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.
Originally Posted by actonbell Define Freedom. What does it mean to be free? Is there one definition or are there many definitions that depend on a person's perception of what freedom is?
I believe the word freedom its definition changes with each era of society and one person's definition is opposite of that of another.
Society doesn't have what it takes to be free human beings. For one to be free another must be oppressed. (or at least it seems so in the way people relate to one another) So---what kind of freedom is that?
Define respect.
Define trust.
Define a relationship that involves both trust and respect.
Then show the examples where it works in today's society and then maybe, maybe there may be some freedom in there somewhere.
I wish you could actually understand what you are saying.
You believe that the people should have the right to change the meaning of the constitution as they see fit. You are arguing for democracy, where majority rule. But what you can't seem to understand is, that isn't the intention for a constitution. If the constitution was simply supposed to be a reflection of the moral or ethical principles in society, then why have a constitution at all? The majority could simply pass laws as they saw fit to reflect their own morals and ethics.
No, a constitution was not designed to protect the majority, it was not designed to be reinterpreted on a whim. The constitution was supposed to be an absolute a strict limit on government. Which would prevent the majority from passing laws that harm the minority. Because it is not the majority that needs the protection of the constitution, it is the minority, the people who don't have the power.
We have an amendment process, it was created by the framers to allow the constitution to be changed, because they knew it would eventually need to be changed. But the amendment process is not the same process that is required for simply passing a law, it is a much more difficult road.
The amendment process doesn't require a simply majority. It requires 2/3rds in Congress, and no senator can be denied their representation in order to pass the amendment. Moreover, after it has been passed through Congress, then 3/4ths of the states have to pass it.
The amendment process allowed the constitution to be changed, but it would require a near unanimous support for the change.
The problem with people like yourself is that, you are really a hypocrite, but you don't believe you are.
On one hand, you love how the majority of the people or the majority of Supreme Court justices reinterpret the constitution, as to be a reflection of the supposedly changing morals and ethics in this country. As to say that you believe the majority should rule. But then as soon as the majority passes a law that you don't like, you start talking about your constitutional rights, as if they actually existed at all. Because you have completely undermined the constitution itself by allowing it to ever be "reinterpreted" instead of actually changed.
Wrong. You misunderstand the history of this country. In 1791, separation of church and state did not exist like it does today, because in 1791 the 1st amendment did not apply to the states like it does today. In fact, none of the Bill of Rights and most of the constitution did not apply to the states in 1791. The states had their own constitutions. Our federal constitution was designed almost entirely to be a limitation on the federal government. Had there been no strict limits on the federal government, the states never would have ratified it. Because at the time, the states believed themselves to be sovereign nations, and did not seek to give up their sovereignty to a single power.
In fact, up through the early 1800's, three states actually had state religions. Where Massachusetts would tax people in their state, and give that money the church.
The truth is, separation of church and state was only intended to prevent the federal government from creating a single church for the entire country, similar to the Church of England. And that principle was understood, even after the 14th amendment was (illegally)ratified in 1868, and did not become challenged under the 14th amendment by opportunists until modern times.
The question is, if separation of church and state was never intended by the framers(Thomas Jefferson wasn't actually a framer btw), to mean an absolute separation of church and state, but rather just a limit on the federal government. And this principle stood for almost 200 years. Then why would you possibly believe that that is what the framers ever intended to begin with? If it was not the intention of the framers, then why would you think it is OK for society to suddenly pretend it was their intention all along? Unless of course, you don't really care what their intentions were, and believe we would be able to reshape society as the majority sees fit at any time, because you believe this is a democracy and not a republic.
Quote:
Obama care, can any one say commerce? Requires people to enter commerce for something specific, health care. (ps: they need to reinterpret the commerce clause to make it fit today)
Wow, this is the dumbest statement you've made so far. You again are basically stating that if the majority want something, then it should be the responsibility of the courts to reinterpret the constitution to mean whatever they need it to mean to make it constitutional. And again, that is not the intention of the constitution.
There is a way to actually change the constitution. It is called an amendment. Bush tried for an amendment to the constitution to stop gay marriage, and he failed. You can try for an amendment to the constitution for whatever you want, but it will almost always fail. And that is a good thing.
This allows changes to the constitution that are near unanimous, and not on a simple whim of the majority.
And let me remind, the constitution itself never imposed slavery, nor did it prevent women from voting, nor did it institute segregation. The states themselves did those things independently. It was under an intended design called "states' rights". Your quoted Thomas Jefferson and the father of the constitution, James Madison, both were quite fond of the idea of states' rights. And they even believed that it was the individual states' duty to nullify any federal law that they believed was unconstitutional, within their own states.
