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.
I have been labeled as part of a cult, for supporting the US Constitution.
I have no clue if those that label me this, were born & raised here in the States, or if they are foreign transplants that don't understand our unique values of freedom & liberty, on an individual basis.
If you support the US Constitution, whether it hurts or helps you, were you born here & raised here in the USA?
USAF brat, born in Sherman, Okla. I support the US Constitution 100%. I am part of the Constitutional Cult
LOL, what planet are you from? the SCOTUS has made a pretty good living interpreting the constitution. Right and left have both lobbied the court for their interpretation of it...
Actually, what the Court is supposed to do is interpret the constitutionality of other laws when challenged and brought before the court, based on the language and original intent of the Constitution, which also includes adhering to previous interpretations and precedents established by earlier courts.
The nuances or disagreements are ONLY to be found in the subject cases brought forward as the Constitution might apply to them, and not in the meaning of the constitution itself, which is quite clear in most cases, and supported by prior court rulings.
Now, I agree that is not what they have been doing .... and while you seem to think that WHATEVER THEY DO is correct by default because they have final say, I strongly disagree and I'm sure the founding fathers would too.
Why? Because the founders went to great pains not only to establish limits of powers of government overall, but also in creating a structure of checks and balances to ensure no small group, branch or individual would be able to seize and exercise unwarranted powers unchecked. Part of that is also inferred in the rather difficult process of Constitutional Amendment, and the ratification of any proposed changes by the States. Consequently, it makes no sense whatsoever to establish a Congress of two separate bodies, an executive branch with a President and Vice President, and a Judiciary, only to allow the small handful of appointed Supreme Court Justices to be all powerful Dictators, with the power to embrace or dismiss the constitution at their whim. To allow that would immediately render the Constitution irrelevant in it's entirety.
So, no, the Justices themselves do not get to decide what the constitution says, they are tasked with applying constitutional principles and law which are consistent with the original intent, as they may apply to other laws brought before the court that are challenged on constitutional grounds.
It's totally asinine to think that the founding fathers would have intended for the Supreme Court to have the power to dismiss or ignore the language and original intent of the founders set forth in the Constitution, and literally create their own version of law based on the Court's ideologically driven agendas and political leanings. If that were true, there would be no purpose of having the constitution in the first place. We'd simply be ruled by a "Star Chamber".
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 01-14-2012 at 05:31 AM..
What would the founding fathers feel about social security? Food stamps? Medicare, medicaid? Welfare? Our foreign policy?
Do you think that they ever saw a SCOTUS which abused its constitutional authority as it does?
How would they feel about obama? The previous presidents? Our national debt?
I don't find it particularly helpful to attempt to divine the original intent of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight. We Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views. (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.) I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.
Times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.
I don't find it particularly helpful to attempt to divine the original intent of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight. We Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views. (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.) I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.
I think you are taking the "living document" idea out of its real context. The theory has nothing to do with amending the constitution, but simply reinterpreting it. It is true, the founding fathers knew that the constitution was imperfect when they created it, and that times would change and so would the constitution. Which is why there is the amendment process.
The problem is, when people complain about our "living document", they aren't complaining about amendments(though there are several amendments that are very questionable in whether they were actually properly ratified or not), they are complaining about liberal interpretations through our courts.
Quote:
Times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.
What you have stated rather eloquently and possibly unintentionally is basically that, in your mind, the constitution doesn't really matter at all. You have placed your full faith in democracy to govern society. And you believe the new and more liberal interpretations of the constitution to allow for the ever-expanding federal government, are necessary because of our technological advances. Which is typical of someone looking for justification for their beliefs in a need for a larger role of government.
The problem is that, you don't really even believe what you are saying. And you are a hypocrite of the highest order. On one hand, you love using the constitution to stop democracy from passing very popular laws that you don't like(like anti-Sharia law laws, anti-sodomy laws, anti-miscegenation laws, porn laws, etc). At the same time, you believe that the constitution is an antique and doesn't apply properly in modern times, and so can largely be ignored or reinterpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean.
