It is a misrepresentation to say he said the "Constitution 'has no binding power on anything'" because clearly he was talking about the reading of the Constitution [in Congress].
As for the second part, that is lame. To say, basically, "It's confusing because it's old," is sad. Unfortunately, he is right that interpretations vary widely. When so many people are either too lazy to study the history or intentionally take the document's provisions out of context, that is bound to happen.
As for this guy, I don't think I would trust him to interpret a restaurant menu properly. Relativists irritate me.
The 112th Congress's purpose in reading the Constitution is arguably symbolic, but powerful Symbolism for the People and the Members themselves. IMO, you can't ask for a better reminder that Congress is bound by the Constitution and should be held accountable by the people if they do NOT follow it.
AFA, broad interpretation, it is written pretty clearly and does NOT require much research to understand the context even if it is dated by 233 years. On the more sticky matters it may require some more understanding of the intent of the words written and you could NOT ask for a better explanation of the intent than the Federalist Papers, a single book that is a collection of letters and editorials. Hardly requires in depth scholarly study to understand.
The vastly different interpretations come from those that interpret it disingenuously, for their own purposes, as a means to an end.
You are, yes.
The 112th Congress's purpose in reading the Constitution is arguably symbolic, but powerful Symbolism for the People and the Members themselves. IMO, you can't ask for a better reminder that Congress is bound by the Constitution and should be held accountable by the people if they do NOT follow it.
AFA, broad interpretation, it is written pretty clearly and does NOT require much research to understand the context even if it is dated by 233 years. On the more sticky matters it may require some more understanding of the intent of the words written and you could NOT ask for a better explanation of the intent than the Federalist Papers, a single book that is a collection of letters and editorials. Hardly requires in depth scholarly study to understand.
The vastly different interpretations come from those that interpret it disingenuously, for their own purposes, as a means to an end.
That may be true in a broad sense. It doesn't take much study to understand what each provision of the Constitution was trying to accomplish--after all that is just a general concept. However, figuring out how to apply the Constitution which is a short document in nature (compare that to the Tax Code which is 26,000 pages and you'll see that that the amount of cases clearly covered by the words on the Constitution are only a small % of the cases that must be decided.
For example, probably most people agree that Julian Assange violated the law with Wikileaks. On the other hand, tell me why the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech", which is very absolute language does not protect him.
A lot of arguments could be made that the First Amendment is not applicable--but is it obvious which one is applicable. If I poll 10 teapartyers are they all going to give me the same action.
Another First Amendment case dealt with Federal Campaign Finance Reform. The court said that was protected by the freedom of speech. Is it obvious that an action, especially an action that is not primarily symbolic can be covered by the freedom of speech. If I polled 10 teapartyers would there be any agreement as to to what actions were covered by freedom of speech. Does buying a pack of gum considered speech, going to a gun show, how about watching fox news or buying the NYT.
Its not how to understand the concepts of the Constitution, I agree, with probably as little as 30 or 40 hours of study you could get a good feel for what the framers were hoping for. But the framers could NOT foresee all the cases that would arise and if they could they would to literally have had to make the Constitution over a million pages long and very very technical to cover them. Thus you have to apply the Constitution to situations not directly covered in the Constitution and that is where things get hard.
I think the intent is to create a more perfect union. If it does not do that, then all is lost. That does not sound like individual rights to me.
Constitution of the United States - A History
I think you missed my point. Which is that the general concepts of the Constitution are not hard to understand, but applying to real life situations is a complex matter.
It is a misrepresentation to say he said the "Constitution 'has no binding power on anything'" because clearly he was talking about the reading of the Constitution [in Congress].
As for the second part, that is lame. To say, basically, "It's confusing because it's old," is sad. Unfortunately, he is right that interpretations vary widely. When so many people are either too lazy to study the history or intentionally take the document's provisions out of context, that is bound to happen.
As for this guy, I don't think I would trust him to interpret a restaurant menu properly. Relativists irritate me.
I think the problem is over thinking the original intent. I think about 50% of the stuff that the SC must rule on should have never gotten there in the first place.
(1)
(2) What does the U.S. Constitution say about the government imprisoning me for placing classified information relating to U.S. troop movements in Afghanistan on a website?
Well I guess during a war, #2 is a form of attack on the military and this country and I think the Constitution requires you to be shot. Failing to do that is reducing the Constitution to just a piece of paper.
Idiocracy? This country is looking more like it everyday.It's got electrolytes.
Glad I struck a nerve with you. Pay attention and you might learn something.