The Nature of the U.S. Constitution

[nvshooter]

What is the Constitution?

In my conservative mind, addled as it is by a double Bloody Mary, the Constitution is a guideline by which our government is to govern us-- with our approval. The Constitution defines the limits of federal power.

In the minds of people like Hillarious Rodman Clintoon and the various other Big Government proponents, it's a bothersome obstacle to their plans to force us to live a lesser Way of Life while paying more in taxes to support those who don't work and/or won't work, and have no legal right to be here...

 

[Cosmoline]

It is a matter of comprehension, not interpretation.

You're completely wrong. I'll try to show you again.

To determine what "speech" means, we go to the dictionary and find it is a noun and means: the action or power of speaking; a public address or talk; language, dialect.

By that definition, it does not include writing. It doesn't include movies or books. It doesn't include sending emails. The definition is only the starting point. You must take the definition, take the context of the phrase, and then compare them with your facts. So let's say the federal government has passed a law banning all books written on firearms. You have to interpret the First to understand that it applies to much more than the dictionary definition of "speech." It must, or it loses all significance.

Taking a step back, go look at the First again. What are the first words? CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Nothing is said about state legislatures or local governments. It's only through interpretation that courts can bring the 14th into play and apply the First to governments beyond the federal level.

All of this can be addressed and set by Congress. You always have the appeal process if you believe your sentence is cruel or unusual.

And what do you do on appeal? You would argue that CONGRESS WENT TOO FAR. You would ask the Court to INTERPRET the phrase "cruel and unusual" to include the kind of punishment you've been hit with. You really need to get beyond this bizarre mental block against interpretation. You almost seem to be viewing the Constitution as a fixed religious document instead of a working instrument of government.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It is a matter of comprehension, not interpretation.

You're completely wrong. I'll try to show you again.

To determine what "speech" means, we go to the dictionary and find it is a noun and means: the action or power of speaking; a public address or talk; language, dialect.

By that definition, it does not include writing. It doesn't include movies or books. It doesn't include sending emails. The definition is only the starting point. You must take the definition, take the context of the phrase, and then compare them with your facts. So let's say the federal government has passed a law banning all books written on firearms. You have to interpret the First to understand that it applies to much more than the dictionary definition of "speech." It must, or it loses all significance.

Well, Cos, if you will read into the amendment just a little further, you'll run across where it says "..., or of the press,...".
From Webster's 1913 on-line dictionary: "The art or business of printing and publishing, hence, printed publications taken collectively, more especially newspapers or the persons employed in writing for them, as a free press is a blessing, a licentious press is a curse."

Taking a step back, go look at the First again. What are the first words? CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Nothing is said about state legislatures or local governments. It's only through interpretation that courts can bring the 14th into play and apply the First to governments beyond the federal level.

No, not interpretation. It's quite clear. "... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..." I have no problem comprehending that. What liberal justices do with it is another matter. They've got agendas that differ from the oath they took to support the Constitution.

All of this can be addressed and set by Congress. You always have the appeal process if you believe your sentence is cruel or unusual.

And what do you do on appeal? You would argue that CONGRESS WENT TOO FAR. You would ask the Court to INTERPRET the phrase "cruel and unusual" to include the kind of punishment you've been hit with. You really need to get beyond this bizarre mental block against interpretation. You almost seem to be viewing the Constitution as a fixed religious document instead of a working instrument of government.

That's bass ackwards. The Court will determine if the punishment is cruel and unusual, not define "cruel and unusual" to cover your punishment. Both "cruel" and "unusual" already have specific definitions.

The Constitution IS a fixed document. It isn't religious, it is sacrosanct.

The Constitution is not a working instrument of government. You have that bass ackwards as well. Government is the working instrument created by the Constitution.

You seem to be of the "Living Constitution" genre. Are you? Whether you are or not, the Constitution is alive and well, but not "living" as in pliable. The Constitution can grow and change with the times, however, via Article V.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[Cosmoline]

Well, Cos, if you will read into the amendment just a little further, you'll run across where it says "..., or of the press,...".

Yes, and the courts have long INTERPRETED that to set up a separate right--the freedom of the press. If you look up "press" in Johnson's dictionary you won't find any reference to modern publishing, let alone broadcast media or the internet.

Is it your position that no judicial interpretation is valid? That only the definition of words out of whatever dictionary you choose should be used? Your reading would reduce the Constitution to a fixed, useless instrument. It would among other things be impossible to resolve the ambiguity between the militia provision of the Second and the rest of it.

