The US Constitution

[EmbsComputerArt]

America has a constitution?  Quick!  Somebody tell Obama!

[p.rehbein]

Apparently many of you here didn't get the memo...............we no longre refer to that particular  parchment of misinformation as The U.S. Constitution. 


HERE-YE, HERE-YE, HERE-YE, NO LONGER SHALL WE CELEBRATE THE AFOREMNETIONED PARCHMENT!  FROM THIS DAY FORTH WE SHALL CELEBRATE THE "MAGNA CARTA OF THE UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA".  All citizens, non-citizens (and even you guys hiding in that gully just outside of Phoenix) shall bow to Obama the Great and will swear alliegence to the same, under penalty of death!

.............................ok, I know, I'm being silly..........uh, well, maybe, WE'LL SEE.........



in His name.........

[Eagle]

Eagle  Did you come up with this?  Whoever did it is great.

Nope it was one of THOSE emails.   

[John 10:10]

A Tale of Four Ships

Once upon a time there were four ships – (1) the USS Constitution, (2) the USS Titanic, (3) the USS California, and (4) the USS Carpathia. 

The USS Constitution represents the USA as God intended for her to be, "a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.

[p.rehbein]

What?  We have a Constitution?     Since when?    Where? A Constitution?     How would anyone ever know?  Ya certainly coulda fooled me!   

[prayereagle76]

The Constitution wa written with Godly Principles. We need to restore those principles in America.

[ex cathedra]

Seems like a lot of updating over the years.........  A little back tracking, then some more updating.......... More flip flopping than a Jehovah Witness church history lesson.....lol

@ what point did it become perfect???

After slavery??

After women got the vote??

After Native Americans got citizenship??

After jim crow finally died in the 60's???

No one said it was perfect.  But that doesn't give every liberal judge the right to change it just because he doesn't think it is perfect.  If it needs to be changed, there are appropriate provisions made in the constitution itself to change it.  It is not for some yay hoo sitting on the ninth circuit to change it.

It seems my post was removed???

IF that is the case this will likely be my last post as I do not want to participate on a Christian board that would delete something like that...  One can come here & question God but not a man made document???  lol

Exactly it is not perfect, nor will it ever be...  It has been & will always be very fallible & subject to interpretation & implementation..........  Que sera sera..

But it is not to be changed by anyone - only by the provisions established for that.  If it can be changed by every Tom, Dick and Harry who sits on a bench it is of no use whatsoever to anyone for anything.

freedom of religion how precious to the christian how we have noticed what goes on in other countries that does not have this.

[revmitchell]

Seems like a lot of updating over the years.........  A little back tracking, then some more updating.......... More flip flopping than a Jehovah Witness church history lesson.....lol

@ what point did it become perfect???

After slavery??

After women got the vote??

After Native Americans got citizenship??

After jim crow finally died in the 60's???

No one said it was perfect.  But that doesn't give every liberal judge the right to change it just because he doesn't think it is perfect.  If it needs to be changed, there are appropriate provisions made in the constitution itself to change it.  It is not for some yay hoo sitting on the ninth circuit to change it.

It seems my post was removed???

IF that is the case this will likely be my last post as I do not want to participate on a Christian board that would delete something like that...  One can come here & question God but not a man made document???  lol

Exactly it is not perfect, nor will it ever be...  It has been & will always be very fallible & subject to interpretation & implementation..........  Que sera sera..

But it is not to be changed by anyone - only by the provisions established for that.  If it can be changed by every Tom, Dick and Harry who sits on a bench it is of no use whatsoever to anyone for anything.

But that is certainly subjective........  I would think various changes have been made & many thought those making these changes unqualified & mistaken.........

I do not have issue w/ the document itself, as flawed as it maybe or the interpretations of it may seem.......

For me the issue is really about Christians focusing on & relying on this man made document........  IMHO they should focus on Christ----->>> First & foremost NOT THE CONSTITUTION....

As anyone can clearly see it is not logical even from a secular prospective..... 

One need only look @ murder.......... If on Tuesday I hit my neighbors wife in the tummy & cause her "fetus" to die I can be charged w/ murder.......... If that did not happen & on the next day Wednesday she decided to abort the baby it would not be a crime....

If anyone, especially Christians are looking to a system or document that can have such blaring inconsistencies, well may the Lord help them....... 

