Can You Read the Constitution?

Pastor Robert Engelhardt continues to challenge our worldview. This time he spoke concerning how impossible it is for us to understand God when His thoughts, at the lowest level, stand far above the most intelligent of us. Here is what God's Word says in Isaiah 55:8-9; 8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Most of us are not attorneys and are not high university level educated, so reading comprehension drops remarkably when we experience that level of writing. Take, for instance, the Constitution of the United States. Consider this.

The Federalist Papers, published in New York City during 1787 and 1788, hold many of today’s population hostage. First because few comprehend the language used and secondly because the educational system in place today removes the necessity of understanding how the United States of America came into existence. Since we (used in the general all-inclusive sense) comprehend it not, we leave the knowledge and use of it to an elite faction bent upon destroying the system promoted by it. Bear with me for a moment while I introduce you to the expertise of the writers of these papers.

Here is the opening paragraph of Paper No. 1.

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind. This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

For an understanding of the reading level represented here, check the chart below, which came from a “readability” website using the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score.

“Your score is 30.2. That's really hard going. Your grade is about 12, which is at the same reading level as the Harvard Law Review. Chances are, you could do a few things to simplify it.”

“And if you're wanting a little more detail your Gunning FOG score is 22.7, and your SMOG score is 15.6.”

Grade	Score	Reading age	Which is like
4	100+	9 to 10	This sign
5	90	10 to 11	Most comic books
6	80	11 to 12	Harry Potter
7	70	12 to 13	Large chunks of The Writer's website
8	65	13 to 14	Many of Obama's speeches
9	60	14 to 15	BBC news website
10	50	Start of college (high school)	The Financial Times
11	40	End of college	Most of William Shakespeare
12	30	University	Harvard Law Review

If you found the introductory paragraph somewhat bewildering, check out this single sentence found in a paragraph of Federalist Papers #46 published on Jan 29, 1788.

“…That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted (sic)succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism….”

By now we should have an appreciation for the education level of those founding fathers engaged in writing not only the Federalist Papers, but also the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. They were intelligent men with training in rhetoric, language, history, law and religion. They were not common colonial folk. When we look at the Preamble to the Constitution it ranks a score of 9.3. This remains in the 12th grade reading level. The entire document reads at the collegiate level or above, but there are interesting segments. Taken by themselves, the Bill of Rights scores 51.9, a tenth grade reading level.

The Second Amendment states: “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.”

If we keep in mind the purpose of the Constitution, to effectively identify and define the workings of a new form of government, we may understand it wouldn’t be written at the sixth grade level, but rather at the collegiate one. To find examples of it written at the lower level propels me to consider it must be written for the common man to understand. So, when the term regulated is used, it’s not speaking about government interference, it’s indicating there exists a pattern for assuring proper function in order to complete its intended purpose. The 1755 definition out of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary as published on the web here: http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=8802 reads: To adjust by rule or method.

1. Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.

In writing any document, the question of semantics often arises. Words can be interpreted in many ways, from many perspectives. One way to assure conformity to the intent is to use the word definitions in common use at the time. “Well regulated” made specific reference in 1780 U.S. history to a group of men (and some women) sufficiently armed and prepared to respond to defend their country. It never referred to our current dilemma of a law establishing some federal department, left without sufficient oversight, and promulgating regulations to control the populace. If the founders wrote to be easily understood by the masses, why have the courts continually determined interpretations outside of the plain writing of the Constitution? The Second Amendment presents as the perfect example.

The Federalist Paper #46 from which the single sentence noted above came, discusses why the Second Amendment remains a key to preserving a more perfect union, the United States of America. It’s a great place to start understanding the intent of the founding fathers, albeit way beyond common reading comprehension of a 6th grade level.