The American Spectator : Plain Speaking

Text Size

Plain Speaking

By Lisa Fabrizio on 4.4.12 @ 6:06AM

The Constitution is for everyone — the last thing liberals want you to know.

I was speaking the other day to my friend Charles who’s a very intelligent man; in fact, a brilliant polyglot, who opined that the U.S. Constitution, like the Declaration of Independence, is written in language that is far too difficult for the average person to understand. Now, this man can best me in many, many languages, especially New Testament Greek, but I told him in plain English that this is simply not so.

While it’s true that the Declaration was crafted in language designed to compete with and impress the Crowned Heads of Europe and was thus replete with flowery verbiage — my favorite is “consanguinity” — the Constitution was written to and for the American people in a manner they could easily understand. Indeed, its supporters and detractors waged the war over its ratification in the nation’s newspapers, which were eagerly consumed by a rapt citizenry.

Unfortunately down through the decades, our betters in Academia — who believe that it is outdated and irrelevant anyway — have convinced the rest of America that the Constitution, which consists of six typewritten pages, is far too complex for anyone to even attempt to digest; a ploy that has succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams.

I have a niece who took a course on the Constitution in college; the only problem was that reading the document itself was not required; it was for extra credit only. Such is the state of citizenship in our nation that most folks feel they have done their civic duty by letting late-night comics advise them on their voting choices. So no, it is no surprise that too many of our countrymen do not understand the Supreme Law of our Land, but that’s no excuse for those who should and who have indeed sworn an oath to do.

One of the ways that lawyers and college professors have convinced the nation that the Constitution is way over their heads and way out of touch, is to claim that, as originally written, it is far too fragile to encompass the ways and means of modern D.C. mudslinging; as if politics weren’t written into the document itself. The Founders did not live in some ivory tower where the stench of politics never befouled the sacred air. On the contrary, the system of checks and balances was established to create an electoral friction with this very thing in mind. They knew that their plan for a representative republic was not in itself a guarantee against governmental tyranny. Here’s James Madison in Federalist 58:

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

What this means is that the framers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final word in the day-to-day governance of America; that is the purview of the people through the two elected branches of government. But should the Executive and Legislative arms overreach the boundaries so carefully laid out for them by the Framers, it is precisely the job of the Court to chastise them for it. I will let Mr. Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 78, explain:

No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Now, does it get any plainer than that?

About the Author

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut (mailbox@lisafab.com).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Gary B| 4.4.12 @ 7:21AM

"Now, does it get any plainer than that?"

No, it doesn't. And, thank you for pointing this out.

Apparently, our law professsor in chief needs to have this explained to him in baby talk so he understands.

The Tea Party and most Americans have no trouble with it at all.

RCV| 4.4.12 @ 12:25PM

...except when judges throw out legislation or voter approved initiatives they support. The it's "judicial tyranny!"

Calvin| 4.4.12 @ 2:23PM

Sometimes. Other times it is just stopping a power hungry faction from abusing the commerce clause. The vision of an ever expanding unbounded federal government is contrary to freedom and only favored by fascists like your typical Progressive. It certainly has no connection to the government proposed in the Constitution. The invention of rights never spoken of and the attempt to expand the power of the federal government are the notions of those that favor top down dictation of what freedoms are acceptable for the little people. The little people in their states and localities can't be trusted with much you see. Progressives are insatiable and unsustainable. We definitely shouldn't take advice from somebody responsible for the failed state of California. At the end of the day they probably just want a ton of federal money to clean up their mess.

Nick| 4.5.12 @ 1:58AM

RCV,

You liberals do the same thing.

Like when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that nullified Prop. 8, in California? Wasn't the ban on counterfeit marriage, in your words, a "voter approved" initiative?
I seem to recall that you approved of that decision, didn't you?

Besides, judicial activism happened in cases like Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Griswold v. Conn. SCOTUS nullified the abortion and contraceptive bans in all 50 states.

