Over the past few months I have been thinking more and more about the Constitution. I even took the time to read it word for word and I found a few things to be rather shocking.

For example, did you know that the constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state? The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t really sound like the “constitutional” principal of separation of church and state that is constantly being shoved down my throat. If you take the written word of the constitution literally and give equal weight to the full text, then it seems to me you can use the constitution to argue that a government cannot prohibit prayer before a high school football game since it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In short, the whole idea that an aggressively and exclusively secular government is somehow in keeping with the constitution seems really weird when you actually read the first amendment.

And the second amendment was also interesting. It says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Now I am in favor of gun rights, but its hard for me to see how personal ownership of a gun is a constitutionally protected right outside of the narrow parameters given in the constitution. Outside of a well regulated Militia, I just don’t see where the constitution gives people the right to own guns. That does not make it inherently illegal to own guns, but it doesn’t seem to be a constitutional issue to me if the person does not belong to a well regulated militia.

I could go on, but I hope you can see my point. While the words of the constitution do not change unless we go through a very difficult process, the intentions and legal protections of the constitution can change very easily. All it takes is an activist judge who wishes to usurp the role of the legislative branch and create laws from the bench.

With this in mind, I came to the conclusion that my preference is for judges who wish to interpret the law and not extend or alter laws on the book through their activist rulings. And this is why I have come to appreciate Justice Scalia so much.

If we allow our judges to assume the role of law makers, then we have politicized the judiciary to the point where it can no longer command the respect intended by the founding fathers or needed to execute their responsibility. Also, the thought of law makers with lifetime appointments who are no longer subject to the will of the people seems kinda scary and most certainly undemocratic.

I have read a few of your posts and I am impressed by your unaggressive stance in presenting your opinions. Please allow me to respond to some of your points.

On separation of church and state.

You only mention one of the two references to religion in our Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting a religion is merely the most well known. The other is that no religious test shall be required of anyone to hold or run for office. This precludes the spiritual litmus tests so prevalent in recent elections. Taken together, these two references make it quite clear that our government cannot respect one religion over another and that religion cannot play a deciding factor in our government is run. Prayer before football games is fine and has not been prevented. Forced prayer through an administration approved speaker, on the other hand, goes strictly against the idea that we cannot allow our government to approve one religion over another. The alternative would be to march representatives of each and every present religion up to the podium for their respective prayers before every game. If this sounds absurd, then we should allow even just one to present their own version of religion to the gathered fans? Nothing prevents those gathered fans from offering up their own prayers for the safety of the players or the desired outcome of the game. Why is it so important that government-funded speaker systems and stadiums be used to present a particular belief system's offering to their deity?


On gun ownership.

I find myself in much agreement with you on this point. I too don't really have a problem with gun ownership. I see nothing wrong with owning a typical gun, but I read nothing in the Constitution that protects the ownership of what would be considered military-grade assault weapons. Enforcement of existing laws and a rational approach to what constitutes a "big enough gun" seem the most logical approaches to solving the gun issue.