by Jezla 

In today’s politically charged environment, both sides accuse each other of “hijacking” the Constitution.  Most people go along with these assertions because few know what the Constitution actually says.  They can tell you about the First Amendment, and probably the Second Amendment, and they know what the different branches of government are.  They may even know how many times the Constitution has been amended (27).  But do they really know what the document says?  Have they read it?  The answer, I fear, is probably not.  “Rights” is an example.  Too many people these days seem to think of rights as something granted by the government via the Constitution, when in fact, the Constitution assumes that we already have rights, and that government is forbidden from infringing on them.

A year or so ago I renewed my interest in our nation’s history and government.  I decided to read our founding documents as well as history and commentary.  I was staggered by how little I knew, and how little I was taught in school.  Over the next few weeks, I intend to take you through the Constitution, section by section, in order to share what I have learned.

 A caveat:  I am not a lawyer, or even an expert on American history, and this is by no means a scholarly look at our government.  Rather it is an attempt to share our country’s supreme law with you and offer my insights based on what I’ve read and my good ol’ Hoosier common sense.

 To begin, we’ll need a text of the Constitution, of course.  You can find one online here, complete with glossary.  May I also refer you to some of the books I’ve read on which I am basing my opinions:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin Gutzman.  An excellent overview and history of the Constitution.  If you’d rather not follow my posts, then read this book.

 The Constitution in Exileby Andrew Napolitano.  The judge gives a comprehensive rundown on where our courts went wrong in interpreting the law.  It’s a little difficult to follow what with the numerous case references, but is still an excellent book, whether you agree with all of his ideas or not.

Democracy in Americaby Alexis de Tocqueville.  Written by a Frenchman almost 200 years ago, Tocqueville’s insights into our democracy and its strengths and weaknesses is still relevant today.  This should be required reading for all Americans.

History of the English Speaking Peoples by Sir Winston Churchill.  Particularly the volume on the American Republic and the Revolution.  While naturally biased towards the British, Churchill nevertheless gives a good account of the issues behind the colonial revolt and the beginning of the Union.  Whether you read the abridged version or the full work, there are few historians like “Winny.”

That will get us started.  What about The Federalist, you ask?  Well, to be honest I haven’t finished reading all of it, but according to Mr. Gutzman, The Federalist is not a very good indicator of original intent, despite being written by some of the drafters of the Constitution.  His main point is that The Federalist was intended for a limited audience (New York), and was designed to make the case for a strong central government, in some ways stronger than the Constitution called for.  I’m not in a position to agree or disagree, but either way, I won’t be drawing much on The Federalist.

Feel free to comment and discuss as we go along.  I’m not perfect, and I’m not too proud.  If I make a mistake, then by all means, call me on it.  As I said, I’m not an expert, I merely want to offer a citizen’s insights on the Supreme Law of the Land.

Are you ready?  We’ll be back next week to take a look at the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

Stop pining for the Gipper, stop sulking over Fred Thompson, and don’t get despondent about John McCain. Take Michelle’s advice: Get fired up!

From: BACK HOME AGAIN

A Christian Hoosier that loves games, computers, cars, and liberty.

Yet another study strengthens the case for traditional families, but will our sex-obsessed society take notice?

Dr. Laura had it right in describing the rise of sex as a commodity. You cannot escape it, and it is permissible everywhere except, apparently, in a committed marriage. I read a ‘Dear Abby” column in the paper yesterday in which a reader wrote a response to a question from a lonely husband: “I do all these nice things for my wife, and she still won’t have sex with me! What can I do?”

The response? Stop pressuring your wife and being so selfish. The responder’s husband also is guilty of planning numerous romantic dinners and occasions in the expectation that fun will ensue. Not so, says the responder: he should stop expecting and start merely hoping, but oh, keep up the romanticism. “Remember,” she writes, “it’s about what you are giving, not getting.” Well, news flash - she’s not giving, so he’s not getting. What more does he have to give? The columnist agreed with the responder (of course)…

read more | digg story