Is our government upholding the Constitution that was designed by our forefathers as intended?

Question

I saw a saying by George Carlin stating something like "they keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq...why don't we just give them ares, it's a really good one and we certainly aren't using it anymore."

I'm updating this to ask anyone who reads it to please give an answer even if it's a simple yes or no. I'm not at all surprised by the answers thus far (10 of them)but would really like to see if, among a larger group, what the percentage would be. Thanks..
And in researching the George Carlin thing it was said like this:
“They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it’s worked for over 200 years, and we’re not using it any more.” I also learned that it may not even be his quote, so George if it's not you sorry, and if it is you are one smart guy..

Answer 1

Absolutely not. My favorite, if not the best, example would be the thousands of gun control laws on the books. These are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment which states quite clearly (in easy-to-understand, one- and two-syllable English words) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Another example is the way the "necessary and proper" clause has come to mean "convenient." When the Supreme Court can re-define words in the Constitution to mean whatever they want, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?

The interstate commerce clause has been stretched to absurd proportions so that Congress can now regulate anything that it wants based on the fact that somebody, somewhere might have once traded with someone in another state.

Does anyone remember the 9th and 10th Amendments, which tell us that the federal government is only allowed to do those few things which are specifically stated in the Constitution? And yet there are volumes upon volumes of federal statutes that micromanage our lives.

The American people, through ignorance and apathy, have allowed their government to get by with this. I know of no solution. If the people have more faith in legal interpretations and judges' rulings than in their own ability to understand the simple words written down where all can see, then they deserve the tyrannical, authoritarian state that they are destined to get.

Finally, I want to add that I once took a college course called "Constitutional Rights and Liberties." But the curriculum was focused not around what those rights and liberties are, but on what judges have said about them. It was a study in case law. When people are taught that case law is more important than what the Constitution actually says, the outcome is predictable. We come to depend on the government to interpret for us the document that is supposed to limit its scope of power. Isn't this like signing a lease with a landlord that says the landlord gets to decide at any point on any question what the lease says? Isn't re-defining "necessary" to mean "convenient" analogous to re-defining "$400 per month" to mean "$600 per month?"

Answer 2

The erosion of attachment to our structure instructions the interest of the individuals to reestablish governance by ability of the consent of the ruled, by ability of Revolution, if needed. i visit't fathom how a number of those solutions, many by ability of human beings that call Dr. Paul an "isolationist," will be so remoted themselves from the authentic international as to imagine our representatives stay carefully adherent to the limitations upon them and their places of paintings as defined in the structure. ... redrepair: there replaced into never any element out of a residing structure suggesting that leaders could interpret it any way they chosen as cases replace. extremely THE opposite!!!! The framers, with 2 operating starts off (version from English regulation, ideas in writings which includes the Federalist Papers and the Articles of Confederation) were adamant that the perfect structure be in a position to weathering the ameliorations of time. yet never did they even recommend it to be by ability of whimsical re-interpretation. somewhat, they laid out a strict gadget of AMENDING the structure that calls for very vast consent!!! If some thing, they did not choose it quite replaced, a lot less, capriciously interpreted. it really is insane! better, the overall consensus replaced into that even THIS attempt at representative authorities would quickly succumb to the regulations of nature - that power will be picked far off from the individuals by ability of effective (and power-thirsty) entities and that the "Occasional Revolution" would stay eminent. ...

Answer 3

Legislating from the bench has certainly twisted the document's original intent. Amazing how such a simplified document can be so twisted and turned into something that was never intended.

Answer 4

There is no doubt the Iraqi constitution will mirror the US Constitution in many ways, but the decisions we're left up to the people there...not us.

Answer 5

For once I agree with Carlin.

Answer 6

The Founders wouldn't recognize it.

Answer 7

That's easy NO.They might like it.

Answer 8

No

Answer 9

no

Answer 10

no