Have You Read the Constitution of the United States?

 

It’s a rhetorical question. I presume you all have, and many times over. And I presume you’ve all carefully read the Bill of Rights, and probably know the Second Amendment by heart. And so I assume that if you saw the following sentence, you’d know how it should be corrected: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon.”

You’d just whip out that red pen and get rid of the “upon,” wouldn’t you? Because you know what it actually says by heart, and that sounds wrong. It sounds wrong the way, “O say can you see, by the dawn’s early lightning” sounds wrong. It’s just not the way the lyrics go, and every Americans knows those lyrics by heart.

Well, I congratulate Donald Trump for his robust endorsement of something that sounds like the Second Amendment.

Screen Shot 2015-09-21 at 12.24.20

And I believe, based on that mistake, that he has rarely or never before read or thought deeply about the Second Amendment, because no one who has would make that mistake. I furthermore believe that no one in his employ proofread that position paper, or that the person who did was wholly incompetent.

That impresses me less than his endorsement of the Second Amendment.

What about you — impressed?

 

Published in Elections, General, Guns, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 60 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I don’t think he is fit to be President. Then again, neither was the guy there now.

    • #1
  2. John Hanson Coolidge
    John Hanson
    @JohnHanson

    Happy to see him endorse second amendment, I do notice that the second sentence is not in quotes, hence is a paraphrase of what the amendment means, so adding an unnecessary word destroys the beauty inherent in the phrase, but at least he says he supports it. However, as in all things the problem lies in the details, and I am not sure

    A) He means it or

    B) He in the unstated details doesn’t support something of the order of “… as long as they can show a need, and register their arms, and don’t buy too much ammo, etc. etc. etc.”

    I like a lot of what he says, but don’t believe he believes it.  I tend to think he is just telling us what we want to hear, in the finest progressive/liberal tradition and we have no information on what he would do in office, except by examining his record as a businessman, and that is not hugely encouraging.

    • #2
  3. Pony Convertible Inactive
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    He supported gun control in the past.  Now he is against it.  Where will he stand in the future?

    • #3
  4. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: I furthermore believe that no one in his employ proofread that position paper, or that the person who did was wholly incompetent.

    Let’s be fair. It’s not like Trump couldn’t write “stet, dammit!”

    • #4
  5. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Cheap shot Claire. The use of “period” at the end and the lack of quotes indicate it’s a paraphrase.

    • #5
  6. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Tommy De Seno:Cheap shot Claire.The use of “period” at the end and the lack of quotes indicate it’s a paraphrase.

    The issue isn’t whether it’s a paraphrase, it’s that only someone who hadn’t really thought about it would fail to find that jarring.

    You know you wouldn’t write it like that. Would you?

    • #6
  7. Chad McCune Inactive
    Chad McCune
    @ChadMcCune

    Claire, you can’t possibly mean that Sir Donald isn’t a learned student of the Constitution! He is, after all, the best student of American history in, like, forever, probably the most knowledgeable in any presidential field in history, and plus he knows so many of the greatest teachers—they all love him, you see—that he wouldn’t add a word to the Second Amendment without it being an intentional act of sagacious editorial discretion.

    • #7
  8. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    My job is to be a picker of nit so perhaps I would not have, but I’ll add that common colloquial writing would routinely have “upon” at the end of a sentence. Paraphrasing by definition puts a quote in the writer’s own terms, usually to make a point. The point here was to add some forcefulness to an argument. I don’t see this as a jarring error. The intention of the piece is persuasion.

    • #8
  9. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    There is much to like about his proposal from an emotional perspective. A lot of: yeah, guns, America! kind of stuff.

    The details are sketchy.

    a) The expanded background checks doesn’t specifically excluded personal liability for transactions between private citizens.

    b) The national concealed carry provision references drivers licenses. I do not believe inter state reciprocity of drivers licenses is federally mandated and there is no provision for a federally mandated concealed carry permit.

    The proposal appears much more off the cuff appeal to emotion than something grounded in sound Constitution understanding, especially where the 2nd and 10th Amendments are concerned.

    It is fun to cheer for this kind of stuff, but I don’t think he is helping his candidacy, the cause of federalism, etc.

    • #9
  10. John Penfold Member
    John Penfold
    @IWalton

    Did he actually say “period”   Given its recent history and his past positions,  does it  add credibility?

    • #10
  11. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Regarding deep thought on the 2nd Amendment I do not think there is anyone better versed in it than Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.

    His book The Sword and Sovereignty is the foremost tome on the subject of 2nd Amendment and militias. It is 2,300 pages and only available on CD-ROM and no, I haven’t read it – yet.

