Bio not provided
Your argument is compelling if we may presume a somewhat moral and responsive Congress, which we unfortunately no longer have. As I found while living abroad, the most eloquent, well-written, and airtight constitution isn't worth a plugged nickel if the leaders are too damn corrupt to follow it. But since we're dreaming, I'd make sure the comically-abused Interstate Commerce Clause was returned to it original, limited and very narrow, scope. And while we were at it, strike all those amendments never properly ratified by 2/3rd of the States. And hoist the state flags to the top of the pole where they belong at all state buildings!
2 years, 11 months ago on Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning
"Just as a statute was interpreted by the intent of the legislators who gave it force rather than by the intent of the legislative staffers who wrote it, the Constitution was to be interpreted by the understanding of the ratifiers who gave it force rather than the intent of the Framers who wrote it." What next, is the author going to quote Roman's 13 about how "all government is good because it is ordained of God"?
The Founding Fathers were not legislative staffers taking dictation from their bosses. Their inspiration was a keen understanding of Man's place in the Universe, and his valid purpose therein. The Constitution remains a living document only by adhering to the intent, understanding, and meaning of those who wrote it, not by turning it into a political football by morally bankrupt idiots and criminals in really nice suits.
In was created for one purpose-- to strictly preserve God-given freedoms while "chaining government down" to prevent mischief. Anything which our government does in contradiction to the plain language and intent of the Constitution is, automatically and on its face, null and void-- "as if it had never been". Is that at all unclear? Leaving the interpretation of possible violations to the very Judges and legislators committing the offenses is like having the wolves decide what the words 'Don't eat the sheep' mean.
Our Constitution was written by brilliant men to be understood and followed by average men, not to be redacted out of existence by self-proclaimed scholars like the current joker living in the White House.
As an aside, there is confusion as to liberty versus freedom-- they are often used interchangeably. 'Freedom' is the God-given (or insert your own Cosmic Architect here) ability to go about your life without answering to anyone for what you say, do, or own. The only role of government in a 'free country' is to intervene should you cause injury or loss to the person or property of another (i.e., the original meaning of 'crime'). With freedom, laws do not "reform" the Bill of Rights, they defend it.
'Liberty', on the other hand, is what military leaders dole out to the conscripts under their command. It is merely a temporary privilege, to be revoked at any time, "for any reason, or none at all." The liberty model is how most statutes, masquerading as valid constitutional law, operate in our country today.
As far as the comments about the "corporatizing" of our government, about the only thing (short of armed insurrection) any of us can do is invoke the 'REMEDY' outlined in the Uniform Commercial Code Section 1-308(may be different today, they move it around), whereby a party to any real or implied contract can "reserve all rights, without prejudice", to have the matter at hand decided in Common Law or Constitutional court, instead of Maritime Court. That's a whole other area where something which was so simple, clear and self-evident to our ancestors is mystical gibberish to most of us today.