Do we interpret the Constitution literally?

[xRedfoxx]

I have written an article to ask the question..Under no circumstance should we read into the Constitution? Should we really take it literally?

http://libertyandhope.blogspot.com/

Also be sure to vote in this month's poll for your favorite candidate on the right side of the main page.

[Pericles]

Literally, using contemporary language meaning when written.

[Chester Copperpot]

I think we can read it in context of the declaration of independence..

[LibertyEagle]

If there is a question as to what is meant, it's pretty easy to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and find out. Since words have changed meanings over time, it's also helpful to have a dictionary from the time.

[YumYum]

If there is a question as to what is meant, it's pretty easy to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and find out. Since words have changed meanings over time, it's also helpful to have a dictionary from the time.

So, how do you interpret "Congress has the right to borrow money"?

[FrankRep]

I have written an article to ask the question..Under no circumstance should we read into the Constitution? Should we really take it literally?

http://libertyandhope.blogspot.com/

Also be sure to vote in this month's poll for your favorite candidate on the right side of the main page.

Have a question about the Constitution?

Read the Federalist Papers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594404/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=1936594404).

[VBRonPaulFan]

Yes, it should be written literally. To leave it up to interpretation would be to allow the meaning of the document to change over time... meaning there would've been no point in creating the document at all. It would be like getting into a long term loan with someone and saying the specifics are up to interpretation... and 10 years down the road misconstruing some part of it to mean you no longer have to pay.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Have a question about the Constitution?

Read the Federalist Papers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594404/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=1936594404).

that's.... not very helpful. the federalist papers are huge and cover so many topics (including many that only applied to that specific time period). why don't you point him in the right direction?

[Kylie]

Glenn Beck has a new book out that has re-written the Federalist papers in dumbed downspeak to appeal to today's society.

Don't remember what it's called, though. I'm sure it's on the NYT bestseller list.

The Original Argument? I think that's it.

[flightlesskiwi]

Glenn Beck has a new book out that has re-written the Federalist papers in dumbed downspeak to appeal to today's society.

Don't remember what it's called, though. I'm sure it's on the NYT bestseller list.

The Original Argument? I think that's it.

this makes me sad. because it's true. (tangent: how does one expect to improve their reading ability if a person isn't willing to challenge one's self with "hard to read" material?)

[donnay]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights need no interpretations--it means what it says and says what it means in proper English. The problem here is, much of the English language has been deliberately dumbed down.

The Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers are a good start to understanding where the founders stood, but more importantly, it is a good idea to learn and understand proper English.

History of the English Language
http://www.englishclub.com/english-language-history.htm

[VBRonPaulFan]

this makes me sad. because it's true. (tangent: how does one expect to improve their reading ability if a person isn't willing to challenge one's self with "hard to read" material?)

it's actually a very good, non partisan book. i've read it. he pulls out only the most pertinent papers (since a lot of them dealt with specific issues to certain states like NY. at the time that they had to argue in favor of the constitution over the articles of confederation to get votes to get it passed) and gives you the text, the meaning, and then speaks about that topic and how it is relevant to today. i would suggest reading it to others. but to answer your tangent, you have to work yourself up to being able to read and understand some of the language, especially with the way people are taught today. making it easier for people to get started on a topic they find interesting (like liberty) can only be a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

[sailingaway]

I have written an article to ask the question..Under no circumstance should we read into the Constitution? Should we really take it literally?

http://libertyandhope.blogspot.com/

Also be sure to vote in this month's poll for your favorite candidate on the right side of the main page.

You read it in historic context. Often there were well settled legal concepts about how certain language was interpreted, for example

[Kylie]

this makes me sad. because it's true. (tangent: how does one expect to improve their reading ability if a person isn't willing to challenge one's self with "hard to read" material?)

Have you tried to read anything from that era?

