How the Constitution is Read

October 23, 2010 07:45
How the Constitution is Read

Yes, they are working off of a different Constitution and that will be shown to be the crux of the brewing battle between the Tea Party Movement and the politicians in office.

By T.L. Davis at American Thinker


There is an obvious disconnect concerning the Constitution between the Tea Party crowd and the establishment of both major political parties.

The confusion arises from the different methods of reading the Constitution. Spitzer is relying, as most lawyers and politicians do, on case law ruled on by myriad judges and justices taking into account precedent and stare decisis.

A complicating factor in the discussion is that lawyers and judges naturally give weight to their own decisions, to case law, to precedent. Where judicial activism is clear, as in the instance of the First Amendment, the rulings have less and less meaning for the literalist. Corruption of intent is not a justification for denial of rights; otherwise there never could be the social developments in society wherein the people, and ultimately the courts, discover that outdated and irrelevant rulings no longer apply. See, slavery.

The Tea Party Movement is not populated by the dim-witted, as the media would have one believe. The founders and organizers, like Loesch, have done the hard work of educating themselves on the Constitution. They have brought in Constitutional scholars to “brief” their organizations. The mainstream American might be surprised to find how many Constitutional scholars actually agree with the Tea Partiers It is not for a lack of understanding that this question is brewing; it is actually a conflict of visions on how to give a full reading of the document.


Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere:

Interested In Further Reading? Click Here