Congress shall make no law...

8 Jan 1996

My politics do not depend fundamentally on the Constitution; what I feel is right and proper comes from my own thought, not archaic social contracts I never signed. But as peace comes from adherence to a set of ground rules, and the Constitution is tolerable, or would be if we obeyed it, some minor commentary:

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yet churches are exempt from taxes, which means the IRS must determine what religious institution is a church and what not, which means religions could be partially established on the basis of IRS decisions.
In 1787 we did not have radio, or TV, or an Internet. But can one doubt that they -- especially Web sites on the Internet -- would not have been considered part of "the press"? The argument that claims they are not protected by the First Amendment must also consider the Air Force unconstitutional, since the Consitution only allows the maintenance of an army and navy.

Second Amendment

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This does seem to be a rather ambiguous statement, but I think it becomes less so with time. At least for me the more times I've read it the more I feel the "militia" part is justification, not conditioning, and that the meat is the RKBA "shall not be infringed." It was thought necessary for the country's security -- as much against its own government as against invasion -- that the militia be healthy. That the militia might be organized is provided in the enumerated powers, but I feel this amendment was meant to ensure that there would be an armed populace to organize.

Eighteenth Amendments

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
How come banning alcohol took an amendment to the constitution, whereas any other drug now can be banned by the FDA or DEA? And even Prohibition doesn't seem to have banned simple possession and use.

On calls for a constitutional convention to propose specific amendments to the Constitution: they're nuts! The Convention of 1787 was called specifically to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. You'll note what actually happened.

Back to me.