Hi all, Senior in HS and trying to understand

[BULLDOG]

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!

Welcome to USMB. The first thing I can tell you is, you're probably not going to learn much from the posters here. Most here are partisans who are promoting our own points of view and not really spending much time teaching. Sometimes you can learn by reading various viewpoints and perhaps that will be of some help. My suggestion for you would be to study the Federalist Papers. It's tricky because the language is old English and a bit hard to decipher sometimes but it is the most insightful resource for discovering what our government is all about.

There have been many times when I have encountered a question about certain issues that arise, where I am uncertain about what is actually "constitutional" or what the constitution means, and I will Google "federalist papers" along with the subject and bring up a relevant document to show me what the founders thought. You are so fortunate to live in an age where this kind of information is at your fingertips.

I would like to hear more about you. What do you plan to do in life? What are your goals and ambitions? Do you plan to go to college? Etc.

It will be important to understand that the federalist papers are not law, and are only a reflection of some of the beliefs of some at that time. Similar to what one of the parties might consider their platform today. If the Federalists were an actual indication of what the Constitution was intended to do, they wouldn't contradict the Constitution in so many ways.

 

[saveliberty]

Lesson One: You can get a bunch of jaded old people to post about government with less than three posts.

 

[Boss]

It will be important to understand that the federalist papers are not law, and are only a reflection of some of the beliefs of some at that time. Similar to what one of the parties might consider their platform today. If the Federalists were an actual indication of what the Constitution was intended to do, they wouldn't contradict the Constitution in so many ways.

I never claimed the Federalist Papers were the law. They are much more than merely a reflection of beliefs of some at the time. They are the literal arguments made for what is in the Constitution. They do not contradict the Constitution, they often conflict with Supreme Court rulings. That said, the SCOTUS has ruled some crazy whacked-out things... like slaves are property and it's okay to intern Japanese-Americans.

During the deliberation of the Constitution, the framers wrote extensively on every aspect because that's how people communicated in the day. So every detail in the Constitution is explained by the very people who wrote the Constitution. Various objections are addressed, specific wording is clarified and the case is made for exactly what was intended. You reject this because you're a kooky liberal who wants the Constitution to be your plaything... a "living document" you can mold and shape as you see fit... and those pesky Federalist Papers get in your way.

 

[BULLDOG]

It will be important to understand that the federalist papers are not law, and are only a reflection of some of the beliefs of some at that time. Similar to what one of the parties might consider their platform today. If the Federalists were an actual indication of what the Constitution was intended to do, they wouldn't contradict the Constitution in so many ways.

I never claimed the Federalist Papers were the law. They are much more than merely a reflection of beliefs of some at the time. They are the literal arguments made for what is in the Constitution. They do not contradict the Constitution, they often conflict with Supreme Court rulings. That said, the SCOTUS has ruled some crazy whacked-out things... like slaves are property and it's okay to intern Japanese-Americans.

During the deliberation of the Constitution, the framers wrote extensively on every aspect because that's how people communicated in the day. So every detail in the Constitution is explained by the very people who wrote the Constitution. Various objections are addressed, specific wording is clarified and the case is made for exactly what was intended. You reject this because you're a kooky liberal who wants the Constitution to be your plaything... a "living document" you can mold and shape as you see fit... and those pesky Federalist Papers get in your way.

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

 

[Boss]

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution.

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.

 

[BULLDOG]

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution.

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.

So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!

It's complicated and entangled. Read diverse opinions, and when in doubt, follow the money.

 

[Boss]

So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.

I think they've been operating contrary to the rules laid out in the constitution since Marbury v. Madison. Yes, in many cases they do effectively write law from the bench and that's NOT what the framers ever intended. We have a legislative branch for that.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to settle disputes over conflicting constitutional rights. The framers realized there would be instances where this could happen and they felt the most fair way to settle it was through a supreme court of the land.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!

1. We're a Republic, not a democracy
2. FDR was awful
3. More government = less freedom

 

[emilynghiem]

Point to the place on the teddy bear where the government touched you.

