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 think what you are getting at is the U.S. Constitution really doesn't say what people can do, it's designed to say what the government CANNOT do. People, particularly those from other countries, still don't get that. Many Americans still don't get that concept. It's really unique in the world, even today.
In turn, the Declaration of Independence lays the foundation that certain rights are not the purview of government laws. Certain rights are "Unalienable rights" are given by the creator (or by the nature of man himself) - not by a government.
This is why that great Constitutional Law Professor, Barak Obama, never understood the Constitution, and called it a rule of "negative rights". As a big government liberal, and despite being given the power to teach the Constitution, Obama failed to understand the role of the Constitution, which was to limit government power to what it specified in the document, and to grant all other rights to the People and to the separate sovereign states that were not specifically listed as powers reserved for the government in the Constitution.
Of course, all that died after the civil war when the 10th Amendment was effectively killed.
The real coup de gras was the "Interstate Commerce Clause" which has been used as a blanket federal powergrab in every avenue of law whereby the government says, if anything moves or sells across any state laws, then we can regulate it and regulate every business and person associated with it.
The Interstate Commerce Clause is the most radically abused provision in the entire constitution. It is sinful what the misinterpretation of that single clause has done to state sovereignty.
Last edited by Igor Blevin; 09-02-2020 at 10:44 AM..
I think what you are getting at is the U.S. Constitution really doesn't say what people can do, it's designed to say what the government CANNOT do. People, particularly those from other countries, still don't get that. Many Americans still don't get that concept. It's really unique in the world, even today.
In turn, the Declaration of Independence lays the foundation that certain rights are not the purview of government laws. Certain rights are "Unalienable rights" are given by the creator (or by the nature of man himself) - not by a government.
Right
The founders believed that God has confers various specific unalienable rights to man, all man planet wide throughout all time, and that governments tend to ignore these basic human rights. So they believed that our Constitution recognized, affirmed, and codified rights already granted by God in perpetutity.
That is why the constitution talks about Rights for people and Powers for government bodies.
That is why it drives me insane when modern people and the media use the colloquial use of rights for government. They will say, "the government has the right to tax you". But the founders would say, "the government has been given the POWER to tax you", and that power can be taken away for example.
In contrast, a human beings right to worship the religion of his choosing is seen as being granted by God and irrevokable. Even the term irrevokable is not accurate because you can't revoke a right. It applies for all eternity. Only powers can be revoked.
So as concerns the Second Amendment, the Founders affirmed a God given right to self defense and to freedom. As such, they identified a right to keep and bear arms as means to self defense and to freedom. A Right, not a Power.
Only people and states have rights.
Government only exercieses Powers. Governments, presidents, governors, police, tax collectors, school principals, the US military, the US post office -- they all have powers in the course of their duties, not Rights.
This is why that great Constitutional Law Professor, Barak Obama, never understood the Constitution, and called it a rule of "negative rights". As a big government liberal, and despite being given the power to teach the Constitution, Obama failed to understand the role of the Constitution, which was to limit government power to what it specified in the document, and to grant all other rights to the People and to the separate sovereign states that were not specifically listed as powers reserved for the government in the Constitution.
Of course, all that died after the civil war when the 10th Amendment was effectively killed.
The real coup de gras was the "Interstate Commerce Clause" which has been used as a blanket federal powergrab in every avenue of law whereby the government says, if anything moves or sells across any state laws, then we can regulate it and regulate every business and person associated with it.
The Interstate Commerce Clause is the most radically abused provision in the entire constitution. It is sinful what the misinterpretation of that single clause has done to state sovereignty.
I'd like to better understand your views on this, with some examples of what you mean?
Maybe a separate thread?
This is why that great Constitutional Law Professor, Barak Obama, never understood the Constitution, and called it a rule of "negative rights". As a big government liberal, and despite being given the power to teach the Constitution, Obama failed to understand the role of the Constitution, which was to limit government power to what it specified in the document, and to grant all other rights to the People and to the separate sovereign states that were not specifically listed as powers reserved for the government in the Constitution.