You seem to be of the "Living Constitution" genre. Are you?

The Constitution isn't "living," but it most certainly does expand with reality. That's why the First isn't limited to soap box orations and the Second isn't limited to muskets and militias.

Both "cruel" and "unusual" already have specific definitions.

OK, then tell me. Where in the dictionary does it say that cutting a limb off is cruel and unusual but hanging isn't?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Yes, and the courts have long INTERPRETED that to set up a separate right--the freedom of the press. If you look up "press" in Johnson's dictionary you won't find any reference to modern publishing, let alone broadcast media or the internet.

First, "Freedom of the Press" is not a right. Second, it has always been listed separately from the "Freedom of Speech" in the First Amendment. The Court did no such thing! And thirdly, the context of the Constitution is not "interpreted" to include the modern press, Internet, and such, but those things are interpreted to see if they fit the definition of "Speech" and "Press" in the Constitution. You've got the scrutiny going the wrong way again.

Is it your position that no judicial interpretation is valid?

Of the Constitution, yes, no interpretation is valid. Of the law created under the authority of the Constitution, no, judicial interpretation of the law is a must.

That only the definition of words out of whatever dictionary you choose should be used?

No. The dictionary containing the definition of words used in the Constitution at the time it was written must be used.

Your reading would reduce the Constitution to a fixed, useless instrument.

For you, maybe. I don't see any logic in your claim. According to you, it was useless as soon as the last drop of ink dried. It's not a list of suggestions on how to bake a cake, its a blue print for the formation of a union of sovereign states. The less and less you abide it, the more and more the Union becomes chaotic or dictatorial.

It would among other things be impossible to resolve the ambiguity between the militia provision of the Second and the rest of it.

An understanding of the English Language and grammar is all that is needed to understand the Second Amendment.

The Constitution isn't "living," but it most certainly does expand with reality. That's why the First isn't limited to soap box orations and the Second isn't limited to muskets and militias.

In a sense, you are right. The freedoms and rights exist. But all new "inventions" in those categories become protected by the Constitution, not because of any expansion of the Constitution, but as a consequence of these "inventions" being in those categories. Here is a concept you need to wrap your head around. It is the freedoms that are being protected in the First amendment - the use of the instruments. The instruments themselves are merely ancillary.

The Second Amendment is different from the First. The unlimited possession and bearing of the instruments is protected in the Second, not the use of them.

First Amendment -Use. Second Amendment - Keep and Bear.

I must also point out that the right protected in the Second Amendment is a right of the people, not a militia. Only people have rights.

OK, then tell me. Where in the dictionary does it say that cutting a limb off is cruel and unusual but hanging isn't?

No where that I've ever seen. I've already pointed out that this is where Congress comes into play. Congress sets the limits or proscribes the punishments. That said, the definition of "cruel" does contain some parameters, such as "disposed to give pain"(cutting off a limb?), "hard-hearted", "fierce", "unrelenting"..., and "Unusual" has "uncommon" and "rare". Hanging is instantaneous. Snap the neck and you're done!

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

constitution? that was just written by a bunch of old guys a long time ago. we dont need to follow that anymore. it cant mean what it says, that would only make sense.(sarcasm)

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

the constitution was a good idea and is still is. getting state and local governments to follow it would be a good idea also. so much for supreme law of the land

 

[Cosmoline]

First, "Freedom of the Press" is not a right.

Guess what me boyo--you just interpreted the Constitution right there! Congratulations.

Constitution is not "interpreted" to include the modern press, Internet, and such, but those things are interpreted to see if they fit the definition of "Speech" and "Press" in the Constitution.

Then you say:

No. The dictionary containing the definition of words used in the Constitution at the time it was written must be used.

So show me where Johnson's dictionary defines speech to include an email or broadcast.

I've already pointed out that this is where Congress comes into play. Congress sets the limits or proscribes the punishments.

So if Congress decides it's OK to punish theft by chopping hands off and fraud by slow boiling in oil, then that wouldn't be cruel or unusual?

"cruel" does contain some parameters, such as "disposed to give pain"(cutting off a limb?), "hard-hearted", "fierce", "unrelenting"..., and "Unusual" has "uncommon" and "rare".

You have to INTERPRET the clause in order to decide that it approves of hanging but not arm chopping. "Hard hearted" "fierce" and the like are subjective, and require interpretation to apply to particular facts.

