Required reading?

The Constitution...a citizen’s view

As we witness what has been happening in the United States, perhaps it has become time to have a required reading course for all elected and appointed officials. Such a course would be built on and around the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Why is such a course necessary? Simply because it is becoming more and more evident that many of our Congressmen and women as well as our judges have either never read the document or, if they have, they have forgotten what it says. They have no appreciation or understanding of its meaning and significance. Yet both documents are the foundation of our government. That is what makes them so important to all – every citizen as well as elected officials.

Let’s cite some examples of egregious ignorance.

Most recently a federal judge took it upon herself to determine whether a state’s law was legal. In rendering her decision, she saw fit to excise certain passages which she considered “unjust” or detrimental to the illegal aliens at whom the statue was targeted. Had the judge read the Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2, states, “ . . . in all Cases . . . in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

Had this judge followed her oath of office, she would have denied the hearing, pointing out that she did not have jurisdiction to decide such a case since it could only be heard by the Supreme Court.

Another similar situation existed in the case of the federal judge who ordered the removal from the Alabama court house of the Ten Commandments. Again, the judge apparently either had no knowledge of the Constitution or chose to ignore it. Whichever it was, it showed a profound ignorance or total disrespect for the very document that gave him any power at all. For him to decide what was right or wrong in Alabama was a transgression without precedent and an injection of the federal government into what was obviously a state situation without national impact.

For an additional example, think about the unbelievable interpretation of the “eminent domain” clause of Amendement V, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” as applied by New London, CT against a private citizen (Kelo) and her property. The pseudojustification put forth was that it would improve the area and bring the city more tax revenue! How distorted an interpretation of “public use” can you get? To make matters even worse, the proposed development never took place and the area is now empty! Perhaps that is justice, yet the result is of no benefit to any of the parties! Again, perhaps we should have a course on how to read? To which should be added, “and understand”!
As a concluding thought, review Art. I, Secs. 8 & 9 in conjunction with Amendments IX and X. The former strictly limits the federal government to 18 positive powers delegated to it and 8 powers that are forbidden for it to exercise. The latter two amendments specify that whatever has not been clearly stated as being in the province of the federal government, remain the property and responsibility of the states. While there have been many arguments about the IX and X Amendments, they have never been repealed and thus still stand as a foundation that emphasizes the separation of powers and the sovereignty of the individual states who formed the union.

Yes, a course in reading and understanding the Constitution should be a requirement for all elected officials.