Dear Lewdog:

* If the bear was made in the US where workers had vacation and employment rights and protections,
were under OSHA safety regulations, and weren't child laborers (but they could be exploited prison labor),
and if the taxes from the sale of the bear goes to city, state or federal taxes,
and might pay for helpful or abusive things, that may or may not represent the taxpayers paying in
(or if the bear is made of materials that contribute to an environmental hazard or waste that is unsustainable, and the corporation profiting is not taking that into account as part of the cost of the production and their own costs to pay)

that's different from

* a bear made by illegal slave labor, children forced to work in unsafe conditions without breaks
or seeing the outdoors or their families, working for 50 cents a day, or to pay off rent in a dorm
that costs more than they make so they stay enslaved.
* or a bear made from homegrown materials by fair trade workers where the money
stays with the community and workers and isn't channeled into a larger corporation that neglects them

But again, if it's made by prison labor exploited by others for profit,
this could take place in the US or in other countries, and could still
involve "involuntary servitude" outside the legal conditions on restitution, penalty, or deprivation of liberty for crimes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution.

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.

So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.

Dear BULLDOG the Court can answer yes or no, yes this fits what is already written or established.
Or NO, the LEGISLATURE needs to take responsibility to rewrite what is rejected, not the judge or courts doing it, not the president or governor.

The problem is taking shortcuts.
If the judges/courts start assuming legislative authority, then some of their rulings are taken as law.

Such as rejecting abortion laws taken as establishing abortion as legal which requires the legislature to write out how to do that.

Just striking down something as constitutional or not does not have to go too far as "creating a right" or "establishing a law."

With marriage laws, for example, in both cases, with both bans, pro-traditional, or pro-same sex,
the SAME answer could have been given in all these: NO it is NOT constitutional for govt
to pick and choose to endorse ANY laws about marriage without the full consent of the citizens of that state.
so the court should REJECT any and all "contested" versions and proposals
and order the states to either REMOVE all of them, ENDORSE all choices equally,
or some other combination but WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL ITS CITIZENS so nobody argues there is bias.

the courts should have kicked marriage laws back to STATES to decide through its citizens how
to resolve their own conflicts in beliefs. And if any state refused to respect that inclusion,
then the court could order the state to be penalized as long as the order is constitutional, such forcing the state to disband any and all marriage laws policies
and benefits, or to relegate them to other institutions the citizens agree on, such as dividing by party, until the citizens agree on a policy that doesn't violate any of their beliefs but allows free and equal exercise of all them, together or separately, as long as it's agreed it's equal. if they can reach an agreement, that can be endorsed and implemented publicly. But if not, then whatever institutions they choose to use to operate separately, they agree to use those instead. (for example if the only language they agree to publicly is civil unions, then that's all the state is authorized to do)

 

[emilynghiem]

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution.

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.

Boss, yes it does. Even when you are explaining the history, that is teaching "interpretation"

Whether we interpret right to life as meaning born people or people before birth, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret gun rights for people meaning law abiding citizens or any people at all, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret people being the govt and govt for the people as being a left wing or right wing relationship,
that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret "freedom of religion" as organized established religions only, ones in harmony
with laws or ones against, or including "political beliefs and creeds" equally as traditional religions,
that is an "interpretation"

I happen to interpret due process of laws and equal protections on a broader basis than a lot of people think about.
I interpret People as Government to mean we the people share responsibility for redressing our own grievances as equals
(as in the First Amendment, where people petitioning the government starts with people petitioning each other
because we are responsible for govt directly or indirectly)

Where we fall short of resolving our own issues and conflicts on policy directly among ourselves,
we start to lose or give up authority to outside sources we turn to to resolve our problems for us. Thus, we need to make sure we agree on this authority, and how much we are delegating. Not giving up all power unless we agree to that.

Thus the more we do for ourselves, the less we depend on outside govt to act as this third party.
we become more empowered as we do more of the work ourselves.