Anyway, I've tried to explain reality to you as an attorney. If you want to continue to live in your own strange world where nobody is allowed to interpret legislative or constitutional text, that's fine. But please refrain from arguing with antis about these matters as you'll just make the cause look bad.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Cos,

Obviously, you are having trouble comprehending what I have written. (I'm assuming you are actually reading what I have written.)

But please refrain from arguing with antis about these matters as you'll just make the cause look bad.

So, I should just sit back and allow their - and your - misdirection, malapropism, and affectatious pretentious subterfuge vitiate the truth?

[size=+2]HAH ![/size]

Keep trying to build those windmills, my friend. This is fun!

More tonight.

Woody

To be liberal is to live in a cloud of delusion fraught with fantasy, and a disregard for the law and fair play. Alas; clear fact, unambiguous consensus, scrutiny, and researched reason does prevail and keeps me in touch with who is who, what is what, and explains why I am conservative. B.E.Wood

 

[Kentak]

Woody,

Respectfully, you're wrong.

You've got the cart before the horse. Communication through language is a process that always requires interpretation to arrive at comprehension. Comprehension involves much more than identifying the dictionary definition of words, which, by the way, very often have multiple meanings and uses.

Dave said, "I dislike shooting guns."

Simple words, easily understood definitions. Do you comprehend Dave's meaning? Care to explain it?

K

 

[JohnL2]

Here's an excerpt of what a former U.S. president thought of it,

"Our adversaries have adopted some Declarations of Independence; in which, unlike the good old one, penned by Jefferson, they omit the words, “all men are created equal.” Why? They have adopted a temporary national constitution, in the preamble of which, unlike our good old one, signed by Washington, they omit “We the People”, and substitute “We the deputies of the sovereign and independent States.” Why? Why this deliberate pressing out of view, the rights of men, and the authority of the people?
This is essentially a People’s contest. On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men – to lift artificial weights from all shoulders – to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all – to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial, and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend.
I am most happy to believe that the plain people understand, and appreciate this. It is worthy of note, that while in this, the government’s hour of trial, large numbers of those in the Army and Navy, who have been favored with the offices, have resigned, and proved false to the hand which had pampered them, not one common soldier, or common sailor is known to have deserted his flag.
Great honor is due to those officers who remain true, despite the example of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor, and most important fact of all, is the unanimous firmness of the common soldiers, and common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they have successfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those, whose commands, but an hour before, they obeyed as absolute law. This is the patriotic instinct of the plain people. They understand, without an argument, that destroying the government, which was made by Washington, means no good to them.
Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled – the successful establishing, and the successful administering of it. One still remains – its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world, that those who can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion – that ballots are the rightful, and peaceful, successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly, and constitutionally, decided, there can be no successful appeal, back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by war – teaching all, the folly of being the beginners of a war."

-- Abraham Lincoln, July 4, 1861 Message to Congress in Special Sessions

 

[Caimlas]

The question I out to you is: "what is the true nature of the Constitution?"

Dead: lukewarm and still chilling, but with a temperature dropping swiftly.

 

[Cosmoline]

So, I should just sit back and allow their - and your - misdirection, malapropism, and affectatious pretentious subterfuge vitiate the truth?

What I'm telling you is accepted by every court in the union--both state and federal. You can ignore it, but you'll be off by yourself in a little row boat.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Woody- First, "Freedom of the Press" is not a right.
Cos- Guess what me boyo--you just interpreted the Constitution right there! Congratulations.

No such thing! No "interpretation" needed. The First Amendment does not recognize the Freedom of Speech or of the Press as a right. It simply says that Congress shall make no law abridging either freedom. It would take an interpretation of some sort to construe either freedom to be a right, though.

Woody- Constitution is not "interpreted" to include the modern press, Internet, and such, but those things are interpreted to see if they fit the definition of "Speech" and "Press" in the Constitution.
Cos- Then you say:
Woody- No. The dictionary containing the definition of words used in the Constitution at the time it was written must be used.
Cos- So show me where Johnson's dictionary defines speech to include an email or broadcast.

You've taken me out of context wherein you omitted: "And thirdly, the context of the Constitution is not interpreted...". It is the context of the Constitution that must be comprehended. And again, I'll reiterate that it is the use of the Internet, telephones, fax machines, and computers, etc. that are determined(interpreted) to fit or not fit within the context of Congress being prohibited to make law that would abridge the freedoms of speech and the press using those instrumentalities. The freedoms are there, unabridgeable by Congress. The instrumentalities one uses to exercise those freedoms are ancillary to the freedoms. The First Amendment says nothing about parchment, paper, ink, sheepskin, or megaphones, either.

