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.
Our "politicians" are not really "politicians", they are rich former CEO's who turned corporations into communist territory's! Just look at how they "monitor" everything & trust no one! Fill the bags half way and charge double! Where is that on the constitution??? Which "amendment" asks to abuse customers & gouge prices?
Religion? What's that have to do with politics?
Education??? What education? Kids are no longer required to write with their hands! They're turned into one finger animals!!!! Where is it specified in this constitution that education comes before wars & buying guns for other countries so we can fight useless wars with???
America has gone down the deep end a long time ago!
Sadly, most people think 'unconstitutional' means 'any opinion about the Constitution other than mine'. And those who don't 'respect' the Constitution are simply those who disagree with someone about it.
We hear plenty about 'what the Founding Fathers intended', but it eludes those who say that that the Founding Fathers disagreed vociferously among themselves. Those who wrote the initial document, those who comprised the Constitutional Convention, those state legislators who voted to ratify it, to say nothing of the increasingly distinct groups of politicians who then proposed and passed and ratified the various amendments - they had myriad opinions on the meaning of those documents. But many people live in this fantasy world in which the Founding Fathers were united (which represents monumental ignorance of the creation of the Constitution) and their union of opinion just happens to reflect the Constitutional view of the person making the claim.
More often that not, the term 'unconstitutional' to dismiss simple disagreement. More often than not, it's a self-absorbed rhetorical device rather than an actual critique of a genuine differing of opinion.
Sadly, most people think 'unconstitutional' means 'any opinion about the Constitution other than mine'. And those who don't 'respect' the Constitution are simply those who disagree with someone about it.
We hear plenty about 'what the Founding Fathers intended', but it eludes those who say that that the Founding Fathers disagreed vociferously among themselves. Those who wrote the initial document, those who comprised the Constitutional Convention, those state legislators who voted to ratify it, to say nothing of the increasingly distinct groups of politicians who then proposed and passed and ratified the various amendments - they had myriad opinions on the meaning of those documents. But many people live in this fantasy world in which the Founding Fathers were united (which represents monumental ignorance of the creation of the Constitution) and their union of opinion just happens to reflect the Constitutional view of the person making the claim.
More often that not, the term 'unconstitutional' to dismiss simple disagreement. More often than not, it's a self-absorbed rhetorical device rather than an actual critique of a genuine differing of opinion.
Well, it only took 15 posts to find one that is realistic.
The Constitution is a framework for our Republic. As such, it doesn't incorporate every law and every regulation needed to make our nation relatively democratic for all. In reading the Preamble, it is clear that "the good old days" weren't so good, and to want to go back to them often brings up the worst in the American character: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare". The problem is, justice for all has been very elusive in this country; for almost a half of our history there was no "justice" for Black people. Was legal slavery from the beginning of our Republic to 1865 justice? Were Jim Crow laws -- in some states up until 1965 -- justice? The writers of the Constitution knew it wasn't the be-all and end-all, which is why the Preamble begins: "in Order to form a more perfect Union". Think about that. It doesn't say, "In order to form a perfect Union". It says "in order to form a more perfect Union". They knew there was a long road ahead toward perfection, and while in many ways we have continued to perfect (verb) the union, it is still not perfect (adjective).
Does it seem that along the way some people have lost some rights? It may seem that way, but in reality it's really just that some groups of people have lost their dominance, while others have gained; it's an equalizing process. There is no "right" to discriminate.
Scalia is the justice who, perhaps more than any others who now sit on the High Court, wants things to go back to how it was in "the good old days". Does he mean the good old days when people of Italian heritage were considered fit to be Supreme Court justices? After all, there were no Supreme Court justices of Italian descent until 1986; Italians were so long seen as second class citizens. And who was the first Supreme Court justice of Italian descent? Scalia himself.
What so many of you do not understand is that all communication requires interpretation. And over time, interpretations change. I can say, "You are dumb". But what does that really mean? It requires interpretation to be meaningful. On the other hand, I can say, "Based on your IQ of 67, you're retarded." Now it has a little more meaning, with less interpretation required.
Well, the Constitution has always required interpretation. In reality for something as complex as the United States Of America, it's a rather short document.
