Has America strayed from the Constitution and its principals?

[digsbe]

Do you think we are straying away from the constitution and its principals? Are we creating more unconstitutional laws and interpreting the Constitution in an increasingly incorrect manner? Do you think we are molding the Constitution to make it say what we want? Or are we respecting it as the law of the government as it is literally written?

 

[winston53660]

I think the Constitution was put into place to establish equality under the law. And I do think think the intentions of the originators wanted was not to stop at that document. I do think State Constitutional amendments barring state recognition of gay marriage are antithetical / unConstitutional towards equal representation under the law.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The government has too much power, both in the name of social justice and in the name of national security, for it to be Constitutional.

That said, even Thomas Jefferson thought we should recycle the Constitution every few decades.

 

[molten_dragon]

No, we haven't strayed from the constitution (or rather we have on some occasions, but not in the general sense that I think digsbe is referring to). The constitution has plenty of room for interpretation, and we make use of it.

 

[digsbe]

It seems there is an interesting trend with the poll. All liberal voters have said we have not strayed from the Constitution, yet all others (independents/conservatives/other) have said that we have strayed from the Constitution.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Yeah, and 7 people have voted in the poll, which means it's even more meaningless than most of the other meaningless polls around here.

Just saying.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It seems there is an interesting trend with the poll. All liberal voters have said we have not strayed from the Constitution, yet all others (independents/conservatives/other) have said that we have strayed from the Constitution.

I think you have to define "straying from the Constitution", digsbe.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think we have strayed from some people's interpretation of the constitution, but theres nothing wrong with that, unless its the interpretation you like best.

 

[goldcatt]

Straying from whose vision of the Constitution, in which camp?

 

[spud_meister]

i think it has, i mean, look how the population has spread since the constitution was written, and there are more americans overseas too, america is getting further and further from the constitution.

 

[molten_dragon]

It seems there is an interesting trend with the poll. All liberal voters have said we have not strayed from the Constitution, yet all others (independents/conservatives/other) have said that we have strayed from the Constitution.

I don't think that's really surprising. Most conservatives tend to believe the constitution is carved in stone and there's only one correct interpretation. Most liberals tend to believe that it's more open to interpretation.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't think that's really surprising. Most conservatives tend to believe the constitution is carved in stone and there's only one correct interpretation. Most liberals tend to believe that it's more open to interpretation.

Most conservatives have been taught to be some flavor of originalist, although many of them couldn't tell you what that means or what method is used for any of the originalist interpretations if their lives depended on it.

For liberals, add "non-" in front of "originalist" and copy and paste the rest.

Then you have your pragmatist folks in the middle, technically non-originalist but not what most would consider "liberal".

All of these camps and many subcategories are considered legitimate, accepted methods of constitutional interpretation.

Whose vision of the constitution and its principles are we supposed to have strayed from, when, and how?

 

[Black Dog]

Most conservatives have been taught to be some flavor of originalist, although many of them couldn't tell you what that means or what method is used for any of the originalist interpretations if their lives depended on it.

For liberals, add "non-" in front of "originalist" and copy and paste the rest.

Then you have your pragmatist folks in the middle, technically non-originalist but not what most would consider "liberal".

All of these camps and many subcategories are considered legitimate, accepted methods of constitutional interpretation.

Whose vision of the constitution and its principles are we supposed to have strayed from, when, and how?

A direct literal translation would be the best route in my opinion.

Everything else we read is interpreted that way unless stated otherwise. It is just a sneaky way to skirt around the meaning and spirit in which the Constitution was written.

 

[teamosil]

I believe we're steadily moving towards constitutionality. The 14th amendment is only like half way implemented for example. We're still way short both in terms of the equal protection and due process clauses, but we've been slowly moving towards compliance ever since it was signed in.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I think the Constitution was put into place to establish equality under the law. And I do think think the intentions of the originators wanted was not to stop at that document. I do think State Constitutional amendments barring state recognition of gay marriage are antithetical / unConstitutional towards equal representation under the law.

The Constitution was written to form a more perfect union.

Says so, right there in the Preamble.

To effect this more perfect union, the Constitution put limits on the powers the federal government can do, and explicitly listed the powers the Congress actually has (Article 1, Section 8), and to further limit how the government can intrude on the people, the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments, was ratified.

"Equality before the law" wasn't Constitutionally embodied until the Fourteenth Amendment, seventy years after the Constitution was first ratified.

But equality before the law is certainly an original founding concept one can see throughout the Constiution, the Declaration of Independence, and common American perception before and after the Revolution.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Have our government exceeded it's Constitutional bounds?

Well, no where in Article 1, Section 8 is authority granted to Congress to dictate seat-belt policy to the states, to run a national retirement plan (Social Security), to nationalize the nation's health care industry, to create the Federal Reserve, to regulate rape or gun ownership under the Interstate Commerce Clause, to transfer money from working people to people who don't work (welfare/unemployment "insurance", ag subsidies, etc.)

The First Amendment says that the Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or the press. The McCain-Feingold Save the Incumbents Campaign Finance "Reform" Law, signed by Bush and allowed by the US Supreme Court, abridges freedom of speech for both the press and the people.

That the it was recently necessary for the United States Supreme Court to issue a ruling that the Second Amendment is in fact a personal individual right only highlights the fact that government on all levels has been violating the Second Amendment for decades.

Even the foolish people on the Left think there's something wrong with the PATRIOT Act, though most of them wouldn't be able to tell what.

The trials, ie, multiple, of the arresting officers of Rodney King are a clear violation of double jeopardy, and hence clearly evidence of a government outside it's Constitution.

How much evidence do people need to see this?

 

[teamosil]

Well, no where in Article 1, Section 8 is authority granted to Congress to dictate seat-belt policy to the states

There is no federal law requiring seatbelts.

to run a national retirement plan (Social Security)

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises ... and provide for the.. general welfare"

to nationalize the nation's health care industry

Nor have they made such a law.

to create the Federal Reserve

The public part of the fed comes under the power to control the money supply and the private part is regulated under interstate commerce.

to regulate rape

The federal government can only enforce the law against rapists if the crime crosses state lines, in which case it is clearly within the authority of the federal government.

or gun ownership under the Interstate Commerce Clause

Indeed they can. The gun market is inherently interstate.

to transfer money from working people to people who don't work (welfare/unemployment "insurance", ag subsidies, etc.)

General welfare clause quoted above.

Even the foolish people on the Left think there's something wrong with the PATRIOT Act, though most of them wouldn't be able to tell what.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."