Carrying a pocket Constitution
By Dr. Ralph Maughan
So what about people who carry a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution and tell us things like, “I can’t find it in my Constitution so it must be unconstitutional?” They might also say “I reach for my copy every day.” “I carry it with me at all times.” “When I have a political argument, I just pull it out and settle things.”
You can get a pocket Constitution for a dollar or up to $30 if you want nice leather, “cream-white acid-free paper with gilt edges,” and a ribbon like with some Bibles. Most people though probably get the dollar version for free from a political activist or rally.
Some pocket Constitutions include additional documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. Reading the Articles could be important for some people — those who think the U. S. government possesses only those powers specifically named in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. This is because the Articles specifically said its confederate government had only the powers specifically listed. On the other hand, the Constitution says the federal government has both powers specifically listed and also powers that are “necessary and proper.” The lack of a government with “necessary and proper” (implied) powers was one of the reasons the Articles were replaced.
Some of these pocketbooks have quotes from historic figures, and some also from people of much less fame and who push agendas that many, perhaps most Americans, do not agree with.
I have noticed in the news more and more references to folks carrying these pocketbooks around and spouting non-standard views about what the Constitution means. “Non-standard?” I should say more accurately, views that are both extreme and flat out wrong. A well known current example is Cliven Bundy. He says he uses his pocket Constitution daily. I wonder if he has it in his jail cell?
His incorrect views aside, does daily reading of the Constitution do a person a lot of good? More importantly is it good for the country? I’d think not so much. You can memorize every word of the Constitution and still know very little about what it means, how the government works, what your rights are, how the President is elected, or the limits of government power.
Studying about the Constitution is a good thing, but it requires a lot more than knowing just the bare text of the document. The Constitution means much more than its written words. You have to know how its words have been interpreted by the courts and defined by political custom.
Take, for example, the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Is the meaning of that clear so that Congress always knows when it can or can’t regulate something with a new law?
Here are some real problems that have come up. What exactly is or isn’t commerce? Is manufacturing, commerce? Is navigation on a river, commerce? Is manufacturing, commerce “among the states?” If so, is it all manufacturing or just certain kinds? What does “to regulate” mean? It goes on and on. As a result of questions like these, there have been dozens of Supreme Court cases defining what the Commerce clause means. A person really doesn’t know anything about the Constitution and commerce even if all they can do is recite the clause from memory.
Almost every clause in the Constitution is similar to the Commerce Clause. The meaning of each has been litigated. There are precedents to learn. The study of these is called “constitutional law.” Bundy and his kind need to learn constitutional law.
Why would people want a ribbon marker and gilt edges for a pocketbook with the Constitution? These ribbons and gilt edges are traditional for religious scripture. Is the Constitution scripture? Like Protestant belief on the Bible, is the meaning of its clauses (verses?) for every person to decide? Do some people pray, for example, for guidance to understand sections like the three-fifths compromise on counting slaves as a fraction of a whole person?
No, it is not like Scripture. In the short run, the Constitution means what the courts say it means, especially the Supreme Court. Do judges have some miraculous ability to interpret? No, but they do know the cases and precedents, and they have the power to decide.
I think some of the Supreme Court decisions are ridiculous or full of political bias, such as the Citizen’s United case on campaign finance. Other folks would agree with me, but they might have their own list of bad decisions. None of this matters unless we can get a constitutional amendment or a new set of justices or judges in the courts. This can be done. It’s not easy, and other people will probably want a different batch of new jurists in the courts, or oppose our constitutional amendment.
The Constitution is a critically important document. Citizens should learn a lot about it. The way to do it is to read about its provisions from a neutral website such as Wikipedia or a book about constitutional law. Reading the bare text of it alone is not productive.
Dr. Ralph Maughan of Pocatello is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He retired after teaching there for 36 years, specializing in voting, public opinion and natural resource politics. He has written three outdoor guides, including “Hiking Idaho” with Jackie Johnson Maughan. He is a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
Yeah, professor Maughan is right again, the only ‘united citizens’ that should have the free-speech right to buy political ads are the ones that are united for liberal causes, such as the United Mine Workers, or the United Teachers Federation.
Those who are united for advocating conservative causes should be denied first amendment protections, because they are just being greedy.
Carrying a pocket CONSTITUTION, You need to do more than just carry a copy!
Your never to YOUNG or to OLD to study and learn our CONSTITUTION of the United State, what do I mean by study and learn our CONSTITUTION of the United State?, to go along with our CONSTITUTION, dig out your dictionary! The Liberals read it different than Conservatives!
