Posted on Mar 14, 2018
Why do we need lawyers to interpret the Constitution for us?
2.61K
56
22
16
16
0
On Saturday, September 8, 1787, the Committee on Style was established at the Constitutional Convention. It consisted of Alexander Hamilton (NY), William Johnson (CT), Rufus King (MA), James Madison (VA), and Governor Morris (PA). They were the last committee to work on the draft that would later be approved by the Convention and ratified by the states. Their goal was to restate the various articles and provisions of the Constitution in plain language that could be understood by the average citizen without the need for legal expertise. In other words, the Constitution should say what it means and mean what it says. Every perversion of the Constitution that followed, especially during the 20th Century, the age of Progressivism, was justified through "interpretations" by legal "experts". Well, it seems that I've answered my own question, doesn't it?
Let's take an example: When has Congress ever attempted to establish religion? You go ahead and look. I'll wait... Well, never. Nor has any state government or any other government in this nation. However, the lawyers have "proven" that we can "infer" that governments have by allowing citizens to practice their religion or erect symbols of their religion in public places. Now, look at the clause that permits these practices: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]", and the lawyers have successfully used government to prohibit that right. Now cue the lawyers who will arrive with all their court precedents and statutes and interpretations that pervert these simple concepts that everyone of us, who is honest, can read for ourselves. Only those with an agenda, an agenda to prevent the free exercise of religion, will side with the lawyers.
I went to law school and, after graduating, chose not to practice law. I enlisted in the Army instead. While I was gone, there was a revolution in the law. Caveat emptor was replaced with caveat vendor. Grounds for divorce were rendered null and void by no-fault divorce. Plus countless other fundamental changes. We may argue over the merits of these changes, but the simple fact remains that I would have had to go back to law school to relearn it. Thus, I was spared a life of chicanery. (Forgive me, I couldn't help myself)
Also, had I practiced law, I might have ended up in Congress. Fully 45% of the members of Congress are lawyers, so it's a possibility. What's really sad is that they write so many bad laws. Is there any more flagrant example of that than the Affordable Care Act which has been interpreted beyond recognition and understanding by bureaucrats?
Is it any wonder there are so many lawyer jokes and that many of them envision lawyers meeting with catastrophe?
Well, I started with a joke. "I have what it takes to take what you've got". We're not only talking about money and property. We can also include our beloved Constitution. They really have perverted it beyond recognition...
Let's take an example: When has Congress ever attempted to establish religion? You go ahead and look. I'll wait... Well, never. Nor has any state government or any other government in this nation. However, the lawyers have "proven" that we can "infer" that governments have by allowing citizens to practice their religion or erect symbols of their religion in public places. Now, look at the clause that permits these practices: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]", and the lawyers have successfully used government to prohibit that right. Now cue the lawyers who will arrive with all their court precedents and statutes and interpretations that pervert these simple concepts that everyone of us, who is honest, can read for ourselves. Only those with an agenda, an agenda to prevent the free exercise of religion, will side with the lawyers.
I went to law school and, after graduating, chose not to practice law. I enlisted in the Army instead. While I was gone, there was a revolution in the law. Caveat emptor was replaced with caveat vendor. Grounds for divorce were rendered null and void by no-fault divorce. Plus countless other fundamental changes. We may argue over the merits of these changes, but the simple fact remains that I would have had to go back to law school to relearn it. Thus, I was spared a life of chicanery. (Forgive me, I couldn't help myself)
Also, had I practiced law, I might have ended up in Congress. Fully 45% of the members of Congress are lawyers, so it's a possibility. What's really sad is that they write so many bad laws. Is there any more flagrant example of that than the Affordable Care Act which has been interpreted beyond recognition and understanding by bureaucrats?
Is it any wonder there are so many lawyer jokes and that many of them envision lawyers meeting with catastrophe?
Well, I started with a joke. "I have what it takes to take what you've got". We're not only talking about money and property. We can also include our beloved Constitution. They really have perverted it beyond recognition...
Law
Lawyer
Constitution
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
We don't need lawyers to interpret the Constitution for us, we need to study history for that.
What we need lawyers for is to interpret the various interpretations our government has come up with about the Constitution over the last two and a half centuries.
The Constitution itself is straight forward, written in clear language, with an incredibly well documented series of 85 essays openly published on it during the ratification process.
And then there's the clear historical record behind it, as well.
Even the Amendments are clearly worded, despite people's belief to the contrary on this or that instance. (And that includes both "The People" as well as "The Government".)
What we need lawyers for is to interpret the various interpretations our government has come up with about the Constitution over the last two and a half centuries.
The Constitution itself is straight forward, written in clear language, with an incredibly well documented series of 85 essays openly published on it during the ratification process.
And then there's the clear historical record behind it, as well.
Even the Amendments are clearly worded, despite people's belief to the contrary on this or that instance. (And that includes both "The People" as well as "The Government".)
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I had been taught (in an interminable core English Literature Class) that Shakespeare did not mean this literally and that he was just frustrated at the amount of arguments and counter arguments that could ensue over common law cases. In any event, It does appear that we have evolved into a nation that will litigate anything (on both the left and the right) ad nauseum until their point is finally won.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
I used to say that the nation would be well served if we put every lawyer in the country in the Louisiana Superdome and arbitrarily tossed about 7 or 8 grenades around. I think I was about as serious as Shakespeare was.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google