The first principle in understanding any document has to address, “What is the author attempting to communicate” What does the author understand his own words to mean?” In other words, first examine the language used, its cultural and historical context and, if possible, what the author himself (or “authors themselves”) has to say in other places about what the document means. In the case of the Constitution, none of these issues is at all unclear. We have abundant sources of the Framers themselves explaining what they meant; we also have abundant records of the cultural/historical/linguistic context.* Thus, no understanding of the Constitution that does not at least address what the Framers actually understood it to mean is worthy of acknowledgement.
Let me use one small example and illustrate a loose, casual argument that might legitimately stem from it:
Article III, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Notice that pesky pronoun? “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them… ” Oh, dear. That rather places Mr Lincoln and others who have argued for the supremacy of the federal government (and the nullification of the ninth and tenth amendments which sought to clarify and make certain the limits already imposed on the federal government) on the wrong side of the Framers, doesn’t it?
In the aftermath of the Obscene Congress Bill (also disingenuously known as the “stimulus” bill) and Porkulous, there’re efforts afoot in several States (at least 10, although perhaps as many as 30 are expected to consider such resolutions/bills by years’ end) to further emphasize the principle of State nullification of federal action that exceeds constitutional authority.
And what, just pondering possibilities here, just what might come about if 38 (or 40) States were to do so? And what if–just what if–an increasingly overreaching “feddle gummint” were to be percieved by those States as acting in inimical fashion toward those States? After all, when 61 senators openly declare their disdain for the Constitution and for States’ rights, what can that be BUT “levying war against them”–or at least declaring war? These senators not only openly violated their oaths of office, but arguably committed acts of treason with their votes.
Sure, that may be a stretch, but it’s a reasonable stretch when their acts are in open defiance of the Constitution–acts that have negative implications for individual States and the Union as a whole. And what does it say of the supporters of these who have openly made of themselves enemies of the States? Well, if you are a supporter of any of the senators who voted to dilute the representation of the various States by including a NON-State in congressional representation, then would that not constitute “giving them aid and comfort”?
And what of a president–any president; I had my issues with GWB–who acts in ways to violate the compact that forms the union between the various States? Again, such a president makes of himself an enemy of those States, and anyone who supports such a president’s unconstitutional agenda arguably commits treason against the union of States.
And double ditto squared for judges who usurp authority and make extra-constitutional impositions upon the States and their people.
Now, this is just a small taste of what may (I hope) become one of the many areas of open argument in coming days, as the minions of Satan, urm, Dhimmicraps and other Obamabots seek to implement their overarching hybrid of socialist/communist/post-modernist Hivemind statist agenda.
See:
Constitutional Congress 2009
The Tenth Amendment Center
Tax Day Tea Party
And search on “Tenth Amendment” and “resolutions reclaiming state sovereignty” for more information, just to start.
But, just a simple reading of the Constitution, stressing just what is already and openly well-known to any literate person (as opposed to almost any pubschool “edumacated”–or more properly, brainwashed–person) of what the Framers actually said, has the potential to turn our meddling “feddle gummint” on its head and perhaps even give a bit of power back to the People.
Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Leaning Straight Up, Political Byline, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
*In biblical exegesis, this process is known as historical/literary criticism and has a long history or legitimate use–even well before the nineteenth century liberal theology brouhaha–in theological circles. Heck, in literary circles, it’s also had a long hisotry of legitimate use, though nowadays its use has been deprecated by deconstructuralists who simply want to project their own views onto a text with only the thinnest-veiled excuses (in theological circles that’s called “eisegesis” or “reading into” the text as opposed to exegesis, reading what is actually IN the text).