Those are the principles this country was founded upon. And they were in effect really until the Civil War, which saw Lincoln commit repeated unconstitutional and barbarous acts. And which continued during radical reconstruction, and the forcing upon us of the illegal 14th amendment. Which utterly destroyed the relationship between the federal government and the states, and left us with the federal despotism that we still have to this day.
You should really go educate yourself on the Civil War, and especially the both despotic and unconstitutional things that took place in order to force the 14th amendment on us, and what all supreme court decisions have taken place in the wake of that amendment.
Here is a sneak peak on what you might find out if you start digging.
I know the framers didn't mean for there to ever be a mandate that the citizens of the U.S. would be made to enter into commerce, but it's being done to us all the same.
In response to your wow paragraph:
"Obamacare will be decided in a few weeks by the Supreme Court and the Democrats are getting worried that the Judicial Branch might not vote in favor of the constitutionality of it. " Mark Levin
Educate yourself on unconstitutional law.
I never said people have the right to change the constitution on a whim...I said it has been interpreted differently through out the ages and amended to. The constitution itself has never been changed. Thus laws that are unconstitutional that have been passed.
"What if, on Memorial Day, we remember times that were more free than today? What if, on Memorial Day, when we think of those who died for our freedom, we end up recognizing that the freedom they died for is dying? What if it becomes fashionable for the government to ignore the Constitution? What if the Constitution dies because the government stops following it? What if, next Memorial Day, freedom is just a memory?"
The judge has a very valid point. It apparently is going to require more than TSA feeling us all over to get us to realize we're already flirting with the season that the judge is pondering.
"What if, on Memorial Day, we remember times that were more free than today? What if, on Memorial Day, when we think of those who died for our freedom, we end up recognizing that the freedom they died for is dying? What if it becomes fashionable for the government to ignore the Constitution? What if the Constitution dies because the government stops following it? What if, next Memorial Day, freedom is just a memory?"
Ahh, but good call on this one! Remember, some of the San Antonio schools are forcing their students to carry chipped cards next year. there's a thread here somewhere, about it.
"What if, on Memorial Day, we remember times that were more free than today? What if, on Memorial Day, when we think of those who died for our freedom, we end up recognizing that the freedom they died for is dying? What if it becomes fashionable for the government to ignore the Constitution? What if the Constitution dies because the government stops following it? What if, next Memorial Day, freedom is just a memory?"
Somehow I missed both the link and your thread for all this time. I have to say that this group of what ifs from the Judge make too much sense to me and probably won't be read clear through by one left leaner on this forum. If any of them read them they may be changing their minds about a lot of things right now.
My favorite of his what ifs is this:
What if the Constitution's guarantees are not guarantees at all, but are subject to the whims of whoever is in power?
This is just what I have been worried about ever since I first heard Obama spewing his Hope and Change and really got worried about it when the Dems got control of both houses of Congress. We are getting closer and closer to just what the Judge says.
As long as there are people willing to defend the Constitution, no matter how unpopular that defense is to the public at large, the Constitution will not be a memory.
As long as people are willing to fight to defend this country against people who:
Want to dissolve the union,
Force their beliefs and religion on others by law,
Prevent the exercise of civil rights to people who do not share their beliefs,
Are willing to have their civil rights taken away in the name of security...
Freedom will never be just a memory.
Until we all start recognizing all Americans Liberal, Libertarian and Conservative AS your fellow Americans and fellow patriots, this country will never live up to it's motto, E Pluribus Unum.
It's all according to what kind of country you want.
I guess you didn't see these words from the good Judge.
What if the Constitution's guarantees are not guarantees at all, but are subject to the whims of whoever is in power?
You don't see anything going on these days to bear out what he said? I sure do.
The Constitution can be changed, by amendments, that's the way it was set up. If it could not be changed, we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote.
There is no indocrination going on, it's all in the imaginations of the talking heads.
Every time someone wants to teach bible in a public school, it's a violation of the 1st amendment. I do not want my kids being taught religion by a public school teacher. That's my job. You're allowed to practice your religion freely, just don't try to force it down my kids, or grandkids throat through the school system.
Nobody is trying to take your religion away from you, no churches are closing because of federal laws.
I guess you haven't been keeping up with the attempt of our government to take away the right of freedom of religion from the Catholics with Obamacare. Yep, you haven't kept up with that one, at all.
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.
