Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its quite obvious. Laws that conflict with the Constitution should be overturned & usually are.
Quote:
The Constitution is not law, it is the framework for which the law is made by the Legislature(s) set up in the document. Legislatures make laws not the Constitution. Even the BOR protects people from the government by establishing boundaries in government.
Who do you think ratified the constitution? The legislature did. The constitution is a set of LAWS restraining the legislature.
Quote:
I agree with having to remain within the framework of the Constitution when enacting laws, but disagree that the Constitution is the Law. Where in the preamble does it say the Constitution is law? Where in the Constitution does it say this Constitution is law?
Dont get hung up on the preamble, its simply an explination of why the constitution is important and theres no need for it to state that the constitution is law. If its not law then why does the legislature have to conform to it? It is certainly law, we just have chosen to look the other way or use the courts to overturn laws that violate it instead of holding the legislature legally responsible when they violate it. Personally I think that needs revision. Legislators who vote for unconstitutional law should face charges for violating their oaths of office at the very least, as should Presidents & Governors who sign such bills into law. Police, prosecutors & judges who arrest, prosecute and convict for violating these illegal laws should face civil rights charges.
Quote:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
All meaningless if it does not carry the weight of law.
Well, you can't force people to have liberty that they don't want. The people have spoken, as the founders empowered them to. and they now have the government they chose.
The reason why our "nation building" so often ends in slapstick pratfalls is because people are not, by nature, very good at governing themselves. They wish to be led.
As I suggested in my OP, good people may wish to be led by good leaders, but problems arise when Law is misconstrued or upheld overly rigidly, and allowed to obstruct good enterprise.
"We are a nation of Laws" ---John Adams
"The Law is an ass". ---Charles Dickens
"Rules are to guide the wise and command the foolish" ---Rick Seaward
As in any modern democracy The constitution uppholds human rights and it limits governrnment from breaking them.
Well, you can't force people to have liberty that they don't want. The people have spoken, as the founders empowered them to. and they now have the government they chose.
The reason why our "nation building" so often ends in slapstick pratfalls is because people are not, by nature, very good at governing themselves. They wish to be led.
As I suggested in my OP, good people may wish to be led by good leaders, but problems arise when Law is misconstrued or upheld overly rigidly, and allowed to obstruct good enterprise.
"We are a nation of Laws" ---John Adams
"The Law is an ass". ---Charles Dickens
"Rules are to guide the wise and command the foolish" ---Rick Seaward
Today the rights precribed in the Constitution are not uniqe most modern western democracys are based on the same rights and protection that the constitution first precribed.
Its quite obvious. Laws that conflict with the Constitution should be overturned & usually are
But the Constitution is only the framework for the government. It is not a code of laws. The BOR is not law either. It is only a set of protections set up by the government by which the citizen is protected FROM the government. The BOR doesn't grant you any laws since there are no laws in the BOR. It ensures that the rights you are born with are protected by the government through laws made by Congress, not the BOR. If it were laws, it would be known as the Bill of Laws and not the Bill of Rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Who do you think ratified the constitution? The legislature did. The constitution is a set of LAWS restraining the legislature.
Of course Congress ratified the Constitution but that doesn't make the Constitution a set of laws laws. It merely sets the Constitution up as the framework for the government and the BOR as the Citizens "rights" for protection from that government. Rights are not law since you are born with them. Laws are derrived from rights but rights are not law, since you are born with them. Laws are made by government and rights are inherent to your being. Legislatures don't grant rights but they do make laws on the basis of those rights you are born with. See the difference?
Can you show me anywhere in the BOR where it is stated that any amdendment is a law? For example, in the XX amendment section 4 it reads:
"The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death..."
It doesn't not read "the Constitution by law", it reads "the Congress by (enacting ) law"...
This is the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Dont get hung up on the preamble
I am not hung up on the preamble.. I merely used it to demonstrate that it enumerates "inalienable rights" from which all just laws are derrived to govern the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
All meaningless if it does not carry the weight of law.
