All Things Constitutional: discuss the U.S. Constitution (fast food, illegal, drugs)
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.
If as many people say, those rights are are fluid due to a living and breathing constitution. If that is the case we are only a majority rule nation, there is no real protection for the minority.
The US is a nation ruled by the consent of the majority altough the minority has specfik rights.
A lot of individuals who have said and done great things have also done very bad things; do we dismiss the words and deeds of everyone who has done wrong?
BTW, not all founders owned slaves.
Since they setup a contract that protects the individual we should scrap it because of the personal lives of some who helped draft the contract?
All of the founders were white supremacists who believed that blacks were inferior and that only whites were worthy of being United States citizens. They aren't that relevant today, we should instead view them as the first stepping stones in a long journey to true equality among all humans. We haven't reached it yet, though.
All of the founders were white supremacists who believed that blacks were inferior and that only whites were worthy of being United States citizens. They aren't that relevant today, we should instead view them as the first stepping stones in a long journey to true equality among all humans. We haven't reached it yet, though.
Very incorrect. They had great debates on the issue of slavery. Granted some questioned blacks capacities but it was not "All" as you claim. They debated slavery so much but the inferiority view not the issue. The issue was that slavery was so critical to the economy and they found it difficult to get rid of it without causing economic problems. They at least compromised by not allowing more slave trade starting in 1808 if I remember correctly. To call the white supremacist is in my opinion an exaggeration.
Also, it is easy to judge past generations with the lense of present day views. If they had white supremacist views as you seem to portray them they would demand only whites could vote. Many held the view that home ownership should be a factor for voting which disqualified many whites also and white women.
Now, I am not going to say some did view blacks as inferior and used religion as their reason. Others, however, did not.
Their actions are just as relevant today as they were then. The principles they espoused in The Declaration of Indendence and in The Constitution are still a work in progress. Jefferson so declared that as new generations came to be the laws would change accordingly and that is why we are still trying to improve our society. They left a legacy that has resulted in better and better opportunties to more and more citizens as we debate and struggle along the way. They did not draft a document to solve the immediate problems of the new country. They had the vision to draft it with posterity in mind and wrote it accordingly. Was it perfect? No, but it was a very good start. Many of them wondered if what they came up with would work. I believe Washington mentioned that this experiment may not last 20 years. Here we are well over 200 years and still working.
[MOD CUT]
Last edited by Ibginnie; 06-07-2010 at 04:44 PM..
Reason: The use of a manual signature is prohibited
The US is a nation ruled by the consent of the majority altough the minority has specfik rights.
That is my point, without minority rights we are in trouble. As long as majority rule becomes the focus the minority loses, unless we have a constitution and Bill of Rights.
But the Preamble is the law of the land. Anything that preceded it is not, and can only be used as a guide into what the founders might have been thinking. The Declaration of Independence and other documents that preceded the Constitution are not the law of the land, and have no force of law nor evidence of constitutionality.
Given that the founders did write many things before the Preamble to the Constitution, it must be conceded that the Preamble reflects a concise summary of their intent. The founders knew they were writing a constitution, and it must be presumed that they thought the matter through.
Anything you discover that was written before the Constitution can very well be a minority opinion, and as such, cannot be used to infer the intent of the writers of the Constitution itself.
The Declaration Of Independence is the first official act of The United States and became the first official document of the United States Of America when it was signed by the representatives of the 13 original States, and as such is the original Law of the United States.
The Declaration Of Independence is a binding document.
The Declaration Of Independence is the first official act of The United States.
The "United States of America" didn't exist when the Declaration of Independence was written. The text speaks of the united States of America and then goes on to refer to them as the Independent States.
The Declaration is just that a declaration, a manifesto, it is not law. The first "law" of the united states was the Articles of Confederation passed by the Continental Congress one year after the Declaration and then subsequently superseded by the Constitution.
Quote:
The Declaration Of Independence is a binding document.
Sorry but you are sorely mistaken because the Declaration is not even mentioned in the body of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.
The Declaration Of Independence is the first official act of The United States and became the first official document of the United States Of America when it was signed by the representatives of the 13 original States, and as such is the original Law of the United States.
The Declaration Of Independence is a binding document.
What's in the DoI is binding? It is a list of grievances and a declaration of intents. It contains no laws, no directives, no governmental structure -- the only rights declared are those of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' and to throw off despotism.
Given that the enactors of the Bill of Rights (many of the signators to the Declaration itself) saw a need for Amendment V, with its guarantee of life, liberty and property, it is clear that they did not consider the Declaration as binding law.
And the comment about despotism is irrelevant because, obviously, despotic regimes disregard constitutional provisions-- it is simply an acknowedgment that sometimes all structures of the state must be disregarded. This, of course, is the antithesis of any 'binding law'.
As for the United States of America, regardless of what they styled themselves, in 1776 they were 13 sovereign states in a loose military association. Despite the fact that we celebrate the nation's founding as dating July 4, 1776, the de facto state really didn't take shape until late 1777 when the Continental Congress approved the final draft of the Articles of Confederation and began operating generally as thought they were ratified (though they would not be until 1781).
For what its worth, the Articles of Confederation aren't binding, either.
The constitution is, rightfully so, quite concise & to the point. Politics & the courts (both ruled by lawyers) have worked since day one to complicate it in order to justify the need for their guidance.......Tin Knocker
Tin Knocker, you're so right as far as you go with it, but I'd add that through this corruption they, lawyers, are ruling America. On another site someone told me I needed to go to a library and read some books on the Constitution. I am not a Constitutional Scholar and I don't think it requires a degree in Constitutional Law to understand what the writers of the Constitution intended to communicate through the words they set down on parchment.
What's in the DoI is binding? It is a list of grievances and a declaration of intents. It contains no laws, no directives, no governmental structure -- the only rights declared are those of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' and to throw off despotism.
Given that the enactors of the Bill of Rights (many of the signators to the Declaration itself) saw a need for Amendment V, with its guarantee of life, liberty and property, it is clear that they did not consider the Declaration as binding law.
And the comment about despotism is irrelevant because, obviously, despotic regimes disregard constitutional provisions-- it is simply an acknowedgment that sometimes all structures of the state must be disregarded. This, of course, is the antithesis of any 'binding law'.
As for the United States of America, regardless of what they styled themselves, in 1776 they were 13 sovereign states in a loose military association. Despite the fact that we celebrate the nation's founding as dating July 4, 1776, the de facto state really didn't take shape until late 1777 when the Continental Congress approved the final draft of the Articles of Confederation and began operating generally as thought they were ratified (though they would not be until 1781).
For what its worth, the Articles of Confederation aren't binding, either.
When the Declaration Of Independence was signed it became Law of the Continental Congress. The last paragraph of the Declaration proclaims the United States. From that moment until now we have been The United States Of America, however loosely united, we have been united.
The principles, (unalienable rights) set down in writing in the Declaration of Independence are what the United States fought the American Revolutionary War for.
Everything after that is to preserve those principles, (unalienable rights) and to strengthen the Union.
I have yet to see anything that voids the Declaration of Independence.
What the Constitution means is always a controversial topic and it has been a long time since it has been as controversial as now. So let's have a civil discussion about the U.S. Constitution. But remember, any discussion of the Constitution requires not only discussing what the Constitution says but the how the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, so to discuss one, you have to be prepared to discuss the other.
Thanks, and let's keep it civil.
The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I will forever belive our founders intended the word, speech, to mean thoughts expressed through words comming from mouths. Not a statue of Jesus covered in feces.
Speech is a form of epression, expression is not a form of speech.
The Supreme Court is totally wrong on this.
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.
