Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
When it was first written and the various speakers went about the colonies explaining the whole thing, NOTHING was ever refuted, NOTHING. Everyone who read the various commentaries knew what it was about. It only became muddled after the fact by ideological politicians with agendas. Alien and Sedition Acts as a case in point.
|
What was the literacy rate in the colonies back then? The education level? Did everyone get the communication? You do know how difficult it was to pass on information back then compared to now, right?
Do you think that the Constitution in its current form if presented today would have such widespread acceptance and lack of confusion surrounding its language?
As far as nothing being refuted, I find that rather suspect. I've always found American history intriguing. I should have studied it more.
Quote:
|
When the phrases of 'shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed', 'no warrant shall', and others like it can't be understood to mean it shall not be done, the rest of it is meaningless. And it doesn't render the government powerless. It prescribes very specific powers, but that's it. Those powers aren't supposed to ebb and flow because the government feels it can't do something it wasn't supposed to, but feels the need to.
|
The questions aren't about the language constructions you quoted above, the questions are about what "it" is they're referring to. One could say that the document is flawed by how confusing it is. It makes "shalt not" the default position based on not being fully sure what government "shall" or "shalt not" do exactly.
Quote:
|
The government was charged with protecting the rights of the people, nothing more, nothing less. That's not that hard to do.
|
Not hard to do? You make it sound easy: "Hey, just protect the rights of the people, okay?" Um...what, wait! How, exactly? You have gravely oversimplifed this matter.
Quote:
|
all the commentaries about it during ratification suggest otherwise.
|
I haven't read the commentaries. Can the commentaries be used in interpreting the constitution?