Who Runs Wash DC?

[askeptic]

@tiel0301

I typed specifically about “While comments like yours are expected and even sometimes appreciated in the Pit”. More than one clause in those four sentences, n’est-ce pas?

Oui, good point. Sorry.

I actually kind of agreed with your sentiment, but then thought about it a bit more. I guess the Constitution really is not that important for most peoples lives. There is no way people who do not study it and keep up with current SCOTUS decisions can really understand it.

I mean what is “due process” “unreasonable search and siezure” “Takings”? What constitutes “necessary and proper”," Full faith and credit". Do “the People” have the right to “keep and bear arms”? Or does only a “well regulated mallitia” have that right. What is “probable cause”? What constitutes a “speedy trial”? What part of “Common Law” provides for rexamination after a trial by jury? What is “excessive bail”? What are the “certain rights” retained by the people? What are “privileges and immunities”? Which ammendments are applicable to the States through incorporation and why? What are the negative implications of the commerce clause? One must know the answers to all these questions and many many more to really understand the Constitution.

So after thinking about it a little I guess I have to say that no, for most people its not really important to read the constitution. It has no impact on their day to day life. That is not to say that no one should read it. Just that without a lot of study merely reading the words on the page is a matter of only passing interest and only serves to assuage idle curiosity.

The Constitution is not as simple and clear cut as many in this thread seem to think. A cursory reading is hardly better than not having read it at all.

[Gary_Robson]

@askeptic

A cursory reading is hardly better than not having read it at all.

I disagree.

A cursory reading certainly won’t turn you into a Constitutional scholar, but it really paints a picture of what the framers were trying to accomplish. And reading the amendments–paying special attention to the dates–provides a great historical view of the country’s development.

[shelbo]

The Constitution, pah! So badly written that it requires years of study and the reading of thousands of subsequent legal decisions to understand what it means. A “more perfect” union? What the hell is that? It’s either perfect or it’s not – there’s no “more perfect”. And that’s just the first line!

[askeptic]

@shelbo

The Constitution, pah! So badly written that it requires years of study and the reading of thousands of subsequent legal decisions to understand what it means. A “more perfect” union? What the hell is that? It’s either perfect or it’s not – there’s no “more perfect”. And that’s just the first line!

Technically, that is in the preamble not the actual Constitution.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@shelbo

The Constitution, pah! So badly written that it requires years of study and the reading of thousands of subsequent legal decisions to understand what it means. A “more perfect” union? What the hell is that? It’s either perfect or it’s not – there’s no “more perfect”. And that’s just the first line!

I see the smilie, but I just know that some people out there are still thinking that you have a point. In those days, however, perfect did not have the modern sense of “unchangeably wonderful” but was used in the sense of “complete.” The articles of confederation formed an incomplete union, a confederacy with limited federal powers. The founders were making the point that the new constitution’s government was a different animal, with a central body of real power. It was more perfect in that sense.

See Garry Will’s A Necessary Evil for a longer explanation.