Town Square

Post a New Topic

Is strict adherence to the Constitution the same as being Amish?

Original post made by Good N' Pawlenty, Sycamore Heights, on Sep 26, 2010

Aside from the fact that they feel their right to free speech extends to the Internet--something NOT explicitly delineated in the Constitution--it seems that many people here claim that if "it ain't in the Constitution, it ain't legal," especially in regards to many things the federal government has done throughout the decades.

So my question is this: can someone please (and without just linking to a partisan web site!) explain the difference between this and just being a Luddite? Or Amish? Why should the spirit of the Constitutional freedoms not be applied to modern-day issues?

Comments (3)

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 26, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The Federal Government's "War on Drugs" is not in the Constitution. No where does the Constitution say that the Federal government can take away a citizen's choice. The incarceration of citizens due to drug possession and the pressure it brings upon our criminal justice system is unconstitutional and a vast waste of billions in taxpayer monies.

Moreover, it is anti-business. This country was founded upon the tobacco trade, among others. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to "regulate" commerce, not outlaw an entire industry. The market responded by going underground and funding criminal activity, just like the Prohibition era.

(Thanks for the opportunity to take such ideology to its logical and absurd conclusion!)

On a more serious note, the Constitution remains relevant to today's society only so long as we are able to interpret the document for our modern society. If we are forced to limit our interpretation to how society was in 1776, then it renders the Constitution no longer relevant. I wish the Tea Partiers would realize that their ideas are actually damaging and against the Constitution. If our Constitution is no longer relevant to today's society, it means we need to replace it with a more relevant document! I, for one, do not agree with those who say we need to "roll back" our interpretation of the Constitution. Scalia go home!

Like this comment
Posted by SteveP
a resident of Parkside
on Sep 27, 2010 at 8:48 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Stacey, I can tell you grew up during the 'me' generation of the 80's. Your argument about 'interpreting the document for modern society' is the same flawed approach that leads to judicial activism. In your anything goes view, who is the final arbiter?
The feel good, emotional touchy-feely approach to adherence to of Constitutional law is what's damaging, not a grassroots organization trying to swing the pundulum back to the right side of the law.

Like this comment
Posted by RealPatriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 27, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Slavery was legal in the constitution. {And so was child labor}.

So we see that cute formula's that are lifted verbatim from other folks scripts don't always work. Talk to your neighbors to understand where you should really stand on issues. You will find that real, honest and caring people are the source of ideas.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Salami, Salami … Baloney
By Tom Cushing | 25 comments | 582 views

Time for new collaboration between city and school district
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 458 views