No document can "guard" our freedoms. That takes people who actually care enough to follow the rules set out by the document.

So yes -- read the Constitution and marvel at its wonderful structure and ideals. Who knows how much longer it'll stand?

I'm with nemo on this one.

Most Americans are either functionally ignorant of the United States Constitution or look at it solely from the perspective of it's relationship to their daily lives.

Few take time to look at it in it's proper historical place. At the time of it's writing it was quite a bold document among the annals of the establishment of nations.

It still is if given it's proper due.

Read the Federalist papers, make yourself aware of the world situation at the time of it's inception, then put the philosophical pieces together and I think you'll come to an obvious conclusion.

Although not a perfect document, it was nevertheless brilliant.

We allow it to be ignored or distorted at our peril.

"Constitution Week is Sept. 17-23. In 1956, our Congress designated this..."

...thereby violating the Constitution. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

"... thereby violating the Constitution."

Mr. Elledge obviously has some difficulty in differentiating between a declarative proclamation and the enactment of federal law.

Ya' gotta' love it.

I am thankful for all of the freedoms we have and hope we can keep them in place. We still have some equality issues in this country though. While we are reading the constitution, we need to be sure to include the Preamble. You know? The part about all men being created equal, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"...include the Preamble. You know? The part about all men being created equal, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Um, dude? That was in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution's preamble is that thing about "We the people... do ordain and establish this Constitution."

We'll do the Declaration next month, m'kay? {;-)

Okay. Just stopped laughing, Nemo.

I got news for you. All mean are NOT created equal. That idea is just plain laughable.

"All mean are NOT created equal."

While that may be true in a physical sense, I believe he's referring to equality in the eyes of the law.

Also, is that a little Freudian slip you've got going?

On the subject of equality, in both the legal and physical sense, a tacky and inane comment from the lawyer who handled my divorce:

"Ashes to ashes and dust to dust, it sure helps a woman to have a nice bust".

Denz,

Could be a slip. (Not sure how to interpret it though) More likely the typo that occurred while laughing about the thought of men being created equal and Nemo's post.

I recently read Founding Brothers - which actually was from a H.S. History class my daughers both took. Cool Stuff, as was the recent Biography of John Adams.

For the most part, those dudes had it together, even while they were picking on each other ... proof positive that sometimes the planets align and genius happens.

.. one [imho] important comment ..

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were both written before the Industrial Revolution was even imagined. This means that much of the thought could not have taken into account the impact of most non-cottage industry and non-agrarian situations, including the tremendous medical advances (footnote*) and domination by corporations that have since occurred.

When I hear folks speaking on these matters and declaring "Our Founders Intended ... ", it really irks me as between Openly Ignorant, Carelessly Antichronical, and Blatantly Deceitful.

*(2 out of 3 Civil War deaths were from plain on sickness, and a bullet wound to the belly was always fatal).

Janherman writes:

"Mr. Elledge obviously has some difficulty in differentiating between a declarative proclamation and the enactment of federal law."

Can you tell me the difference? Even if they didn't consider it to be a federal "law" that they passed, they were still using the governmnent facilities and resources (wasting taxpayer money) in order to do something not authorized by the Constitution. It's therefore unconstitutional.

"they were still using the governmnent facilities and resources (wasting taxpayer money) in order to do something not authorized by the Constitution. It's therefore unconstitutional."

Not even gonna ask about Congression potty breaks. :)

My dear Mr. Elledge,

I would suggest you read USC 36, number 108 from 1956 for background on the actual (primary version) of the proclamation under discussion.

Follow that by reading the tenth amendment, which is I believe, the only one you could possibly be referencing to justify your claim of unconstitutionality.

Then, please, enlighten me on the contitutional clause that stipulates wasting taxpayer money is verbotten. I've never seen it, but it's certainly got my vote.

In the same vein as what Denizen mentioned, sharpening pencils, answering phones and blocking off Pennsylvania Avenue from automotive traffic are not specifically authorized activities under the constitution either - are they also violations?

I'm truly curious.

It's a shame that our current administration has neither read and/or understands the Constitution

Nemo-

Thanks for pointing out my goof up. Obviously blogging before morning coffee is something I need to avoid.

Janherman,

Yes, the Tenth Amendment is correct. Knowing what that says, I don't need to read the illegal statute you quote. I already know it's illegal/unconstitutional due to the Tenth Amendment.

I'm glad you at least know what the Tenth Amendment is. Most people don't. Thank you. And I'm saying that sincerely, not sarcastically.

"Then, please, enlighten me on the contitutional clause that stipulates wasting taxpayer money is verbotten. I've never seen it, but it's certainly got my vote."

If they're spending tax money on something for which they're not authorized to spend money on, then it's unconstitutional. They used electricity, printing, etc, which cost money, to pass that illegal statute.

Do you think it would be legal for them to spend taxpayer money on electricity to light the Senate and House chambers in order to debate for their own amusement which baseball team will win the World Series this year, pass a resolution announcing the majority's opinion, and have it officially printed and stored in the Archives?

"In the same vein as what Denizen mentioned, sharpening pencils, answering phones..."

They can do those things as long as they are in pursuance of something which is specifically authorized, such as providing a military, coining money, etc.

"...and blocking off Pennsylvania Avenue from automotive traffic are not specifically authorized activities under the constitution either- are they also violations?"

No. Congress is specifically authorized to block off Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, they can do pretty much anything they want within the limits of DC:

"The Congress shall have power...
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States..."
Article I, Section 8

Mr. Elledge,

James Madison, commonly referred to as "The father of the Constitution", and the driving force behind the inclusion of the "Bill of Rights" - of which the tenth amendment is a vital part, issued a proclamation in 1814 during his presidency declaring without threat of legal enforcement a national day of prayer to be observed by the nation.

In order to agree to your rationalizations and logic in determining constitutionality I'd first have to be convinced that you somehow have a better understanding of constitutional intent than that held by one of the men who wrote it.

That is an impossibility, give it up.

Janherman,

Although Madison probably obeyed the Constitution the vast majority of the time, it's not as if he was incapable of disobeying it. I have little doubt that every president did at some point.

Anyway, Wikipedia says this about Madison and the day of prayer:

"In 1813, president James Madison proclaimed a day of prayer; however, he later decided that National Days of Prayer were inappropriate, because 'they seem[ed] to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion'".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer