Introductory lesson: on absurdities and the nature of a Constitution

These days, I find myself absolutely glued to the discourse on online political forums. Every once in a while, a savvy poster will emerge to share a glistening nugget of information, a real diamond of insight. Yet more often than not, well, I'm left shrugging off or laughing out loud ('lol'-ing) over all the absolute absurdities. Maybe that's the draw to the forums: I get to holler and hoot privately, without the least bit of politically correct reserve, at those who are on the lower ends of the gap. It's liberating.

At any rate, these days sadly make that gap appear to be the natural byproduct when We the Masses consider our Constitution. Hands either pump the air to claim a victory, or they bury a face in wrenching shame for the witnessed and utter stupidity of your fellow, voting countryman. Did he really just say that the Constitution hands the government a blank check? Really? Isn't that antithetical and oxymoronic (with emphasis on 'moronic') to the whole idea of a Constitution?

You bet it is. It's an absolute anomaly. Again I say it's an absurdity. By the sheer logic of definition, a document that provides checks and balances on a government can't be empty and totally lacking of said checks and balances. Shocking, I know, but take your time to regather yourself. By all means, do.

A limited government can't be limitless, and the rule of law can't be substituted without lawful process. No matter the supposed 'better ideas'--the 'up-to-date' and cosmopolitan reasonings--of men. To borrow from Madison, not one of us is an angel, not even our President. So the rule of law limits and guides men.

We want to close the achievement gap. We want fist pumps only for real victories. We want you to be more logical when you talk about the Constitution.

Welcome to class.