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.
God Almighty, what confusion you inject to pretty clear principles.
The ENTIRE nature and intent of the constitution was to establish a central government whose power was strictly limited to those obligations and powers defined by the document itself. And the entire structure of that central governing entity as defined in the constitution was built upon numerous checks and balances to prevent tyrannical power grabs.
In other words ... exactly the opposite of what you claim.
I don't have the slightest idea as to how that contradicts anything that I've written because the arguments proffered to date rely on the argument that the Constitution was written to guarantee individual freedom, it wasn't as you yourself point out.
It was crafted to establish a strong central government.
In doing so:
they established three branches of government with distinct powers and authority,
they also enumerated what those powers would be.
Then and only then did they include a Bill of Rights in order to overcome Anti-Federalist sentiments of the Constitutions critics in order to insure the ratification of the document.
How that differs from anything that I've written so far is beyond me.
Since no one seems prepared to discuss the reasons for calling a Constitutional Convention in the first place, let me dismiss one recurring argument, the convention was convened to limit government.
We know this, that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the primary sponsors of what Hamilton referred to as "a Convention of Deputies from the different States, for the special and sole purpose of entering into this investigation, and digesting a plan for supplying such defects as may be discovered to exist."
And what was the first plan presented by one of the prime movers, James Madison, the Virginia Plan.
Resolutions proposed by Mr. Randolph in Convention May 29, 1787
1. Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, "common defense, security of liberty and general welfare."
2. Resolved therefore that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the Quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases. [1]
3. Resolved that the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches. [2]
4. Resolved that the members of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States every — for the term of —; to be of the age of — years at least, to receive liberal stipends by with they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service; to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the first branch, during the term of service, and for the space of — after its expiration; to be incapable of reelection for the space of — after the expiration of their term of service, and to be subject to recall. [3]
5. Resolved that the members of the second branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of — years at least; to hold their offices for a term sufficient to ensure their independency; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service; and to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch, during the term of service, and for the space of — after the expiration thereof. [4]
6. Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts; that the National Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the Legislative Rights vested in Congress by the Confederation and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof. [5]
7. Resolved that a National Executive be instituted; to be chosen by the National Legislature for the term of — years, to receive punctually at stated times, a fixed compensation for the services rendered, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the Magistracy, existing at the time of increase or diminution, and to be ineligible a second time; and that besides a general authority to execute the National laws, it ought to enjoy the Executive rights vested in Congress by the Confederation. [6]
8. Resolved that the Executive and a convenient number of the National Judiciary, ought to compose a Council of revision with authority to examine every act of the National Legislature before it shall operate, and every act of a particular Legislature before a Negative thereon shall be final; and that the dissent of the said Council shall amount to a rejection, unless the Act of the National Legislature be again passed, or that of a particular Legislature be again negatived by — of the members of each branch. [7]
9. Resolved that a National Judiciary be established to consist of one or more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the National Legislature, to hold their offices during good behavior; and to receive punctually at stated times fixed compensation for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution. That the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be to hear and determine in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and determine in the dernier resort, all piracies and felonies on the high seas, captures from an enemy; cases in which foreigners or citizens of other States applying to such jurisdictions may be interested, or which respect the collection of the National revenue; impeachments of any National officers, and questions which may involve the national peace and harmony. [8]
10. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of Government and Territory or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the National legislature less than the whole. [9]
11. Resolved that a Republican Government and the territory of each State, except in the instance of a voluntary junction of Government and territory, ought to be guarantied by the United States to each State. [10]
12. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the continuance of Congress and their authorities and privileges, until a given day after the reform of the articles of Union shall be adopted, and for the completion of all their engagements.
13. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary, and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto. [11]
14. Resolved that the Legislative Executive and Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union. [12]
15. Resolved that the amendments which shall be offered to the Confederation, by the Convention ought at a proper time, or times, after the approbation of Congress to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of Representatives, recommended by the several Legislatures to be expressly chosen by the people, to consider and decide thereon.
Now I admit that my eyes have grown defective with age, so perhaps someone more capable can discern the portions of this proposal that was concerned with the sovereignty of states or the protection of individual rights in stead of the formation of a stronger central government?
Just to get a feel of what folks think in general about the Constitution.
None of your answers are adequate to describe my opinion.
The answer is "Yes", however, when you add, "At all times", then I disagree. The Constitution should be changed as needed, and doing so would involve going against the original document.
"Yes and no, In certain extenuating situations, it can be bypassed." is also an answer I disagree with. Sometimes we should change it, but we should never "bypass" it.