    I will be seeing him next week via video conference and if we have time will inquire his thoughts on Trump’s proposal, but I know the most of the answer he will offer.

    • #11
  12. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Tommy De Seno:My job is to be a picker of nit so perhaps I would not have, but I’ll add that common colloquial writing would routinely have “upon” at the end of a sentence.Paraphrasing by definition puts a quote in the writer’s own terms, usually to make a point.The point here was to add some forcefulness to an argument.I don’t see this as a jarring error.The intention of the piece is persuasion.

    To that end I think his proposal is effective.

    • #12
  13. Drusus Inactive
    Drusus
    @Drusus

    I’m sure he has people looking into the second amendment. Experts, really the best. He’s going to know so much about the second amendment by the time he’s President, it’ll make your head spin. It’s a lovely amendment, really, really nice.

    • #13
  14. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Tommy De Seno: My job is to be a picker of nit so perhaps I would not have, but I’ll add that common colloquial writing would routinely have “upon” at the end of a sentence.

    Absolutely it would — but this is our Constitution. He’s proposing to solemnly swear to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That’s the most serious undertaking imaginable, so why on earth would common colloquial writing be appropriate here? “Casual paraphrase” is fine if you’re a late-night comedian, but someone who’s running for president?

    Paraphrasing by definition puts a quote in the writers own terms, usually to make a point. The point here was to add some forcefulness to an argument. I don’t see this as a jarring error. The intention of the piece is persuasion.

    I don’t pretend to know the intention of the piece, but the effect that had on me was to offend. The Constitution has a quasi-sacred status in American life — or it should, in my view. We don’t have a national religion. That’s the document that binds us. I mean — that’s the Common Core, for real, isn’t it?

    And deep down, I don’t believe he’s read it very often. Because that would just sound wrong to anyone who has. Red pen, what-is-this wrong.

    • #14
  15. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    How would you reference the first amendment in a freedom-of-religion context? You have to paraphrase it.

    Adding “upon” also has a Google effect. Do a search for the the exact phrase the Donald uses: he is nearly 100% of the hits! (I don’t believe this is deliberate.) The three others in the first few pages are from patriots4america.com (similarly a paraphrase), some dialogue from a book, and a quote from a 19th century scholar in a law review article.

    I think you’re reaching on this one.

    • #15
  16. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    genferei:How would you reference the first amendment in a freedom-of-religion context? You have to paraphrase it.

    Adding “upon” also has a Google effect. Do a search for the the exact phrase the Donald uses: he is nearly 100% of the hits! (I don’t believe this is deliberate.) The three others in the first few pages are from patriots4america.com (similarly a paraphrase), some dialogue from a book, and a quote from a 19th century scholar in a law review article.

    I think you’re reaching on this one.

    I am not so sure the Google effect is not deliberate.

    For all his shortcomings, marketing isn’t one of them.

    • #16
  17. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Quasi-sacramental? That’s a bit emotional when describing a law. Although not a law, I ascribe more importance to the Declaration of Independence to define who we are.

    Also, is reading the document as important as you suggest? Like if or not, after 200 years of jurisprudence there is a lot more to read than the text to understand how the Constitution is being used or abused.

    • #17
  18. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    genferei:How would you reference the first amendment in a freedom-of-religion context?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Why would I have to paraphrase it? The way it’s written is critically important; I wouldn’t dream of paraphrasing it. 

    You have to paraphrase it.

    Adding “upon” also has a Google effect. Do a search for the the exact phrase the Donald uses: he is nearly 100% of the hits! (I don’t believe this is deliberate.) The three others in the first few pages are from patriots4america.com (similarly a paraphrase), some dialogue from a book, and a quote from a 19th century scholar in a law review article.

    I think you’re reaching on this one.

    Do you? I think that if my reaction is now considered an over-reaction, we’ve really lost something. We’re not a nation bound together by religion or ethnic group; we’re bound together by the ideas in that document.

    • #18
  19. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Tommy De Seno: Quasi-sacramental? That’s a bit emotional when describing a law.

    I used the phrase very deliberately. Yes, it is emotional. Consider the oath of enlistment:

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    The man taking that oath isn’t directly saying that he’ll fight and die for me, he’s saying he’ll fight and die to defend the Constitution of the United States. That’s the document that says, “This is us. This is what we will kill for. This is die for. This is what makes us Americans.

    It’s a pretty important thing for me. I assume to you, too.

