laurir (11/06/82)
A variety of groups claim that more than just the 13th amendment to the
Constitution (which prohibits "involuntary servitude") is presently being
misinterpreted. For example,
-- gun enthusiasts and the 2nd amendment ... it's one thing to determine
that the majority of Americans favor some form of gun control (although
the recent defeat of Proposition 15 in liberal California leaves that
in doubt), it's another to claim that the supreme Law of the Land allows
*any* form of gun control. The wording is, "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." It's hard to
see how one might parse that, or selectively interpret individual
words, to justify an ordinance regulating ownership of handguns.
[Note to flamers: this is not to say that I necessarily support
ownership of handguns, just that I see no basis for denying it.]
-- hard currency fanatics and paper money. Article I, section 8,
provides that Congress has "the right to coin money ...", but at
the time the definition of "to coin" provided only for hard metal
coins, not bank notes. In fact, there were arguments in support
of the Constitution during the federalist/anti-federalist debates
which lauded the fact that the government would be forever prohibited
from printing paper money.
-- tax revolters and the income tax. The 16th amendment says "The
Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." But at
the time that it was passed, "income" meant what is now referred
to as "unearned income", that is, it specifically disincluded
wages and salaries.
Perhaps the entire Constitution should be rewritten in a nice,
unambiguous mathematical notation, to preclude a multitude of
interpretations.
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!teklabs!tekmdp!laurir)