I love how Dartmouth college discussion on the Constitution has comments disabled? Rockefeller sign on the front of the podium should state for the students stating "a deliberate steering away from those self evident truths expressed in the "Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Congressional Investigation 1954 Reese Committee.
IF YOU ARE HERE Watching these YouTube TRENDS then you are a perfect Example and Validate that you are a victim, and your brain has been formatted systematically. You Must Understand this was made to enslave you. All was designed by The Governmental Education Complex and the Globalist (The Elite) and you do not understand that these Trends are only used to distract you! Understand, I am NOT insulting You!!! Learn more and tell everyone you know after seeing this site PayForFreedom. (com)
We can never find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard Fine / Dr Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
Need more traffic in your web page?Then you need to make others work for you, by adding an affiliate program to your web page,The GAS AFFILIATE SYSTEM is the best choice,Because all others require you to have very good programming skills,Download it at GAS-AFFILIATEdotCOM.
The living constitution preamble: We the Oligarchy of the US, in Order to form a more perfect central government, establish only criminal Justice, insure controlling Tranquility, provide for the common redistribution, promote social Welfare, and secure Liberty to the Oligarchy and our Posterity, do establish this erratic constitution for the US. Wakeup folks, we are on the road to serfdom.
To late for words, Dem's have tested the grit of America, zip happend!?
So they just keep pushing. It will take guts to put congress and the President under house arrest for subverting the constitution! Let the supreme court pick up the pieces!
But any more ignorance of those watching the gates to Washington will be the end of this country! We cannot keep turning away! Who is in charge of the constitution when it's under defiance!!?? No body!
There are those who employ the practice of objectivity & others employ subjectivity. But it's ridiculous that there should even be an argument. For just as with science, subjectivity is undesirable for obvious reasons. As he explained, objectivity does not concern itself with what one particular framer wrote, but the understanding that the writing gives the reader
Thus, "separation of church & state" is not only a mere excerpt from a private letter. But also,
an extremely subjective, private opinion of 1 particular man. That same man signed, thus agreed with the objectively discernible identification of solely "Congress" being disallowed from making such laws
The horrendous results of employing subjectivity were seen after prop. 8 when it was being taken as far as believing that its unconstitutional for private citizens to vote according to their religious beliefs. Now the subjective ones even want separation of church goers & the democratic process
because in their Utopian view of the world, there needs to be equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. In order to effect social change in society according to their sense of morality, they need a strong powerful central government where the power is taken from the hands of the average man and the taxpayer, and given to political experts who "know whats best" for the majority of men in the community.
What wingnuts argue when they speak of "original intent" is really simply "rule it my way". They don't give a damned about original intent. For example, there is NOTHING in the Costitution about "executive priviledge" but it diidn't stop the criminal Bush administration from invoking it every single chance they got.
Go fucking cry in your SOUR GRAPE TEA and let the adults finish their work. Booo fucking hoo.
Actually what Original intent refers to is the literal meaning of the words in the constitution. For example. When it says in the second amendment for example that this right shall not be infringed upon. We believe that it means literally......That the Government does NOT have the power to infringe on those rights. Got it?
There are several elements in the constitution that go against my preferences but I accept them as part of the whole Constitution which is the supreme part of the land.
If you're going to speak to the "original intent", then there is not one word in the document about "executive priviledge". The problem with the entire subject is that wingnuts always speak about original intent until it interferes with their idea of how things should be and then it flies right out of the fucking window.
Correct, there is no word about executive privilege. I'd like to hear your definition of "wing nut"
In order to adequately respond. I do know that Democrats and Republicans are guilty of picking and choosing what they like and dislike about the Constitution and then emphasizing what they agree with while ignoring what they don't. If you're trying to attack a single party with this accusation then you're way off base.
The idea of relativism and historicism as it applies to the constitution were originated at the beginning of the progressive movement in the late 18 hundreds. Most of the misinterpretation of the constitution comes from liberals on the supreme court. Its just a fact, simply because the constitution and the bill of rights limit the government in size and in power, and most liberals view this as a wall in front of progress.Progressives want to use the government to engineer socioeconomic equality
@Twisteddreamer78 What some people think was meant as a loose interpretation was not to allow the fed gov't to do whatever it wanted, but that 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of the house could call a Constitution Convention to change it or add on to it. The elites have tricked Americans to think that a Con Con isn't needed and loose intrepretation is all that is needed which is not the case. Our founders allowed us to CHANGE the Constitution over time, NOT to jumble their words in the document.
@greenday439 In this case they're one and the same.
The founders meant exactly what they said in the literal sense......Researching the rest of their writings and quotes provides more than ample evidence for this.
@Twisteddreamer78, FYI, Scalia and most originalists would disagree with you strongly. The "literal meaning" of words often produces absurd unintended results. The text must be read in context to discern the original meaning. Thus, "no vehicles in the park" must be interpreted to cover motorized vehicles, not a kid on a tricycle, as the literal meaning would. Regarding the 2d Amd., the Court in an opinion by Scalia made clear that it was not an unqualified right; guns can be regulated.
@etsneroj Not overly concerned with who would or wouldn't disagree with me.
I speak/read English and therefore when something is written or spoken in English I understand it..
The Constitution is written in English and I honestly don't need someone else to tell me what something means when I'm quite capable of reading and comprehending it myself. You think I'd give credence to someone that tells me words don't mean what they say?
