OK, so it occurred to me today that sometimes, the MEANING of a word may change over time, so when Im reading something that was written long ago, and I come across a word that doesnt seem to fit vis a vis the CURRENT definition, that I ought to find out what the word meant at the time it was written so that, at the very least, I will understand the writers INTENT when he used that word, and at most, I may even get a WHOLE different understanding of what he was actually SAYING. Take, for example, the word gay. We all know what that word signifies nowadays, but did it ALWAYS have that meaning? Of course not! It once met happy or festive. Hence, when were told to don we now our GAY apparel in that famous CHRISTmas carol, the author MEANT that we should put on our festive clothes to celebrate the birth of Christ! I dont think ANY reasonable person would think the author of that song was telling us to put on pink tutus or leather biker outfits! Similarly, it is VERY WRONG to judge someone based on a word they wrote a long time ago, ESPECIALLY when the offensive word was commonly used in the past by nearly everyone. Take William Faulkners writings, for example. For those who dont know, he was one of the Souths leading authors in the first half of the 20th century. He wrote about life IN the South of that era, and used words such as the N word, but ONLY when that word was coming out of a characters mouth. In every other instance, when referring to Black people, he called them Negroes, which was ANOTHER common term used by most people AT THAT TIME. Is it fair, then, for people today to call Mr. Faulkner a racist, based on the fact the N word and Negro are now considered derogatory and or racist, ESPECIALLY when you consider the FACT the term RACISM wasnt even COINED until 1936, according to the Oxford English Dictionary? Lets look at Faulkners short story Dry September (written in 1931) as a perfect example. In this sorry, he makes judicious use of BOTH the N word AND Negro, so anyone reading it today might come to the conclusion that he was a racist. However, upon closer examination, it becomes obvious that the EXACT OPPOSITE is the truth! Why? Read the story! (nbu.bg/webs/amb/american/4/faulkner/september.htm) As you can see, this story is anything BUT racist! In fact, it ultimately CONDEMNS racism, condemns lynching, and shows Faulkners disgust for LIARS and BLIND FOLLOWERS (the lynch mob). Basically this is the story about the lynching of a Black man based on what were apparently the LIES of an older White woman looking for attention. While painting a highly sympathetic picture of the lynched Black man, and championing the lone White voice who spoke FOR that Black man and AGAINST his being lynched, it speaks very disparagingly of the leader of the lynch mob, the people who joined the lynch mob, and especially of the lying White woman who was at the center of it all! Im sorry, but it doesnt sound to ME as if a RACIST wrote that story! I say all that to say this: whenever we are reading something that was written long ago, we cant define the words that were used to write that something using the CURRENT or otherwise REVISED definition! We MUST ascertain what the words meant at the time they were used, or we will NEVER understand the INTENT of the author, or what it was he was trying to tell us! With that in mind, when reading the Constitution, for example, we should rely on the definition of the words used that the FOUNDERS knew and understood! We should NOT try to FORCE current, or revisionist definitions upon the words, since that would give the sentences in which the words appear TOTALLY DIFFERENT meanings, which would not only obfuscate the INTENT of the Founders, it would ALSO lead us down a path to MISUNDERSTANDING! That is why I am so VEHEMENTLY declaring the ORIGINAL DEFINITION of the term Natural Born CItizen as found in the Constitution! WHAT did that term mean to the Founders? Some revisionists would have you believe it means what the revisionists are claiming it means today (i. e., ANYONE born on American soil, REGARDLESS of parentage, or anyone born ANYWHERE, as long as they have at least ONE American parent) , but any REASONABLE person would want to know what the FOUNDERS knew it meant, since THEY are the ones who actually USED the term! Let me use a phrase that Chief Justice Waite of the Supreme Court used in the 1875 case Minor v Happersett to help us understand what the Founders KNEW this word meant at the TIME they used it: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The Chief Justice then went on to say that of the above class of citizens, there has NEVER been ANY doubt that they were not just mere citizens, but were Natural Born Citizens: Some authorities go further and include as citizens (NOT NBC!) children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts (as to whether or not they are CITIZENS), but never as to the first (the NBC he described above.) Look at the phrase the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar. What does nomenclature mean? Simply put, its the name or designation of something, so in this case, the Chief Justice was saying in words the Founders understood and used at that time. There you have it! The FOUNDERS understood the meaning of Natural Born Citizen to be: all children born in (IN! NOT outside of!) a country of parents (PLURAL) who were its (the countrys) citizens . . . They went on to say: These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. How, then, can ANYONE think people like ovomit, or cruz, or jindal, or rubio, or ANYONE else who doesnt meet the above definition, are Natural Born Citizens? Folks, the FACT of the matter is that they ARENT, so we currently have an INELIGIBLE person sitting in the Oval Office who is PRETENDING to be our President, and there are several more INELIGIBLE potential candidates out there who would like to FOLLOW his unconstitutional example! The question is: we let it happen ONCE, are we going to just sit back and let it happen AGAIN, or are we going to DEMAND that our so-called leaders follow the very Constitution that CREATED their JOBS in the first place?!?!? As for me and my house, were standing up for the TRUTH!!!
Posted on: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:20:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015