Posted on 10/04/2009 9:06:48 AM PDT by loveliberty2
Sorry for the double post. I searched, but apparently used the wrong terms. Anyway, is is such an important topic right now that it may even deserve another look. Thanks!
In rereading Kennedy's statement, this statement is pertinent to your observation:
'You don't take a DNA test to see if you believe in freedom, it's taught,' Kennedy said."
Herein may lie a profound difference between the prevailing philosophy of Justice Kennedy and those whose world view holds to the premise that the love or desire for freedom (liberty) is inherent in the human spirit, and that individuals must be coerced (or 'taught,' using Kennedy's words) to be submissive to power excercised by others.
Early generations of Americans were, by their nature, seekers of liberty, lovers of liberty, and, by their written Constitution, agreed to "self government," only as long as those in positions of power were bound down "by the chains of the Constitution."
From Edmund Burke's "Speech on Conciliation" in 1775 to Tocqueville in the 1820's this devotion to liberty of the Americans was apparent. It is for that love of liberty that citizens have died.
Then, somewhere along the way, America's youth and its adult citizens began to be "taught" by their government officials that they needed to depend on and be "governed" by elected and appointed folks in Washington, D. C.
Recently, we are seeing a reawakening in the youth and elderly of that spirit of liberty. Does that mean that the Kennedys' and the "government's" hold on the minds of citizens is being overcome by what Burke called "the fierce spirit of liberty" in the hearts of Americans?
Just some observations, following a second look at the significance of what Kennedy said. Yes, neglect of the teaching of the founding ideas to the nation's youth has resulted in ignorance of knowledge of their Constitution. But, of equal importance is the fact that those who gain power by promising "goodies" have been teaching citizens how to become slaves to government.
Correction to last post—that’s “Tocqueville in the 1830’s. . . .”
All Jefferson was saying is to interpet the constitution simply...but that still requires some interpretation.
Why is it that you insist the consitution be interpreted simply then “trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it” to Kennedys statement?
What he said is straightforward, the Constitution needs to be interpreted. There is nothing insidious or evil in this remark, it is abject reality.
I tell you what my concern is is when others TELL me what the Consitution is SUPPOSED to mean based on their own opinions and preconceptions as if my opinion is not worthy of consideration or it’s own respect. I always look at issues like this if they were happening from the other side, for instance Obama, the DNC or Hillary TELLING me what it means and then rejecting all debate on the matter.
The only crisis we have to fear is when there IS NO debate on the meaning of the constitution. You think that would be great because you assume your interpretation will prevail. As we have seen, that isn’t always the case.
Thanks for that eternal verity!
If the Constitution was designed to be "open to interpretation," then there ARE NO "individual liberties," for the simple reason that any liberties that one might think one has could be "interpreted away."
What the founders did was create a Constitution that could be changed through a laborious amendment process, in order to force the nation to be really serious about any changes.
This whole "living constitution" line? well, do you hear that grinding noise in the background? It the founders spinning in their graves.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.