"No, it was fine 225 years ago, but no longer applies to the current world," is also not an adequate answer, because it starts with the word, "no."
Generally speaking I see the constitution like the Bible; we should follow it despite the fact that it changes over time. What its words mean , exactly, is up for interpretation.
I may need supplemental oxygen. The whole forum seems to agree.
How come the politicians don't seem to care?
Because too many of them are "Progressives" and the Constitution is a road block to them. Which is precisely why we need it to hold such people in check.
But the Obama administration is openly ignoring it and trying to both go around the Constitution and Congress.
It was a silly poll because just as it was in 1787 it is true today, following the Constitution is purely dependent upon how one interprets what the Constitution says. The Constitution is a political document, it isn't holy writ, as a result it is filled with ambiguity, and lack of precise definition which allows the body politic to see what is embedded within it as they deem fit to do so within certain defined parameters.
See above, the Constitution is a frame work and wasn't written, as Madison stated, "to recount every minutiae." and because it doesn't the freedom to interpret the Constitution lies in that unstated minutiae i.e., the devil is in the details.
There has yet to be a presiding President , Richard Nixon excepted, who has not based his actions upon rationales that could not be spun from the actual wording of the Constitution. Whether those actions have been constitutional in fact is a matter that can only be decided by the judiciary.
We can sit here and argue, as we often do, about what actions of any given President (or the Congress for that matter) are properly based upon the Constitution and each and every time the argument will be based upon our political and historical view point, that is an inescapable fact. So who is or who isn't voting for a presidential candidate who pledges to adhere to the Constitution will always be framed by our personal view of what the Constitution means.
The Constitution is a very compact document, free of the verbosity inherent in modern political writings and laws that apparently require a thousand or more pages of text just to facilitate the installation of a stop sign at a town intersection. This simplicity is it's greatest virtue, as the drafters obviously understood that the possibility for misinterpretation would be proportional to the volume of unnecessary verbiage used. Little did they realize at the time the depth of ignorance that would overtake American society in the future, which would allow unscrupulous criminals to twist otherwise clear unambiguous English language such as " .... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to mean the exact opposite, allowing such infringements on a pervasive scale. Nor could they have been expected to anticipate this, or craft some mechanism impervious to such demonstrations of idiocy.
So it is not the fault of the document or those who carefully constructed the statements outlining the intent of the document's meaning ... but of the inane failure of modern American citizens in allowing themselves to be convinced that up is actually down, when it would be reasonable to expect a majority to reject such nonsense automatically.
This is one area where the drafters did, in retrospect, make a huge error in assuming such simple language would be universally understood and agreed to by the majority ... obviously underestimating the ease at which so many people could be so thoroughly deceived. Their use of such terms as "reasonable" and "unreasonable", took too much for granted in terms of the public's capacity for applying "reason" ... apparently coming to the conclusion either consciously or unconsciously that nothing could be written in such specific language as to prevent the intentional distortion by those with the desire to do so.
The truth is, contrary to suggestions otherwise, the Constitution leaves little to one's imagination insofar as principle intentions and philosophical foundations are concerned, nor leaves any door open to wildly divergent personal interpretations of such. The conscious act of not "recounting every minutiae" was simply the acknowledgment by wise men that every possibility could never be accounted for in a readable and meaningful document. Furthermore, they wisely concluded and resigned to practicality the reality that in order for the constitution to fulfill its true purpose, men of sound intellect and integrity would always be required to safeguard and apply the those unambiguous principles to future situations. Nowhere can one find the tiniest hint or insinuation that the drafters believed those principles themselves to be fundamentally alterable to accommodate future situations.
In fact, the drafters knew and warned about the likelihood that dishonest tyrants would come along in the future to attempt to subvert those principles of liberty established in the Declaration of Independence, and the subsequent establishment of the Constitution as the law of the land, which is why they made those principles very clear, and deliberately made the process of constitutional amendments to alter them so difficult.
Because too many of them are "Progressives" and the Constitution is a road block to them. Which is precisely why we need it to hold such people in check.
But the Obama administration is openly ignoring it and trying to both go around the Constitution and Congress.
You do realize that the president with the most contempt and disregard for the constitution, in your lifetime, was a Republican president named Bush, right?
You do realize that the president with the most contempt and disregard for the constitution, in your lifetime, was a Republican president named Bush, right?
Hahahahahahaha How did I know someone would come along and say that!
Can you give me some examples?
I think Obama beats anyone you could name.
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.
