Democrats vs The Constitution

Democrats hate the US Constitution.  They don't follow it, they don't respect it and they don't want it.  If you need evidence of this have a discussion with a liberal Democrat and bring up the Constitution.  Watch as they get red in the face and begin making arguments against why it should be followed.

Just this week I had such a discussion online in the feedback to an article on the Nashua Telegraph's website.  The question was posed, how have we gotten to this point where the presidency is so disrespected and how do we recover.  I responded stating that we got to this point by having two parties with two very different views each trying to force others to follow their own views and by using the force of the government gun to impose their views on those who object or to force everyone to fund their ideas regardless of whether they wish to or not.  I pointed out that if we got back to actually following the verbiage of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution where the powers given to the federal government were actually spelled out we'd see far more respect because we would have a government that doesn't over step its bounds and puts its nose into areas it doesn't belong.

That comment kicked off a whole slew of feed back from the left wing liberals reading the site.  I'd like to share some of it with you to point out what kind of mentality the left has.

Hudsonite writes:

You do realize there's more to the constitution than that one clause right? You should perhaps read the whole thing, particularly the clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

Now this is funny because it clearly demonstrates how little this person knows about the actual constitution while they attempt to show they do know something about it.  The clause they refer to is part of Article I Section 8 "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

What's even funnier (read as sad) is that two additional readers clicked "like" on his comment thinking he was "slamming" me with his superior knowledge when in fact Hudsonite was showing his complete utter ignorance of the Constitution.

SLRNashuan writes:

The Constitutional arguments are illogical. There was no way for the Founders to imagine Wall Street or the vast insurance empires or cyberspace or modern weaponry. The Founding Documents were written over 200 years ago. It should be used as a guide but unless the suggestion is that we all go back to horse and buggy days, we cannot strictly apply everything in the document.

By the way, where were all these new found friends of the Constitution during the last eight years when the Bush/Cheney administration ignored it and trampled on the rights of citizens in ways never before seen? Crickets.

Now this argument is interesting in that there are two key points.  First is the founders couldn't have envisioned everything and then the second is the claim that Bush/Chaney ignored it.

Regarding the first point, they are correct that the founders could not have envisioned everything which is why they gave two tools to allow for that within the Constitution.  The first is the ability to amend the Constitution which we have done 27 times with the latest being in 1992.  The second ability and perhaps the most powerful part of the Constitution is the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In other words anything the government is specifically not bared from doing (like banning free speech or taking away our guns) is allowed by state level governments.  The founders wanted each state to be free to make its own rules and implement many of the things like Health Care coverage if that is what the people wished.  This allowed smaller governments to wield this power so people have more direct control over it.  And those who strongly disagree with something can simply move to another state without having to leave the country.

Now the second argument this poster made is a smoke screen, don't look close at Obama because Bush broke the rules too.  Sorry but saying George did it too doesn't excuse you from doing wrong.  This argument also totally fails to understand my original point.  I acknowledge that both sides broke the rules and that is why we've gotten to a point where both sides hate each other so much.

Sajwert writes:

SLRNashuan, if we LITERALLY followed the Constitution, we would probably not have freed the slaves.

This is an interesting claim.  So if we literally follow the Constitution we would not have freed the slaves?  I'm not sure how they drive to this conclusion.  Slaves are mentioned in two parts of the Constitution, Article I Section 2 and Amendment 13.

"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."


"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

So the Amendment abolished it.  If we literally follow the Constitution then we will never have slavery.

Further bickering ensued about the Constitution until finally a poster going by AlexF posted the most telling question of all to those who believe the Constitution is outdated or should be viewed as a "Living" document to be re-interpreted over time, he asked that those with these views "flip through the Constitution and report back on which parts you'd like to throw out".  Of course there came no answer, only this follow up question by poster Tesha:

Alex, show me a section - not half a line or a snippet - show me a section where it says "There shall be no insurance offered to our citizens to deal with the complex state of health care in 2009"

Alex correctly responded:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is NOT given to the government in Article I Section 8 or in an Amendment then it is a power the government does not have.  We cannot give the government every single power we dream up simply because the founding fathers did not specifically think to limit the government from having that power.  Why would they have listed a specific list of powers if the government was to have anything not specifically limited by the Constitution?

I'd encourage my readers to from time to time have discussions or at least start a discussion with liberals either on forums on the internet or in private and listen to them as they should their contempt and failure to understand the Constitution and remind yourself, these people vote.  This is what we're up against folks, people who do not understand nor wish to follow the Constitution of this country and in doing so they seek representatives who will impose their will over you with government force to get what they want.