Sam Spade's San Francisco

There is an awful lot of confusion, these days, about what the U.S. Constitution actually says and means. Some of that confusion, unfortunately, is intentional, by people who don't like what it actually says and means. So, to understand the U.S. Constitution, you should read the other writings of the the men who wrote it, rather than accepting at face value the distortions of later day revisionists.

For this purpose, by far the best source is the Federalist Papers. They were written by three of the leading framers of the Constitution (Madison, Hamilton & Jay), explaining the new proposed Constitition, and making the case to the people for its ratification. They tell you exactly what the intent was of the people who wrote and ratified the U.S. Constitition.

The Federalist Papers were originally published as a series of newspaper essays, but it is now generally read and compiled as a book. It is very readable, but I do recommend that you get a copy with a glossary, because a few of the words used then have changed in ways that lead to confusion today. Then read the glossary through once or twice BEFORE reading the Federalist Papers.

For follow-up, or for less intense study, a great resource is the Founder's Quote Daily, a service which emails you one tidy little quote per day from one of America's founders.

Dave

The Federalist Papers are available for free download, online, at www.foundingfathers.info, and other sites, though you won't get a glossary,

Another great resource for understanding the Constitution is WallBuilders. They are a particularly good source for getting straight dope on what are sometimes perceived by the modern liberal ear as less politically correct aspects of the Constitution, especially on religious and social issues.

Also, do not forget to read your own State Constitution! It is a mistake to refer to "the Constitution," because each of us have TWO constitutions.

The U.S. Constitution was written as a contract between the people of the United States and its federal government, in which the people specified the form of that government and delegated to it specific powers and duties, rather like a limited power of attorney would delegate to one person authority which is inherent to another. All other powers and duties, not listed, were to be denied to the federal government, and reserved, instead, to the States, and to the people.

But why, you might wonder, is there almost nothing said in the U.S. Constitution about WHICH powers are reserved to the States, and which are retained by the people as individuals? The answer is simply that that question is outside the scope of the U.S. Constitution. It has nothing to do with the subject of the U.S. Constitution, which is the powers and duties of the FEDERAL government.

The documents which answer the question of which powers and duties are to be exercised by State and local governments, and which are to be retained by the people as individuals, are the STATE Constitutions.

All fifty States have State Constitutions, but they vary a great deal. All contain something resembling the Bill of Rights, to protect key individual rights from infringement by State and local governments. But some State Constitutions give considerably more authority to their State and local governments than do others.

But none are particularly oppressive, thanks to one of the key elements of our federalist system of government: the people are ensured the right to easily "vote with their feet," by moving to another State, if their own becomes intolerable. Because the federal (not State) government controls interstate commerce and immigration, the States are powerless to prevent their citizens from moving to another State, if taxes or other policies of State or local governments become oppressive.

That important safeguard against oppression by State and local governments does NOT protect against oppression by the federal government (despite the oft-heard threat of angry people to "move to Canada" if the next election doesn't go their way). That makes the federal government a greater threat to liberty than the State and local governments, and it's one of the key reasons that the framers sought to restrain the size and scope of the federal government, assigning to the federal government only those responsibilities which could not be reasonably handled at the State and local levels.

Dave

BTW, in comments on an earlier article, someone wrote,

The great book of our society and the great book of America is NOT the Bible. It is the Constitution. The United States is NOT a religious country. The United States is NOT a Christian country. It is OUR country - - - and "OUR" - - - refers to all of us, not just the goddam Bible banging buttheads of this country.

In reply, I asked a little civics quiz question:

It is interesting ... that you bring up the topic of "our" U.S. Constitution, and what "'OUR' refers to." So, tell me, do you know what the only use of the word "our" is in the United States Constitution, other than in the preamble and in the closing phrase, "we have hereunto subscribed our names?"

No one ventured an answer there. Perhaps you folks would like to try again, here?

Dave

Is everyone here stumped? Doesn't anyone know what the only use of the word "our" is in the United States Constitution, other than in the preamble and in the closing phrase, "we have hereunto subscribed our names?"

Here's a hint: It is a one-word answer. "Our" is an adjective. It modifies a noun. Who knows what the noun is?

Dave

Dave Burton is a patronizing sonofabitch

This was a well-written, well-documented story about the Constitution. It is astonishing to me that the story would attract the repeated attention of a right-wing Born Again crusader like Dave Burton who demonstrates fundamental flaws in his understanding of Constitutional law. Burton needs to go get a life.