You are correct it is inconsistent and poorly interpreted. It is a poor interpretation that there is some right to privacy in the constitution that allows for the slaughter of unborn children. Any mother who would intentionally rip their unborn child limb from limb should be held for aggravated murder and given the death sentence.

[Eagle]

You are correct it is inconsistent and poorly interpreted. It is a poor interpretation that there is some right to privacy in the constitution that allows for the slaughter of unborn children. Any mother who would intentionally rip their unborn child limb from limb should be held for aggravated murder and given the death sentence.

I agree.......

A woman does not get pregnant by her self that would make 'him' an assoraery  to the crime.


Cant spell "assoraery" well enough to get the correct help from spell check 

[revmitchell]

You are correct it is inconsistent and poorly interpreted. It is a poor interpretation that there is some right to privacy in the constitution that allows for the slaughter of unborn children. Any mother who would intentionally rip their unborn child limb from limb should be held for aggravated murder and given the death sentence.

I agree.......

A woman does not get pregnant by her self that would make 'him' an assoraery  to the crime.


Cant spell "assoraery" well enough to get the correct help from spell check 

Simply getting one pregnant does not make one an accessory to the crime. It is an absurd idea. Only when the man takes part in the abortion does he become an accessory. Becoming pregnant is not the crime. Slaughtering the unborn child is. Not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.

[Eagle]

You must be male.    Some things never change....

Gen 3:12  And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

[jfla]

Seems like a lot of updating over the years.........  A little back tracking, then some more updating.......... More flip flopping than a Jehovah Witness church history lesson.....lol

@ what point did it become perfect???

After slavery??

After women got the vote??

After Native Americans got citizenship??

After jim crow finally died in the 60's???

No one said it was perfect.  But that doesn't give every liberal judge the right to change it just because he doesn't think it is perfect.  If it needs to be changed, there are appropriate provisions made in the constitution itself to change it.  It is not for some yay hoo sitting on the ninth circuit to change it.

The Founding Fathers had no intention of compelling future generations to live by a constitution which they wrote for an 18th century nation with 3 million people on the edge of the civilized world.  They had no original intent that they expected future generations to live by.

http://abetterconstitution.com/

The Founding Fathers also fully expected and empowered the federal courts to interpret the Constitution and thus adapt it to socio-economic and political conditions which the Founding Fathers could not envision.  The Founders set up a Constitution that can bend so it wouldn't have to be completely broken by formal amendment.  Thus the Constitution has given the U.S. a great deal of stability- stability that many other republics in the world have never had (France and Italy for example).  This makes the Constitution the greatest tool of conservatism ever devised by man since conservatism is as much about creating a stable, self-sustaining society as much as it is about giving liberty to the individual- which far too often simply becomes license.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm

"This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security... The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

[Jimmy]

Of course they wrote the constitution for the benefit of the future generations.  To think that they wrote it for themselves and no one coming later is a bit silly.

But the important aspect here is that they provided a means for later generations to change it if necessary.  But that is not good enough for the elitist left progressive liberal so and sos.   They will defy the constitution in any way they wish so long as no one stands up to them.  They are an arrogant lot that we could well do without.

There should be no reason to "interpret" the constitution in any way but the way in which it was written.  If you don't like what it says, get it changed.  It wasn't meant to be "bent".  That is just more elitist left progressive liberal poppy cock.

The courts are there to decide whether or not laws as written by the legislative branch of government are consistant with the constitution as written and as it exists.  It is not the role of the courts to make any "interpretive" changes in the constitution.  The courts have no authority whatever to change or twist or bend the meaning of the constitution in any way, shape or form.  That some judges think they do is a blight on this nation.

[marc]

What seems more arrogant to me is Clarence Thomas and the originalists acting as if they knew what was in the founders heads and exactly what they would think today.

It's good to remember that John Marshall, the father of judicial review, was a confidant of Washington's.

[Jimmy]

What seems more arrogant to me is Clarence Thomas and the originalists acting as if they knew what was in the founders heads and exactly what they would think today.

It's good to remember that John Marshall, the father of judicial review, was a confidant of Washington's.