Animals and plants that don't adapt to changing environments die. So do nations.
We hear plenty about 'what the Founding Fathers intended', but it eludes those who say that that the Founding Fathers disagreed vociferously among themselves. Those who wrote the initial document, those who comprised the Constitutional Convention, those state legislators who voted to ratify it, to say nothing of the increasingly distinct groups of politicians who then proposed and passed and ratified the various amendments - they had myriad opinions on the meaning of those documents. But many people live in this fantasy world in which the Founding Fathers were united (which represents monumental ignorance of the creation of the Constitution) and their union of opinion just happens to reflect the Constitutional view of the person making the claim.
The intent of the FF is clear. They intended to alter the original Articles of Confederation in order to give the new Federal Government certain definite enumerated powers to enable the Federal Government to serve the several United States and to preserve for the States all powers not specifically enumerated and granted to the Federal Government.
The history of the several colonies and of the Articles of Confederation and the debate and deliberation regarding the new Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the Constitution was only agreed upon and ratified after the Federalists showed and assured the Anti-Federalists that the new Federal Government would be limited in power and that the several States would retain their powers and autonomy and sovereignty and that The People's inalienable rights would be secured by the new Constitution. The Bill of Rights, although arguably redundant, was added as an explicit assurance that the new Constitution secured for The People their inalienable rights.
So, yes, the FF had many opinions regarding what the new Federal Government should look like. But, there is no denying that they all ultimately agreed that the purpose of the new Constitution was to limit the powers of the Federal Government to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution and to secure for The People their inalienable rights.
And yet, liberals and progressives argue that our Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, and that the intent of our FF can be interpreted very broadly, even though the original intent is crystal clear to anyone who seeks to know it. Even ultra-liberal Woodrow Wilson understood the intent of the FF, when he wrote in 1885 in his Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics, the following:
It is abundantly clear from a study of history that the FF intended that the Constitution limit the power of the new Federal Government and secure for The People their inalienable rights. As they stated in the Declaration of Independence, the 13 colonies had become free and independent States (plural) and the 13 new States each individually signed the treaty with Britain that secured the peace between Great Britain and the 13 new States. When the FF first created a general government under the Articles of Confederation, they explicitly stated that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
The most perverted use of the powers by the federal government under Article 1, Section 8 is the Commerce clause, what is this clause: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” This clause has done more damage to the States than any other clause in the Constitution, this is the clause that most progressives hang their hat on. There is a problem with their interpretation of this clause and that is with the word "AND".
Justice Clarence Thomas, made the statement about the "commerce clause": Congress has the power to regulate ______________ with foreign nations. What ever you insert in the blank space can apply to the States, if it doesn't fit, it doesn't apply. You see, the framers of the constitution saw the states as being separate and sovereign but united under a common central government, so trade within the States had to be handled just the same as trade with foreign countries.
This is where we get the ACA, can we tell another country who they must insure for health care, can we tell another country how much corn they can produce, how to regulate their industries. This is where the perversion is taking place.
The most perverted use of the powers by the federal government under Article 1, Section 8 is the Commerce clause, what is this clause: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” This clause has done more damage to the States than any other clause in the Constitution, this is the clause that most progressives hang their hat on.
This is where we get the ACA, can we tell another country who they must insure for health care, can we tell another country how much corn they can produce, how to regulate their industries. This is where the perversion is taking place.
The Founding fathers understood, perfectly and painfully, that the differences in the economies of the developing Northern, slaveholding Southern, and agrarian Western states posed the largest obstacle to the Nation's progress, and that the possibility of one state imposing tariffs and/or other restrictions on the economy of another was the most obvious manifestation of this threat. Countering that sentiment, rather than creating a bureaucracy, was the original purpose of the Commerce Clause.
Adams envisioned a nation geared toward the concerns of small proprietors; Jefferson's vision revolved around small farmers. Neither one possessed enough individual exposure, nor foresight, to fully cope with either the large enterprises spawned and nurtured by the accumulation of capital, nor the "peculiar institution" of slavery. They could only come up with measures such as the precarious balance between free and slave states, and the vilified "three-fifths" compromise -- which held the Union together until it had strengthened to a point where the only way out was civil war -- and another lesson had to be learned in the hardest way imaginable.
