The US Constitution

[Jaime]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[phoebe]

Thanks for this, Jaime.   

I think everyone you make this a "home" page for their browser.  What a great reminder that freedom is precious every time it opens.

[lightshineon]

 I have a purse copy (LOL), figure I might have to pull the constitution card someday, like it would matter. Thank you for the post, so many just have forgotten the Constitution.

[Jimmy]

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.

[Frank_N_Sense]

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..

[Jimmy]

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.

[walker starr]

   I understand that in order to change the constitution the 50 states have to be in agreement.

[Jimmy]

   I understand that in order to change the constitution the 50 states have to be in agreement.

Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Frank_N_Sense]

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....... 

[lightshineon]

 There was a woman on the news tonight, saying something about illegals constitutional rights being violated. When did illegals obtain constitutional rights? Did I miss something?

[jb728b]

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?

[lightshineon]

   I understand that in order to change the constitution the 50 states have to be in agreement.

Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Jimmy since, most of us are not constitutional attorneys, please explain, what is your laymans interpretion. What is your point? (LOL)

[Jimmy]

   I understand that in order to change the constitution the 50 states have to be in agreement.

Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Jimmy since, most of us are not constitutional attorneys, please explain, what is your laymans interpretion. What is your point? (LOL)

My point is that in order to change the constitution all 50 states do not have to be in agreement as you stated.


......shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.......

[lightshineon]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html




I like the part, where is says id Government  becomes destructive, and tries to rule the people it is our duty to remove them from office.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

There was a woman on the news tonight, saying something about illegals constitutional rights being violated. When did illegals obtain constitutional rights? Did I miss something?

The Constitution does not give anyone any rights.  It merely serves as a governmental safeguard of the liberties which all men have inherently, which derive from God and good sense.

[lightshineon]

There was a woman on the news tonight, saying something about illegals constitutional rights being violated. When did illegals obtain constitutional rights? Did I miss something?

The Constitution does not give anyone any rights.  It merely serves as a governmental safeguard of the liberties which all men have inherently, which derive from God and good sense.

So what do you consider liberties? When a citizen is arrested they must be read their Miranda rights. You know the right to remain silent, the right, to have an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. I believe these are citizens rights  under the Constitution.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

There was a woman on the news tonight, saying something about illegals constitutional rights being violated. When did illegals obtain constitutional rights? Did I miss something?

The Constitution does not give anyone any rights.  It merely serves as a governmental safeguard of the liberties which all men have inherently, which derive from God and good sense.

So what do you consider liberties? When a citizen is arrested they must be read their Miranda rights. You know the right to remain silent, the right, to have an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. I believe these are citizens rights  under the Constitution.

The Constitution (actually Amendment 5 I believe) guarantees a man this liberty: he cannot be compelled to testify against himself in a court of law.

"Miranda rights" are something that our Supreme Court extrapolated from this.  They are not actually in the Constitution, but they basically say that a man cannot be compelled to say or do things out-of-court that could later be used against himself in court.  However, once a suspect has been specifically made aware of this right (read his rights), if he proceeds to say or do such things, then it is considered that he has waived this right.

[lightshineon]

There was a woman on the news tonight, saying something about illegals constitutional rights being violated. When did illegals obtain constitutional rights? Did I miss something?

The Constitution does not give anyone any rights.  It merely serves as a governmental safeguard of the liberties which all men have inherently, which derive from God and good sense.

So what do you consider liberties? When a citizen is arrested they must be read their Miranda rights. You know the right to remain silent, the right, to have an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. I believe these are citizens rights  under the Constitution.

The Constitution (actually Amendment 5 I believe) guarantees a man this liberty: he cannot be compelled to testify against himself in a court of law.

"Miranda rights" are something that our Supreme Court extrapolated from this.  They are not actually in the Constitution, but they basically say that a man cannot be compelled to say or do things out-of-court that could later be used against himself in court.  However, once a suspect has been specifically made aware of this right (read his rights), if he proceeds to say or do such things, then it is considered that he has waived this right.

I understand what you are saying, but,  the Miranda rights do, have roots in the fifth, and sixth amendments. I am thrilled that we have a constitution, that affords American Citizens rights. The constitution, is for citizens or legal aliens, it is not designed for illegal aliens, and enemy combatants. I believe we are the greatest country in the world, but that is my opinion. The apostle Paul, was sure glad to be a Roman citizen, when he mentioned it, to the Roman Guard, and did not have to take a beating, without a trail. Certian things even the Roman citizens had as rights, like the could not be crucified, or they had a somewhat a court system. Paul, being in submission to being a Roman citizen, as far as it did not violate God's laws, used it to his advantage. I am disturbed that our president, who took and oath to uphold, and defend the constitution, hates the constitution, and does not uphold or defend the constitution against all foreign, and domestic threats. I also hate how Romans thirteen is used to support the president, but not the constitution, whose authority is what we are subject to.

[jonmower]

There was a woman on the news tonight, saying something about illegals constitutional rights being violated. When did illegals obtain constitutional rights? Did I miss something?

I think you're mistaken about to whom the constitution applies.  As I understand it, the constitution describes what the federal government can and can not do with respect to everyone within the United States, not just citizens.

[jb728b]

Actually the first line of the Constitution says We The people OF the United States not IN the united states. It applies to legal citizens of the US.

[lightshineon]

Actually the first line of the Constitution says We The people OF the United States not IN the united states. It applies to legal citizens of the US.

Yep, citizens rights.

[jonmower]

Actually the first line of the Constitution says We The people OF the United States not IN the united states. It applies to legal citizens of the US.

That identifies who established the constitution, not to whom it is relevant.

For example, from the same web site that the original poster referenced, on a page titled "Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution" (link):

The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too).