That takes a special interpretation of the First Amendment to apply to the power
of citizens to act equally as the people in govt, by free speech and press,
free exercise of religion or free will, and right to assemble and petition
as democratic/due process of law to resolve grievances objections conflicts wrongs or abuses
to establish an agreed policy or plan for reforms corrections and solutions.

But I believe that level of education and empowerment is necessary to fulfill
equal protections and justice under law. That's why I promote that interpretation.

It can best be taught by teaching by example.
So when you teach history and interpretation/meaning of laws,
you are participating in this level of empowerment of people
accepting equal responsibility for govt. Thank you for that.

You prove this very point, of why interpretation is needed.
What we need is to make sure we are teaching the same thing.
We don't need govt abused to teach interpretations as law
that not all people agree is Constitutional.
Again, that's why it's better we resolve differences in advance,
and then after we reach agreement, then we work together
to make sure govt reflects the public policies we all agree represent us,
as a state or a nation, so we practice equal protection of all persons.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Well welcome to the board...

1. If you want to learn about the government then logoff here and pick up a book, research the web, and go to your local city hall and learn how it works...

2. If you are wanting to interact with posters for their view on what they believe then still logoff and save yourself!

Again welcome and enjoy the insanity that they call the USMB!

 

[Boss]

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution.

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.

Boss, yes it does. Even when you are explaining the history, that is teaching "interpretation"

Whether we interpret right to life as meaning born people or people before birth, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret gun rights for people meaning law abiding citizens or any people at all, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret people being the govt and govt for the people as being a left wing or right wing relationship,
that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret "freedom of religion" as organized established religions only, ones in harmony
with laws or ones against, or including "political beliefs and creeds" equally as traditional religions,
that is an "interpretation"

I happen to interpret due process of laws and equal protections on a broader basis than a lot of people think about.
I interpret People as Government to mean we the people share responsibility for redressing our own grievances as equals
(as in the First Amendment, where people petitioning the government starts with people petitioning each other
because we are responsible for govt directly or indirectly)

Where we fall short of resolving our own issues and conflicts on policy directly among ourselves,
we start to lose or give up authority to outside sources we turn to to resolve our problems for us. Thus, we need to make sure we agree on this authority, and how much we are delegating. Not giving up all power unless we agree to that.

Thus the more we do for ourselves, the less we depend on outside govt to act as this third party.
we become more empowered as we do more of the work ourselves.

That takes a special interpretation of the First Amendment to apply to the power
of citizens to act equally as the people in govt, by free speech and press,
free exercise of religion or free will, and right to assemble and petition
as democratic/due process of law to resolve grievances objections conflicts wrongs or abuses
to establish an agreed policy or plan for reforms corrections and solutions.

But I believe that level of education and empowerment is necessary to fulfill
equal protections and justice under law. That's why I promote that interpretation.

It can best be taught by teaching by example.
So when you teach history and interpretation/meaning of laws,
you are participating in this level of empowerment of people
accepting equal responsibility for govt. Thank you for that.

You prove this very point, of why interpretation is needed.
What we need is to make sure we are teaching the same thing.
We don't need govt abused to teach interpretations as law
that not all people agree is Constitutional.
Again, that's why it's better we resolve differences in advance,
and then after we reach agreement, then we work together
to make sure govt reflects the public policies we all agree represent us,
as a state or a nation, so we practice equal protection of all persons.

To "interpret" is to explain the meaning of words or actions. With every syllable in the Constitution, this is done in the Federalist Papers. If it is not there, it can't be interjected into interpretation by nine people in black robes... or at least, that's not how it's supposed to work. If it's not explained, it is left to the Congress of our elected representatives to determine based on what "we the people" tell them we want. If it pertains to something outside of their authority as outlined in Article I Sec. 8, it is for the people and their state to decide.

Clearly, we have gotten away from that but that's precisely how it was intended to be by our founders. This is the foundation and basis for Constitutional Conservatism. We've strayed from what the framers laid out and we continue to embark on a course of allowing the courts to "interpret" their own meanings when that was never the founding intent. To allow such "interpretation" is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless because it can simply be "re-interpreted" to mean anything we please.

