Posted on Oct 16, 2015
How well do you know and understand the Constitution that we have sworn to preserve, protect, and defend?
4.82K
51
19
15
15
0
I suspect that members of the military know more about the Constitution and understand it better than those who have never served. But how well do you know and understand it? The Federalist Papers were written during the ratification process to explain the Constitution and help win approval from We the People. Hillsdale College has put together an excellent series presenting the Federalist Papers. It's understandable (not overly intellectualized) and the price is right... It's FREE! Even though I have long studied American History and have a law degree, I still learn something new every time I study more. This I highly recommend, especially to those who serve. How can we keep our oath if we don't understand the importance of that which we serve
http://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/federalist-papers/lecture-1/lecture
http://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/federalist-papers/lecture-1/lecture
Constitution
United States
Oath
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
6
6
0
I am very familiar with the US Constitution and try to convince others about its importance and timeless value while work to preserve, protect and if necessary defend the Constitution of the USA CPT Jack Durish.
Thankyou for both recommending and providing a hyperlink to the Hillsdale College online course.
For a year or so I attended monthly meeting of a Constitutional Study group. THe group was one of several in Northern Virginia which had been initiated by Justice Clarence Thomas's wife Virginia Thomas years before. It was attended by government, legal, college professor, and ordinary people as we worked through the constitution with frequent subject matter experts providing background on relevant sections.
Thankyou for both recommending and providing a hyperlink to the Hillsdale College online course.
For a year or so I attended monthly meeting of a Constitutional Study group. THe group was one of several in Northern Virginia which had been initiated by Justice Clarence Thomas's wife Virginia Thomas years before. It was attended by government, legal, college professor, and ordinary people as we worked through the constitution with frequent subject matter experts providing background on relevant sections.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
CPT Jack Durish You probably know this but I thought I'd give some background info....Regarding the NATIONAL debate about adopting what is now our Constitution.
The Federalist papers as they are called were letters or essays if you will that were published because people didn't support the Constitution and were an effort to win over people. They urged the people of New York to ratify the new Constitution. The new Constitution was to replace the Articles of Confederation. It was agreed the new Constitution would become effective if 9 of the 13 states ratified it. These letters were not the only letters sent to papers either in support of or condemning the new Constitution. Those who opposed the new Constitution did so because they believed a 'Central government' would override state's rights and take away individual liberties. Those who supported the adoption of the new Constitution that this new Constitution and proposed system (form of government) would provide the government with the power to act in National Interests for the best interest of the Union and would prevent the Union from falling apart.
The Federalist papers as they are called were letters or essays if you will that were published because people didn't support the Constitution and were an effort to win over people. They urged the people of New York to ratify the new Constitution. The new Constitution was to replace the Articles of Confederation. It was agreed the new Constitution would become effective if 9 of the 13 states ratified it. These letters were not the only letters sent to papers either in support of or condemning the new Constitution. Those who opposed the new Constitution did so because they believed a 'Central government' would override state's rights and take away individual liberties. Those who supported the adoption of the new Constitution that this new Constitution and proposed system (form of government) would provide the government with the power to act in National Interests for the best interest of the Union and would prevent the Union from falling apart.
(6)
(0)
3
3
0
Thanks! I was interested in the Federalist papers when in high school, and when you look at the responsibilities of the President and Congress, there are a lot of details missing in the Constitution that have been decided over many decades in the Supreme Court.
I was wondering about whether a President can give no funds to an agency that Congress established, so I found lots of detail in discussion of the Supreme Court talking about the Federalist Papers, mostly differences between Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison.
See https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation01.html#5
and https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/constitution#essay-68
To keep a democracy strong people need to get off their rear once in a while and read reliable information rather than just what they hear from their friends or one radio or TV station. No political party has a monopoly on uninformed voters or even legislators!
Dan
I was wondering about whether a President can give no funds to an agency that Congress established, so I found lots of detail in discussion of the Supreme Court talking about the Federalist Papers, mostly differences between Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison.
See https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation01.html#5
and https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/constitution#essay-68
To keep a democracy strong people need to get off their rear once in a while and read reliable information rather than just what they hear from their friends or one radio or TV station. No political party has a monopoly on uninformed voters or even legislators!
Dan
Annotation 1 - Article II - FindLaw
Section 1. The President Clause 1. Powers and Term of the President NATURE AND SCOPE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER Creation of the Presidency Of all
(3)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Amen to that. There is no substitute for the primary source. There is a need however, for linguistic analysis. Usage in language changes over time, e.g. Noah Webster's dictionary had no definition of "browse" relating to reading or shopping by Humans -- only eating habits of animals. It's contemporaneous usage did not include such exclusively Human activities.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
CW3 Harvey K. - You're right. Everything changes. We were after the passage of the Constitution a Union of States, with continuing powers of States. Now practically speaking we are One Nation, with subsidiary subdivisions called states where there is not a huge difference in law. If you know how to drive in one state, you are presumed to be practically ready to drive anywhere, and when you get a license in another state, they don't give you a test, just a booklet about state driving.
Almost any article of the Constitution has to be read carefully with an awareness of the times. The right to bear arms to the people of the times were things like fire a musket, not fire a fully automatic weapon, go hunting in a tank, etc. The interpretation of terms is by courts who can weigh the consequences for things like national security.
