Let's start with Mr. Prezident, George W. Bush.

Many congresspeople know the Constitution thoroughly. They have to because if they don't know what's in it, they can't figure out ways to make it void. But there are quite a few who have no idea what it's about. These are the same kinds of people as Georgia's 8th District congressman Republican Lynn Westmoreland. He wants the Ten Commandments posted in every federal building, courtroom, school room, and bedroom in America. But he made a famous appearance on the Colbert Report in June where Colbert asked him to name the Ten Commandments. Westmoreland could NOT list even ONE of them.

Some of the comments made by Obama likewise demonstrate poor understanding of the constituion and bill of rights. It goes both ways Agki.

When ever I hear, follow the law, follow the constitution, I want to say, follow what is right, first and formost.

A well known radio talk show host is always talking about the need to obey the law. A few months ago he was singing the praises of a man who landed an airplane on a public road, saving the life of himself and those in the plane with him.

I called his show to tell him, that what this person did, according to his values is wrong because it broke the law. Landing an airplane on a public road is illegal in Utah.

He ripped into me. He knew what I was getting at. Poking at his insistance that we follow the law period.

When ever someone says we must ALWAYS follow the law and the constitution, I gently remind them, that at one time, both of these allowed slaves.

Use common sense. Follow what is right.

Agki,

I enjoyed the example you posted, but what does it have to do with the Constitution. Amendment 1 says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids Government from placing religious symbols where ever they want. Unless Government is classified as a religion, it can do whatever it wants to promote religion; however, it can NEVER in any way at any time prohibit you or me or anyone else the right to worship as we please. It cannot at any time in any way pass any law respecting an establishment of religion.

Some Democrats have a different view. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, would use the full authority of the Government to squash and squelch the FLDS in Texas. Is not that "making a law respecting an establishment of religion"? How about the Branch Davidians in Texas? Didn't the Government pass a "de facto" law against them by sending the FBI in? That "law" cost the lives of those people who were practicing their religion.

(Hopefully Westmoreland has taken the time to study the 10 Commandments.)

Everyone seems to forget our government is one of checks and blanaces, hence the legislative, judicial and executive branches. They balance each other out. As different people in different times fill those roles, they are supposed to govern according to the constitution first and foremost, but it is impossible for an individual in any capacity to completely subjigate who they are and focus in a vaccuum on one thing. You always bring some of who you are to the game. This means that one good thing is that we get government more representative of our time, but also that we do move away and back toward again, the constitution as exactly it may have been intended. But that is actually the beauty of what the founding fathers did. They put into place a government that is not so rigid as to never be able to change and adapt somewhat at least to the needs of the people. It can be suberted somewhat, but checks and balances and the constitution itself ensure we will never have a dictator and that we will never stray far from the basic tenets of our freedoms as outlined in the constitution. So get over it.

I can assure you that most of your representatives have read and understand the Constitution. The problem isn't that they haven't read it recently enough, it's that most of these guys are Lawyers who feel it is their personal right and responsibility to find the most obtuse and contrived logic possible to twist and bend the WORDS in the Constitution without any regard to their more obvious intent.

Activist Judges are the best at this twisting, turning and spinning the Constitution and sometimes it just drives me crazy.

The best example I can think of... How do you get a SPLIT DECISON among SUPREME COURT JUSTICES (who are supposed to be the EXPERTS on intrupretting the Constitution) when mearly trying to inturpret the simple words, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

It's obvious that even the Supreme Court Justices (who's whole job is to non-politically inturpret the Constitution) are also caught up in the politicaly partisan atmosphere in our capitol. Without the blinders that come with a political agenda, how is it hard to inturpret those simple words?

If the can't understand those simple words consistently, how do we expect them-to-be-impartial-on-the-more-complex-issues-brought-before-them

The writer commits the common error of confusing a governmental system with an economic system, socialism. Workings of the US economy are, in fact, not described in the Constitution at all. The use of "socialism" really indicates a tendency to fall back on conservative "buzz words" intended to make us angry. Our country is thoroughly dominated by private enterprise and its pervasive influence on government. The writer should have simply listed how she feels we are mis-governed, because when things go wrong, we ALL become socialists.

Mark B | 9:27 a.m. either hasn't read the Constitution or conveniently decides to ignore what is in it. He says, "Workings of the US economy are, in fact, not described in the Constitution at all".

I think economic system restrictions ARE there. The Constitution clearly states that we have the right to PRIVATE ownership of land, property and businesses (sort of precludes the Socialist and Communist paradigms).

The Constitution also precludes many GOVERNMENTAL practices required to adopt a Socialist a Communist paradigm, but he was only talking about the economic system, so we won't go there today.

I think it would take a major overhaul of the Constitution (or at least a lot of Supreme Court Judges willing to bend over backwards in order to mis-inturpret the Constitution) for us to change to a Socialist economy or a Communist government.

Unless we completely disregard the Constitution, there is almost no chance of the United States actually becoming a Communist regime or adopting the basic tenants of a fully "Socialist" economic system.

I'm not saying many in the United States wouldn't choose to go that way. I'm just saying they would have to get rid of the Constitution first.