 

[Onyx]

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!

Well you already failed your first test.

You should of dropped out of government education instead of hanging around like a dumbass.

 

[BULLDOG]

So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.

I think they've been operating contrary to the rules laid out in the constitution since Marbury v. Madison. Yes, in many cases they do effectively write law from the bench and that's NOT what the framers ever intended. We have a legislative branch for that.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to settle disputes over conflicting constitutional rights. The framers realized there would be instances where this could happen and they felt the most fair way to settle it was through a supreme court of the land.

So you agree that they are the final arbiters of what the constitution says. Their opinion of what it says is the overruling authority for what is constitutional or not, regardless of any other opinions.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!

I'm 34 and I still don't understand it............

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Not the best place to learn about government. School is the best place to learn how it works.

Not if he's in public school

 

[BULLDOG]

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution.

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.

So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.

Dear BULLDOG the Court can answer yes or no, yes this fits what is already written or established.
Or NO, the LEGISLATURE needs to take responsibility to rewrite what is rejected, not the judge or courts doing it, not the president or governor.

The problem is taking shortcuts.
If the judges/courts start assuming legislative authority, then some of their rulings are taken as law.

Such as rejecting abortion laws taken as establishing abortion as legal which requires the legislature to write out how to do that.

Just striking down something as constitutional or not does not have to go too far as "creating a right" or "establishing a law."

With marriage laws, for example, in both cases, with both bans, pro-traditional, or pro-same sex,
the SAME answer could have been given in all these: NO it is NOT constitutional for govt
to pick and choose to endorse ANY laws about marriage without the full consent of the citizens of that state.
so the court should REJECT any and all "contested" versions and proposals
and order the states to either REMOVE all of them, ENDORSE all choices equally,
or some other combination but WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL ITS CITIZENS so nobody argues there is bias.

the courts should have kicked marriage laws back to STATES to decide through its citizens how
to resolve their own conflicts in beliefs. And if any state refused to respect that inclusion,
then the court could order the state to be penalized as long as the order is constitutional, such forcing the state to disband any and all marriage laws policies
and benefits, or to relegate them to other institutions the citizens agree on, such as dividing by party, until the citizens agree on a policy that doesn't violate any of their beliefs but allows free and equal exercise of all them, together or separately, as long as it's agreed it's equal. if they can reach an agreement, that can be endorsed and implemented publicly. But if not, then whatever institutions they choose to use to operate separately, they agree to use those instead. (for example if the only language they agree to publicly is civil unions, then that's all the state is authorized to do)

Congress is certainly free to rewrite the laws any time they want, but those rewritten laws still have to pass the Supreme court's opinion if those laws are acceptable. Until they do rewrite those laws in a constitutionally acceptable way, The SC rulings are final. That's the way the founding fathers set it up. Sorry it doesn't work the way you want it to.

 

[BULLDOG]

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution.

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.

Boss, yes it does. Even when you are explaining the history, that is teaching "interpretation"

Whether we interpret right to life as meaning born people or people before birth, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret gun rights for people meaning law abiding citizens or any people at all, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret people being the govt and govt for the people as being a left wing or right wing relationship,
that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret "freedom of religion" as organized established religions only, ones in harmony
with laws or ones against, or including "political beliefs and creeds" equally as traditional religions,
that is an "interpretation"

I happen to interpret due process of laws and equal protections on a broader basis than a lot of people think about.
I interpret People as Government to mean we the people share responsibility for redressing our own grievances as equals
(as in the First Amendment, where people petitioning the government starts with people petitioning each other
because we are responsible for govt directly or indirectly)

Where we fall short of resolving our own issues and conflicts on policy directly among ourselves,
we start to lose or give up authority to outside sources we turn to to resolve our problems for us. Thus, we need to make sure we agree on this authority, and how much we are delegating. Not giving up all power unless we agree to that.

Thus the more we do for ourselves, the less we depend on outside govt to act as this third party.
we become more empowered as we do more of the work ourselves.

