Constitution (imho)

 I was told yesterday that the constitution didn't mention women or the lgbtq+ community. Now I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination so I did a bit of research and reading on that topic. As with every topic involving opinion the data/proof covered the entire range. I did find one article that satisfied my understanding of the question and went with that in my response. While doing so I was aware that all of that hinges upon opinion and that interested me as well. It's the question of interpreting what the document actually says, apparently the purview of scholars, something I take issue with. I don't believe you have to have a college degree to understand what was written. In fact, it's my feeling that it may become a hindrance to that as you may possess too much information. Too much information can cause a person to overthink the situation, or the text. 

 It needs to be understood that it took five years and nine months to write and ratify the Constitution. Yes, it took that long. For that reason alone, I believe it is safe to say the wording of that document was very carefully selected. It is my belief they meant exactly what they wrote down. You only need to understand the terminology to understand the document. The meaning and usage of words certainly change over time and so must be taken in the context of time. When the writers of that document mention the "people" they mean all the people, both types, male and female. They were the only choices at that time. There was a great deal of debate concerning how the government would function, a government for the people, by the people. They meant, everyone. Was this government to be based on property(wealth) with those people controlling legislation of laws or was it to be the people. The people are what was chosen. Then they got into the counting of those people and the infamous 3/5 rule came into play. That rule pertained to slaves, but all slaves not just black slaves, and they all counted as only 3/5 of a person, including male and female. 

 So, yes women are indeed included in the constitution. As far as any mention of a person sexuality that wasn't pertinent to government. So no, it wasn't mentioned at all. Everyone was counted as a person regardless of any of that. As was explained in the article I read the bill of rights extended to everyone, male and female. Although women were denied some rights by legislation, ie: the right to vote, they were still protected by the rights in the bill of rights. How can you say they weren't included in the constitution when they did enjoy the protection of those rights? All the lgbtq+ people were included as well. No rights were denied anyone for their sexual orientation. The only time it was an issue is when actions were performed contrary to the law, not the constitution. 

 You have to remember they are separate things altogether. The supreme court has the final opinion! The congress has the final say! That is important to understand. The supreme court issues an opinion, but congress has the final say. The congress has the means to alter that opinion by means of a constitutional amendment. The court may also change its' opinion. That's the reason for all the bickering about appointment of judges, term limits, and all of that. Amendments to the constitution are rare for a reason, you just don't change opinions that easily. You could say the supreme court sets the moral compass of the country. That's why it is an opinion. In my opinion what you are doing is morally wrong but you may hold a different opinion on that. The very reason there was no establishment of religion in our constitution. Religion concerns morality and the constitution doesn't address that at all, only legality. We all agree that slavery as an institution is morally wrong. It took the United States 89 years to include that in our constitution with the passing of the 13th amendment. No where in the constitution did it ever say holding slaves was legal. Frederick Douglas said, "If the Constitution were intended to be by it's framers and adopters a slave-holding instrument then why would neither slavery, slave-holding nor slave be anywhere found in it?" It was a moral issue and abolished. Indeed, some wanted to abolish that practice when composing the constitution, but those holding slaves had strong objections to that for the obvious reason. A compromise was reached with that infamous 3/5 rule. As I said, you have to remember this took a total of five years and nine months to write and ratify. Lots of compromises were made. 

 Well, I'm no scholar of the constitution but I have read it several times and keep a copy of it on my desk. It's my feeling the words and phrasing were very carefully selected. When they said, arms, they meant weapons. Not just muskets but all firearms of any type whatsoever. Yes, legislation has been introduced and passed restricting certain "arms" from general sale to the public. Fully automatic weapons were banned for sale to the general population in 1934. The reason was the criminals were using them and the police department didn't have those. Seemed reasonable enough. Take the automatic weapons away from the criminals and only law enforcement would have them. That was the thinking on that anyway, hasn't exactly worked out that way though. Funny thing about criminals, they don't care about the law. But the supreme court hasn't changed its' opinion. The reason for that is easy to understand, it is because of what that amendment says, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So, the question comes down to regulations. How much can we regulate something before it becomes an infringement? 

 The supreme court issued an opinion that burning the American flag is a guaranteed right under the first amendment. Thirty years ago, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of imposing additional penalties for a hate crime. So, the court's opinion is now, if I burn a Gay pride flag or a BLM banner or say something antisemitic, that is a hate crime and subject to prosecution. If I burn the American flag that is a right protected by free speech. It's a moral opinion don't you think? It addresses what we hear an awful lot about today, being offended. Those other groups are offended when I burn their flags or banners and that is wrong. I'm not offended when you burn my flag. That's what the courts' opinion is now. 

 The constitution, in my opinion, is quite clear about what they meant to say. I think it is wrong to start reading between the lines. It may further your cause to change the opinion of the court but that doesn't mean your opinion is correct. Amendments to the constitution come about out of necessity. Remember the 18th amendment? What was the intent of that? It was a moral decision. Interestingly it didn't outlaw the consumption of alcohol only the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. Didn't stop the criminals only increased the crime. It was repealed later on, the moral question being resolved with, they are going to do it anyway. The constitution was never intended as a statement of national morality. The biggest mistake being made today is in viewing it in that fashion. That isn't what it is. What it is, is the framework for a republic. A republic of the people. The people make the moral choices, the government provides the punishment for violating those moral choices.