Woody- I've already pointed out that this is where Congress comes into play. Congress sets the limits or proscribes the punishments.
Cos- So if Congress decides it's OK to punish theft by chopping hands off and fraud by slow boiling in oil, then that wouldn't be cruel or unusual?

If Congress proscribes the infliction of those things, and you think they fit the definition of cruel and unusual, challenge them in Court on the basis of the violation of the Eighth Amendment. It's for the Court to decide, like I said. The Court has a dictionary they can look in, and maybe some judicial notice they can rely upon. If they look upon boiling in oil and chopping off hands as painful and/or rare, then it is cruel and/or unusual.

Woody- "cruel" does contain some parameters, such as "disposed to give pain"(cutting off a limb?), "hard-hearted", "fierce", "unrelenting"..., and "Unusual" has "uncommon" and "rare".
Cos- You have to INTERPRET the clause in order to decide that it approves of hanging but not arm chopping. "Hard hearted" "fierce" and the like are subjective, and require interpretation to apply to particular facts.

Again, it is the punishment that must be scrutinized(interpreted) to see if it fits within the definitions of cruel and unusual.

Anyway, I've tried to explain reality to you as an attorney. If you want to continue to live in your own strange world where nobody is allowed to interpret legislative or constitutional text, that's fine. But please refrain from arguing with antis about these matters as you'll just make the cause look bad.

As I said in my previous comment (#58), I think you are having trouble comprehending what I have written. I have stated that legislation must be interpreted in Comment #55. You must read your question that precedes my statement answering that question in order to comprehend the context in which my answer is written:

Is it your position that no judicial interpretation is valid?

Of the Constitution, yes, no interpretation is valid. Of the law created under the authority of the Constitution, no, judicial interpretation of the law is a must.

Woody- So, I should just sit back and allow their - and your - misdirection, malapropism, and affectatious pretentious subterfuge vitiate the truth?

Cos- What I'm telling you is accepted by every court in the union--both state and federal. You can ignore it, but you'll be off by yourself in a little row boat.

EVERY court? You sure? You might want to take another look. As for the "status quo", I don't ignore it. It's what I'm railing against if you haven't noticed. I'm not too concerned about that little row boat, either. I've got a paddle.

This is all about our rights and freedoms as protected by the Constitution. I get the impression you are on this web site to maintain the status quo. If it is a strange world where the Constitution is abided, then yes, I long for that strange world. Your lawyerly advice is noted. But, rather that "refrain from arguing with antis", I'll thank you for the opportunity to espouse the truth. You are a good sounding board, my friend. I know I'll never convince you, but there is a number of others who may be unsure, eager to learn; or others who have been on your side, uncomfortable with those positions, and seeking the truth. With your help, here it is!

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Kentak,

We're not talking about "communication", we're talking about the Constitution. It isn't written in such a fashion that it's context is up for interpretation as is the meaning of Dave's statement.

Dave could be saying, "I don't like pulling the trigger on loaded guns", or he doesn't like guns that go off by themselves, or he doesn't like guns designed to be shot as opposed to guns made strictly for decoration, or modified for drill team use only, etc. He could be saying he doesn't like anyone shooting off their guns in his presence. Dave needs to learn how to speak(communicate) succinctly. He could learn from studying how well our Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution.

Woody

There is perspective and there is pretense. No amount of bombast or emotion can truthfully equate the two. One does not add validity to the other. Bombast and emotion added to pretense does not equal perspective. Reason, fact, and logic? That's a different matter. That will net you perspective every time. B.E.Wood

 

[Warbow]

The First Amendment does not recognize the Freedom of Speech or of the Press as a right. It simply says that Congress shall make no law abridging either freedom. It would take an interpretation of some sort to construe either freedom to be a right, though.

An interpretation as crazy as reading what the authors named the document it was a part of?

 

[Cosmoline]

EVERY court? You sure? You might want to take another look.

Yes, every court in the union acknowledges that the text of the Constitution must be interpreted. Just as any legislative text must be interpreted. Nobody looks in Johnson's dictionary and leaves it at that. At a minimum the text must be read in context and interpreted as new facts present themselves. This is typically done by both a close reading and reliance on binding authority. For major Constitutional issues the ultimate binding interpretive authority usually comes from the US Supreme Court. That means if you're on death row and you want to challenge your punishment as cruel and unusual, you look to Supreme Court decisions on the matter not just to a dictionary.