Judicial review was never supposed to so all encompassing. It was only meant to rule on the specific law involved in the particular case that was in front of the high court.

c.j. acworth| 4.4.12 @ 7:35AM

I graduated from high school in 1973. Even back then, I was never in a history or civcs course that required examination of the Constitution. I imagine that if you tried to implement such a requirement today, you would be told that gender and race sensitivity training is more important and can't be dropped to make room. Thus the people are progressively dumbed down, and Republic gives way to Dictatorship through ignorance of what is being lost.

Liberty4All| 4.4.12 @ 11:23AM

Couldn't have said it better my friend.

Soljerblue| 4.5.12 @ 12:48AM

a-frikkin-men!

Appleby| 4.4.12 @ 8:17AM

My Daddy didn't graduate from high school, because of the Depression and World War II, but he knew every word of both the Constitution and its amendments, and he knew what they meant as well. His favourite hobby horse was that lawyers should not be permitted in the legislature, since lawyers were by definition part of the judicial and therefore screwing up the legislative for the common folks. There are a great many people who think things are in the Constitution that are not there and never were (separation of church and state being the most commonplace error of course).

I suspect that most modern kiddies have never read the Constitiution or any of our founding documents, because there's no sex in them and besides, the words are longer than four letters and there isn't a video on YouTube.

Corey| 4.4.12 @ 4:55PM

Another one of those pesky new rights thats not actually in the constitution, decleration nor bill of rights is that new fangled - Right to Vote.

There is absolutelyl nothing in the constitution that gaurantees voting as an absolute right. It is a priviledge.

If we were smart we put a requirement on voting to that of only those who pay taxes.

LindaF | 4.4.12 @ 8:49AM

I'm a 1969 grad; in my 9th grade Civics course, we read the Constitution - ALL of it. Were required to interpret it on tests.

It is (relatively) short and definitely comprehensible. Not beyond the understanding of the level needed to make a reasoned selection in voting.

Mike Hawk| 4.4.12 @ 11:35AM

I too have Civics back in the 60s. I don't think it is taught anymore. Neither do they teach elementary Economics. More important to know how to put condoms on a banana.

Von Mises Jr.| 4.4.12 @ 9:44AM

Great article Lisa. It is not that the concepts in the Constitution are difficult to understand. It is that we are 50-75 years removed from an outward threat as posed by Hitler and the Axis forces, or the likes of the U.S.S.R.
When I grew up, about the same time as c.j. and Linda; we had parents that had seen a World War and Depression, and we had drills to prepare for a Soviet attack. Today, with the abondonment of teaching real history, the youth do not understand the threats to liberty.
It is sort of like Galapagos animals not fearing humans or introduced predatory animals. They were never hunted and don't even know that they are intended as lunch.

Dmac | 4.4.12 @ 9:59AM

When I took American History if you couldn't name all the amendments to the Constitution you were not going to pass the class. We studied the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance and we knew what they were and what they meant. We also had to study Texas history. When you study the two of them it makes you fiercly indepnedant and proud of who you are and where you are from.
Every student should be required to not only know, but understand the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States. It will only make us stronger as a people and nation to know it.

TrueBlue | 4.4.12 @ 1:53PM

Same with when I went to school Dmac. Heck, we even had debates over each of the Amendments throughout the year.

Corey| 4.4.12 @ 4:59PM

And with your post you just answered what wast he motivating factor behind the federal government educating every child.

They goal wasn't to create a bunch of independent thinkers. The goal was to educate the masses just to the point to make them good government subjects... and after being at it for several decades, I'd say they hit that mark perfectly.

Corey| 4.4.12 @ 5:00PM

Above all it is the parents responsibility to teach their own children about liberty and what the constitution means, the government sure as heck is not going to do it.

aware| 4.4.12 @ 6:52PM

Yes. We are being conditioned for obedience. Step by step. Even long after "official" school days. The results are obvious.

