I WAS LOOKING FOR WHY AMERICANS CLING TO A DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY IMPERFECT MEN(from womanizers, to adulterers, to slaveholders) TO DEFINE THE PERFECT AMERICA,,,,, I thought this piece was inciteful,,,



The Folly of Strict Constitutional Constructionism
Posted on June 10, 2011 by David W. Boles

English language experts wrote the United States Constitution. When those authors wrote — “in order to form a more perfect Union” — they were making a hard and specific point that is lost on many of us today.




From a purely grammatical perspective, “in order to form a more perfect Union” doesn’t make sense because the word “perfect” is not a comparative, it is an absolute — just as the phrase “more unique” doesn’t make sense because the word “unique” is also an absolute.

What, then, were our forefathers trying to teach us about the real meaning of that phrase? They knew something we do not!



Our founding fathers knew that human beings are imperfect and, because the Constitution was written by them — imperfect people, too — it too, was imperfect and, by definition, unfinished and flawed and open to interpretation. Our Constitution was written to be a breathable document. Our Constitution was drafted to change with the times and to provide a basis for thinking and not something that was strict and absolute.

We must be wary of people who use the “strict Constitutionalist” argument for appointing judges and ruling — We The People — because the Constructionists are building their reasoning on a purposefully flawed notion that was originally intended to guide us without mandating. Deconstructing the Constitution to pull out bits of it to serve a narrow political purpose is precisely not what the document was intended to inspire. In fact, the document clearly condemns that sort of thinking against action.

We must also be aware of cunning charlatans who will use our most famous document as bus advertising for their personal profiteering on the backs of regular Americans.



Our Constitution was written to live and breathe to be free. Don’t let anyone persuade you against that American ideal. Our forefathers wrote the Constitution, not to restrict us to a certain place and time, but to demand that we keep thinking as our lives of this nation expand.

We, and our Constitution, are works in progress, and the clue to that thinking is embedded right there in the document in a purposeful, and thrilling, grammatical error — “in order to form a more perfect Union” — and the ongoing moral duty falls to us to accept there will always be more work to do, and we owe it to each other, We The People, to facilitate an open interpretation of a piece of paper that was intended to refine us, not just define us.


http://wordpunk.com/2011/06/10/the-folly-of-strict-constitutional-constructionism/

Obomber is sure taking it upon himself (a charlatan) to rewrite it for personal power and gain over the many "we the people"!

Our Bill of rights too, is toilet paper in his white house!

I find it interesting that this brilliant writer decided to not mention the amendment process.

Open to interpretation such as... Congress shall pass no law establishing a national religion.. actually means that religion has no place outside of a church..


Living.. breathing.. open to interpretation..

That is all well and good until the day comes that someone starts interpreting things in a way the author doesn't find so appealing to himself...