    • #19
  20. Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr. Coolidge
    Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.
    @BartholomewXerxesOgilvieJr

    It’s not a question of whether he’s paraphrasing or quoting. He’s simply using the word “infringe” incorrectly: it’s a transitive verb and requires no preposition. Trump appears to be confusing “infringe” with “impinge,” which would properly be followed by a preposition.

    • #20
  21. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    The following is who we declared ourselves to be. It is the construct under which the Constituion was later written.

    The words themselves even make clear that governments are simply the contracts we make with one another to proceed plurally. This is what the Grovernment and its laws exist to serve, subordinate thereto, and what the soldier protects:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    • #21
  22. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    I’m not supposed to like split infinitives, but I can suggest no improvement on “To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

    • #22
  23. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    Tommy De Seno:Cheap shot Claire.The use of “period” at the end and the lack of quotes indicate it’s a paraphrase.

    The issue isn’t whether it’s a paraphrase, it’s that only someone who hadn’t really thought about it would fail to find that jarring.

    You know you wouldn’t write it like that. Would you?

    Perhaps. On the other hand what he wrote is exactly what many gun rights advocates wish the second amendment said. None of that well ordered militia stuff.

    • #23
  24. Man With the Axe Inactive
    Man With the Axe
    @ManWiththeAxe

    I don’t care too much about the “upon” but I trust Trump to carry out his “positions” even less than most politicians, because I don’t think he has thought about any issue, and therefore he doesn’t know what he thinks about them. There is no telling what he will do when confronted with the political push-back he will receive and the real-world consequences of his “positions.”

    He reminds me of Groucho at the end of this clip from “Room Service.” If you haven’t seen the film, the situation is that Groucho is the director of a play, and he and his actors have been overstaying in a hotel and have not had a meal for many days. He has promised the waiter a starring role in exchange for the meal.

    The whole clip is hilarious, but the point is Groucho’s line at the end.

    • #24
  25. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Claire,

    Unfortunately, I can not endorse your observation as the ultimate deal breaker on Trump. First, a quick check on various on-line dictionaries shows me that there is little difference in the modern meaning of “infringed” and “infringed upon”. In fact “infringed upon” has become such common usage that I suspect this was the cause of the mistake. Second, this level of precision is a requirement that the left wing MSM only enforces on right of center candidates/politicians. Left wing candidates/politicians can make the most grotesque gaffs and it’s barely a blip on the MSM newsworthy radar. Any conservative gaff is to be run over and over again for at least five to ten news cycles. In fact six months later a conservative gaff will still be raised as if it is some great sin. Meanwhile, HRC without question should have already been indicted. That she is still trying to Clinton her way through her little problem and continues to run for the Presidency of the United State is just astounding. Why isn’t her obvious behavior a total deal breaker for the MSM and demands for her to withdraw from the race immediately put forward. Instead it is being treated like the problem is her public persona (or lack of) not the fact of multiple Federal Felonies.

    You say tomato, I say tomaato.

    You say persona, I say super-ego.

    Tomato tomaato, persona super-ego, let’s call the whole thing off.

    (A version of the Cole Porter song sung by a Freudian and a Jungian out on a date.)

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #25
  26. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    genferei:How would you reference the first amendment in a freedom-of-religion context?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Why would I have to paraphrase it? The way it’s written is critically important; I wouldn’t dream of paraphrasing it.

    Is the “establishment of religion” part germane to today’s debate about freedom of religion? I’m not aware of Congress – or the executive in the name of Congress – threatening the established churches of any of the States (since there aren’t any, any more). Wouldn’t it be clearer to say “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion”?

    If word-perfect regurgitation is to be used as the basis for judging fitness for executive office I’m right behind you, since I know Ted Cruz has memorised the constitution. But I’m not sure this is, in fact, an appropriate shibboleth.

    • #26
  27. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    I’m with you on this one, Claire. To add one out of place word does not make the statement a paraphrase; it makes it a misquote.

    • #27
  28. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Step one: Dislike Trump.

    Step two: Offer lots of really good reasons for it.

    Step three: Get really frustrated that people don’t care about your good reasons.

    Step four: Offer a really stupid reason.

    Step five: Defend your stupid reason like crazy.

    Step six: Count up the votes you’ve gained for Trump.

    • #28
  29. Eustace C. Scrubb Member
    Eustace C. Scrubb
    @EustaceCScrubb

    Have You Read the Constitution of the United States?
    I was waiting for the movie. I think it will be YUUUUUGE.

    • #29
  30. Autistic License Coolidge
    Autistic License
    @AutisticLicense

    All he meant was he isn’t gonna put a fringe on it.  Duh!

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.