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.
Maybe its not followed because its just a piece of paper. Serious, You can't limit government especially if you create a situation where there is a minority of the population with rights, the rest of society doesn't have. You should expect it to be exploited. When you legitimize that kind of situation you're asking for trouble. It doesn't matter if there is a document with "negative rights" are mentioned to limit the state.
The question is whether we are following it or not.
The federal government prohibited the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol for recreational purposes through the amendment process. In a rare moment of clarity, it saw the error in its ways and repealed that amendment with another amendment.
Why is the manufacture, sale and consumption of recreational drugs prohibited at the federal level by just a law and not an amendment?
I say that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional because they did not follow the amendment process. State drug laws on the other hand may or may not violate your state's constitution. You would have to read it to see.
Because the Constitution is a relatively open document, it needs to be that way to allow Congress and the states to effectively govern. As a result of this a lot of it is subject to interpretation and there are quite a few people who believe their interpretation is not just the right one, but the only plausible one. This understandably results in a lot of consternation, anger and angst when the courts disagree with them.
The question is whether we are following it or not.
The federal government prohibited the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol for recreational purposes through the amendment process. In a rare moment of clarity, it saw the error in its ways and repealed that amendment with another amendment.
Why is the manufacture, sale and consumption of recreational drugs prohibited at the federal level by just a law and not an amendment?
I say that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional because they did not follow the amendment process. State drug laws on the other hand may or may not violate your state's constitution. You would have to read it to see.
I see nothing in the US Constitution that gives them any authority over drugs, PERIOD.
Or to be involved in the insurance industry.
I see nothing in the US Constitution that gives them any authority over drugs, PERIOD. Or to be involved in the insurance industry.
I say that health insurance is the only time the federal government should have stepped in against the states. They should have forced states to allow health coverage to be sold across state lines. States were hampering interstate commerce and the feds should regulate that. And by regulate, I mean "make regular".
But once selling across state lines happened freely, then they should step back and let the market work.
We do scrupulously honor the 3rd Amendment in both letter and spirit.
I can't think of a single violation in our nation's history.
Back when I attended law school as a 1L we were discussing this very issue and we actually did find a case where it was violated, but only 1. It involved kicking civilian laborers who the state was having a dispute with out of their government provided housing and giving it to soldiers. The civilians sued and won.
I say that health insurance is the only time the federal government should have stepped in against the states. They should have forced states to allow health coverage to be sold across state lines. States were hampering interstate commerce and the feds should regulate that. And by regulate, I mean "make regular".
But once selling across state lines happened freely, then they should step back and let the market work.
You have that backasswards....
Once insurance is sold across state lines(it already is) it is then under the 10th amendment.
Until then, the Federal government has no basis to be involved, according to the US Constitution.
Rule it a tax and the government can do anything it wants, as there is an amendment to do just that..
Once insurance is sold across state lines(it already is) it is then under the 10th amendment.
Until then, the Federal government has no basis to be involved, according to the US Constitution.
Rule it a tax and the government can do anything it wants, as there is an amendment to do just that..
Those rights you mentioned are like all rights and are not unlimited but limited in their scope. In regards to freedom of speech there are restrictions that would lead to criminal charges being laid if abused. Sedition is just one example. Sure the press has freedom but the people have the remedy of the courts to address libel and slander.
The fact that rights are not unlimited is where the problem lays. Who decides what the limitations actually are. Do you feel that the NSA spying on virtually all Americans without warrant is constitutional? How does that manage to escape the constitutional right against unreasonable search? The USA seems to be quickly becoming a "Police state". What good is the constitution if it can not protect the citizens from the heavy hand of a "Big brother" government?
Agreed on all counts. When deciding where to limit Constitutional Rights, I think we have to first determine what the framers intended when drafting it. Take the first amendment for example. I think it's pretty clear that the framers intended a free exchange of a wide range of productive thoughts and ideas to be possible without the fear or intimidation or repercussion. They did not intend for you to be able to bear false witness against someone or print libel. So, is making slander and libel illegal contradictory to the intent of the first amendment? I say no.
And I absolutely believe that the NSA spying is totally a violation of the fourth amendment. How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me. Whether you believe it is a necessary violation is another matter, but it is still a violation.
Because the Constitution is a relatively open document, it needs to be that way to allow Congress and the states to effectively govern. As a result of this a lot of it is subject to interpretation and there are quite a few people who believe their interpretation is not just the right one, but the only plausible one. This understandably results in a lot of consternation, anger and angst when the courts disagree with them.
Its almost like religion to some people.
You have this totally backwards.... The Constitution is not an "open document" accept for the amendment process.
The Constitution is not supposed to change to accommodate the governing of congress and the states, rather, the governing bodies of congress and the states are to be bound in what they can and cannot do by the limits set forth in the Constitution.
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.
