Constitutional Scholars

This is the one group of people I really despise. What a "constitutional scholar" really means is "the master of cherry picking". There is no difference in method between a constitutional scholar and a Biblical scholar of moderate Christianity. Just name an interpretation you want and these constitutional scholars will make it up for you. The Constitution will say "a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A constitutional scholar will come along and say that the comma that separates the two clauses is just a pause, the people are referring to the people of the militia. It would be a constitutional scholars who try to find limitations on free speech. Even though the Constitution cannot be clearer "congress shall make no laws abridging free speech". Despite this clear language they will find a way to find excuses and put limitations on speech. Constitutional scholars are paid to be master cherry pickers.

I equally as much hate the phrase "the supreme court decided that ...". The supreme court can sit on my middle finger. I do not care what the supreme court decided, especially when it negates what is written clearly in the Constitution. These guys can make up excuses that are not anywhere spelled out. If the government is using members in government to decide if it constitutional or not you should start getting suspicious. Having a government interpret itself is like having a business decide itself whether it is ethical or not. It makes no sense.

I want to make it very clear that I do not care what the Constitution says. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. The fact that something is written in the Constitution does not make it morally correct nor does it give the government legitamcy to do it. If it said in the Constitution that the government can walk into your house to make sure you do not have anything illegal does this automatically justify what the government does? No, of course not. What the Constitution says is irrelevent if we care about our morals or legitamcy. There are plentyful of people who use the Constitution as if it was some Bible. They have a point of view and immediately try to explain why it is constitutional. A Christian who uses the Bible to justify whatever his point of view is must first demonstrate that the Bible is correct and moral. Likewise any person who uses the Constitution to justify whatever his point of view is must first demonstrate that the Constitution is moral and legitamte. If this cannot be demonstrated then I will immediately reject whatever someone expounds from the Constitution just like I will immediately reject whatever some Christian tells me from the Bible. So stop telling me how constitutional you are. First of all, you are probably cherry picking like most people do to suite your own views. Second of all, even if you are entirely correct, I do not care, you need to explain why your position is moral and legitamte.

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to give disrespect to the Constitution. I consider it to be the most important document ever written. It symbolizes the great intellect from the Age of Enlightenment. I respect the Constitution for the ideas that was set in it. The idea that there are certain natural and inalienable rights inherent to all people, that among them, are life, libery, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, I realize that this phrase is really in the Declaration of Independence, but this is irrelevant, the Constitution is nonetheless based on these ideas, and I also realized that "property" was used by John Locke, again, irrelevant, what is relevant here is the idea behind it. That is why I respect the Constitution. Not because it is part of the United States, I could not care less about that.

The way the Constitution is used today is similar to how "God" is used today. It is used to gain elections. If you show yourself to be a God-fearing person you are more likely to win than a skeptical candidate. The Constitution is similar. Candidates who claim they support the Constitution are more likely to win elections. They might not really care for what it says. And they might outright violate its principles. But they are willing to do so if they can get more election votes. The phrase "in God we trust" is just a nationalistic line to make people support the nation. The phrase "it is constitutional" performs a similar function by making the citizens think what the government does is legitamte.

If you think I am exaggerting then you are an unobservant person. Consider the following situations. The government regulates drugs by the use of the commerce clause. The government mandated conscription during the Vietnam war. The government has put into place the income tax even though it was never part of the Constitution, in fact, it had to put it into the Constitution only to make it constitutional. The government mandated people to buy health insurance and if they refuse they would be sent to jail (I wrote more about it here). The government interned its own citizens during the second war and skipped all of the procedures under the Bill of Rights. People have argued for "right to a job" and claim it is constitutional. Constitutional scholars argued that "right to healthcare" is constitutional. Need I say more?

Just become more observant, become more philosophical and desiring to ask questions. Do not be afraid of your conclusions. If you conclude, like I do, and many others, that the US government is an immoral, unjust, illegitamte entity that murders, steals, and enslaves from its own citizens and from innocent people around the world, then do not be afraid of that conclusion, only of its consequences to the US government. Because if you justify your own positions in a rational manner then it is a good sign that you are correct.

"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson