bbauska wrote:There have been many differing opinions of what the Federal Government is to do. Federalists v Democratic-Republican party (Hamilton v Monroe/Jefferson) comes to mind.
Indeed there have. Point being that the people who helped write the Constitution would be among the most clear about what the intention behind it. If they differed back then, then what does it tell us about the Constitution?
Personally, it's a very clever compromise with enough ambiguity to suit all sides of the 1790s political debate.
I am not an original intent buff. I am a specific language "buff".
Ah. Problem with that being that the language has changed a little since then (so what we define a word to mean may not be the same as what the original authors intended it to mean). Additionally, while some parts are perfectly clear and specific, others are (as I suggest above) ambiguous enough to allow some wiggle room for more than one interpretation.
Still, I wonder - does this mean that you ignore the Federalist Papers, as being superfluous in terms of interpreting the main document?
The Constitution has the ability to change it. I think people who want something changed should amend. It was important enough for Slavery and Suffrage and Prohibition (added and removed!), so I think it is important enough for other issues. That being said, if it is NOT in the Constitution, then it is up to the states, and personal choice.
Point being that prime of those (particularly after the post-Civil War amendments) is the rights of individuals, which it is clearly established are not fully listed.
Prohibition had to be specifically inserted because it was a restriction of individual rights relating to something that had been perfectly legal since before the Revolution. But that doesn't mean that is has to be the same to invoke individual rights that are not listed already.
Suffrage had to be mentioned because it was a transfer of power from the States to determine who had the right to vote and because it was fundamental to the Constitution itself (after all, it's role is to define the government, and that includes how a government is chosen)
Slavery is interesting, though. For about 70 years, despite all that the Constitution says, it was seen as perfectly Constitutional to keep people as slaves. Which to some extent undermines claims that the Constitution as written really does guarantee individual rights all that much. Of course, as well as abolishing Slavery, there was also the 14th Amendment which enforced much of the Bill of Rights upon States.
So, if rights have to be specifically added in order to apply, where does the Constitution currently guarantee that an employer has the right to determine the moral choices of employees?
06 Mar 2012, 12:07 pm 
