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.
The Constitution was put in place to protect us from exactly what has happened to us: a massive central government with a vastly powerful executive branch that assumes more and more power, locked in unsustainable wars of aggression all around the globe and eroding civil liberties. We are here because our elected officials with the aid of the Judicial branch have ignored or misinterpreted the Constitution.
As an aside, the poll is a landslide in favor of following the Constitution. Yet how many who voted for following the Constitution at all times support our un-Constitutional foreign policy? How many support the thousands of federal social programs that are un-Constitutional? How many want to ignore states rights?
The Bill of Rights was written to "protect" the people from the government, not the Constitution. The Constitution waswritten to establish a strong and supreme central government that it could enforce the collection of taxes and put down domestic threats and rebellions. In order to garner support for ratification, the first ten amendments were included to assuage the concerns of those who at first opposed its acceptance.
Yes it should be followed and some of the ammendments that have been added should be removed. In particular any ammendment that in any way gives the federal government more power and reduces the power of the states. The founding fathers knew that at some point the federal government would try to smother the people and they were right.
Is this a joke? You do realize Judicial review isn't even in the constitution right? So how could relying on the Supreme Court to regulate constitutionality possibly be a basic tenet of the constitution itself?
Only if you consider a 208 year old unchallenged precedent a joke.
Quote:
what you are saying is that, there is no reason to concern ourselves with a government that oversteps its constitutionality,
Nothing could be further from the truth, unless you insist on taking my response out of the context in which it was written to address.
Quote:
But what you are really doing by saying that is really saying that we don't really need a constitution at all. That democracy will always correct itself.
What I was really saying is what I was really saying and I was really not saying what you claim.
Quote:
Do you really believe that democracy holds a self-correcting mechanism? Because our founders/framers believed democracy would only lead to despotism. As has been the case throughout time. Which is why they created the constitution to begin with.
The "Founders/Framers" believed a lot of things, things often in conflict with the things that they believed in amongst themselves. Be that as it may, let's consider one Supreme Court decision that is universally considered one of the most egregious. In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) he Court legislating from the bench established separate but equal as the law of the land, 58 years later the Supreme Court took a 180 degree turn and established that separate but equal was unconstitutional, different times different world and a different court - in essence a democratic correction of a 58 year old constitutional abuse.
Quote:
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson
Next time you want to post a quote from Jefferson, find a quote from Jefferson.
The Bill of Rights was written to "protect" the people from the government, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written to establish a strong and supreme central government that it could enforce the collection of taxes and put down domestic threats and rebellions. In order to garner support for ratification, the first ten amendments were included to assuage the concerns of those who at first opposed its acceptance.
Well!
I'm glad the constitution limits the power of the strong and supreme central government.
It was written to protect us from our government, so yes it should be followed and no we shouldn't be surprised when the same government circumvents it.
Absolutely!
[quote=jetgraphics;21598816]Q: Should the US Constitution be followed? A: It is a compact for specific performance, and those who swore an oath to it should be held to perform to it. Anything less is unacceptable. Anything more is suspect.
[/quote ]Worth repeating.
Ron Paul 2012! The only candidate who will absolutley uphold his Oath to the US Constitution.
but it doesn't SPECIFICALLY mention al qaida, thusly that means that we can't defend against them.. unless the constitution says so.. follow it to the letter right?
isn't that the view of some conservatives?
I don't think that is the view of anyone I've read posts on. I think you are taking it to the extreme.
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.