Yes exactly. Interesting subtopic probably out of scope, but I will touch on it. Barak Obama indeed was a constitutional law professer at the University of Chicago Law School, but before that he was a community organizer always focused on his career choice - politics. His opinions on the constitution were thus based on an underlying agenda - redistributive change. He was frustrated at the constraints of the constitution, indeed he wanted it to define what a government could do, not what it couldn't do, believing that the government defined rights, not the individual, thus reducing these to "manufactured" rights.
That's all well and good, his intentions were admirable. Except he forgot one thing - The Declaration of Independence - the concept of "inalienable" rights - if a government can create these rights that we hold self evident, it can also take away these rights. Once again, we have a very intelligent person that never quite "got it".
I'd like to better understand your views on this, with some examples of what you mean?
Maybe a separate thread?
Needs a separate thread. I have already gone afield and don't want to jog again.
Let me just say briefly that the interstate commerce clauses was always interpreted to allow the federal government to regulate commercial activity between two or more states. Commercial activity confined within a single state may was protected from federal regulation. Non-commercial activity was protected from federal regulation.
In 1942, FDR's Supreme Court under FDR re-interpreted the commerce clause to allow the federal government to regulate ALL economic activity between states, massively expanding this power.
Fast forward to today, and anything that affects or could affect commerce is subject to federal regulation. A massive broadening if federal power over the states and wholesale destruction of the 10th Amendment.
Over an hours time I tried to do a brief writeup in more detail, and it always gets so wordy and convoluted, I just don't want to get more off topic than we already are. Don't want to screw up the Great Debates forum. Sorry.
Needs a separate thread. I have already gone afield and don't want to jog again.
Let me just say briefly that the interstate commerce clauses was always interpreted to allow the federal government to regulate commercial activity between two or more states. Commercial activity confined within a single state may was protected from federal regulation. Non-commercial activity was protected from federal regulation.
In 1942, FDR's Supreme Court under FDR re-interpreted the commerce clause to allow the federal government to regulate ALL economic activity between states, massively expanding this power.
Fast forward to today, and anything that affects or could affect commerce is subject to federal regulation. A massive broadening if federal power over the states and wholesale destruction of the 10th Amendment.
Over an hours time I tried to do a brief writeup in more detail, and it always gets so wordy and convoluted, I just don't want to get more off topic than we already are. Don't want to screw up the Great Debates forum. Sorry.
Understood, just to note there are currently at least eight suits citing commerce*clause violations by state regulations in the circuits at the moment. SCOTUS will decide on Cert for one of them at the end of September.
Understood, just to note there are currently at least eight suits citing commerce*clause violations by state regulations in the circuits at the moment. SCOTUS will decide on Cert for one of them at the end of September.
Time was when that Right was reserved to the States. I grieve over letting the federal government steal that Power away from the People and from the States.
If a State passes a horrific law, as loathe as I may be to leave my state, then I can. When the federal government passes a horrific law and tyranizes the 50 sovereign states using the commerce clause, where do you go? What country can you move to in order to restore your state's rights. You are screwed.
Time was when that Right was reserved to the States. I grieve over letting the federal government steal that Power away from the People and from the States.
If a State passes a horrific law, as loathe as I may be to leave my state, then I can. When the federal government passes a horrific law and tyranizes the 50 sovereign states using the commerce clause, where do you go? What country can you move to in order to restore your state's rights. You are screwed.
The Commerce Clause has been unchanged since day one. I think you're referring to one of the commerce statutes, which are subordinate. That's why I asked the question in the first place.
I don't think relocating is a realistic solution. The businesses in the state (there can be many affected), and all their employees just can't up sticks like an individual can. I'll say no more on this subject.
A body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
All able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government
Bullet point #4 is why the second amendment was created. Should the federal government become tyrannical, individual citizens have the right to defend themselves
Bullet point #4 is why the second amendment was created. Should the federal government become tyrannical, individual citizens have the right to defend themselves
This also shows why it would be a conflict of interest for the federal govt to regulate or have any authority over the militia, it would defeat the entire purpose of such a group!
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.