I fully agree because all laws are derrived from the Constitutional rights of the citizens as defined in the DOI that we are all born with in this nation. We are born with inalienable rights from which laws are created not inalienable "laws" from which rights are granted by the government..
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-23-2010 at 11:36 AM..
Reason: Fixed the quote code for you
Laws, by definition, restrict rights. Laws came into existence solely because society could be harmed by every member acting entirely in his own personal interests, and using untempered force to get his way. The founders knew that the legislature would make laws, as the need for each arose.
What the Bill of Rights did, was to anticipate laws borne out of tyranny, and obstruct the power of the government to enact such laws.
On the Preamble, it is my view that the Preamble IS the Constitution. It is the philosophical wellspring of what America was to be. Nothing, in my view, is constitutional unless it furthers the objectives enumerated in the Preamble. For example, if a proposed law fails the test of "insuring domestic tranquility", it is ipso facto unconstitutional. (The Patriot Act comes to mind.) After the Preamble, all those articles and amendments, are only technical specifications regarding the mechanics of carrying out the office of government. Like an assigned seating chart.
Laws, by definition, restrict rights. Laws came into existence solely because society could be harmed by every member acting entirely in his own personal interests, and using untempered force to get his way. The founders knew that the legislature would make laws, as the need for each arose.
What the Bill of Rights did, was to anticipate laws borne out of tyranny, and obstruct the power of the government to enact such laws.
On the Preamble, it is my view that the Preamble IS the Constitution. It is the philosophical wellspring of what America was to be. Nothing, in my view, is constitutional unless it furthers the objectives enumerated in the Preamble. For example, if a proposed law fails the test of "insuring domestic tranquility", it is ipso facto unconstitutional. (The Patriot Act comes to mind.) After the Preamble, all those articles and amendments, are only technical specifications regarding the mechanics of carrying out the office of government. Like an assigned seating chart.
I like this post because it makes me thnk of :
"The Bill of Rights; Void Where Prohibited by Law".
Should the Constitution be enforced and defended because it is the law of the land, and the government has the police power to enforce it, and people have an obligation to obey it?
Or should it be enforced because it is an embodiment of general principles that are self-evidently the right thing for civilized people to do?
" We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous-although it is; not because the laws of God and man command it-although they do command it; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do." --- Robert F. Kennedy
Answer is: (drull roll) YES, because it is both the law and because it is the right thing to do.
It embodies more genius, more insight into human nature and how to prevent the darker aspects of human nature from acting against freedom than any other document of similar purpose.
Unfortunately, in the functional realm of government today, it long-ago ceased to exist.
Its like all things i that its never perfect but the principals are important and like laws enacted i don't sgree with will obey because in a world with different views its important to obey because it is required to have a civil society of order. Whatever truns you on I have learned doesn't work well.
We acknowledge that the Constitution was written by Good Men. If we are still Good Men, their intent must be clear to us all. If it is not clear, is that because we no longer are able to recognize and uphold those virtues?.
Relative importance of preamble to rest of Constitution
I do not understand Jtur88's bizarre elevation of the preamble over the rest of the document. The preamble is very brief and very general, while the rest of the document, far from being merely an "assigned seating chart", spells out exactly how we are to go about achieving the goals set forth in the preamble; it tells what is permissible and what is not, who has the authority to do what, and most importantly of all, sets up the checks and balances among the three branches of government so that none of the three can ever assume too much power.
For example, the preamble says a goal of the Constitution is to "promote the general welfare". Well, that is in the eye of the beholder. Suppose I say that our general welfare would be promoted if we were to kill all disabled and retarded people, as well as all people too old to be pulling their own weight, because these people are using up valuable resources which could otherwise promote the general welfare. This would not pass constitutional muster and I don't think I need to elaborate further.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-28-2010 at 10:19 PM..
Reason: Restored deleted text
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Relative importance of preamble to rest of Constitution
