@sgtm7 wrote:"I meant to look it up as it was used in 1789. Hence, my link to Judge A. Napalitano's explaination of it. "
The problem is that it is NOT 1789. It is 2010. And the many types of things addressed in the constitution were not really addressed, because they couldn't forsee these changes. Here is an example for you:
From Section 8:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Now if you tried to apply the constitution of 1789 to 2010, you "could" come to 3 conclusions:
1. The Army has to appropriate money every two years. We pretty much stick to this and appropriate annually.
2. The Navy doesn't have to appropriate money, it's funding is indefinite.
3. The Air Force is not subject to being regulated by congress, because it is neither a land or a naval force.
Just like the Air Force didn't exist in 1789, and just like the Navy was the most important arm of force for any nation in 1789, things are different now. There was no such thing as EVERYONE being able to get credit in 1789. No such thing as a credit card.
That is a very slippery slope. Once we concede that things are different now...the founders didn't understand our times and couldn't anticipate....so the constitution means something different now than then....what are the results?
1. Freedom of Speech. Founders didn't have email, faxes, television, radio, telegraph. So I guess all of these could be sensored or controlled because they didn't exist back then and therefore don't apply.
2. Right to bear arms. Back then the type of firearms were muskets. Therefore anything invented, that is more powerful, holds more rounds, can be fired more rapidly than the arms that existed at time of constitution don't have any application and therefore may be banned. In fact, since muskets are potentially a hazard and are not practical....in modern times no right to arms should be recognized.
3. Right to assemble. At the time of founders they didn't have automobiles, airplanes, the ability to televise and broadcast on TV, radio, internet....and they didn't have blow horns, microphones, recording devices....then none of these things should be allowed in the process of assembly. Using these would constitute non-peaceful assembly, possibly with intent to arouse.
4. Freedom of religion. This was at a time when slavery was recognized and practiced. It also predated the "invention" of many modern day religions that were formed after the consitution. Some religions have taken up the promotion of political idealogy as a part of their "ministry" thus the religion violates the separation of church and state. And many of these religions didn't exist. Some religions now use modern technologies to advance their doctrine. Some religions are responsible for hate crimes or terrorism. The founders did not anticipate these turn of events and therefore this freedom should be limited.
5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. This only applied to tangible items. There was no such thing as "miranda rights" at time of constitution. Email, computers, virtual and electonic documents did not exist and were not able to be transmitted instantly. Therefore, these forms of property are not covered under the constitution, because the founders did not address them.
6. Separation of powers, checks and balances. You can imagine the litany of things, departments, branches of armed forces that didn't exist, so technically could be said to be exempt or not applicable to the constitution.
THIS IS A SHORT LIST. Once we decide to say the constitution is out dated and not applicable, and that there is no such thing as timeless principles, only current interpretation based not on the principles and concepts of the constitution, but based upon a secular, modern, maleable and subjective approach.
The constitution is a literal document. It must be used literally. In those areas that are not specific, then the context and spirit of the constitution must be adhered to, and the core tenets of the constitution is that all power eminates from the people. The government has no power over the people. The government, governs within the limits of the constitution and the powers delegated by the people. Those powers not delegated remain with the people or the states respectively.
And a rose is still a rose by any other name. Air force does have a land and sea basis. That is where it takes off from, lands and how it is transported. The flight is a temporary scenario. And the Air Force used to be a part of the Army, later separated into its own specialized branch.
When we ever say power resides in the government, or that rights and freedoms are given by the government, we are on the path that leads to tyranny and oppression, and the loss of freedom, except that which the government decides is expedient to its designs and needs.
This is why national debt is so problematic. It is our debt. The government is turning us into indentured or inservitude servants, bound (bonded) by the debt it creates. We are responsible for the debt...thus we have to work (slavery) or give up assets (seizure) based upon the whims of a goverment who now dictates what we may own, how much and how much we shall labor for its benefit.
FINAL NOTE: The constitution does state what the situation is where it did not address something: THE POWER REMAINS WITH THE STATES OR PEOPLE RESPECTIVELY. Anything not specifically delegated to the government, is not within the governmental charter. And that is what the constitution is, the charter by which it is legitimate and can exist. When it fails to be bound within its charter....what have we now?
IMO IME 
