ELEMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION - Original Intent
I used the term "elements" in the title of this section, instead of words such as "articles" or "parts", for a very specific reason. Yes, The Constitution does consist of seven Articles and twenty-seven Amendments and we could "logically", "impartially" or "unemotionally" dissect the letter of them all and still never really understand, in our guts and hearts, what the constitution really is - a shield!
The Constitution is a shield, not made of any material substance, but of principles(D)! It is only when we look at this "element" of The Constitution that we can really begin to, truly, understand what a wondrous and unique shield it is and how fortunate we have been, as a people and a nation, to have been given the opportunity to live under it's protection.
Also, in understanding the true nature of The Constitution, we can begin to understand the reasons and intent behind the attacks upon it. When the substance of a shield is principle and moral behavior, this is what you attack and do everything you can to discredit, distort and destroy. That this is exactly what has been happening, is obvious to any real American and will be examined, in more detail, in the Methodology of Destruction section, later.
In the Aspects of the Law section we reviewed how any law consists of both the letter and the intent of those who wrote the law. We also saw how the intent must, absolutely, be the most important consideration when interpreting the purpose, meaning and application of the law. As The Constitution is the original law of this nation, it is the measuring stick against which all other laws must be compared. In this comparison, the most important consideration, is determining what was the Original Intent of those who wrote and ratified [agreed to] the constitution.
Many speak of the original intent, of the "Founding Fathers", as the only reference when referring to any interpretation of The Constitution. This is incorrect. When we look at the intent of a law, passed by any legislative body, the people who wrote the law were the same people who were given the power to approve the law. In this case, examining the intent of those who wrote the law, is appropriate.
In the case of The Constitution, however, this is not true. While the intent of the the members of the Constitutional Convention is an important part of interpreting "the Original Intent", The people who wrote the constitution had no power to approve [ratify] the constitution! The Constitution itself states exactly, with no possible confusion, who had the power to ratify. Only the representatives of the thirteen states could ratify the constitution. Therefore, when interpreting the "meaning" of The Constitution The original intent of both those who wrote The Constitution and those who ratified The Constitution must be used. Where this can not be determined, the meaning of the words used must be interpreted as they were generally understood, by the average person, in that time!
To try and use any other measure of the meaning of The Constitution is illogical, at best, and, when done intentionally to allow you to substitute a meaning supporting your ideological, political or social agenda, is the most evil distortion possible! Doing this makes The Constitution a worthless document you can ignore and lets you enforce your own agendas......[Dam!......could it be????......]!
NEVER FORGET !