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks what the founders would think today.  What matters is what the original document says.  It is the "interpreters" on your side of the fence, marc, that have given us the disasterous concept in the current"Separation of Church and State", something that does not appear in the document at all.  It is the "interpreters" on your side of the fence that laugh and make fun of Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for the Senate, for challenging that current concept.

It is not necessary to "know what they were thinking" to realize that the Bill of Rights places no restrictions on the individual, but rather is a list of limitations on government.  Those "interpreters" are destroying this country.

[jfla]

Of course they wrote the constitution for the benefit of the future generations.  To think that they wrote it for themselves and no one coming later is a bit silly.

"No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation...Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

[jfla]

What seems more arrogant to me is Clarence Thomas and the originalists acting as if they knew what was in the founders heads and exactly what they would think today.

It's good to remember that John Marshall, the father of judicial review, was a confidant of Washington's.

The issue of the Constitution's original intent is as old as the document itself, and determining original intent has always been a most difficult task.

Some modern day politicians and pundits believe they can find original intent in the in the writings of the Framers of the Constitution.  But, how do we do this when the Framers left so little in the way of writings?  And what do we do when Framers were not all of one mind?

What about Edmund Randolph, who proposed the Virginia Plan at the Convention, then refused to sign the document because he though the central government would have too much power and then ended up supporting ratification before serving in Washington's cabinet?  What was Randolph's original intent?

What about Alexander Hamilton?  He spoke only briefly at the Convention and then went home because New York's other two delegates always outvoted him.  But Hamilton then returned to the Convention after those other delegates had left the Convention themselves.  Hamilton played only a little role in writing the Constitution, but he had a major influence on how the Constitution was implemented.

And what about James Madison?  Both Hamilton and Madison were authors of the Federalist Papers, but once the government was set up they joined opposing political factions- Hamilton a Federalist in favor of a strong government, Madison an Antifederalist in favor of a weak government.

And then there's George Washington who refused to exercise any presidential leadership (while also usurping the power of the federal courts) by refusing to veto any legislation he did not personally think was unconstitutional no matter how much he personally disagreed with the legislation.

So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

The only real record of original intent is found in the Constitutional Convention's Journal and the notes James Madison took on the debates.  But, the Journal was not published until 1818 and Madison's notes were not published until 1840.  That means the nation did not know what the Framers really wanted the Constitution to mean for the first 50 years of the document's existence.

The Constitution itself is little help.  The Framers left the Constitution intentionally vague in many places.  For example, what does a term of "good behavior" mean?  Does it mean a federal judge has lifetime tenure as long as he does not violate statutory law?  Or does it mean, as many libertarians and a few right-wing types believe, that the judge can serve as long as he does not issue a ruling that certain segments of the population object to?

Also, what is cruel and unusual punishment?  Why was hanging acceptable at one time, but not now?

And how can the Constitution say no religious test for federal office is allowed, but then say the Constitution was "done in convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."  Just who is the Lord that the Constitution acknowledges?

The alternative to original intent is the concept that the Constitution is a living document; it means whatever the courts, the Congress and the Executive Branch says it means and whatever the public is willing to accept at the moment.  In the absence of any concrete record of original intent and in light of American history and legal tradition, the Constitution can only be accepted as a living document.  The Constitution was designed to be adaptable to the prevailing conditions of the current day.  Whether or not certain adaptations are beneficial in the long run is a matter of political (but seldom constitutional) debate.

[jfla]

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks what the founders would think today.  What matters is what the original document says. 

No, what matters is the current socio-economic conditions that we today must live with.  If the only means of constitutionally changing the Constitution is formal amendment through super-majority support, then the country would have long ago disintegrated into civil war.  And even if formal amendment were the only means of changing the Constitution and if by some miracle the American people were prevented from tearing themselves apart with revolution, I dare say that the Constitution would have been amended to allow things like Social Security and minimum wage and Medicare- and you government-is-always-bad libertarians would still be complaining.

[Jimmy]

Thus the Supreme Court has the authority to judge both the facts and the law pertaining to any case that comes before it.  Get over it.

But the Supreme Court has no authority to change either the facts or the law pertaining to any case that comes before it.  Understand that and, as you said, Get over it.

[Jimmy]

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks what the founders would think today.  What matters is what the original document says. 