You basically keep what you want, and throw out the rest, so it matches your ideology. And you are not alone my friend, that's why so many Supreme Court rulings go 5-4 and 6-3... It is why so many people are so concerned about "stacking the court with liberal judges". And this alone is glaring and undeniable proof that our system is far from perfect. Allowing some to assert that it is corrupt, useless, and even despotic.
You seem to believe that if the founders could be transported to our time, they would be "comforted" that our government is still a system of laws, not of men? I have little doubt that the founders would actually be completely appalled by what this country has become. And I could guarantee you, if they were voting in the 2012 election. They would almost unanimously vote for Ron Paul for president.
Ah, so eloquently stated .... and pure rubbish to boot! You must be French
In all seriousness, I want to address the points made here individually, because it is supremely important to properly arrest such a convincing set of ill conceived ideas and distortions, lest too many fall for style over content ... believing them to contain an iota of truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
I don't find it particularly helpful to attempt to divine the original intent of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight.
A vast number of intellectuals, historians and scholars consider the Constitution to be a work unique in human history, unmatched before or since in its insightful wisdom, representing the greatest example for the world to follow (as many did at least in principle if not in practice) in defining and confining the proper proper role of government to that of the defense of liberty and freedom, subject to the will of the governed.
This to me suggests that the wisdom contained therein is worthy of careful consideration regarding the intentions and fundamental principles outlined, as opposed to dismissing them as antiquated ideas that are inapplicable to modern day America ... particularly given the deplorable state of modern America as we speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
We Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views. (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.)
I disagree .... whichever of the many examples one might choose to cite, be it the fondness of old cars, old movies, classic old music, etc., one of the first reactions people have when they find themselves vulnerable, is an instinctual desire to return to the familiar ... to get back to their roots. And when problems appear, problem solving tends to first look for similar examples in memory as a guide to solving them, rather than choosing to recreate the wheel each and every time. Wisdom is timeless, and never goes out of style .... it only falls out of favor for a time until the error becomes obvious, and ultimately self destructive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.
I think what must be admitted is that the founding fathers would be sickened and appalled by the current disastrous state of the nation, much of which can be directly or indirectly attributed to the ignorance and arrogance of those who have butchered their handiwork, labeling it outdated.
The enormous power grab that has occurred at the federal level, resulting in a similar tyranny for which the nation was founded in order to escape, is the precise condition for which the founders feared, and tried to prevent, though fully anticipated would be an ongoing struggle to contain. They knew history, and the nature of despotism as an ever vigilant predator seeking prey, with the first and second amendments the two most important set of rights necessary to facilitate our success, without which our fate would be sealed in eventual defeat. This explains why we've seen such concerted and relentless attacks on the 1st & 2nd amendments for decades, in an effort to disarm the populace slowly but surely, which is deemed a prerequisite for silencing effective dissent. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to facilitate the defense of all our rights, which is why it has been subjected to the greatest attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
Times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.
America is not a democracy, nor did the founding fathers create one. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper", which is why the founders abhorred democracy, and why they created our nation as a "Constitutional Republic", for which fundamental rights and the principles of liberty reined supreme, and not subject to dismissal by majority opinion, and certainly not at the whim of a handful of traitorous criminal miscreants wearing black robes.
And there is virtually nothing that can be found today insofar as our government's behavior is concerned, for which the founding fathers would not consider high treason, nor vehemently admonish the citizenry for allowing to occur, including their ongoing cowardice for tolerating such tyrannical misbehavior.
The preposterous claim that the founders would be comforted in the fact that we are still a nation of laws leaves me almost speechless, but to remain silent would allow the greatest lie so far, to go unchallenged! Quite to the contrary, we have become a nation of Law-Less-Ness ... ruled over by such despotism as the world has never before seen, even at the darkest of times.
The extreme corruption we see today in all corners is exceeded only by the blood lust that fuels the intentional rein of global terror and destruction modern technology facilitates, which itself is only exceeded by depth of immorality necessary to to pursue such a course.
