3 ms·

What exactly is vague about this? "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citi

by jqm 11y ago

What exactly is vague about this? "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." or this? "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills" or this? "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." Now, I agree in portions such as this: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." That what comprises "public safety" is open to some degree of interpretation. But the document, as a whole is not that opaque. The intent is to be a transparent set of rules. Ones that you and I, as participants in a democracy can view and insist are followed. We can't just say "oh, judges know better" and leave it at that. That isn't a democracy, isn't representative and leads to a very bad place. We have to demand representation and a rule of law. We can't allow the law to be bent to the point it really isn't law anymore. We, as citizens, must be in control of our government. To do that, we must individually be able to read and judge the rules and ascertain if they are or are not being followed. And elect those who agree to uphold rather than subvert the process.

gnaritas 11y ago
There's plenty vague about those things; by what rules shall the house and senate operate... unspecified and left to the house and senate to figure out just as a thousand other things are. Most of the document is open to interpretation, as is all written word by man anywhere. Even today people can't agree on the meaning of the second amendment. Just because you can find a few things that seems specific is in no way an argument against my point; I didn't say it had no specifics, I said much of it is vague and intentionally so. The real law of the land is the U.S. Code which is the actual law derived from the framework the constitution lays out. The notion that anyone can understand the constitution is simply wrong; without a correct legal grounding in common law and precedence you have no idea what the constitution actually means or how law is derived from it. Just because you can read a sentence does not mean you understand it the same way everyone else does nor that everyone agrees on what the words mean. That's why we have judges and precedence and a common law foundation, to guide the interpretation in a direction most can agree on.
- jqm 11y ago
  Many of the rules for the house and senate are specified, very clearly, as well. Sorry, it isn't a "vague document" nor a "rough guideline". It is very specific on many points. Also, the idea that no one but trained professionals can read or understand if the document is being followed is not only wrong but abhorrent. Certainly, legally the judiciary is to interpret the law for implementation, I don't disagree. But again... we as voters have a right and responsibility to read the rules, to understand the rules, to ascertain if they are being followed and to vote accordingly. The ultimate power, in theory, resides with us, not with "trained professionals". This principal is of extreme importance for our system and seems to be quite often forgotten.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    I agree that we as voters vote our interests; I don't, and won't agree that the average joe can read and correctly interpret the constitution and they never will. It is a legal document and understanding it requires more than just the words on the page.
    - jqm 11y ago
      That's a common line from some sectors. It gets repeated a lot. There is probably a reason for that but I don't believe it's objective.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        It's common because it's true, whether you choose it accept it or not really doesn't matter, legal documents cannot be understood merely by the words on the page. They exist in a field of precedence and lacking an understanding of the precedence the common person cannot properly understand the intended meaning which whether you see it or not is referencing that precedence.
        jqm 11y ago
        I'm sorry. You don't need legal training to read and understand most of the Constitution. Much of it is fairly plain and straightforward. Much of the "context" you speak of often comes after the fact. I would suggest rather than trying to beat a worn out point you take half an hour and actually read the document. You can do it... even without a law degree. We can read it.. we can see if it is manifestly being violated, we can vote accordingly. That is the intent. The intent is not that we are governed by an army of lawyers twisting a document into whatever they choose.

by jqm 11y ago

gnaritas 11y ago

There's plenty vague about those things; by what rules shall the house and senate operate... unspecified and left to the house and senate to figure out just as a thousand other things are. Most of the document is open to interpretation, as is all written word by man anywhere. Even today people can't agree on the meaning of the second amendment. Just because you can find a few things that seems specific is in no way an argument against my point; I didn't say it had no specifics, I said much of it is vague and intentionally so. The real law of the land is the U.S. Code which is the actual law derived from the framework the constitution lays out. The notion that anyone can understand the constitution is simply wrong; without a correct legal grounding in common law and precedence you have no idea what the constitution actually means or how law is derived from it. Just because you can read a sentence does not mean you understand it the same way everyone else does nor that everyone agrees on what the words mean. That's why we have judges and precedence and a common law foundation, to guide the interpretation in a direction most can agree on.

jqm 11y ago
Many of the rules for the house and senate are specified, very clearly, as well. Sorry, it isn't a "vague document" nor a "rough guideline". It is very specific on many points. Also, the idea that no one but trained professionals can read or understand if the document is being followed is not only wrong but abhorrent. Certainly, legally the judiciary is to interpret the law for implementation, I don't disagree. But again... we as voters have a right and responsibility to read the rules, to understand the rules, to ascertain if they are being followed and to vote accordingly. The ultimate power, in theory, resides with us, not with "trained professionals". This principal is of extreme importance for our system and seems to be quite often forgotten.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  I agree that we as voters vote our interests; I don't, and won't agree that the average joe can read and correctly interpret the constitution and they never will. It is a legal document and understanding it requires more than just the words on the page.
  - jqm 11y ago
    That's a common line from some sectors. It gets repeated a lot. There is probably a reason for that but I don't believe it's objective.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      It's common because it's true, whether you choose it accept it or not really doesn't matter, legal documents cannot be understood merely by the words on the page. They exist in a field of precedence and lacking an understanding of the precedence the common person cannot properly understand the intended meaning which whether you see it or not is referencing that precedence.
      - jqm 11y ago
        I'm sorry. You don't need legal training to read and understand most of the Constitution. Much of it is fairly plain and straightforward. Much of the "context" you speak of often comes after the fact. I would suggest rather than trying to beat a worn out point you take half an hour and actually read the document. You can do it... even without a law degree. We can read it.. we can see if it is manifestly being violated, we can vote accordingly. That is the intent. The intent is not that we are governed by an army of lawyers twisting a document into whatever they choose.