The Constitution in Plain English - Part 6
I'm going to deviate from the pattern of writing about the First Amendment in Part 1, the Second in Part 2, the Third in Part 3, etc. Who says I have to write about the Amendments in order anyway? I have a right to make my point as I see fit - even if such a right is not enumerated in the Constitution per se.
The more I write about how judges and legislators and presidents have trampled on the rights enumerated in the Constitution, the more my thoughts wander to the Ninth and Tenth amendments - and if those two amendments mean what they say, the extent to which those judges, legislators and presidents have betrayed the meaning of the Constitution becomes breathtaking.
Amendment 9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Decisions such as Roe v. Wade are often derided because they assert rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. I used to do this myself. "There is no constitutional right to privacy," I would say. "The Constitution is silent on that 'right.'"
But I've come to realize that by its silence and the Ninth Amendment, the
Constitution speaks loudly and clearly. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage" the right to privacy. In the Ninth Amendment, the founders made a point of saying people have many rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. In the Ninth and Tenth amendments, the founders specifically say that the purpose of the Constitution is to set limits on how government may affect people's rights - not to set limits on those rights.
Amendment 10. 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.
And here the betrayal of the Constitution's purpose becomes achingly clear. The Tenth Amendment, combined with the Ninth, clarify that the first eight amendments set a number of limits on the federal government's power - not on the rights of the people. If certain rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn't mean the federal government is free to restrict those liberties - to the contrary, it means the federal government has no power whatsoever beyond what's plainly stated in that document, although the states can fiddle in a number of areas denied to the feds if they so choose.
These two amendments draw the line of power: Individual citizens empower the states, which have delegated a specific set of powers to the federal government. The federal powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the states and/or individual citizens. Departments of education and arts and human services and environmental protection may be created by states, but they are simply none of the federal government's business.
Judges and legislators and presidents generally ignore the Ninth and Tenth amendments, because if those clauses mean what they say in Plain English, then judges and legislators and presidents have been acting unconstitutionally since, well, since almost the beginning. All three branches of government have generated for themselves a vested interest in the myth that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, that it needs to be "interpreted" to be understood, and these judges and legislators and presidents will happily "interpret" what your rights are for you. Forgive the vernacular: Bullshit.
The spirit of the 1776 Revolution, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, held that people "are endowed by their creator (not by some Constitution) with certain inalienable rights." The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, spells it out: A government of men may not take away what the creator has given. Judges and legislators and presidents have spent the past 229 years betraying that spirit.
We need to understand that the Constitution was written in Plain English so that we don't need judges and legislators and presidents to interpret its meaning: We can figure it out for ourselves. And when we do, I suspect we will be very, very angry at those judges and legislators and presidents.
The more I write about how judges and legislators and presidents have trampled on the rights enumerated in the Constitution, the more my thoughts wander to the Ninth and Tenth amendments - and if those two amendments mean what they say, the extent to which those judges, legislators and presidents have betrayed the meaning of the Constitution becomes breathtaking.
Amendment 9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Decisions such as Roe v. Wade are often derided because they assert rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. I used to do this myself. "There is no constitutional right to privacy," I would say. "The Constitution is silent on that 'right.'"
But I've come to realize that by its silence and the Ninth Amendment, the
Constitution speaks loudly and clearly. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage" the right to privacy. In the Ninth Amendment, the founders made a point of saying people have many rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. In the Ninth and Tenth amendments, the founders specifically say that the purpose of the Constitution is to set limits on how government may affect people's rights - not to set limits on those rights.
Amendment 10. 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.
And here the betrayal of the Constitution's purpose becomes achingly clear. The Tenth Amendment, combined with the Ninth, clarify that the first eight amendments set a number of limits on the federal government's power - not on the rights of the people. If certain rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn't mean the federal government is free to restrict those liberties - to the contrary, it means the federal government has no power whatsoever beyond what's plainly stated in that document, although the states can fiddle in a number of areas denied to the feds if they so choose.
These two amendments draw the line of power: Individual citizens empower the states, which have delegated a specific set of powers to the federal government. The federal powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the states and/or individual citizens. Departments of education and arts and human services and environmental protection may be created by states, but they are simply none of the federal government's business.
Judges and legislators and presidents generally ignore the Ninth and Tenth amendments, because if those clauses mean what they say in Plain English, then judges and legislators and presidents have been acting unconstitutionally since, well, since almost the beginning. All three branches of government have generated for themselves a vested interest in the myth that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, that it needs to be "interpreted" to be understood, and these judges and legislators and presidents will happily "interpret" what your rights are for you. Forgive the vernacular: Bullshit.
The spirit of the 1776 Revolution, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, held that people "are endowed by their creator (not by some Constitution) with certain inalienable rights." The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, spells it out: A government of men may not take away what the creator has given. Judges and legislators and presidents have spent the past 229 years betraying that spirit.
We need to understand that the Constitution was written in Plain English so that we don't need judges and legislators and presidents to interpret its meaning: We can figure it out for ourselves. And when we do, I suspect we will be very, very angry at those judges and legislators and presidents.
posted by B.W. Richardson at
12:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home