R Martin| 4.4.12 @ 10:11AM

I often comment that the only government job I would accept is, coincidentally, the only one I am entirely qualified for--Supreme Court Justice. My argument is that although I have never taken a class in law, I can read, I can apply logic, I know what words mean (and if not, I know what dictionaries are) and I understand fully the intent the writers of the Constitution expressed for how government should work and how its powers should be limited. How hard can the job be?

For those of you who would like proof of Ms. Fabrizio's thesis, a pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is available for free from the Cato Institute by calling 800-767-1241.

Gary B| 4.4.12 @ 11:17AM

Mr. Martin,

Do you member Harry Browne's answer when, during his campaign for president, he was asked what attribute he would look for in a nominee for the Supreme Court? His answer: "That he or she can read."

Mike 3/505| 4.4.12 @ 10:13AM

If my wife would let me get away with it, I might just run off with Miss Lisa.

Skippy| 4.4.12 @ 3:20PM

Mr. F. might object.

PolishKnight| 4.4.12 @ 10:47AM

In debates and discussions with liberals or more accurately, leftists, I made this psychological observation: They pride themselves upon being smart and skilled debaters which, to them, means the ability to prove anything they want and discredit their opponent and "winning" the debate. In other words, they believe that they define reality and morality on the fly to suit themselves and this makes them basically psychopaths (or is that a sociopath?) On the surface, they project themselves onto their opponents (such as claiming that GW Bush is a skilled liar and evil cheat who breaks the rules) even as they proclaim smugly that only they are skilled and smart enough to do such a thing.

So words to them are simply tools to fool naive idiots and code words for their buddies to communicate methods to engage in crony political backscratching. It doesn't matter what the words are since they can twist or even redefine them on the fly to mean whatever they like.

Obama's protests against an "activist" court are amusing and delightfully cynical and reveal a "living Constitution" that means whatever Obama says it does and therefore, anyone who disagrees with him, by definition, is a manipulative, dishonest, bigot. Number 1, he's right. Number 2, you're wrong. And any further discussion is simply the "denier" being unreasonable. In his view, he's God and he's a sore loser when that reality doesn't always work out.

albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 10:57AM

I rarely find myself in 100% accord with any other poster here, and occasionally find myself in specific disagreement with some of what you write. With regard to your three paragraphs above, though, describing the leftist posture on debate, I could not say anything more succinct than "Ditto".

PolishKnight| 4.4.12 @ 4:57PM

Thanks (I think). My wife recently worked at the polls in Northern Virginia and was happy to be assigned to a station with fellow Republicans. It was a diverse group of people including a woman lawyer (you probably know my opinion on that), a businessman, and a housewife and everyone was friendly and cordial and professional. These people had taken time off of their workday or personal time to commit to protecting election integrity.

The previous election, she was assigned to work a sleeper primary to decide a sheriff and ballot proposition and the whole crew, besides her, were Obama supporters. They only talked to each other, excluded her, and they were all old retirees. I am constantly amused at how the paradigm of the left: that they are open, tolerant, diverse, and inclusive is so wrong much of the time.

The concept of government being a super sugar-daddy, and giving you everything you want: "Free" healthcare and a perfect utopian society and tree-hugging solar energy is a distant ideal even for the most fervent leftist. But on the other hand, bashing and dehumanizing one's opponents and the dream of putting their opponents into a gulag, that's something they KNOW is within the immediate power of big bro government. They remember being in high school and seeing how the ones who weren't in the "cool table" could be depressed and desperately want to be in the cool clique.

So in discussions with them, I realize that the issues don't really matter to them just as the words themselves mean little. They're just tools to "win" at all costs and to make themselves better than others. I also think this is why they're not inclusive: In a debate where the "fights are fair", they lose quickly and know it at a subconscious level. So they prefer to hang out with each other and compare notes: "Wow! Obama is great! Those who disagree with him are stupid!" "Really, maybe it's because we're so caring and Obama is so great! What do you think?"

