Return to TedGuy's Topics
The purpose of the U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, were to set forth certain principles that would ensure the highest quality of life for everyone. While these principles are generally well articulated, they were set forth without the past 204 years of legal experience in preventing loopholes (an art that, even so, is far from being perfected). And enforcement of anything-be it federal law or the rules of a card game-is always easier when done by the letter rather than by the intent.
Let's start with the First Amendment. Considering that our nation was founded on the basis of freedom of beliefs, it's quite clear that Washington, Franklin and associates wanted to allow political dissent. Certainly they didn't intend to legalize child pornography or to incite violence. But "freedom of speech" has become a buzz phrase anyone can yell out when the right to be self-serving is threatened.
The second amendment guarantees us the "right to bear arms." Why is the phrase that introduces that right ignored? As I see it, whether you are for or against gun control, there is no constitutional right for individuals to own guns for sport, hunting, or even self-protection. The Second Amendment clearly states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What this says is that, in the absence of an army or law-enforcement organization, the citizenry must be guaranteed the right to maintain weapons to take up arms against a common threat-not a four-point buck and certainly not a group of elementary school children or postal workers.
Rules are set forth to ensure consistency in enforcement of certain concepts. The more clearly defined the rules are, the less opportunity there is for interpretation and individual judgment, because individual judgment is risky. The problem is, those who write the rules can't foresee every situation that might apply. In these cases, individual judgment is necessary to enforce the intent of the rule.
This problem extends well beyond the academic debates of constitutionality. Rule-following has become a complex and arduous task for all of us. Meaning is lost among interpretation. Details overtake content.
We've all heard horror stories of citizens who have been caught in the trap of complying with the intent of the law, only to be penalized for violating the letter of it. Sort of a Catch-22.
It may be naive of me to even consider it, but I wonder if laws could be written with more explanation of the intent and less of the complicated language meant to cover loopholes . It might save a lot of anguish and technical malfunctions. And a lot of paper.
Return to TedGuy's Topics