Clarksville Journal

Editorial Page

The case for public literacy

Have you been following the debate about the nature of the U.S. Constitution?  Is it an Original Intent Fixed Document or is it a Living Document? Like everyone, I also have and opinion, but unlike some, my analysis is based upon the plain meanings of words (See Webster’s) in the ratified Constitution and simple logic.  The Founding Fathers answered that very question in the document its self.  The procedures setup to amend the Constitution are hard evidence that the founding father knew that the document might need to be changed over time and designed procedures by which such changes could be made.  The Founding Fathers also added the final nail in the argument by adding the 10th Amendment that in essence states that unless powers were specific granted to the branches of the federal Governments in Constitution then they “are retained to the states or the people”.

1

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

1

The Founding Fathers defined in specific terms the powers of each of the three branches of government and thereby set limits on the powers of each.  The Legislative branch formulates the laws, the executive branch enforces those laws, and the Judiciary Branch administers those same laws.   The Constitution did not grant to the Judicial Branch the power to interpret laws in such a way as to in effect write or formulate new laws, no more that it granted such powers to the Executive Branch.

1

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

1

That power was retained to the Congress alone – period.


The debate as often turns to the question of the “Separation of church and State” and I dare you to find that in the Amendment below.

1

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1
The Article above restricts the Congress from establishing a national religion.  It in fact restricts all of the branches of the Federal Government as it pertains to the enumerated rights (see Article I Section 1 above), because only Congress can write laws.   While states have adopted similar language, this Article on its face, it does not restrict the states or the people, but specifically restricts Congress as the only law making body. The Congress through negligence has however allowed the courts continue to make decisions “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  Please, just read the Article for yourself.

  
While some people will interpret this discourse as political, it is not intended as such.  It is intended to ask questions about our standards of literacy and intellectual honesty.  We see the freedom of speech being used to allow the lies,  misstatements of fact and the redefining of words without being challenged directly by anyone.  The Greatest flaw in constitutional interpretation is the presumption that a lie has the same weight in discourse as the verified truth.  Nothing in the ethical based constitution would ever continence such foolishness.

1
As an example, several years ago, I was watching C-Span and the Speaker of the House was speaking passionately about a pending bill when he said something to the effect that “the constitution demands that we guarantee the general welfare”.   My instant reaction was “say what”.  When you read the following, you will see the problem.  I am sure that some legislative aide has by now corrected the official record, but that is in fact what he said.  We all support the general welfare but the document says “promote” not “guarantee”
1
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
1

Taking this argument further and you can seen the problem that faces the nation.  When we hear the Courts  using references to the Federalist Papers or Thomas Jefferson’s letters to justification decisions, it should concern all of us.    The many states of this rare republic ratified “The Constitution” based upon the plan language understanding of the words in that document.  The states did not ratify the Federalist Papers or any Letters of Thomas Jefferson or for that mater any European laws.  To try and justify a court decision based upon something not agreed to by the states inside the four (4) corners of the Constitution is a "legislative act" and thereby prohibited by the very document that was in fact ratified (Article I, Section 1).  Why you say, because it is fundamental logic, the states did not agree to such in the document (Article. I. Section. 1 and Amendment X).

All of this is being said indicates the need for a literary program and evaluation of Legislators and Judges.  They really should be able to read and understand the plain language in the Constitution; after all, as you watch all of this, you might conclude that it really must be difficult reading. 

1

Remember, if the public is kept uneducated, then the public will believe what ever they are told by those in power.  The Republic can not long be sustained on meals seasoned with misrepresentations and deserts sweetened with falsehoods.