The problem is that people refuse to read and understand the constitution. I just got done reading swallow try and explain why the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual one and have heard NUMEROUS times about how Obama understands the constitution because he was a constitutional scholar or some other such drivel so Obama care can't be unconstitutional. What everyone seems to fail to understand is that the constitution is not that complicated. you do not need to be a scholar to understand what the forefathers were attempting to create or to understand the simple language that it is written in. Application within the broader laws built on the constitution and the nuances of the many situations it can apply to may need far more education but as far as understanding the basics, it is not that difficult. Most of the constitution is written in pretty simple language. It is sad that people in this country need to be told what the constitution says and stands for by others instead of taking the personal responsibility in understanding it.
I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.
But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.
The Constitution explicitly advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.
And the standing army was never meant to be permanent. Of course the reality of the world changed both those ideals. And this is barely argued among conservatives. The most provocative modern argument was Eisenhower's admonishment about the corporate - military structure.
But when it comes to commerce and welfare, conservatives argue that there are extreme limits. The fact no such limits exist in the Constitution has conservatives yammering about "intent". The founders were "progressive" enough (Yes..Virginia, it was mostly Liberals that wrote the Constitution) to recognize that the state would grow and that a "template" that was broad in scope for governing was the only way to insure that the United States would be a lasting..and viable nation, for a long time.
I have no trouble with Federal limits on indivdual rights. But that is also something that neither argued about much, or, in fact trashed by Conservatives. Once they started defending the idea of "Enemy Combatants" and defending "Torture", any notion, that conservative defend the idea of indivdual liberty was dashed completely.
So in a nutshell, this is all about conservatives seeking to protect the wealthy and powerful businesses at the cost of the indivdual.