For that reason, I don't want to be a kiss*** here. I want to be bleeding edge and consider radical ideas and sometimes I realize that maybe they're not so radical after all. It's ironic that conservatives are in many ways cutting edge because by honestly evaluating ideas on their merits, you can move forward rather than trying to prop up dead 19th century philosophers.

Al Adab| 4.4.12 @ 6:17PM

PK:
Been very busy in court today so I'm late getting into the conversation. My favorite, which demonstrates that many thought the people have a veto over law, comes from Theophilus Parsons who spoke during the Mass. ratifying convention as it considered the Constitution. He said, "An act of usurpation is not obligatory, it is not law. Resistence to such a law is justified."

That should be clear enough for any of us.

Patrick| 4.4.12 @ 11:00AM

Beautifully put, Lisa. Thank you for writing that.

David T| 4.4.12 @ 11:12AM

Thanks Ms Fabrizio, but I fear your friend is right. With the quality of education today, understanding the Constitution is probably beyond the ken of the average person.

Gary B| 4.4.12 @ 11:22AM

David, You're right. That's why talking about "freedom" and the "free market economy" is a less-challenging way to go for a campaign message.

Vern Crisler| 4.4.12 @ 11:26AM

"Such is the state of citizenship in our nation that most folks feel they have done their civic duty by letting late-night comics advise them on their voting choices."

Ouch, you put it just right Lisa.

I would say Americans are not only ignorant of the Constitution but also of a lot of our history. Lately, I've been asking friends if they know who Ferdinand and Isabella were. I haven't gotten a correct answer yet. And this despite the fact that they were featured in a Bugs Bunny cartoon about Christopher Columbus. "She's a round like my head." "She's a flat -- like your head."

Oh well, what can you expect in a culture that put our current president in office.

Pinta| 4.6.12 @ 5:27AM

Vern C., c'mon!!!! Everybody knows that Ferdinand and Isabella were finalists in Dancing With the Stars just two TV seasons ago. Or was it three? You think Americans are not keeping up with the Hollywood Minute?

ConantheContrarian| 4.4.12 @ 12:19PM

If the Greatest Generation was so schooled in the Constitution, how did we get to where we are right now? They should have been a bulwark against federal Progessivism. They weren't, nor were their offspring, the Baby Boomers.
We need a new literacy test to be able to vote: an understanding of the Constitution as outlined in the Federalist Papers.

Soljerblue| 4.5.12 @ 12:58AM

perhaps a return to the poll tax, as well.

9thID| 4.4.12 @ 12:33PM

After taking a oath and serving under Reagan/Bush I never thought I would see the day when the GOP served up a Liber-tarian "Voluntaryist" like Ron Paul who has now joined Obama in stating on video that the Constitution has never worked and will never work. Paul's "Voluntaryism" is "freedom from all government" and he calls for abolishing the military and the Constitution. The video was posted by his supporters over at the Liber-tarian von Mises Institute: http://tinyurl.com/7bph329

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”—Thomas Jefferson

Not Special Ops Bill| 4.4.12 @ 1:42PM

The U.S. Constitution is probably written in language that makes it too difficult for the average modern American to understand; however, the average American of 1789 could probably understand it with little or no difficulty whatsoever.

Not Special Ops Bill| 4.4.12 @ 1:45PM

I think Lisa Fabrizio's "polyglot" friend was probably displaying his ignorance of the Constitution when he said what he said.

Not Special Ops Bill| 4.4.12 @ 2:28PM

If you choke when talking several different languages, do you have "polyglottal stops?"

albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 2:49PM

Perhaps former LAPD chief Daryl Gates should be consulted, since he has somewhat infamously remarked about the increased lethality of the choke hold on certain demographic groups, as to which number of languages would be "normal", and which would be "polyglottal".