I get the impression you are on this web site to maintain the status quo.

I'm on the web site to discuss firearms. I'm on this thread to try to answer some basic questions about the Constitution. You seem to have some very strange ideas on the matter, but for whatever reason you're unwilling to learn. Going around telling everyone all they need to do is pick up a dictionary is naive. And it's not going to help much persuading any court. Thus is the world.

 

[Michigander]

Many would have us believe that the Constitution has been denatured and is now unfit for human consumption.

 

[coat4gun]

Many would have us believe that the Constitution has been denatured and is now unfit for human consumption.

...and most times the first to push for this denaturing are those in the legal profession. They make thier livelyhood spinning legal webs (precident) that few can follow or understand.
If we all knew how simple the Constitution really is and that it has authority over all of the "laws", many would be found UnConstitutional and the Web would begin to unravel, and many of the legal profession would be out of a job.

Ok... back to reality....

 

[hugh damright]

If we all knew how simple the Constitution really is and that it has authority over all of the "laws"

That is a very simple view, but it is not the US Constitution. The Constitution says that the US has power to legislate over all matters in DC, it does not "have authority over all the laws" in the States. Even King George did not have authority over all the "laws", and when the British Parliament claimed to have power to legislate over the Colonies in all matters, the Colonies responded with a Declaration of Arms.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

An interpretation as crazy as reading what the authors named the document it was a part of?

Yes and no. The First Amendment does protect the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the "Bill of Rights" also addressed other issues, such as what would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment, ratified on May 7, 1992.

Woody

 

[IllHunter]

Perhaps its' not about interpretation....

The right to privacy is well ensconced in the Fourth Amendment.

I checked Webster, you can check Johnston,

en*sconce', v.t.: ensconsced, pt., pp.;.....
1. to cover or shelter; to protect;to hide.
2. to place comfortably, snugly, or securely

It reeks of the images I got while reading your discourse, and it helps define meaning and intent.

In*ter' pret, v.t.; interpreted,pt.,pp.;interpreting,ppr. ....
1. to explain the meaning of; to make understandable, as by translating; to elucidate.
2. to have or show one's own understandingof the meaning of; to construe; as, he interpreted the silence as contempt.
3. to bring out the meaning of, especially to give one's own conception of, in performing, criticzing, or producing a work of art.....

This makes me think it's more about "you and Your" than it.

 

[Michigander]

The mere fact that this particular conversation has lasted as long as it has proves to me that the "system" (education, media, propaganda, etc.) has done it's job of confusing, confounding and dumbing-down Americans, assuming there was such a goal.

If there was no such goal, then that would make the situation even sadder still.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Yes, every court in the union acknowledges that the text of the Constitution must be interpreted. Just as any legislative text must be interpreted. Nobody looks in Johnson's dictionary and leaves it at that. At a minimum the text must be read in context and interpreted as new facts present themselves.

That's the "Living Constitution" theory in action.

This is typically done by both a close reading and reliance on binding authority. For major Constitutional issues the ultimate binding interpretive authority usually comes from the US Supreme Court. That means if you're on death row and you want to challenge your punishment as cruel and unusual, you look to Supreme Court decisions on the matter not just to a dictionary.

Do you not see the dichotomy in what you have put forth here? You've got "binding authority" equated with "binding interpretive authority". Not only that, "binding interpretive authority" is oxymoronic. How can something interpretable be considered binding? If it is binding, it is obligatory in this context. "Obligatory" is: binding, not optional; compulsory. I don't think "not optional" is synonymous with "interpretation". When you wrote, "This is typically done by both a close reading and reliance on binding authority.", you should have stopped there. That authority is the Constitution, not what the Court wishes to make of it.

The Constitution created the judicial system in the Union. That judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, etc. There has been no power granted to the Court that would rise above the Constitution. The Court has no power to do anything other than what is directly and succinctly spelled out in the Constitution. It's the same for the President and Congress.

"... Going around telling everyone all they need to do is pick up a dictionary is naive. ..."

In spite of what you say here, I think you mean, "Picking up a dictionary is dangerous to the usurped power of the Court. If the people ever figure this out for themselves, were done!" Assuming you are the attorney you say you are, we may need your council in defending us from time to time(your license to stand before the court), or to help us protect our assets, but we certainly don't need your dissemblance of that which we may plainly see for ourselves if we only look. What we plainly see for ourselves helps us determine who we vote for; namely, those who will appoint, and who will consent to the appointment of, the Justices and Judges who will abide the Constitution.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[Cosmoline]

How can something interpretable be considered binding?