Almost any article of the Constitution has to be read carefully with an awareness of the times. The right to bear arms to the people of the times were things like fire a musket, not fire a fully automatic weapon, go hunting in a tank, etc. The interpretation of terms is by courts who can weigh the consequences for things like national security.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
PO1 (Join to see) - Quite so. The Bill of Rights was an expression of rights as general principles, covering all technological advances and applications. As noted in HELLER, that principle of protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures" applies to modern electronic searches such as phone taps, X-rays, etc. not merely physical searches, the only possible searches "of the times" in which the BOR was written.
I am amazed at some who claim that "a well regulated Militia" can be interpreted as (somehow) invested with the modern connotation of "lots of government rules, regulations, and restrictions" when it had no such usage for 80 years before, or 80 years after its use in the 2nd Amendment. Amazing, how words can be given a two century retroactive meaning -- when it suits the purpose of those who would rationalize the suppression of a Constitutional right they disapprove of.
I am amazed at some who claim that "a well regulated Militia" can be interpreted as (somehow) invested with the modern connotation of "lots of government rules, regulations, and restrictions" when it had no such usage for 80 years before, or 80 years after its use in the 2nd Amendment. Amazing, how words can be given a two century retroactive meaning -- when it suits the purpose of those who would rationalize the suppression of a Constitutional right they disapprove of.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think I understand it far better than most but that's mainly because I understand the natural rights philosophy on which it is based. It seems like we no longer teach Locke, Paine's 'Common Sense', the Federalist Papers or a whole slew of other writings of the Founders and the philosophers they embraced. That ignorance is the problem.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I've read it a few times, and was pretty sure I understood it. Lately it seems like the words written down are highly subject to interpretation. We tend to argue a lot over what they "meant", giving people license to ignore the actual words in the document. Popular culture wants to put words in our founding fathers collective mouths...
(3)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
One of the members of the committee that drafted the Constitution was in charge of insuring that the legalize was translated into plain language and he did a masterful job of it. However, during the 20th Century progressives beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson began to advocate new interpretations resulting in an elastic or living Constitution. Basically, it was a canard to reinterpret the document to mean whatever they wanted it to mean. The Supreme Court attempted to stop the practice until FDR was reelected by such a popular margin that even the Supreme Court justices began to doubt that they had the power to protect the Constitution and, after that, all hell broke loose. By studying the Federalist Papers we can see not only what the original intent of the Framers was, but also how they foresaw the trouble that would be caused if and when people began to reinterpret it.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - interestingly, the elastic clause is built directly into the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
This didn’t start with TR. Nor did interpretations. Interpretations of the Constitution come through the way of judicial review. While not expressly stated in the Constitution, this function is heavily implied in Article 3. Then Established as precedent in Marbury v Madison.
But the Federalist Papers, you say. 78 argues for the need for judicial review.
What Federalist paper essay describes the trouble or dangers that would be caused if people interpreted it?
Good luck
This didn’t start with TR. Nor did interpretations. Interpretations of the Constitution come through the way of judicial review. While not expressly stated in the Constitution, this function is heavily implied in Article 3. Then Established as precedent in Marbury v Madison.
But the Federalist Papers, you say. 78 argues for the need for judicial review.
What Federalist paper essay describes the trouble or dangers that would be caused if people interpreted it?
Good luck
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Bet I can make ANY retarded Leftist cry in a contest on Constitutional knowledge?!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes! Hillsdale college represents the spirit of our Nation stating our most two important documents are the Bible and the Constitution.
Our nation is so disrupted with distorting doctrines of faith, law, and a divide of our governmental institutions and in the houses of God who claim they represent the doctrines of Jesus Chirst.
Our nation is so disrupted with distorting doctrines of faith, law, and a divide of our governmental institutions and in the houses of God who claim they represent the doctrines of Jesus Chirst.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Well enough to know why the constitution (Protect and Defend) comes before any other directions or Leaders
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Our Constitution was written is such a manner as to allow "We the people" to make changes through amendments. However, I am not so sure the founders had full comprehension of how large we would grow, nor how divided we are. I cannot believe they would have conceived our modern world, with the Internet (addressing the 1st Amendment) the types of weapons man would develop (addressing the 2nd), our huge crime problems (4th, 5th, 6th, & 8th) and so on.
When we had a small nation, it was much easier to amend the Constitution. Now, it is almost impossible because of our divisions.
I believe out Constitution is the greatest document ever written. But it must be looked at in today's world, not 1787. (Even then it was not unanimously agreed upon).
When we had a small nation, it was much easier to amend the Constitution. Now, it is almost impossible because of our divisions.
I believe out Constitution is the greatest document ever written. But it must be looked at in today's world, not 1787. (Even then it was not unanimously agreed upon).
(1)
(0)
SFC Robert Escher
If that is True then how is it that there are so many Judges are able to make Opinions in today’s World based on that very Constitution? Clarence Thomas, Anthony Scalia are two prime Examples of that? Your looking for a “ living Constitution” able to change upon a change or whatever happens? That’s where Amendments come in and only when needed
(1)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
SFC Robert Escher - I believe the Constitution should be brought up to date, either through the amendment process or with a Constitutional convention.
By the way, I notice you only refer to conservative Supreme Court Justices.
By the way, I notice you only refer to conservative Supreme Court Justices.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
The failings that most complain about are not in the Constitution but rather in our attempts to modernize it through progressive interpretations
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
CPT Jack Durish - Who are the "most" that are complaining about that? Maybe "most" of the conservative side, but that does not mean "most" of Americans.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google