Petronius| 4.4.12 @ 1:52PM

If only having a thorough literal understanding of our Founding Documents were a requirement to become a registered Voter...

Skippy| 4.4.12 @ 3:22PM

I'd settle for photo ID.

albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 5:48PM

I am simultaneously laughing and crying when hitting the cymbal and drum for your rim shot there.

Ba Da Dummm...

jst| 4.4.12 @ 2:29PM

Why quote the federalist papers if the point is about the plain language of the Constitution?

RJ| 4.4.12 @ 2:52PM

I had four Constitutional law courses in law school and in only one of those courses was reading the Constitution part of the agenda and the professor was considered by much of the faculty as a kook. Most "Constitutional" classes in law school consist of reading case opinions, many of which are sophmoric legalisms to justify government action which is clearly inconsistent the text of the Constitution and the concerns of the Constitutional Convention.

One if by land...| 4.4.12 @ 3:02PM

Strange how the usual idiots didn't write much in response to this article. Jack in LaLa Land wasn't first to comment. I, fianlly, agree with an article in it's entirety. What a day!

Aces and Eights| 4.4.12 @ 4:55PM

One of life's little annoyances is when people, ostensibly defending the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, do so as if these two documents are equivalent to each other. The idea goes that the language is old and flowery and it is traditional to "honor" such documents because of their age and who wrote them and wrote about them. The Declaration and the Constitution are two completely different types of documents, not only in their style, but in their FUNCTION. Yes, these document have function. The Declaration of Independence has the function of legally separating these United States from the English Crown. That is all it did.

The US Constitution is the Law. Not guidelines, not a contractual agreement between the People and Government. It is Law. It was written and ratified by the several States, and has the practical function of creating a central government with defined powers and specifically and explicitly forbiding any powers not delegated to it. "Honoring" the constitution is not a matter of time or tradition. The US Government is REQUIRED to obey this Supreme Law of the Land. There is no debate, no argument. The Law requires compliance by elected officials. Just because some idea is "popular" gives absolutely zero authority to any member of government to override the Constitution, the Law. Members of Congress, Presidents, appointed officials, and Court justices must all obey this Law. The US Government is the creation of the Supreme Law, not its creator. The US government is subject to the Law, not masters of it. And this Law can only be changed, altered, amended, updated, made more modern, or whatever, by the States. No President, no Court, no Congress can do this. Only the States. It is time we held accountable those who were elected to obey this Law, for their numerous and onerous violations of it.

Barack Obama's signature "achievement" is flatly unconstitutional, and no word games or trickery can change that. Congress and Obama are in violation of the Law for passing and signing that piece of trash, and We the People have absolutely zero legal obligation of obey it.

Appleby| 4.4.12 @ 8:01PM

I would add that the Declaration not only separated us from Britain, but explained in clear and precise language that when people decide to separate from their Mother Country, it is incumbent upon them to explain their reasons, and that those reasons be significantly reasonable and the oppression be significantly unreasonable to justify such a move. The Declaration does this in cards and spades. Read through the enumeration of King George's misbehaviours and check off the ones Obama and his minions are currently carrying out -- and you may be surprised how up to the minute the Declaration seems to be.

Richard Baker| 4.4.12 @ 6:39PM

Interesting that the 18th Century Americans, most of whom were fairly undereducated in a formal sense, understood the meaning of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Today, the meaning is "unclear" to the supposedly educated among us because Marx and his idiocy are more to the liking of the modern dictators and their followers. The funny part is that these "educated" seem to think that the tyranny they advocate will pass them by. Orwell was correct about "intellectuals".

Gary B| 4.4.12 @ 6:39PM

I wonder how many members of Congress voted for the bill hoping it would eventually be overturned?