I'm not claiming that literally no one thinks otherwise, but the Supreme Court has generally held that the constitution applies to everyone in the U.S. with the exception of the parts that are explicitly identified as applying to citizens (right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office).

Here is a link to Glenn Greenwald's recent article on this issue (link).  Here is an excerpt, for example:

...the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans.  The Boumediene  Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.).  If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible.  What's more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices -- and, indeed, not even the Bush administration -- argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens.   That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim.

What divided the Boumediene Court was the question of whether foreigners held by the U.S. military outside of the U.S. (as opposed to inside the U.S.) enjoy Constitutional protections.  They debated how Guantanamo should be viewed in that regard (as foreign soil or something else).  But not even the 4 dissenting judges believed -- as Susan Collins and other claim -- that Constitutional rights only extend to Americans.  To the contrary, Justice Scalia, in his scathing dissent, approvingly quoted Justice Jackson in conceding that foreigners detained inside the U.S. are protected by the Constitution (emphasis added):

    Justice Jackson then elaborated on the historical scope of the writ:

    "The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society . . . .

    "But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act." Id., at 770–771.

That's from Scalia, and all the dissenting judges joined in that opinion.  It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners.  It's not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that.  Abdulmutallab was detained inside the U.S.  Not even the Bush DOJ -- not even Antonin Scalia -- believe that the Constitution only applies to American citizens.  Indeed, the whole reason why Guantanamo was created was that Bush officials wanted to claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners held outside the U.S. -- not even the Bush administration would claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners generally.

The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008.  To the contrary, the Supreme Court -- all the way back in 1886 -- explicitly held this to be the case, when, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.  In so doing, the Court explicitly rejected what Susan Collins and many others claim about the Constitution.

[walker starr]

   At the time the constitution was written was there a United States?
  How much time passed between the signing of the Declaration of
Independence and the writing of the Constitution?  It would matter
whether there were already citizens or not.

[lightshineon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States





Jon, this tells you what a citizen is. The president must be a US citizen, which tells you the meaning of the constitution, and citizenship. Heck though not to stir the pot, but, Obama is probaly not a citizen.

[jonmower]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States

Jon, this tells you what a citizen is. The president must be a US citizen, which tells you the meaning of the constitution, and citizenship. Heck though not to stir the pot, but, Obama is probaly not a citizen.

I'm not disputing the definition of a citizen.  I am stating the fact that, as Greenwald put it, it is "well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners."

[lightshineon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States

Jon, this tells you what a citizen is. The president must be a US citizen, which tells you the meaning of the constitution, and citizenship. Heck though not to stir the pot, but, Obama is probaly not a citizen.

I'm not disputing the definition of a citizen.  I am stating the fact that, as Greenwald put it, it is "well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners."

If you have to be a citizen, to be president, that implies, who has rights, and privileges under the Constitution, and who does not. See what I am saying Jon, to have the right to serve as President you have to be born in the United States. How simple can it be?

[jonmower]

If you have to be a citizen, to be president, that implies, who has rights, and privileges under the Constitution, and who does not. See what I am saying Jon, to have the right to serve as President you have to be born in the United States. How simple can it be?

I already stated that there are some aspects that are explicitly identified as applying to citizens (right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office).  The rest are not explicitly restricted in this manner and have been interpreted, for more than 100 years now, to apply both to citizens and non-citizens.  Simple.

[walker starr]

The preident must be a citizen by birth in the USA.

[lightshineon]

The preident must be a citizen by birth in the USA.

Yep, and apparently some believe that, for some reason some of the constitution applies to non-citizens also.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Let's make it simple.  Hard and fast rule: Governments don't give people rights; Governments take rights away.

The Constitution does not give people rights.  Not to citizens.  Not to illegals.

What the Constitution does do is restrict the government from taking away certain rights.  Well, if you're a citizen.  If you're not, then the Constitution probably doesn't apply to you, so the gubmint can do what it wants to you if you happen to show up on its turf.

So where do we get our rights from?  "All men...are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

[Macrina]

Let's make it simple.  Hard and fast rule: Governments don't give people rights; Governments take rights away.

The Constitution does not give people rights.  Not to citizens.  Not to illegals.

What the Constitution does do is restrict the government from taking away certain rights.  Well, if you're a citizen.  If you're not, then the Constitution probably doesn't apply to you, so the gubmint can do what it wants to you if you happen to show up on its turf.

So where do we get our rights from?  "All men...are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

Thank you.  Great post.  Finally someone recognizes the operation of the Constitution.

[jb728b]

Lets look :

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.

[Eagle]

Think about this:
      1.  Cows
      2. The Constitution
      3. The Ten Commandments


--------------------------------------------------------------

COWS
      Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

--------------------------------------------------------------
THE CONSTITUTION
      They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for  Iraq  ... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

--------------------------------------------------------------

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS


      The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a government building is this --you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of politicians.... it creates a hostile work environment.

[lightshineon]

Think about this:
      1.  Cows
      2. The Constitution
      3. The Ten Commandments


--------------------------------------------------------------

COWS
      Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

--------------------------------------------------------------
THE CONSTITUTION
      They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for  Iraq  ... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

--------------------------------------------------------------

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS


      The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a government building is this --you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of politicians.... it creates a hostile work environment.

LOL that is so very true.

[Johnb]

Think about this:
      1.  Cows
      2. The Constitution
      3. The Ten Commandments


--------------------------------------------------------------

COWS
      Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

--------------------------------------------------------------
THE CONSTITUTION
      They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for  Iraq  ... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

--------------------------------------------------------------

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS


      The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a government building is this --you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of politicians.... it creates a hostile work environment.

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