No, what matters is the current socio-economic conditions that we today must live with.  If the only means of constitutionally changing the Constitution is formal amendment through super-majority support, then the country would have long ago disintegrated into civil war.  And even if formal amendment were the only means of changing the Constitution and if by some miracle the American people were prevented from tearing themselves apart with revolution, I dare say that the Constitution would have been amended to allow things like Social Security and minimum wage and Medicare- and you government-is-always-bad libertarians would still be complaining.

I am as conservative is it gets.  The first thing that we need to conserve is the constitution.  Without that we are nothing.

If you believe that the courts have the authority to rewrite the constitution then you are as liberal as the Obama, Pelosi, Reid triumvirate.

[jfla]

Thus the Supreme Court has the authority to judge both the facts and the law pertaining to any case that comes before it.  Get over it.

But the Supreme Court has no authority to change either the facts or the law pertaining to any case that comes before it.  Understand that and, as you said, Get over it.

How does the Supreme Court interpret the meaning of the law/Constitution without in some way changing the law/Constitution?

[jfla]

I am as conservative is it gets.

Define conservatism and explain what a conservative's goals are. 

[Eagle]

Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Definitions of posterity on the Web:

descendants: all of the offspring of a given progenitor; "we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity"
all future generations

[jfla]

Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Definitions of posterity on the Web:

descendants: all of the offspring of a given progenitor; "we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity"
all future generations

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -U.S. Declaration of Independence

The U.S. today is not the same country it was in 1787.  The U.S. Constitution, as the Founding Fathers knew it, was not meant to be perpetual.  It was inevitable that the U.S. Constitution either change to adapt to the times, or be completely abandoned in favor of a constitution more suited to the situation in which it is used.

[Eagle]

Un like Juan Williams you and i still have the right to make a statment without fear of loosing our jobs. I will disagree with your view and you with  mine.

[marc]

What seems more arrogant to me is Clarence Thomas and the originalists acting as if they knew what was in the founders heads and exactly what they would think today.

It's good to remember that John Marshall, the father of judicial review, was a confidant of Washington's.

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks what the founders would think today.  What matters is what the original document says.  It is the "interpreters" on your side of the fence, marc, that have given us the disasterous concept in the current"Separation of Church and State", something that does not appear in the document at all.  It is the "interpreters" on your side of the fence that laugh and make fun of Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for the Senate, for challenging that current concept.

It is not necessary to "know what they were thinking" to realize that the Bill of Rights places no restrictions on the individual, but rather is a list of limitations on government.  Those "interpreters" are destroying this country.

So Jefferson was on my side of the fence? Cool!

[marc]

Un like Juan Williams you and i still have the right to make a statment without fear of loosing our jobs. I will disagree with your view and you with  mine.

I guarantee you there are some things you could say that would cost you your job.

And btw, I know that NPR's a target Fox has been waiting for an excuse to shoot at, but in fairness, another action that could cost a person there his or her job would be attending the Stewart/Colbert rally next week.  That one's not as cut-and-dried as people are making it out to be. Free Speech has never meant that what you say has no consequences, only that the government can't keep you quiet.

[Eagle]

....

.....government can't keep you quiet.

Ever heard of hate speech crimes?   As ugly as it is to be prejudice it used to be one right.

Yet the left says you can't regulate morality...

[jfla]

....

.....government can't keep you quiet.

Ever heard of hate speech crimes?   As ugly as it is to be prejudice it used to be one right.

Yet the left says you can't regulate morality...

If hate speech laws are so bad (and I do not agree with them due to their 1st Amendment implications), why have they not been challenged in the Courts?  And if some libertarian were to challenge these laws in the Courts, they (the libs) would have to admit that the Courts do have the authority to interpret the Constitution's meaning and thus change the Constitution's meaning.  Of course the libs have already admitted this with their lawsuits aimed at Obamacare.

[Eagle]

Political correctness.   

[revmitchell]

Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Definitions of posterity on the Web:

descendants: all of the offspring of a given progenitor; "we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity"
all future generations

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -U.S. Declaration of Independence

The U.S. today is not the same country it was in 1787.  The U.S. Constitution, as the Founding Fathers knew it, was not meant to be perpetual.  It was inevitable that the U.S. Constitution either change to adapt to the times, or be completely abandoned in favor of a constitution more suited to the situation in which it is used.