From the wholesale financial looting of the country, to preemptive wars of aggression based on transparent false pretenses, to the deliberate dumbing down of the society to facilitate their fleecing and ultimate demise, by all means available to include public indoctrination posing as education, mass media distortion and lies, the chemical lobotomizing of the public at large, to the justification and legitimizing of torture and indefinite detention without charge or recourse .... all culminating to exceed by wide margin the despotic excesses of the greatest tyrants in history who'd turn green with envy at the power now being wielded by those now in control, drooling like hungry dogs for the goals they pursue.
That anyone could confuse this deplorable state of affairs with any semblance of lawful conduct is either speaking from shear stupidity or deceptive malevolent intent. And there is no excuse for either.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 01-14-2012 at 02:28 PM..
What a load of plant food. I assume you believe military brats would also not be fit to be President, since after all many grew up living all around the world. I would also point out by your last statement that there are no other candidates you could support ether since everyone one of them fits that bill in one way or the other.
Military "brats" are raised by parents (with rare exception) that were born and raised in the USA, thus are given that basic upbringing needed (IMHO) to be able to abide by the "rule of the land." BO was not...his father was a Kenyan Muslim, his step father was Indonesian Muslim, his mother...who knows. IMHO, again, her choices were not the best.
In any case, BO simply does not seem to understand the basis upon which this country functions. I also simply point out that I, myself, understand the reason for our Constitution to demand that our President be a natural-born citizen. I hope you also understand that importance. Having traveled around the world and dealt with many different cultures on business basis (rarely pleasure only) it is very obvious to me that many, many cultures are extremely different than ours and would never be able to function within any high-office of this country. They have been raised to think extremely differently. We certainly can understand friendship and how to get along and accomplish coordination, but there is a tremendous difference between just "understanding how to live within our country" and actually being able to "sit in positions of responsibility and set policy within the bounds of our Constitution."
Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
Ah, so eloquently stated .... and pure rubbish to boot! You must be French
In all seriousness, I want to address the points made here individually, because it is supremely important to properly arrest such a convincing set of ill conceived ideas and distortions, lest too many fall for style over content ... believing them to contain an iota of truth.
A vast number of intellectuals, historians and scholars consider the Constitution to be a work unique in human history, unmatched before or since in its insightful wisdom, representing the greatest example for the world to follow (as many did at least in principle if not in practice) in defining and confining the proper proper role of government to that of the defense of liberty and freedom, subject to the will of the governed.
This to me suggests that the wisdom contained therein is worthy of careful consideration regarding the intentions and fundamental principles outlined, as opposed to dismissing them as antiquated ideas that are inapplicable to modern day America ... particularly given the deplorable state of modern America as we speak.
I disagree .... whichever of the many examples one might choose to cite, be it the fondness of old cars, old movies, classic old music, etc., one of the first reactions people have when they find themselves vulnerable, is an instinctual desire to return to the familiar ... to get back to their roots. And when problems appear, problem solving tends to first look for similar examples in memory as a guide to solving them, rather than choosing to recreate the wheel each and every time. Wisdom is timeless, and never goes out of style .... it only falls out of favor for a time until the error becomes obvious, and ultimately self destructive.
I think what must be admitted is that the founding fathers would be sickened and appalled by the current disastrous state of the nation, much of which can be directly or indirectly attributed to the ignorance and arrogance of those who have butchered their handiwork, labeling it outdated.
The enormous power grab that has occurred at the federal level, resulting in a similar tyranny for which the nation was founded in order to escape, is the precise condition for which the founders feared, and tried to prevent, though fully anticipated would be an ongoing struggle to contain. They knew history, and the nature of despotism as an ever vigilant predator seeking prey, with the first and second amendments the two most important set of rights necessary to facilitate our success, without which our fate would be sealed in eventual defeat. This explains why we've seen such concerted and relentless attacks on the 1st & 2nd amendments for decades, in an effort to disarm the populace slowly but surely, which is deemed a prerequisite for silencing effective dissent. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to facilitate the defense of all our rights, which is why it has been subjected to the greatest attack.