When five out of nine justices agree. Is this seriously news to you?

BTW, did you look up "interpret" in your dictionary yet?

If we all knew how simple the Constitution really is and that it has authority over all of the "laws", many would be found UnConstitutional and the Web would begin to unravel, and many of the legal profession would be out of a job.

So now it's the lawyers fault, eh? That's like blaming marksmen because YOU can't shoot straight. Listen to me and learn, or continue to sound like idiots. The choice is yours.

 

[sara bellum]

The Constitution is fundamental law

Hello all. I have enjoyed reading your replies to this interesting thread. As an attorney, a trained specialist in the Constitution, there is a set of principles regarding the significance of the Constitution which are basic to all legal professionals including judges:

1. The Constitution is fundamental law. It is binding on all federal, state, and local actors. The 14th Amendment right to free from slavery is binding on private actors as well.
2. The federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers. It has only those powers granted to it by the Constitution. All other powers are retained by the states... (there is a textual crisis because the Constitution also states "...or by the people.").
3. The legislature has the power to enact the laws. The legislature may not draft any law that violates the Constitution.
4. The executive branch must act when specifically directed to do so by the legislature.
5. It is the duty of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution means. The judiciary's interpretation of the meaning of all laws, including the Constitution is a species of law binding on all federal, state, and local actors. Our Constitution is not merely the few pages of text but also the volumes of Federal cases interpreting its meaning and applying that meaning to a variety of contexts. Without the development of the contours of the law, we would be left with a text incapable of ensuring the principled administration of law.

​

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Jury Instructions.
I agree with Mr. Roberts that we need to see the entire text of what the Judge ordered as jury instructions. However, indeed, as some articles indicate, the Judge in the Finch case appropriately ordered that no juror is to interpret or debate the law. The juror's duty is to apply the law to the facts, as instructed according to the jury instructions. There is no greater blight and better argument against the jury system, than having jurors make up their own laws.

The 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment has not been interpreted by the US Supreme Court as being an individual right. Rather, it is understood to be a collective right embodied by and held by the federal government. Arms possession is understood by the US Supreme Court to be a sovereign nation's right to provide for national defense. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 650 (1929)(http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC27 ). We cannot find any solace in the plain text of the 2nd Amendment as it states in the first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html . A well regulated militia is a military body under governmental direction. It does not refer to a group of individuals. This clause cannot be divorced from the second and third clauses.

If we truly wish to have a personal, individual liberty to possess firearms we must press for amendment of the Constitution to state that explicitly just as property rights are affirmed individually in the 5th and 14th Amendments, "...persons shall have the right to possess small arms in the form of pistols, shotguns, and rifles for protection of life, liberty, and property, under such limited regulation as is necessary to effectuate those ends..." Certainly, none of us advocates for nuclear weapons being kept in the basement of Charles Manson's home. Thus, the need for narrow regulations to keep dangerous individuals from firearms is ever present.

We have been slothful in our advocacy for a more democratic nation by not pressing for Constitutional debate and amendment on a variety of issues. Folks have had to fight for basic rights by taking to the streets just to vote. All of us are responsible for trammeling of our civil liberties. This leads me to my next point- the plain text of the Constitution.

The Plain Text is not so plain.
All of us should and will no doubt disapprove that the Constitution should be understood by a quick glance or by some notion of the framer's values, when we look at the framer's value system. Recall that at the time of the drafting of much of the Constitution, Native Americans and Africans enjoyed no basic civil rights; women in general did not have the right to vote. Women had to fight to gain the right to vote via boycott and picket to force the 19th Amendment. The anti-Democratic tendencies of the framers are still found in vestiges of the Constitution in Article 1, section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.​

"Free persons" in the 18th Century were whites. Indians were not included. Blacks were only worth 3/5 of a white person for census purposes but did not enjoy status as humans. To this day, Article 1, section 2 continues to claim that blacks are only worth 3/5.

Quickly glancing over the Constitution or looking to the framers will not provide us with principles and definitions of justice. We are to evaluate our contemporary needs and contemporary understanding of civil and human rights vis-a-vis what the Constitution should mean.

If anyone is interested in reading more about the evolution of Constitutional doctrine, Calvin Massey's, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (1999) might be useful.

Best wishes to all.