Elsie, I read the Constitution differently from you. I see a clause about we the people promoting the "general welfare" and, for me, this means helping each other. For you, I guess the welfare clause isn't there.

to Mr. 10:49 So we're actually in agreement, kind of. We both say that REAL socialism has no chance in the US. The writer brought up the term, not me, but she did it in a way that suggested that she just didn't like the way things are going and fell back on "socialism" as a catch-all "evil" term. Gosh, you think it's possible for CAPITALISTS to unjustly exploit their victims, I mean, customers? Let's call Halliburton and ask.

"Other countries are envious of our form of government and the freedom that we enjoy, but we, ourselves, are departing more and more from the way it was intended to be with each election, going to a more socialistic form of government."

This writer as no faith in his country. No party before Bush as taken away more of our freedoms. Conservatives live in a dreamland were budgets get balanced on credit.

As this writer notice there is no influx from Canada, Germany, the UK and others? Sorry, dude. I had more freedom in Europe. The least amount of freedom I've lived in was in Utah.

Seeing freedom in Europe made me want to return here and work to return freedom to Americans. This is my country.

Elsie, I would love to hear your definition of socialism. Where would we be without our 'socialistic' highway and street systems, water, garbage pick-up, Medicare and Social Security, public education, etc.?

I suppose you would love to fund these to the extent of your use all by yourself.

"Helping each other" does NOT require a "Socialist Economy".

I don't think common welfare is precluded in capitolism, nor does it require Socialism.

Communities that HELP each other are NOT required to be Socialilst. Helping each other doesn't have to have anything to do with the government nor the economic paradigm.

The constitution does NOT prevent us from helping each other.

There is a big difference between helping each other and adopting a Socialist politico-economic model of social organization described by Karl Marx as the transitional stage between Capitolism and Communism.

Educated people learn to test there results. If A+C=B then A=B-C. Utahan don't realize their history. The United Order and ZCMI. The Church was the government in Utah. My point is, socialism never lasts. We are a culture of ownership.

If you asked where has socialism lasted; your next question might be were has capitalism lasted without being regulated? The truth is a middle ground.

There is no church in America that can care for even homeless veterans. Starvation is a workable solution. It's worked in India. They have wagons pick up the corpses every morning.

There has been some socialism in Europeans nations for 140 years. All European nations are free markets. It would be a logical observation that Karl was wrong about socialism being transitional.

Das Kapital isn't the final truth. Marx also said revolution would start in an industrial society like England. Russia was a poor agrarian society. Karl was wrong there to. Why hold up Marx? This proves you know nothing about the topic.

Read about the US economy in 1893 with unregulated capitalism. Back in the good old days when workers commonalty died working.

Old One | 12:38 p.m.
Look up "Socialism" on the internet. Google it to get a variety of sources but Wikipedia is usually pretty neutral, correct and up to date source. Read the definition and then come back.

Socialism is NOT the example you guys keep putting out there (ie, helping each other, DOT, Police, Fire, etc). You can have all of these things listed in any environment (including Capitolism).

Think about all the countries, political systems, economic philosophies, etc that have police departments, fire departments, roads, etc... Having these does NOT mean you live in a "Socialist" system.

Wikipedia describes "Socialism" as the intermediate step between Capitolism and Communism (not the mear having of a police department).

To me, that means it isn't a permanent place where you stay. It is a "Step" on the way to one or the other. I don't want to take that step towards Communism in hopes that we realise what we're doing in time and take the next step back in time.

Could you please define "capitolism" for me? Does it have something to do with favoring large domed buildings?

You people need to get over yourselves. We do live under an inspired Constitution but not everything in the Constitution is inspired. It's the underlying principles of the Constitution that are inspired. It is these that we should defend.

There are many who give the Constitution the status of scripture and have therefore mingled philosophies of men with scripture. I also believe that many of the changes to the Constitution are inspired and that God has had to work through people today to bring about his work and his glory because the Founding Fathers failed to do so and did not heed his counsels.

@ 4:35,

The fact remains that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It can be changed and it has been changed. That process is possible. When enough people agree that something is obsolete or that something needs to added, the process works.

To allow a judge or a small group of judges, other than the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution and to make new law based on "their" personal interpretation of the Constitution is wrong.

We, the people, have the right to expect the law to apply as it is written, not as it is interpreted. If people disagree on the interpretation of the law, they can sue and the Supreme Court can clarify, just as it did with the 2nd Amendment this year. Because of that decision, the ambiguity that existed in some people's minds, is gone.

Think of the consequences to society if each judge ruled according to his conscience instead of according to written law. Our society would be in chaos and the rule of law would end.

That General Welfare statement is in the introduction.

PLease shows us an article or an admendment with "General Welfare" in it.

The articles and the admendements are tha actual by laws of the republic.

General welfare is just one the reasons for the articles and admendments that follow.

However it is article and admendments that govern this land not the introduction.

YOu will find in the constitution NO article or admendment talking about education or healthcare or many of the things the government has gotten it's dirty hands in.

That's the REAL problem. Government involved in things it should NOT be involved in.