I'm always amazed at how many Americans think they "know" so much about the Constitution and the Amendments, particularly the Bill of Rights, but really have never even read the document. They may barely remember bits and pieces from their US History and US Government classes in high school. A semester here and a semester there are hardly quantifiable, let alone make any of us "experts" in the Constitution and its Amendments. Yet on Facebook and other social media outlets, there are often some little blurbage in nice Powerpoint slides that makes Joe Layman on his or her soapbox the "expert". So I got to thinking. I'm no expert either, but I had a unique raising. I grew up in a family full of debate. The first things that I got to hear debate on were the most important documents that this country has, and that includes the Constitution and many of the Amendments. I'm a layman, just like anyone else. I have no business being appointed to the Supreme Court to judge the legalese of so many of the convoluted laws now. However, in all those debates growing up, and even in school, I was taught, learned that the Constitution was as simply worded as possible so that all Americans could understand the basic foundation of this Nation. That simple wording is often a point of contention, varying interpretations of the exact same sentences. Thank God the Founding Fathers even created the Supreme Court as the final say. (We won't go into the fact that it was fashioned after a different court or that even the other two branches were fashioned after the "good" things that they picked and chose from other governmental systems. We might in another blog.) But, back on point, the Constitution and the Amendments are worded simply for two reasons: One, so the simple man could understand the basic gist. Two, so that it could grow, shift, and move with changing times.
That's it in a nutshell. For all intensive purposes, you can stop here, but I'm going to elaborate a little bit on that whole debate thing and try to get people to understand that it's okay to have varying opinions. It actually is designed that way on purpose. Most teachers did teach that part in school, assuming that they were not trying to make sure that all their students shared their opinions. My mother's family was full of teachers. It was considered a great tragedy when we came upon a teacher that was teaching their point of view rather than facts. It is and was an unfortunate situation because if a child or teenager's family was not actually on top of this education and what it was lacking so many grew up with what they were spoon fed, correct or not. The power that we give teachers is amazing--probably a good thing that a lot of them used to only worry about wanting to be home in the summers than pushing their own opinions on the next generation.
I was going to start with the Constitution itself, but most people are less interested in how the branches are laid out. It is sufficient for them to understand that laws are made by the Legislative branch, basically Congress. The Executive branch's powers were as a check on the Legislation with the power of veto and the power to represent the Nation to the world. The Judicial branch, with the buck stopping at the Supreme Court, was to be the final check on the other two. As most of us recognize just by watching it, this process can be utterly time consuming albeit frustrating--especially when the Judicial branch doesn't agree with our interpretation of what is or isn't happening. Still, the Judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court is uniquely situated. Wise about legalese and interpreting it and basically made up of individuals that have varying and sometimes very opposing points of view on how they interpret the Constitution, the Amendments and the legalese of laws. Probably the biggest travesty of the modern era is that laws are no longer written so that a common layman can even start to understand, let alone give an opinion based on that understanding. No, now we need 50 different people to explain it to us 50 different ways and even then we cannot be sure that their personalized view of the bills or laws are even accurate enough for us to base our opinions on. If that was one thing I could change with the wave of wand, that would be it. All laws must be as the Founding Fathers meant for them to be written--so that the basic education would afford the ability to understand the wording even if not able to agree on the implementation.
So it is just that. Implementation is what we argue about. Interpreting what something says leads us to believe one way or another or even some other way is the best way to be implemented. The Supreme Court ultimately makes this final decision. Sometimes, they make this decision by just refusing to hear a case. Every case, well with very, very rare exception, starts in the lower courts. If the Supreme Court agrees in whole with the lower court's decision, a case will not even be heard by them. Simple. The lower court's decision is now the "Law of the Land". The fact is when the Supreme Court hears a case, they--all nine of them, have a varied view and want to hear it. Sometimes, I suspect that it is because some cases are just to high profile to let a lower court's decision be the final word, but that's a whole different blog.
See what I mean. I've just touched the tip of the tip of the tip of a huge iceberg. I haven't even gotten into the great debate of various interpretations and I've already written 4 paragraphs. So, maybe the Constitution is going to be a lot to cover. A lot, a lot. The Amendments are their own nightmare after. And all of this was written so Average Joe and Jane should be able to read it, get the gist, and with only what used to be the equivalent of an 8th grade education. Yes, really. Thank you Yale, Harvard, and so many of the lawyers over the last century especially for making it so much more and more complicated. Shame, really. How can a government by the people, of the people and for the people operate when the majority of the "people" have no idea what the hell was written in that latest, confounded, legalese, 2000 plus page crap called a bill??? I have my opinion there too. But that's not this blog. I'll get up on that soap box eventually. The Founding Fathers wanted it simple. It used to be fairly simple. Confusing the people was never the intent.
So I've covered the very, very basic layout of the Federal government. One that isn't too debatable, because well, yes, the Constitution itself is pretty simple on the subject. However, the laws that get through and then sometimes get contested, well, that's where all the complexity of the Constitution and the Amendments comes from. I'm not going to present one interpretation in the following blogs. I'm going to present the wording of each of the Bill of Rights with a layman interpretation and the very, very opposing ends of some of those Amendments. Hopefully in the process, each of my readers will walk away with their own opinion, not mine, not necessarily not mine. Just their own. And most importantly, realize that we still live in the Greatest Nation in the World.
No comments:
Post a Comment