America is not a democracy, nor did the founding fathers create one. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper", which is why the founders abhorred democracy, and why they created our nation as a "Constitutional Republic", for which fundamental rights and the principles of liberty reined supreme, and not subject to dismissal by majority opinion, and certainly not at the whim of a handful of traitorous criminal miscreants wearing black robes.
And there is virtually nothing that can be found today insofar as our government's behavior is concerned, for which the founding fathers would not consider high treason, nor vehemently admonish the citizenry for allowing to occur, including their ongoing cowardice for tolerating such tyrannical misbehavior.
The preposterous claim that the founders would be comforted in the fact that we are still a nation of laws leaves me almost speechless, but to remain silent would allow the greatest lie so far, to go unchallenged! Quite to the contrary, we have become a nation of Law-Less-Ness ... ruled over by such despotism as the world has never before seen, even at the darkest of times.
The extreme corruption we see today in all corners is exceeded only by the blood lust that fuels the intentional rein of global terror and destruction modern technology facilitates, which itself is only exceeded by depth of immorality necessary to to pursue such a course.
From the wholesale financial looting of the country, to preemptive wars of aggression based on transparent false pretenses, to the deliberate dumbing down of the society to facilitate their fleecing and ultimate demise, by all means available to include public indoctrination posing as education, mass media distortion and lies, the chemical lobotomizing of the public at large, to the justification and legitimizing of torture and indefinite detention without charge or recourse .... all culminating to exceed by wide margin the despotic excesses of the greatest tyrants in history who'd turn green with envy at the power now being wielded by those now in control, drooling like hungry dogs for the goals they pursue.
That anyone could confuse this deplorable state of affairs with any semblance of lawful conduct is either speaking from shear stupidity or deceptive malevolent intent. And there is no excuse for either.
The constitution was written from a reality of 13 sparsely populated, mostly agrarian colonies. 240 years later, as a superpower, with a diverse population of 300m in the post industrial age, we still hold on to the same document. Thats remarkable. However the secret is in allowing it to change and adapt. The main mechanism is the ever changing interpretation. Every era posed different realities and will continue doing so into the future. If the process of adaptive interpretation wasn't in place, the US constitution would had been dumped centuries ago. The principles are preserved, but the shape of things change. It can be said with certainty, that 100 years into the future (if still in place) the constitution will need even more adaptation (aka "butchering"...). Today we can only dream what will the reality of 2112 be.
For example: the founding fathers (some of them slave owners) didn't address the issue of slavery. Today we got rid of this "institution" and agree that slavery is wrong. If we held on to the founding fathers "spirit" we would still own a few...
The constitution was written from a reality of 13 sparsely populated, mostly agrarian colonies. 240 years later, as a superpower, with a diverse population of 300m in the post industrial age, we still hold on to the same document. Thats remarkable. However the secret is in allowing it to change and adapt. The main mechanism is the ever changing interpretation. Every era posed different realities and will continue doing so into the future. If the process of adaptive interpretation wasn't in place, the US constitution would had been dumped centuries ago. The principles are preserved, but the shape of things change. It can be said with certainty, that 100 years into the future (if still in place) the constitution will need even more adaptation (aka "butchering"...). Today we can only dream what will the reality of 2112 be.
This is why we have a process for amending the US Constitution. However, backdooring it and restricting the individual liberties through regulations, executive orders, etc..., is not the way and should be met at every opportunity with resistance.
The constitution was written from a reality of 13 sparsely populated, mostly agrarian colonies. 240 years later, as a superpower, with a diverse population of 300m in the post industrial age, we still hold on to the same document. Thats remarkable. However the secret is in allowing it to change and adapt. The main mechanism is the ever changing interpretation. Every era posed different realities and will continue doing so into the future.
That Plessy v. Ferguson adaptation was wonderful.
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.
