Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/13/06 8:46 am:
Dennis,

Let's not go too far. I happen to believe that the Constitution is a difficult document to understand, and that it was made deliberately ambiguous in certain areas. The Founding Fathers did that in order to give us the flexibility of being able to interpret the Constitution in our own way without locking us into anything based on their own environmental biases. They were thinking long-term. On the other hand, I have a feeling that if they knew then what types of rediculous interpretations of the Constitution we would be seeing today (especially the creation of "constitutional rights" that don't exist and the use of extra-constitutional laws as the basis for constitutional interpretation), they probably would have tightened up some of those ambiguities and left less open to interpretation.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/14/06 9:27 am:
The document including all the amendments are a total less than 8,000 words . A slow reader could polish it off in an hour .The advantage of this is that a ctiizen should be able to easily refer to the textual content over and over in short time.

But the founders left volumes of periferal documents like the 'Federalist 'and anti-Federalists' publications as well as letters ,and other speeches that really need to be refered to to understand intent.

Lawyers and scholars have read these .In most college classes unfortunately these are more important parts of the curriculum then the text itself as the text should be constantly cross referenced .

They end up studying words and phrases like emanations, penumbras( “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut ).What the hell does that mean ? Legal scholars debate it and conclude that the so called privacy right is almost absolute .how they got that from the definition of the words are beyond me. A 'penumbra' is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot — and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. 'Emanation' is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay — it also means “an emission.”I want what Douglas was smoking !

Word by word ;phrase by phrase has been dissected and as far as I can tell there is a disagreement among scolars and lawyers as to intent.Just in the preamble concepts like 'a more perfect union ' and even single words like WE and DO have been debated to death .

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/15/06 11:25 am:

Hello again, Dennis, and Mr. E.T. Wolverine:

>>>I happen to believe that the Constitution is a difficult document to understand, and that it was made deliberately ambiguous in certain areas.<<<

What did he say? Let me ask that again, becuse I'm so blown away by the remark. Did he say that it's difficult to understand?

It's only difficult and ambiguous if want it to say something it doesn't.

>>>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<<<

That's the Fourth Amendment. It's not difficult. It's not ambiguous, unless of course, you don't like what it says.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/15/06 11:50 am:

Hello again:

No, I’m not done.

One of the pivotal arguments on the right is for judges who will interpret the constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN. They abhor judges who try to read things into the law that aren’t there to establish some sort of social goal that resides in the mind of the judge or his party.

Please tell me, who is it that wants the Fourth Amendment, as written above, to mean something other than what it says?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/16/06 9:25 am:

Hello tom:

>>>The only constitutional limitation on the President’s power to intercept communications by Americans for national security purposes is that such intercepts be “reasonable.”<<<

Without review, however, “reasonable” means whatever Bush wants it to mean.

>>>Is it reasonable for the administration to do all it can to identify the people who are communicating with known??? <<<

I think it IS reasonable. I don’t disagree with you. You’re preaching to the choir. Therefore, he COULD have gotten the warrants, if only he would have asked. Why do you continue to argue as though I don’t want him to bug the terrorists. I don’t think you’re paying attention.

Let me see if I can open your eyes with this comparison:

I think murderers are bad people. I think ALL of them should be put away. I don’t, however, want my government throwing people into the slam for life WITHOUT a trial simply because the government said that they have the right guy.

Now, because I want my government to obey the law, does that mean I support murderers? Maybe with a rightward leaning mind it does.

excon