Not long after, the emergence of large-scale enterprises, most prominently, the railroads which often crossed state boundaries, led politicians of the day to use the same Commerce Clause to propose economic regulation in various forms. I'm not going to introduce the issue of either the feasibility or morality of this practice -- save to point out that the most overdeveloped manifestation of this sentiment, the Interstate Commerce Act of 1890, was heavily overhauled ninety years later with non-partisan, primarily academic support, large benefit to the individual producer and consumer, but also devastating losses to some of those previously protected.
Two other points need to be recognized here: One, that the emergence of what was at one time referred to as the "civilized tribes" apparently had some of the Constitution's framers sufficiently convinced that those tribes might advance far enough to develop and sustain their own nation-state. It was the concentration and abuse of power by a "Great Commoner" and his petty egalitarian following that made sure that would never happen, And second, that when the remaining democracies of the Free World sought to rebuild the economies of those European nations not under the jackboots of Stalin and his heirs, free trade guaranteed by the European Common Market, and modeled upon the American success story, was a linchpin of that strategy.
Unfortunately, while we seem to be approaching the emergence of additional tested, proven democracies governed by open markets in other parts of the globe, our own nation appears to be stagnating and sinking into a polarization between two camps -- one dedicated to the aggrandizement of an over-centralized power structure geared to respond only to the whims of politically-connected cronies and certain groups seeking "protected" status -- the other a shaky coalition between displaced members of the formerly-privileged, often seeking scapegoats and trying to restore the protectionist stance which caused so much bloodshed in the Old World between 1914 and 1945; leavened with a smattering of overly-doctrinal religious zealots seeking to turn back the clock.
Hopefully, there are enough of us who, when we enter a voting booth, are still more concerned with the corruption and possible loss of what has been handed down to us, than with the bread, circuses, electronic playthings and false promises of the charlatans and opportunists.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-24-2015 at 02:29 PM..
It's also clear that this is not the 1780s or the turn of the 20th century. In the past 230+ years we have seen state after state -- particularly (but not only) in the South deny the basic tenets guaranteed to all Americans. And still are attempting to do so. It's sort of like the former governor of Arizona who wanted to take over Grand Canyon National Park, even though she couldn't keep her own state parks open. With rare exceptions, the federal government has stepped in when the state's didn't do their jobs...and that job is protecting all people.
Although he was too liberal for his own good, I'll stand next to Hubert Humphrey who said of the Democratic Party, that it ought to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." Same principle with the nation.
The only people that are really struggling with this issue are those who are afraid that they will no longer have the edge in our society. They are afraid that everyone, whether White or dark-skinned, rich or poor, will have all the privilege that they have held for all too long.
The intent of the FF is clear. They intended to alter the original Articles of Confederation in order to give the new Federal Government certain definite enumerated powers to enable the Federal Government to serve the several United States and to preserve for the States all powers not specifically enumerated and granted to the Federal Government.
The history of the several colonies and of the Articles of Confederation and the debate and deliberation regarding the new Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the Constitution was only agreed upon and ratified after the Federalists showed and assured the Anti-Federalists that the new Federal Government would be limited in power and that the several States would retain their powers and autonomy and sovereignty and that The People's inalienable rights would be secured by the new Constitution. The Bill of Rights, although arguably redundant, was added as an explicit assurance that the new Constitution secured for The People their inalienable rights.
So, yes, the FF had many opinions regarding what the new Federal Government should look like. But, there is no denying that they all ultimately agreed that the purpose of the new Constitution was to limit the powers of the Federal Government to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution and to secure for The People their inalienable rights.
And yet, liberals and progressives argue that our Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, and that the intent of our FF can be interpreted very broadly, even though the original intent is crystal clear to anyone who seeks to know it. Even ultra-liberal Woodrow Wilson understood the intent of the FF, when he wrote in 1885 in his Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics, the following:
It is abundantly clear from a study of history that the FF intended that the Constitution limit the power of the new Federal Government and secure for The People their inalienable rights. As they stated in the Declaration of Independence, the 13 colonies had become free and independent States (plural) and the 13 new States each individually signed the treaty with Britain that secured the peace between Great Britain and the 13 new States. When the FF first created a general government under the Articles of Confederation, they explicitly stated that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, not you. If the Court says something is constitutional than it is until the Court either reverses itself or until a Constitutional amendment is adopted changing that interpretation of the Constitution.
