it works IN THE BACKGROUND. Kind of like Vista ~ although I'm sure you don't have THAT on your computer. You're probably still using Windows '95. It suits you.
Master C
Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-11-07 21:18:38
Master C it is reported that W once referred to the constitution as "just a damn piece of paper". It's very disturbing to hear a president refer to the document he swore to "preserve, protect and defend", in such disparaging terms. But in point of fact the constitution is just a piece of paper. It cannot stand up by itself. It can only stand up if there are people who will stand up for it. Now let me tell you that W has walked all over the constitution. He has labeled at least 3 people in America "enemy combatants" and had them thrown in prison without charges, without the due process requirements of the 5th amendment or the 6th amendment's right to a speedy trial. All of those people spent years in prison with no means of proving their innocence. Now you may say who cares? In fact I'm quite sure you will say that. But you should care because the same constitution that protects their rights protects yours. And if they can be thrown in jail like that then so can you. W has done damage to the 4th amendment as well. You see the constitution doesn't operate like a stop light. It needs constant vigilance to keep it working.
Will Obama do the same thing as Bush? My guess is that he might actually undo some of the damage W did, but he will also start attacking other parts of the constitution, most likely the 2nd amendment. Also his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel is a big fan of mandatory service for all Americans. No that isn't the government providing service to us. Its us providing service to government. Now another part of the constitution you probably are unaware of is the 13th amendment. It bans slavery and involuntary servitude. So what is the difference between mandatory service and involuntary servitude? I would say there is no difference. Do you want America to be a place where people are forced to be servants of the state? That is likely to happen unless people stand up for their constitutional rights and say HELL NO! But if they are as unaware of the constitution as you are they will probably say; "well umm ok but do I get to pick out my own chains? "
BTW you once mentioned having been in the military. Didn't you have to take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?