[AKbear]

The Constitution is not a difficult document to read. It's set out in fairly plain language, and was done so on purpose. It does not take a legal scholar to understand what is constitutional and what is not.

The problem is, congress, filled mostly with lawyers, obfuscate the law to the point where the ordinary citizen can't understand what is being passed. Then it takes a legal scholar to interpret what is written. It's mainly job security.

Mr. Gold is correct. And it doesn't take a legal scholar to see that.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While I realize that this is the claim of the non-expert, it is false. Like all deep political philosophy (or great literature) the constitution requires great thought to understand all its ramifications. This is why Hamilton had to write the Federalist in order to explain and educate the population as to its meaning. This is why John Marshall had to explicate its meaning over a thirty year period.

Like the Bible it provides an outline which is often not at all obvious as to how it applies to a specific case. Thus, millions of pages have been written explaining and amplifying the meanings of the Bible and perhaps that many doing the same for the constitution.

Since the population was not as educated then as it is today the likelihood of the majority of the people understanding it is not great. Mythology to the contrary. Even Jefferson appeared not to understand it and he was a lawyer.

Most of those claiming the great simplicity of this phenomenal document cannot carry a legal analysis past a couple of sentences and those with whom I have had contact do not know what the hell they are talking about. They understand little of what the document actually says and nothing of its implications. Generally their arguments are limited to declaring something unconstitutional because they feel that it should be so and blaming all complications on lawyers. Similiar to blaming sickness on the doctors.