Forum Post: The Constitution

Lets get a dialog on this because too often by ignorant folks i hear that the constitution is vague in it's meaning and was intended to be a "blueprint" or a "living, breathing document". This is not true at all. As Madison, its writer has said,

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government". – James Madison

We also know that when we want to actually know what the terms and words in it, like "regulate commerce", "general welfare", we need not look any further that the Federalist Papers. Why only the Federalist Papers? Because when Madison and his boys were sending it to various state ratifying conventions, the states would write him back asking questions as to what he really meant by certain phrases.....So Madison, Hamlton and John Jay wrote a serious of anonymous, at the time, papers defending the Constitution and the language in the document meant. So when people say we can "regulate" commerce they need to know what regulate meant to Madison, it mean to "make regular", not to make any law for any reason about anything that crossed a state border. If you want answers, read the Federalist Papers. These were the source for the states and what helped convince them to ratify it. So when we ask what the document means, we pretty much know. And we were given an outlet to change the document...called the amendment process, and we have ignored it and illegally subverted the true rule of law. If the government cant follow its own rules, why should citizens?