How can people have such differing views about what the Constitution is all about?
Some people get all bent out of shape when they see something they perceive as “disrespecting the country,” such as taking a knee during the anthem, and talk like it should be a punishable offense, where as others, like myself, recognize that it is a Constitutional right to free speech and peaceful protest, and they are protected under the law.
How can there be such opposing views?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
23 Answers
Because it was a crap document that was also way too open for interpretation.
We should scrap that piece of garbage and start from scratch.
I disagree. There are some people who just don’t like what it has to say.
Separation of church and state? NO! That makes room for Satan to move in!
Free Speech? NO! That allows people to disrespect our country!
I remember reading a basic Law 101 book awhile ago, and basically it’s only how individuals interpret the vague wording. It’s just like the bible: some follow it to the letter, some abuse it for their own gain, and some know it’s a dated yet useful foundation that can be amended for future issues.
The slave owning founding fathers knew the world would change, and at least had the foresight to make an attempt to make the document open ended. It’s only us here in the present that ruined it yet again.
Was I the only one that found it odd we had to have a balance of liberal and conservative supreme justices? People are so divided we need to have different opinions to interpret basic words. That’s how different people are I guess.
People can have different views of what it means to say “no pets,” so I don’t see how this is any surprise.
It’s the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. They’re supposed to know enough to do that fairly, honestly, and responsibly, without regard to who happens to be in the Oval Office at the time.
Most of us aren’t qualified to make that interpretation on our own. It’s not enough just to read the words and understand the language. That’s why it’s important to have confidence in our SC judges and why compromising them politically has such a devastating effect on the public’s faith in our institutions.
Roger Williams, founder of Providence, Rhode Island, was a foremost champion of the separation of church and state not as a matter of protecting politics from religion but because he wanted to keep politics out of the church.
Not everyone understands or has the POV of the founding fathers who wrote it, so they can only assume it to mean what they want it to mean based on their own current wants and experience.
Any rule that can not be broken can surely be bent. The sleaziest lawyer is as good as a great lawyer.
Right @kritiper? For example, that bit about “separation of church and state” was included because they had experienced religious rule back in England, and it didn’t work so good.
@kritiper, > so they can only assume it to mean what they want it to mean
Are you suggesting that everyone’s authority on interpreting the Constitution is just as good as everyone else’s and therefore that everyone is entitled to decide for himself what the law is?
I don’t think that’s what he means. And in the end, when push comes to shove, the courts have the last say. It doesn’t matter what anyone else’s interpretation is.
Because human language is inherently imprecise, and everything, whether it is written, or spoken, is open to interpretation, and interpretation is coloured by one’s own biases.
Even contracts crafted in minute detail are not spared from that, resulting in contract disputes having to be fought out in courts.
“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.”
What is a “Militia”?
What does “well regulated” mean?
Is “arms” only weapons available at the time, or does it include everything invented ever since?
Is the “right to bear arms” contingent on the militia, or is it separate?
@Blackberry Was I the only one that found it odd we had to have a balance of liberal and conservative supreme justices?
We don’t have to. It’s a result of voting patterns/gerrymandering/etc.
In theory that’s good. Competition and diversity is good. But I think Republicans have gamed the system to unfair and un-earned advantage. They won ONE popular vote for president in 30 years and yet have occupied the White House for much of that time.
Good to see you, Blackberry. I haven’t noticed you around here for a while.
@Jeruba No. People now can only judge the Constitution by what they know now, at this time, and cannot know what was truley in the minds of the founding fathers in their time.
@Dutchess_III I think the founding fathers threw in the bit about church and state because they didn’t want the government dealing with those opposed to the government’s church (if it came to such a thing) by lopping off heads like Henry the VIII did in England.
The separation of church and state was to keep secular politics out of church business. To protect the church from the state.
There’s also the fact that many people haven’t even read the Constitution, even when they’re sure about what it says. The Onion article linked above hits that nail on the head.
Because much like religious texts, it was written by humans in a different time and a different cultural context, its language is not perfect and maximally exhaustive, and therefore is open to a variety of interpretations.
Yeah, I don’t get it either but the truth is its about getting what you want. They really didn’t care about the constitution in the first place. It’s about using what it says to feel empowered for some. The bible is used the same way. People only remember the parts they can happily obey and twist other parts to contradict parts that aren’t convenient to their daily lives.
One should expect that ESPECIALLY if it has a definite meaning.
This is best seen, I think, in the Lincoln-Douglas debates (see book Crisis of the House Divided by Harry V Jaffa)
Didn’t Aristotle say that “LITTLE“errors in the beginning are BIG errors in the end”
One great example: Our rights (as in the Bill of Rights) are GOD-given and the government only recognizes them. Many younger people do not know this and therefore speak of amending or eliminating certain rights.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