This is such a display of the ignorance of liberalism it reached an absurd level. The original intent of the founding fathers should always be held as the law of the land until.........the constitution has been changed not by the absurd notion of reinterpreting words (as liberals always do) but by amending the constitution. If the constitution becomes a completely different document as a result of the appropriate amending process then so be it. But having judges legislating from the bench be saying words "now" mean something other than what they were intended to mean when they were penned is the height of ignorance and tyranny. The constitution can be considered a living document in that it has a provision for such amending. But the liberal means for a "living constitution" is not founded in logic or any intelligent reason. Its depravity of the afore mentioned cannot be described accurately. 


To just simply say that "now, because of the times, we will change the meaning of these words, impose and intent that was never there before so as to provide for modern needs" is sophomoric at best. If you want the constitution to change amend it rather than act like children playing a game who wants to change the rules when they all of the sudden works against their personal agenda.

The childishness of the left knows no bounds.

[Didymus]

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have read much of this thread, and have scanned the rest.  Therefore, I will share my opinion as well.

The Constitution does not establish rights for anyone.  Hope you didn't just fall off you chair, or scream at the computer saying, "What an idiot."  That's okay - I'm use to that.

Now that I got your attention, let me explain.

The U.S. Constitution simply establishes the role of government in the United States.  The 7 articles of the Constitution, which were ratified in September of 1789, did nothing to establish "rights" of the people.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, were not ratified until December 15, 1791.  And, then it is the limitations on government that gives us those rights.  Consider the first phrase of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law."  So, the Constitution does not establish the rights of the people because people already had those rights, and the Constitution simply codified them.  Those rights were established by affirming the limitations of government.  If the Constitution would have simply codified an existing right without the Congressional limitation, Congress could have passed laws to regulate religion, speech and the press, and that is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent.  

Let's consider the 2nd amendment.  "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Again we see a limitation on government, but not just the U.S. Government, but all governments, and of the people.  The phrase, "shall not be infringed," is not directed at anyone in particular, therefore it must be directed at everyone in general.  Neither the U.S. Government, or the government of the several states, or the people may infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Yet that right has been infringed by government at every level.  

Our rights would be worthless without a limitation the Constitution places on Government.  If the Constitution simply establishes rights with out limitations on the government or on the people, those rights could be regulated by government.  And, of course, those rights are being regulated, by those who ignore the Constitution's mandate of limitations.

Now, I have seen questions about illegal aliens.  First of all, "illegal aliens" is a legal term, not a constitutional term.  The Constitution nowhere defines an "illegal alien."  However, the Constitution does grant power to Congress laws of naturalization.  It is within the body of those laws the term "Illegal alien" is defined.  As it is not a Constitutional term, the Constitution itself does differentiate between legal and illegal resident.  Therefore, even someone who is here illegally has the same protections under the Constitution.  

Suppose someone would be arrested and charged with being here illegally.  Because of the limitations placed upon government, he cannot be compelled to give testimony against himself.  In our system of jurisprudence, the government would have the burden of proof to show that he is indeed here illegally.  Lack of a birth certificate is not enough proof.  Nor is a birth certificate proof that one is here legally, as they can easily be forged.  There would have to be corroborating evidence to support the birth certificate one way or another, should that question ever arise.  

The last I heard, it was estimated that there are about  2,000,000 illegal aliens in the United States.  It would be very costly, and a strain on our budget that is already quite strained, to prove evryone of them are here illegally.

Now, it's your turn.

[revmitchell]

uh......you have no idea what your talking about. As an MP in the USMC I personally hauled illegals back to the border on almost a daily basis in Southern California. The Border patrol deals with illegals daily. If they have no green card or work visa they go back.

But we have no need to spend one dime on illegal criminal aliens. All we need to is cut off the money supply and they will go home on their own.

[profreewill]

In reference to the second amendment I have often wondered if those who support gun control have ever asked themselves this question.  If ALL guns were banned and illegal, who would be the only ones that had them?

The media likes to talk about all the violence that occurs because of illegally owned guns but what about those that are legal? Where are those statistics?

There's a great book called more guns, less crime by John Lott.  It's a great read!

[profreewill]

Yes, all men (as referred to in the Constitution) including the illegal alien who sneaks in to escape their more oppresive government or way of life.  Because unless you're a Native American you're an illegal alien here.  Or at least your distance relatives are.