The process of writing our constitution was painstakingly debated because words mean things. When you choose words it is important they reflect the meaning you intend so it is no wonder there is a concerted effort underfoot to change the meaning of words and history by the enemies of our constitution, and it is happening every day, every chance they get.
Take for instance the president and secretary of state discussing our right to “freedom of worship” as opposed to right to “the free exercise of religion” as stated in the constitution. At first glance they may seem similar but freedom to worship is not the same as freedom of religion. There are many religions that define the terms of how they worship therefore free to practice their religion. Freedom to worship is not religion specific and taken to the next step could be defined by the government since it is not tied to religion. For some this may seem trivial but for thinking individuals it is the difference between protecting their religion and losing their religion.
Words and phrases slightly altered can be the difference of a free people and a people governed through tyranny. The first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The choice of the words our founders used is clear to the intent of this amendment. But these words have been turned upside down to argue that no religious mention can happen in a public building. You tell me where those words are found in this amendment?
The second amendment states:
“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.”
One of the most challenged amendments of the first ten clearly stated protects the individual right to keep and bear Arms. It is often argued that this right is tied to being in a militia which its opponents equate to the military. But the definition of militia, is not the military. In the context of the day, a “militia” was every “ordinary citizen’s” responsibility to protect the state. It was independent of an organized military as we have today. So when it is stated a well regulated “militia”, they are not talking about the military, they are talking about “ordinary citizens”. To make it even clearer they added, “the right of the people…” It was as if they could see into the future.
In order to challenge this amendment its opponents have resorted to distorting the meanings of the words and phrases as well as ignored the context of the time.
Words make up the foundation of our constitution and were chosen with particular care. We can’t ignore the meaning of words, or when they are tied to other words and phrases, and we can’t ignore the context and meaning of words at the time they were written.
That is why the enemies of our constitution are always trying to breathe “life” into the document, arguing it is living. It is why the constitution’s enemies are always trying to evolve the meanings of words to meet their goals to undermine constitutional law, and it is why we need to remember; words mean things, and to never forget the context they were written in so we can protect the constitution…
Our freedom and future depend on our understanding of history…
Latest posts by Rich Hand (see all)
- Taking Credit for America’s Engine? - July 27, 2012
- The Supreme Court is Invalidating the Founder’s Intent - April 5, 2012
- The Constitution and the Founders - December 28, 2011