Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no..
Of course there was disagreement. It was a convention in order to hammer out a constitution. Everyone had opinions on what would make the best constitution. But they did not disagree on the meaning of the words. There was disagreement by some, the Anti-Federalists, on how much power the proposed constitution gave to the federal government. If anything, those who initially, or finally, opposed ratification, did so on the grounds that the central government would be too strong. But compromises were made, and, in the end, only three delegates did not choose to sign on to ratification.
So the signers all finally agreed to the Constitution. They agreed on what the words meant. They agreed on its checks and balances. They agreed on which powers the central government should and would have. They even, post ratification, included, per compromise, the insertion of a Bill of Rights--again, to make certain that the central government could not abridge those rights. They agreed that the people and the states would retain the vast residuum of rights which were not granted to the central government.
Again, the disagreements were not on meaning. They were on how much power the central government would have. Those who disagreed with the Constitution on that ground, would be the very ones whose arguments would absolutely oppose any power the central government could have to restrict any natural right. They wouldn't have wanted the central government to have much, if any, more power than it had in the articles of confederation. And the rest, who signed on to ratification, agreed that the federal government would have, and only have, those powers enumerated to it in the Constitution. And they all agreed as to the meanings of the words that spelled out those enumerations of power. And those meanings stood up, as intended, for a century or more, before Progressivism started to "interpret" those words.
So don't go to the "Founders disagreed" notion as some justification for loose interpretation of the Constitution.
2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see
|
This "seeking answers on its intent in the modern world" notion is a result of an "intent" other than that of the Framer's Constitution. It is the intent of Progressives to impose layer upon layer of legislation upon and against the text of the Constitution in order to legally justify what is not "interpretation" but actually a rewriting of it, or, by proxy or deception, the creation of a new unwritten constitution. One whose meaning and intent run counter to the text of the Constitution.
The "intention" of the Constitution was to impose restrictions on the "intentions" of those in government who would, for whatever reason, good or ill, dictate rules and regulations which would deny the people their natural rights.
Those natural rights were based not on technological advances or the fashions of the day. They were based on human nature. On how humans assert power. On how humans desire freedom. The intention of the Constitution is to limit the power some humans can have over other humans. To assure the optimum freedom of individuals REGARDLESS OF WHICH TIME IN WHICH THEY LIVE. The "times" are fleeting, the nature of man, so long as humans exist, abides.
As far as I know, humans have not yet evolved into something other than they were in the 18th century. And the same desire of some to rule others, as witnessed in "our time," has not changed.
And if you pay attention to what Progressive doctrine has been since its inception, unless, as Sea Dangles would say, you are "smitten" by its promises, you will see that it has nothing to do with actual constitutional governance. Quite the contrary, it is about circumventing or gradually replacing that governance with an unlimited rule of supposed experts.
And no, it's not like the Bible. It's not about rules for getting to heaven. It is about life on earth. About human interaction with humans written by humans for humans. It is about "Caesar's" power not God's. Since God did not hold a convention, we don't have an actual written document of disputes and resolutions related by actual witnesses to the event. The Bible requires belief in that which cannot be known.
The Constitution is secular law. Such law cannot be "successful because people can't agree on what it means" as you put it. That is nonsense. If there is no agreement on what secular law means, then no-one would know how to comply with such law. Such law would not only be useless, it would contradict the very nature of law.