Comments on: The Constitution Pledge

By: Humbling Presidents Under the Law | Evangelical Political Scholars Association

Sun, 12 Sep 2010 01:57:24 +0000

[...] that would be inspired with biblical wisdom, and they have posted it at First Things, “The Constitution Pledge” (Sept. 8, 2010). It was the duty of the Old Testament kings of Israel to administer justice [...]

By: Proposal: Presidential Candidates Submit Handwritten Copy of Constitution

Proposal: Presidential Candidates Submit Handwritten Copy of Constitution — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:02:02 +0000

[...] in a blog post on the First Things website, Corbin and Parks reveal a proposal that “each 2012 presidential candidate … adopt the [...]

By: Jim Blackstone

Jim Blackstone — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:52:40 +0000

Israel begged God for an earthly leader (king.) God warned them they wouldn’t like it, and made his point when he gave them Saul as their first one. In Deuteronomy, God makes the point that the law had a special purpose to reign in a lawless king. Our Constitution has a similar purpose to reign in government.

By: BackwardsBoy

BackwardsBoy — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:41:07 +0000

I think this is a great idea. Our current President seems blissfully unaware of the Constitution and the limits it places on the power of the government to intrude into the everyday lives of Americans. Both he and the country would benefit.
We should also require judges to do the same. Even better would be to have them pass a test on Consitutional principles (not case law). There seems to be some confusion and ambiguity shown in recent decisions such as the recent case of police officers who attached a tracking device to a suspect’s vehicle without first obtaining a search warrant. Needless to say, the law should be clear and applied equally to all, but there is a trend away from the Consitution and towards whatever the judge thinks it says.
Our Constitution was written so as to be easily understood by everyone. Judges who misinterpret the law should be removed from the bench.

By: Joules

Joules — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:43:38 +0000

That sounds like a good idea. The silence and discipline involved in that assignment would be good preparation, too.

I’m not sure the Queen was all that impressed with her iPod.

By: Jonah

Jonah — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:48:08 +0000

I do find this quite reasonable, but it seems to me unless a great emphasis was put on it, the candidate would simply get an assistant or a secretary to hand write the document, and the candidate would just affix his name to it. Of course, perjury is not the best way to start the presidency, but it’s not like that’s a big defeater anymore.

Perhaps they need to stream themselves live while they write to keep them accountable?

I like the proposition.

By: straughner

straughner — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:26:56 +0000

“The word “judgment” does not have an “e” between the “g” and the “m,” whether you like it or not.”

Or perhaps it does: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/judgement?view=uk

By: Joe DeVet

Joe DeVet — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:16:41 +0000

This common-sense suggestion will of course never come to pass. Because it makes too much logical sense.

In my opinion, the president has already committed impeachable offenses by arrogating power to himself that no president is supposed to have. How can he fire the CEO of a publicly-traded corporation (GM?) How can he “plug the damn hole”? Who gave him leave to bully BP into handing him a $20B slush fund to dole out according to his political preferences? Who gave him the power to flout the law, then harrass those who try to enforce it, say in Arizona? Who empowered him to lie at every turn about what he was doing with health care?

The name of the offenses he has committed against the Constitution he swore to uphold, in less than half the first term, is Legion.

By: R Hampton

R Hampton — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:44:58 +0000

The Constitution needs to be understood as the Founders did. Thus every Presidential candidate ought to read each every Federalist Paper. Numbering eighty-five in total and authored by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, these papers were presented to the people as both explanation of, and persuasive argument for, the ratification of the Constitution in the face of strong opposition from the anti-Federalists (Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, James Monroe, et al.):

The Federalist No. 1
Introduction
Independent Journal
Saturday, October 27, 1787
[Alexander Hamilton]

…I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: — The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity — The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union — The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object — The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government — Its analogy to your own state constitution — and lastly, The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole…

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm

By: Barry Arrington

Barry Arrington — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:30:34 +0000

What would be the point of this exercise? Thanks to our lawless courts, constitutional law is not tethered to the text of the document. Indeed, activist judges have sometimes interpreted the document to proscribe that which it very clearly permits.
Perhaps the idea would have some merit if we were to clean our judicial house.