Pat| 4.4.12 @ 7:16PM

New York Times, April 26th, 2013 - U. S. CONSTITUTION DECLARED A FAKE

In a startling revelation for many Americans, a respected Harvard law professor has declared the United States Constitution to be “a fake”. Professor David Dowd-Wong-Horowitz, who prefers to be known as “Q”, claimed our Constitution is a fake and should be removed from the National Archives in the near future. Explaining that the Constitution was originally written for the French peoples by an obscure Polish monk, was misplaced in transit but then fell into the hands of a group of Americans known as the Founding Fathers quite by accident, Horowitz further claims many leading Ivy League historians will back him up on these facts.

Horowitz further explained: “The founding fathers needed a well-written document to express their views and when Benjamin Franklin found this impressively worded parchment stuffed into his travel valise by accident after a recent trip to France, he took the easy way out and requested the colonies to ratify it without reading it in its entirety”. In some respects, this ratifying process was similar to when Congress briefly skimmed legislative drafts prior to passing the National Health Insurance Plan now familiar to all Americans.

Horowitz indicated that the original Constitution, as discovered by Franklin, was never intended to be read as serious rules for governing a nation, but rather were more like “National Guidelines” and should be considered as “helpful suggestions” only. Asked to comment on Horowitz’s research, recently re-elected President Obama denied the Constitution would be removed from its place in our National Archives but in the future would be prominently labeled as expressing a traditionalist view of governing principles held by some Americans in ancient times. However, Obama further indicated that, in light of this new research, the Supreme Court can no longer cite the Constitution as the basis for their rulings. Henceforth, Supreme Court rulings will be considered “informed opinions” only and in the event President Obama doesn't agree with the Court’s opinion their decision will be ignored.

Professor Horowitz is a recognized expert on early American legal procedures and has published research papers claiming that Americans didn’t own firearms in colonial times, didn’t want to own firearms and weren’t adept at firing weapons. Consequently, Horowitz believes the 2nd Amendment should be viewed as not qualified to be considered a “helpful suggestion”.

Nick| 4.5.12 @ 2:09AM

Pat,

Excellent satire! Just excellent.
But, can we say, for sure, that Benjamin Franklin ever really existed? Ha-ha!

Lloyd Daub| 4.4.12 @ 9:16PM

Does the Constitution get any plainer? Well maybe not. To explain its meaning, you turn to the Federalist Papers, not the text of the Constitution. So perhaps you should re-think this column and try again. After all, even Judge Bork in sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee claimed he had no idea what the Tenth Amendment means.

Kingofthenet| 4.4.12 @ 9:17PM

Even if you believe in 'enumerated powers' as a strict Constitutionalist, regulating Commerce gives you some pretty broad powers.
"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional," wrote Marshall

albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 10:02PM

In a nutshell, here is the objection: the mandate doesn’t regulate commerce, it requires the creation of it. In essence, it is as if the government compelled the planting of wheat in Wickard v. Filburn, so that it could then regulate it.

Kingofthenet| 4.4.12 @ 10:24PM

Or you could say that allowing 'Free-Riders' is damaging all those who buy insurance, so they can be regulated.

Nick| 4.5.12 @ 2:11AM

The so-called Free-Riders were created by the democrats, like Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy, KooK!

la comedia e finito| 4.4.12 @ 9:57PM

"Unfortunately down through the decades, our betters in Academia -- who believe that it is outdated and irrelevant anyway -- have convinced the rest of America that the Constitution, which consists of six typewritten pages, is far too complex for anyone to even attempt to digest; a ploy that has succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams."

Really?

Can you back that claim up with some FACTS, --please!?

EVEN the NYC Public School System..warts and all-- has MANDATORY civics and Constitutional Studies programs in place , in its upper Elementary/Middle-School. and High School Programs.. so as far as I am aware.. it IS being taught--and students are required to be familiar with it

albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 10:15PM

I believe the point Ms. Fabrizio is making is not that there aren't courses, rather, that the courses don't actually require that the document itself be read. She goes on to state an example (presumably factual) in the next paragraph, though she doesn't identify the niece or college by name.

