Interpreting the United States Constitution - Unnecessary...

Every time I make a post concerning the Constitution I get beseiged with letters from liberals who, like some SCOTUS justices, get verbose in their lame attempts to interpret the Constitution. And they invariably say that "the Founding Fathers meant...the Founders intended..."

Let me be as clear as the Founding Fathers were when they all proclaimed that the Constitution was carefully crafted and worded in such a way that every man, woman and child could understand it, and know their God-given rights. The Founders all expressed that the document says exactly what they intended, and needs no "interpretation". They spent many months painfully going over every word to insure the document said what they meant, and meant what they said.

In short, anyone - regardless of who they are or how much they think themselves a "Constitutional scholar" - anyone who feels a need to "interpret" any part of the Constitution is usurping the Constitution.

It does not require interpretation, as the Founders were determined to insure every American - even uneducated ones - could understand it.

The Constitution was intended to be taken literally, word for word. If it says you have a certain right, then that needs no further discussion. There are no "nuances" in the document.

So, to save you liberals a lot of wasted time trying to convince anyone that the Constitution means this or that, don't bother. It says what it says. And it means what it says. If you need to interpret it, then you are already wrong.

It says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." And that is exactly what it means. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And that is exactly what it means. If the Founders had wanted to keep religion out of government, or out of the public square, the Constitution would state so, clearly and in such a way as to not require interpretation. But that is not what the Constitution says. It states clearly that government is to stay out of religion. Nowhere does it state - or even imply - that religion is to stay out of government.

Liberals who "interpret" the Constitution are, in essence, saying the Founders were a bunch of uneducated fools who sat down over a pint of ale one evening and threw the Constitution together and now "scholars" have to interpret it for "the unwashed masses". That is not the case, as any historian knows.

The Constitution neither states nor implies any "wall of separation between church and state." It only says, clearly, that government may not regulate any religion, create a state religion, or prevent the free practice of religion. Government must stay out of religion. But nowhere does it state or imply that religion must stay out of government.

So, save your 5,000 word dissertations trying to interpret it otherwise. And please note - just because some liberal, activist justices like to play God and exercise their scolastic aptitude, if they "interpret" the Constitution, they, too, are wrong. They are just people, like any other people. And they can be - and often are - wrong. So do not use their lame interpretations to prove your own case.

/