It's like they spoke in high speech, and it is rather difficult to understand, especially since we have been dumbed down. I find myself constantly looking up words to find their meanings since I was not taught these words at school. Problem with that is that some of the meanings were purposefully changed and that just adds to the confusion.

[orenbus]

I think the concern and the reason why people would like to see a broken down argument of what is being said in certain articles is because of misinterpretations or multiple interpretations of passages in the constitution for example:

Article 1 Section 8



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
...


Article 1 Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
...


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


The attempt to interpret the constitution based on the language used was recently highlighted by Oreilly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz4zQQHyYOU

If there is a further discussion regarding this issue in the federalist papers could anyone please provide direct quotes to detail the arguments made back then? Link to the direct passages would be appreciated.

[orenbus]

Speaking of gold, didn't know this until recently Utah has legalized gold/silver as currency, although this matches what is being said in the constitution I wonder how this will play out in a practical sense. This video towards the end was kind of funny but really, if you buy some milk and bread with a gold eagle, how do they give you back change? In silver and copper?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f903olT4jLY

[Theocrat]

We should always interpret the Constitution within the context of the era in which it was written. This resource (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/) helps, in that regard.

[fisharmor]

If there is a question as to what is meant, it's pretty easy to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and find out. Since words have changed meanings over time, it's also helpful to have a dictionary from the time.

That is, of course, until the subject at hand is (insert pet issue here, in LE's case immigration), in which case it's ok to ignore the text and the papers, because, you know, it's REALLY important.

Your article is misleading.
The US constitution doesn't say "There's only one car, and I forbid you to use this car under any circumstances."
The US constitution assumes that there are at least 13 other cars you can use. I therefore don't think it's being that unfair by saying "this car is not to be used for any purpose other than what I've preapproved".
That number has expanded to 50, more if you include territories, counties, cities, etc.
There are literally thousands of cars available for your puss-hounding.
And yes, I do appreciate humor in the metaphor.

[matt0611]

If there is a further discussion regarding this issue in the federalist papers could anyone please provide direct quotes to detail the arguments made back then? Link to the direct passages would be appreciated.

I can't answer your question directly. But I would definitely check out these two articles (both very in depth) by this guy Edwin Vieira, he's an expert on these monetary issues:

http://www.fame.org/HTM/Vieira_Edwin_To_Regulate_the_Value_of_Money_EV-006.HTM
http://www.fame.org/HTM/Vieira_Edwin_What_is_a_Dollar_EV-002.HTM

[johnwk]

One of the most important things I was taught many years ago when studying constitutional law is, our Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof are the “supreme law of the land” ___ the operative words being in pursuance thereof!

And thus, when questions arise concerning what our Constitution means, they are best settled by a careful research of the debates [Madison’s Notes, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and Elliot’s Debates which include some of the States Ratification debates] during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified in order to document the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. Indeed, this just happens to be the most fundamental rule of constitutional law and was summarized by Jefferson in the following words:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

It should also be noted that this very rule is contemporarily summarized in the following words:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

Also see: 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

In addition see: Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

Finally, In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court addresses the attempt to manipulate the text of legislation to defeat its intentions.

But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


Either one supports and defends our Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted, or they stand against it and pretend it means whatever they wish it to mean.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[AGRP]

When someone is sentenced to 20 years in prison does that mean we can interpret it in dog years?

[TruckinMike]

To better acquaint yourself with the language of the period I suggest using LIBRIVOX.ORG Free Audio books --

Try

Two Treatises of Civil Government by John Locke (1632-1704) (http://librivox.org/two-treatises-of-civil-government-by-john-locke/)

and another

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) by William Blackstone (http://librivox.org/commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-by-william-blackstone/)

There are many others... enjoy.:)

TMike

PS- downloads in MP3 and Zip formats (as well as textof ducument).

[pcosmar]

Interpret?
I read it. I do read and understand English.

Do you interpret cooking directions on packaged food? Or do you follow the directions?