When I used to teach a class on search warrants to new law enforcement officers, I would distribute a copy of the Bill of Rights, and discuss the words and meaning of what all had sworn to support and defend. When I would interview for transfers to my unit, I would ask questions and score applicants based on their proper knowledge of same.

I would be interested in knowing what level of knowledge NYC students are required to demonstrate in order to pass the course as well as meet the requirements for graduation, and whether actually reading the document (as opposed to textbooks about the Constitution) is part of the curriculum or lesson plan, instead of "extra credit".

la comedia e finito| 4.4.12 @ 10:37PM

Albert:

They are reading the actual CONSTITUTION , itself...in MANDATORY credited classes..

Whether they remember it..or even care..is another story...BUT-- it is presented to them, to do with it what they will..

Kingofthenet| 4.4.12 @ 10:53PM

IF they strike down the law, it is basically saying there is NOTHING you can do about the 'Free-Rider' problem...Do we REALLY want problems that can't be solved?

Too Late To Impeach| 4.5.12 @ 12:56AM

No, it's basically saying you're not gonna solve the problem by destroying individual liberty, so quit being lazy power-grabbers, get creative, and find the best possible solution that meets Constitutional muster! (Note that I said the "best possible solution". Nobody said everyone's gonna end up with "free" healthcare. Obamacare isn't even going to provide that in the long run. Farrrr from it in fact.)

aware| 4.5.12 @ 7:27AM

It's not actually the "constitution" the power grabbers hate, it's the Bill of Rights. Think about it, they use the commerce clause, general welfare, common defense, etc. as vehicles to justify all expansions with hardly ever a peep over the "constitutionality" involved.

But those pesky Bill of Rights are the thorn in their path. I point out that it wasn't the vaulted Federalists that gave us the Bill of Rights, it was the anti-Federalists. Does anyone doubt that your guns would have been long gone without the 2nd amendment?

Patrick Henry was a delegate to what was supposed to be an amending to the Articles of Confederation that suddenly became something all together different. In his words he "smelt a rat" and quit to become an anti-federalist.

Jefferson considered the constitutional convention a coup by aristocratic and powerful interests. “What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by the assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government.”

Robert Yates(Brutus) predicted the creation of a Supreme Court would lead to judicial tyranny over the legislature. Other anti-federalists predicted that though the central government is claimed to be servant of the individual states, it would become their master.

Whatever shred of protection the people still have against being trampled by the instrument of the collectivists(the State) is due to those who opposed the creation of a powerful central State through ratification of the constitution. Only the grudging agreement of the federalists to add a Bill of Rights gained passage.

The Federalist Papers read like naive hoping while the anti-federalists read like prophecy itself.

Ken Currie| 4.5.12 @ 6:26PM

A most excellent piece. The Constitution and related documents are not rocket science. It is not necessary to buy Glenn Beck's so-called "translation" of The Federalist Papers to understand their content. In fact, that sophomoric attempt to recast the documents in more "modern" language should be banned from American government classrooms.

Matthew Gore | 4.5.12 @ 10:36PM

Very clever of you to write an article arguing that the constitution is clearly and plainly written... without providing a single example or citation from that venerable document.

I scoffed when a friend mentioned to me that you'd attempted it, but stand now corrected. - MG

Thames| 4.6.12 @ 5:44AM

Mr. Gore, what's your beef?

Maybe you should take this up with the editors at American Spectator so that they always permit writers like Ms. Fabrizio four to five pages of web space so that she has not room for a 600 word article but a 6,000 word one.

Maybe her original article on this is longer but it was shortened for this publishing today?

Really not sure what your criticism is.

Be more specific on your "beef." Are you saying that you believe the U.S. Constitution to not be clearly and plainly written?

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|45 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|39 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|21 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|14 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|13 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|19 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|8 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|11 comments

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM