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 not forgotten all the years I was ready to die defending it as it was written. I'm afraid my ideology has not changed. Today, if they're going to re-write it and change it, did I waste my time? Which means I could also have wasted my life......
I am also a strict constructionist and have no desire to see the document changed by a bunch of progressives.
Oh, I thought we'd have some granny panties in a twist. That Philly Rag has been raised higher than any pagan god: Isis or Apollo would have been jealous of the unlimited worship and unthinking reverence that scrap of parchment gets.
Did you know that the National Archives routinely receives luridly explicit letters from starry-eyed young women offering to bear the Constitution's children? Or, alternately, offering to join the Constitution in a tragically doomed romance and suicide pact? Absolutely true - you can look it up.
Apparently they have a form letter they use, patiently explaining to these deluded and over-excited people that the Constitution is merely a practical instrument designed, in a very different age, to provide some basic ground-rules for governing the country.
And that it's own authors expected it to be retired in due course and replaced by a younger version more suited to purpose, and would be very surprised to find that their descendants are determined to make it stagger on forever and ever amen.
And that, unfortunately, being merely a document with all the ordinary flaws of any such thing produced by men, it is incapable of falling in love, having sex, or producing offspring. Even though some devotees of its cult do claim for it the power to raise the dead, walk on water, and cure blindness and ingrown toenails.
Well said just like any progressive of the day. It is a shame that any of you have been allowed to make use of the Constitution of the United States but maybe someday you will manage to become the very slaves to government you want to be.
Our symbol of national sovereignty, on the other hand, has largely served to stymie and frustrate political evolution, promoted an inability of our political institutions to react in a timely fashion to pressing problems, and perpetuated undemocratic and outmoded aspects of our political system.
So you want the Constitution changed, or a new Constitution?
Obviously, Thomas Jefferson and the other signatories of the 1776 Declaration, many of whom were also signatories of the 1787 constitution, disagreed with you on the question of inalienable rights.
But the questions are these: were Americans a free people, and were their governments limited by law, before adopting the 1787 constitution? If you answer no, then I agree you have the beginnings of a case for the present Constitution being essential - by that light, liberty and law did not exist in America before.
But the very men we praise fulsomely for drafting the present constitution seem to have been of the contrary opinion: liberty and law existed inherently in a land of freeborn Englishmen. And they were not the only ones: Lord Mansfield's ruling in King's Bench in 1772 in the case of Somersett rests on precisely the same premise.
The Constitution did not and could not create anything which existed before it. The primacy of the rule of law was something which existed, according to the reasoning of the founding fathers and as a fundamental principle underlying British constitutionalism and its American offshoot, at least since 1215. The founding fathers' work was simply to order what already existed into what they believed was a more workable architecture. As long as we hold to that principle, we can do the same.
The conflation of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution is the seminal source of confusion in the minds of most Americans, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution. He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. Under the Constitution, there can be no extra-legal rights, there can only be legal rights - rights provided and protected by law. Likewise, the framers of the Constitution rejected the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy and the evils of the tyranny of the majority in favor of a constitutional republic, a representative form of government with separation of powers, and checks and balances against those powers that can be both used and abused by men. It is, above all else, one that establishes the rule of law.
That's what I love to see! In addition to silly girls who want to marry the Constitution and have its babies, there's another sort of rag-worshiper: the uninformed imbecile who has never read anything about it.
If it wasn't a certain exercise in futility, I might mention some libruhl propaganda, such as Gene Healy, The Cult of the Presidency (Cato Institute, 2008), pp. 169-88.
You just said what Rush Limbaugh calls progressives, uninformed, but you don't see that your reading seems to have come from progressives who want to establish a government based on power with nothing to hold them back. Maybe you need to broaden your left leaning reading.
Conservatives attempt to overstep the bounds of the Constitution all the time...well, specifically the First Amendment to the Constitution. Both groups have serious problems with this.
Those are religious fanatics, who are not necessarily conservatives, even though the Media and Liberals have erroneously pegged them as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. Maurio
We do have to remember that the Constitution is a living document and as we change, it evolves with us via the courts.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says courts have the authority to change the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. Maurio
Take for example "Freedom of the Press". When that was put in the Constitution, it literally meant that newspapers printed on a mechanical press enjoyed protection. That is because the Framers lived in a time where the mechanical press was the only way news was distributed.
That is a grotesque interpretation and factually incorrect. Like the vast majority of Americans, you were never taught the Constitution, never taught it correctly, or don't understand it because you refuse to read any of the documents associated with the Constitution.
Freedom of the Press has nothing to do with printing presses, mechanical, electronic or digital.
Freedom of the Press protects Editorial Opinion.
Editorial Opinion is an expression of Free Speech, but differs slightly in that Op-Ed pieces are often anonymous or written by a group -- of editors -- rather than an expression by an individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. Maurio
If you were to take the "original intent" method, which some conservatives like Bork subscribe to, the internet, TV, radio and even a paper printed on anything other than a mechanical press would not have "freedom of the press" protections.
From Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Book 8
"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature (or form)? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?"
Speech is communication. The medium of communication -- verbally, with sign language, body language, a book, a newspaper or other periodical, the internet, the airwaves --- matters not.
Any intelligent person can see that, and any intelligent person can also see the brilliance in the simplicity of the Constitution -- that an handful of words like Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press could an express an idea that was unbound and unfettered by time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
Oh, I thought we'd have some granny panties in a twist. That Philly Rag has been raised higher than any pagan god: Isis or Apollo would have been jealous of the unlimited worship and unthinking reverence that scrap of parchment gets.
Did you know that the National Archives routinely receives luridly explicit letters from starry-eyed young women offering to bear the Constitution's children? Or, alternately, offering to join the Constitution in a tragically doomed romance and suicide pact? Absolutely true - you can look it up.
Apparently they have a form letter they use, patiently explaining to these deluded and over-excited people that the Constitution is merely a practical instrument designed, in a very different age, to provide some basic ground-rules for governing the country.
And that it's own authors expected it to be retired in due course and replaced by a younger version more suited to purpose, and would be very surprised to find that their descendants are determined to make it stagger on forever and ever amen.
And that, unfortunately, being merely a document with all the ordinary flaws of any such thing produced by men, it is incapable of falling in love, having sex, or producing offspring. Even though some devotees of its cult do claim for it the power to raise the dead, walk on water, and cure blindness and ingrown toenails.
SUB Rant (No Argument, Straw Man Fallacy, Red Herring)
DIM Liberal as CONSTANT Whiner
SELECT CASE Rant ()
IF Rant THEN
DO
WHILE Liberal = TRUE
LOOP
END IF
END SELECT
Rant = Liberal
END SUB
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
Because, of course, all critics of the constitution are libruhls. There is no conservative case against a set of constitutional arrangements which allows the executive to declare war whenever the chief magistrate feels like it, or wiretap, arrest or deport citizens without trial. No conservative has ever had a problem with that.
Well, as usual, you're just plain wrong. There are many examples, myself included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
I am arguing in the first place that, among many other flaws, the 1787 Constitution is either too vague on the Executive's powers in relation to the Legislative, particularly in regard to war and foreign policy, or, if one subscribes to Unitary Executive thinking, is not vague at all and actually exempts the Executive from any check or control by the other branches in certain circumstances, which it is at the discretion of the Executive to determine.
There's nothing vague about it.
One-dimensional people read this.....
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
...and then hold the mistaken belief that both houses of Congress must stand on their chairs, clasp hands, raise them skyward and shout in unison, "WE DO DE-CLARE WAR!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
There are some pithy and insightful bits in that essay: this one among others:
"The U.S. Constitution serves the same function as the British royal family: it offers a comforting symbol of tradition and continuity, thereby masking a radical change in the actual system of power."
That's conjecture and speculation not supported by fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
Our symbol of national sovereignty, on the other hand, has largely served to stymie and frustrate political evolution, promoted an inability of our political institutions to react in a timely fashion to pressing problems, and perpetuated undemocratic and outmoded aspects of our political system.
All of those are failures on your part, not on the part of the Constitution.
I can see where it would be appealing to Liberal blame in inanimate object like the Constitution for their own failures.
That goes back to this...
Your attitude amounts to an admission that you have failed to persuade the majority of you fellow citizens to be of like mind and that you are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what you cannot attain by democratic procedures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
O.K., I will agree with you that this argument becomes pretty complicated. Is it too vague or are we unwilling to hold presidents responsible when they cross the line?
Your question merits further examination.
My guess is people are too embarrassed to do what is necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Now the Constitution does as you note, allow a president to do things outside the norm in say a time of war. I'm not sure that something could have been created that address every possible issue here.
Japanese internment camps were clearly a wrong headed idea.
That is not a failure of the Constitution.
That is a failure of Congress, of the Courts, of the States and of the People.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
Did the American people not have liberty and rights from 1776 to 1787? Was America not a land of laws and not men under the Articles of Confederation,...
You were paying annual tribute in $Million of 1780 US Dollars to France as a bribe to stop the French from raiding and capturing your cargo ships, merchant vessels and military vessels.
You were also paying annual tribute in $Million of 1780 US Dollars to the Barbary Coast States for the exact same reason....in fact, you paid them $Millions in tribute every year to 1810, when you finally invaded the Barbary Coast States and ended it.....yeah, that's where the "...shores of Tripoli..." come from in the Marines' Hymn.
Wanna talk about the Quasi-War with France 1795-1799?
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
... or even indeed under the British Crown?
You might want to read the Declaration of Independence...it was an extraordinary essay that provided a preface, stated an hypothesis, presented evidence such as this......
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
....draws a conclusion, then makes generalizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
D It was adopted (illegally, I might add) in order to improve the function of the federal government, not because liberty was lacking under the prior constitution.
On Monday, June 19, 1786 at Federal Hall on the Island of Manhattan in New York City, members of the Congress of the Articles of Confederation took a vote at 5:58 PM local time just before returning to their lodgings to form a committee to explore changes to the Articles.
Nothing illegal about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
There are no inherent rights, there are no unalienable rights, there are only legal rights.
Says who? There are inherent rights. As an human, I exist, therefore I may criticize or praise any government as I see fit whenever I feel like it, and there's nothing you or any one else can do about it.
I exist, therefore I may defend myself, my property and others, if I so choose to do so.
People who make claims like "there are only legal rights" are anal retentive control freaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
The fundamental principle of the Constitution is the primacy of the rule of law.
The fundamental principle of the Constitution is that government is of the people, by the people and for the people -- the Constitution lists restrictions placed on Government by the people, not rights granted to the people by Government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
All persons are not created equal,....
What an embarrassment.
All persons are created equal in the sense that there are no divine rights.
It's frightening really that so many people do not even understand the world in which the Constitution was created.
There were greater and lesser Nobles...then and now...who hold their positions on the basis of "divine right" or "birth right." Under the Constitution, there are no kings or queens, no princes, no earls, barons, or dukes, no counts or viscounts, no lords, no knights no nothing of that kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
The Constitution did not and could not create anything which existed before it.
Another embarrassment.
The principles of social science follow. Here naturalists teach that men have all the same rights and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command others; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which emanates from themselves. Hence the people are sovereign; those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people; so that they can be deposed, willing or unwilling according to the wishes of the people. The origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or the State, which is ruled according to the new principles of liberty. The State must be godless; no reason why one religion ought to be preferred to another; all to be held in the same esteem.
Who made that statement?
That would be Pope Leo XII in Humanus Genus.
So the Great Poop is ranting....and that's just a small snippet....he rants like that for pages and pages, about what, exactly?
The Great Poop thinks it's terrible and horrible that people choose their own leaders, instead of allowing the Great Poop to do it for them. Worse than that, the people choose their own leaders and no one seeks validation or approval from the Great Poop.
Who is the Great Poop talking about? Americans...that's who the Poop is talking about....won't bow down and kiss the Poop's ass.
Why was Leo ranting?
Because Victor Emanuel seized all of the Papal States, because Garibaldi had previously seized the Papal States and freed all of the slaves working for the Imperial Roman Catholic Church (well, they were white slaves so they don't really count as slaves)...
Because the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be....
Because Napoleon destroyed the Holy Roman Empire...
Because Napoleon imprisoned two of the Poops...
Because Napoleon over-ran and destroyed the Papal States....
Because Napoleon totally annihilated the Papal Armies...
Because the Papal Navies were sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean....
Because Napoleon was Emperor...
Because there was a revolution in France....
...and why was there a French Revolution?
Because, according to Poop Leo, the Founding Fathers revolted against England and set up a form of government employing concepts that the majority of the world found frightening (but now accept as normal for the most part).
What the US Constitution created was a government of the people, by the people, for the people....and that was revolutionary and there was nothing before it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
The primacy of the rule of law was something which existed, according to the reasoning of the founding fathers and as a fundamental principle underlying British constitutionalism and its American offshoot, at least since 1215.
The primacy of the rule of law?
Did you read the 27 grievances listed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence?
So, um, you know, how did the "primacy of the rule of law" work out for Colonial America?
Hello?.....if there had been a "primacy of the rule of law" there never would have been a war of colonial independence.
Yeah, he's right. Or actually, he's not right - the dozens of constitutional lawyers, political scientists, elected officials, journalists and policy experts who concur with this thesis are right.
It comes as a great shock to some people, especially those whose education either hasn't included a critical examination of our "fundamental law" or else hasn't included any means of critical examination at all, and who instead have been taught simply to revere it like a pagan fetish - but the present constitution pretty much sucks. It's worn-out. It has ceased to function properly. It's not just archaic, but an actual positive threat to the liberty, stability of government, and rule of law it purports to guarantee.
I know it's going to make some people writhe with indignation and fury at the very thought, but on this question at least, the "elites" really do know what is best for you better than you do yourself.
The only reason it's failed to function properly is because our "leaders" are traitors who do not uphold the oath they've taken. James Madison was a genious.
Here's a link that will explain exactly what's going on with republicans and democrats, and the abuse of presidential power that's been happening for many years now.
I guess some of you have never heard of "Amendments". Google it.
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.
