How do you read the Constitution of the United States?

When asked why certain things I would find to be socialist policies are allowed under the Constitution of the United States, most Liberal Progressives always cite either the "Commerce Clause" or the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of Article 1, Section 8. Tonight, I spoke to someone who claimed both of those clauses in defense of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare,” Social Security, Medicaid, and Public Education. This person happened to be a lawyer and wanted to cite case law to me.

This was my response:

Well, I'm not an attorney and I won't be citing any case law. I'm a simple man and a Soldier, who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

Because of that oath, I take time on occasion to read the Constitution of the United States. I believe upon reading it that it was written for the common people of the United States, and doesn't require a lot of interpretation for what is hidden between the lines.

I'm also an architect, husband and father, avid reader of the Bible and a child of God. I consider myself one of the common people of the United States of America.

So, here is what I see:

The Commerce Clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Regulation of commerce is much different to the common man than directing you to buy something. Regulating something means you control how it is done when someone chooses to do it, but it doesn't mean you force them to do it. I also fail to see how this could apply to "Social Security. And Medicaid. And public education."

The Necessary and Proper Clause: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Laws must be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution powers which are actually delineated within the Constitution of the United States. According to a common man interpretation, Congress doesn't have the power to create "hoop-dee-do" Laws at will. The foregoing Powers fail to mention forcing an individual to purchase anything. They also fail to mention "Social Security. And Medicaid. And public education." Or Healthcare Insurance. "All other Powers vested by this Constitution" fail to mention those things either.

And then there is Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It seems pretty simple really. Well, until you involve those seeking power and attorneys; but I repeat myself. (Apologies to Mark Twain) I'll add that I doubt seriously anyone would have fought a war for independence from a single king only to establish a government with 545 potentates....

What Really Is Radical?

So apparently at the end of 2012, a Georgetown University professor of Constitutional Law had an opinion editorial published in the New York Times titled, "Let's Give Up on the Constitution." I almost never read the New York Times, probably because I'm not sophisticated. I'm not a professor and I'm definitely not a Constitutional scholar. I have read the Constitution though and find it very simple. I'm not sure that I really need a professor to explain it to me. Sure, there are a few words in it that I must look up, but I find using the dictionary to acquire the true meaning behind words rather educational. Even though I find the Constitution simple, I find it radical at the same time. More about that later.

Anyway, this professor, his name is Louis Michael Seidman. I'm not sure why any mention of him always includes his middle name. Maybe all Georgetown University professors use their middle name. I always thought using a middle name was only done for serial killers. Maybe his desire to kill the U.S. Constitution isn't the first time he's exhibited this type of behavior toward a nation's Supreme Law. Anyway, I came across an image of him, superimposed with a quote, supposedly from him. I cannot really be sure he said it. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. I did read his op-ed though, and although the quote was not in it, upon the basis of what was published, it does sound like something he could have said. Here's the photo:

Based on what I read, I decided to dissect the three sentences, just off the top of my head. This is what I came up with...

I've got a simple idea - Yeah, the Constitution is actually a pretty simple idea. We'd be better off if more people, including Politicians read it and followed it to the letter of the law.

Let's give up on the Constitution. - And replace it with what? As I said, it's really a pretty simple document founded on the notion that "We, the People" control the government and when you think about it, that's actually the best way to establish a government.

I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not... - Actually, "We, the People" ordaining and establishing a Constitution with the sole purpose of instituting a "new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" sounded radical in 1776 and 1787. It still sounds radical today in 2013. If it wasn't radical, you wouldn't want to fight so hard against it. And since you admit, your idea is really not radical, then I really don't want to hear much more about it....

Because to me,

the best ideas ARE simple AND radical....

*Having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, thus my dismissive attitude toward the professor’s stance to “Give Up on the Constitution”....