Let me give you an example:
what do you read here:
Amendment XIV Section 1 (Adopted 1868)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and are of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Are you SURE?
Ok let’s break down: Amendment XIV Section 1 (Adopted 1868)
First you can not just look at (All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and are of the state wherein they reside)
(All persons born or naturalized) split here by or.
Yet combined here (in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and are of the state wherein they reside)
You have to know what every word means!
This section is the DETERMINING FACTOR (are citizens of the United States and of THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE)
If the writers would have used (and the state their in) or (the state they are at) but they didn’t, they used a word to restrict free flow (RESIDE)
Qualifications:
(1) “Reside” (RI-ZID) v. I. (1) dwell permanently or a considerable time (2) be inherent in, as quality.
(2) Dwell: “In-her’ent” in-hir’ant) adj belonging intrinsically; innate
(3) Intrinsically \In “trin” “sic” “al” “ly” adv. Internally; in it’s nature; essentially; really: truly:
So if you are here illegally! Explain how you can have a legal permanent address? Mother has to have a VISA or a WORK PERMIT so she can have a legal permanent address.
Oh speaking of Supreme Court judges, what every happened to the GOOD OLD NEUTRAL judge?
You know the ones that where party neutral??? not only that I keep hearing the liberal MANIPULATION that Supreme Court Judges are life time and can not be removed against their will! Another liberal MANIPULATION.
Article 3
(THE FEDERAL COURTS)
Section 1. (General Grant of Power, Terms Of Office, And Salary Of Judges)
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Service a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
So what could be constituted as BAD BEHAVIOR? Let see LIBERALISM? SOCIALISTS?
C.R.,
The sad truth is that at this time in the history of capitalism in the U.S., it is no longer about only those who work longer, harder, or who possess the most talent, or who dedicate the most time and energy. Capitalism has evolved into a socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor as Dr. Martin Luther King put it. When you read about the Koch brothers and their plans to “reform the justice system, the education system, health care, etc. and how they have worked over the years to bring us to where laws are made for the masses and those at the top in the minority don’t have to pay attention to them (because the masses are weak and have to be controlled you know), it is clear that capitalism doesn’t even apply to most people as far as democracy is concerned. Look how thanks to Citizens United a small minority of very rich people are able to control who is elected president.
Mr. Larson is obviously referring to the many young people who support Bernie Sanders for President. By labeling them “filled with entitlement and delusions of superior intellect, appearing poised to demand from current and future taxpayers free education and free health care by implementing a system that could never produce their cherished offspring of innovation: the iPhones they use to post on Facebook pictures of their new Prius bearing the bumper sticker of the latest candidate peddling… socialism.”
I would label them : filled with the realization that their dreams of being able to participate in the American dream in which jobs that value their expertise and talents and give them the ability to support a family are non existence,where they have a future that is threatened by education debt, where their perceived arrogance or pride in superior intellect is the object of ridicule instead of encouragement. Why not go for a man who promises to clean up the neoconservative mess whose economic policies have them to the point of choosing between college and a low paying job with no future.
The economic advantages of the Democratic Socialist economic plans of Bernie Sanders has given them a reason to hope. contrary to all the right wing accusations of claptrap to the contrary, the plans that have been put out are paid for in large part by the same money that pays for existing programs, not new money except for the education money which he plans to get in part by passing a tax on financial transactions, including stock, bond, and derivatives trades. In Britain, a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions raises about $40 billion per year. The U.S once had this tax in place. It is supposed that this comparatively minuscule amount will have little or no impact on legitimate trades; however it will actually help to put a lid on the traders that tend to destabilize the markets with their “noise.”Raising taxes is also a part of the plan; however, if such things as health care and education costs are reduced the savings should level out the new tax.
I think that his plans make more sense than he is given credit for, and those young people who support him are actually bringing their parents and grandparents on board through their efforts to bring about the economic changes that are so desperately needed to rid us of the destabilizing and undemocratic brand of capitalism that is ruining our country.
Jenuwin says:
The sad truth is that at this time in the history of capitalism in the U.S., it is no longer about only those who work longer, harder, or who possess the most talent, or who dedicate the most time and energy.
The economic advantages of the Democratic Socialist economic plans of Bernie Sanders has given them a reason to hope. contrary to all the right wing accusations of claptrap to the contrary, the plans that have been put out are paid for in large part by the same money that pays for existing programs, not new money except for the education money which he plans to.
You set back and complain about SLAVE LABOR over sea’s but welcome it in the United States, it makes no sense!!!