The FF understood when they adopted the Constitution that it had to flexible. Its why so many of its phrases are short and broad. One example would "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several States". What is commerce and what is not was not defined in the document. What regulating commerce is was not defined either. I don't believe these were omissions by the FF. I believe they deliberately wrote the document to give those interpreting it some flexibility.
Here are a couple of other examples: "Unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited". Clearly, it was intended that the courts would define what is and what is not a reasonable search and seizure. Congress cannot prohibit the "free exercise of religion". What activities might constitute religion are not defined. For example, if I want to sacrifice a child am I within my rights to freely exercise religion? Almost everyone would say I am not. Yet, who are they to tell me what religion is and what it is not? This, again, was a question meant for judges to decide on a case by case basis. Congress is given the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Does this allow Congress to create a federal reserve system? I would say that it does because it is part of the process of regulating the value of money. Again, though, these were issues meant for someone else to decide and that someone else was the court system which has the function of interpreting the law.
Thank you for your opinion about the Constitution. In end, neither my opinion, nor yours particularly matters. What matters is the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Last edited by Jeo123; 10-24-2015 at 11:29 PM..
Reason: Edited quote
It's also clear that this is not the 1780s or the turn of the 20th century. In the past 230+ years we have seen state after state -- particularly (but not only) in the South deny the basic tenets guaranteed to all Americans. And still are attempting to do so.
And when the majority of Americans decided they'd had enough of this self-serving pretzel-logic, it was addressed by a combination of legislative action and court decisions, rather than executive orders. The system responded to an imbalance and an injustice, and corrected them -- just not as quickly as the more-militant might have wished it.
Quote:
Although he was too liberal for his own good, I'll stand next to Hubert Humphrey who said of the Democratic Party, that it ought to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." Same principle with the nation.
And those of us who were politically aware back in 1964, can recall Senator Humphrey's tiring rants in which every measure he wanted to force upon the nation was favored by his cronies -- "but not Senator Goldwater". The choir would echo as blindly and unquestioningly as any congregation of Bible-thumpers. But as it turned out a lot of the things Goldwater envisioned came to pass -- but with no help from Senator Humphrey -- who tried to turn the rule of law into rule by the loudest voices.
Quote:
The only people that are really struggling with this issue are those who are afraid that they will no longer have the edge in our society. They are afraid that everyone, whether White or dark-skinned, rich or poor, will have all the privilege that they have held for all too long.
And the only goal of many of those, from both parties, who are trading influence within the Beltway is to replace the slow, careful and deliberate refinement of democratic pluralism, and turn back toward the populistic power struggles and corruption of many institutions and sham "enterprises" which characterize much of the Third World -- not to mention Huey Long's Louisiana and Richard Daley's Chicago.
The Founding Fathers recognized the full potential of democracy, but also recognized that the right to participate had to be expanded slowly and, as noted by Tocqueville, not allowed to degenerate to a point where a short-sighted, egoistic, and hedonistic electorate would use the power of the ballot to loot the public treasury. That disease has been skillfully thwarted for over two centuries, but periodically breaks out again.
The question at this point is whether the pragmatic, more-mature and better-educated portions of the center can muster an appeal to reason sufficient to overcome the superficial appeals for instant and/or absolute gratification found among the faltering extremes at both ends of the political spectrum.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-24-2015 at 09:03 PM..
It is abundantly clear from a study of history that the FF intended that the Constitution limit the power of the new Federal Government and secure for The People their inalienable rights.
Oh really? And what did those inalienable rights entail? For women? for blacks?
I'm 64 years old and can remember very well when the federal government had to step in to grant basic human rights to blacks in the South. Like being able to attend a public university, or to sit down on a bus. I think many on the right think we all have a short memory.
Last edited by Jeo123; 10-26-2015 at 10:00 AM..
Reason: Tag Fix
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.