That takes a special interpretation of the First Amendment to apply to the power
of citizens to act equally as the people in govt, by free speech and press,
free exercise of religion or free will, and right to assemble and petition
as democratic/due process of law to resolve grievances objections conflicts wrongs or abuses
to establish an agreed policy or plan for reforms corrections and solutions.

But I believe that level of education and empowerment is necessary to fulfill
equal protections and justice under law. That's why I promote that interpretation.

It can best be taught by teaching by example.
So when you teach history and interpretation/meaning of laws,
you are participating in this level of empowerment of people
accepting equal responsibility for govt. Thank you for that.

You prove this very point, of why interpretation is needed.
What we need is to make sure we are teaching the same thing.
We don't need govt abused to teach interpretations as law
that not all people agree is Constitutional.
Again, that's why it's better we resolve differences in advance,
and then after we reach agreement, then we work together
to make sure govt reflects the public policies we all agree represent us,
as a state or a nation, so we practice equal protection of all persons.

Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.

The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution.

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.

Boss, yes it does. Even when you are explaining the history, that is teaching "interpretation"

Whether we interpret right to life as meaning born people or people before birth, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret gun rights for people meaning law abiding citizens or any people at all, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret people being the govt and govt for the people as being a left wing or right wing relationship,
that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret "freedom of religion" as organized established religions only, ones in harmony
with laws or ones against, or including "political beliefs and creeds" equally as traditional religions,
that is an "interpretation"

I happen to interpret due process of laws and equal protections on a broader basis than a lot of people think about.
I interpret People as Government to mean we the people share responsibility for redressing our own grievances as equals
(as in the First Amendment, where people petitioning the government starts with people petitioning each other
because we are responsible for govt directly or indirectly)

Where we fall short of resolving our own issues and conflicts on policy directly among ourselves,
we start to lose or give up authority to outside sources we turn to to resolve our problems for us. Thus, we need to make sure we agree on this authority, and how much we are delegating. Not giving up all power unless we agree to that.

Thus the more we do for ourselves, the less we depend on outside govt to act as this third party.
we become more empowered as we do more of the work ourselves.

That takes a special interpretation of the First Amendment to apply to the power
of citizens to act equally as the people in govt, by free speech and press,
free exercise of religion or free will, and right to assemble and petition
as democratic/due process of law to resolve grievances objections conflicts wrongs or abuses
to establish an agreed policy or plan for reforms corrections and solutions.

But I believe that level of education and empowerment is necessary to fulfill
equal protections and justice under law. That's why I promote that interpretation.

It can best be taught by teaching by example.
So when you teach history and interpretation/meaning of laws,
you are participating in this level of empowerment of people
accepting equal responsibility for govt. Thank you for that.

You prove this very point, of why interpretation is needed.
What we need is to make sure we are teaching the same thing.
We don't need govt abused to teach interpretations as law
that not all people agree is Constitutional.
Again, that's why it's better we resolve differences in advance,
and then after we reach agreement, then we work together
to make sure govt reflects the public policies we all agree represent us,
as a state or a nation, so we practice equal protection of all persons.

To "interpret" is to explain the meaning of words or actions. With every syllable in the Constitution, this is done in the Federalist Papers. If it is not there, it can't be interjected into interpretation by nine people in black robes... or at least, that's not how it's supposed to work. If it's not explained, it is left to the Congress of our elected representatives to determine based on what "we the people" tell them we want. If it pertains to something outside of their authority as outlined in Article I Sec. 8, it is for the people and their state to decide.

Clearly, we have gotten away from that but that's precisely how it was intended to be by our founders. This is the foundation and basis for Constitutional Conservatism. We've strayed from what the framers laid out and we continue to embark on a course of allowing the courts to "interpret" their own meanings when that was never the founding intent. To allow such "interpretation" is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless because it can simply be "re-interpreted" to mean anything we please.

The federalist papers are nothing more than negotiating points before a contract is signed. The contract, or in this case, the Constitution is all that matters. Sorry someone told you different. They were wrong.