@Twisteddreamer78, I wish understanding what the constitution and statutes mean in various situations was as easy as understanding the English language. As a lawyer I can tell you it is not. The text often uses open-ended language. Or it uses concrete language that is so simple it cannot cover all situations. Or it is in tension with another provision of the same law or constitution. Or a case arises that the drafters never anticipated and someone must decide how the law applies, if at all.
@etsneroj It really is that easy, If it says "The grass is green" for example.....The grass is according to that document always green unless there is something else that clarifies or allows others to clarify.
I believe The Supreme court decides how to apply the Constitution although it's been awhile since I read up on that. I believe it was Madison said that if we want to know the intent of the Constitution, we should put ourselves in the shoes of those that signed it.
@Twisteddreamer78, What if the statute simply says: "No vehicles in the park." The literal meaning would include children on tricycles; a sanitation worker's golf cart; a car swerving to avoid hitting a helpless person. The literal meaning is not sufficient. A good judge looks for the original intended meaning as best as you can derive from context (context of the subject being regulated, contemporary laws, etc). Any judge, conservative or liberal, will tell you: it really is not that easy.
@etsneroj Original intent is the literal meaning where the Constitution is concerned as is obvious when you look at all the other writings and sayings of those that signed it..
Simply define "vehicles" according to the time the statute was instated and the intent of those that instated it according to their objectives and you have your meaning.
No vehicles in the park means no vehicles in the park. If a tricycle is a vehicle, It might not be a good idea to bring Tricycles to that park.
@Twisteddreamer78, Now it sounds like we agree. You've added to the "literal meaning" reasonable inferences based on the drafters' "other writings," as well as "intent" and "objectives." It was just a hypothetical, but probably, one would find that "no vehicles," read in context, means no motorized vehicles like motorcycles, cars, etc. and that tricylces, which fit the literal dictionary definition were not intended.
@etsneroj That's the thing....In the Constitution, the Literal meaning is the original intent. The founders kept it simple. The problem is that our courts are trying to interpret things that don't need to be interpreted. Freedom of speech means we're free to say whatever we want for example, yet if you say some things, you can be prosecuted and charged with BS like "verbal assault". The only time our rights are subject to the rule of law is when we violate the rights of others
@etsneroj 2nd amendment for example....We look at What was considered arms in those times and then any Fire arm that is in that class and is "bear" able is justifiably accounted for. That's how we know what can not be infringed upon.....Keep it simple. It fits when you do.
@Twisteddreamer78 Yeah, like how the 16th Amendment says tax the population, but it doesn't say use the dollar. I take that to mean we still gotta use gold and silver. After all, that was never repealed. They need to collect gold and silver as the tax. Sorry for the necropost, but I had to respond.
@psxwarrior Actually, the 16th Amendment doesn't say "tax the population." It says that Congress no longer has to apportion certain taxes. "Income" had/has a specific meaning. The case this Amendment was trying to address (Pollock)said that one had to consider the source of GAINS or PROFITS (income) and if you had to apportion the source of the income (for example a tax on land), then you also had to apportion the GAIN or PROFIT derived from it. No new taxing power was given under the 16th.
@MrHalified Wages were not "income" even though ordinary people tend to think of it that way. Wages was considered an even exchange. You trade an hour of your life for an hour's wages. No profit; no gain. If you invest your wages in a bank and receive interest, then you have capital--that interest is then "income." But they have played on our ignorance and fear of their brute force to soak the working people.
@MrHalified (continued) It is also my understanding that the Federal Government may tax the wages of any of its employees or those subject to Federal Jurisdiction, such as in Washington D.C. or territories--or if one worked for the railroad, for example, as these were all created/chartered by the Federal government. I am uncertain about this, but it makes sense. I have to investigate it further. Not that it matters. Congress and the courts do as they please, it seems.
@MrHalified (continued) In Eisner v. Macomber (1920) the Court held: "Income may be defined as the GAIN DERIVED from capital, from labor, or from both combined, PROVIDED IT BE UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE PROFIT GAINED THRU A SALE OR CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSETS. Emphasis mine. In order words, if you labor and increase the worth of your capital assets and then convert them to cash, that labor which increased your worth would be taxed. This "labor" does not mean "wages" as I understand it.
You say that the meaning of "the people" never changed.
I say false because in 1789, in many states, blacks were not a part of "the people". They could not vote, could not own land, couldn't do much at all except be slaves and hope that their owners didn't work them too hard.
Whereas today, blacks are a part of "the people".
So the way we understand "the people" has changed.
Or "Claimed" The Constitution is only a piece of paper unless we fight maintain its restrictions upon our government or a poor interpretation of special interests.
Yes, you make a good point, we were a new born nation in 1789. We have come a long way, to long for us to lose our rights now. Socialism is around the corner, pretty soon uncle Sam will own everything, including our Constitutual rights as free citizens. Socialism with a happy face..
If "cruel" and "unusual" still mean the same thing, does that mean that you consider public lashing and branding of the right hand — both of which were very common in 1789 — are acceptable forms of punishment (i.e. NOT cruel and NOT unusual)?
If a state decides to enact public lashing and branding of right hands as punishment for crimes committed I guess it would be acceptable.
So long as it was a uniform punishment and the representatives that were responsible for voting this measure in were actually representing the people.
In Germany, the Secretary of State for the Interior, Wolfgang Schäuble, continually tries to rape the constitution over and over again, avoiding a due amendment process. The only line of defense against this madman is the Supreme Court, but every time it bans his parliamentary bills, he comes up with another one. And parliament doesn't learn from these mistakes but still backs his initiatives. Why? He goes right for the constitution's jugular, but sells it as "sensible measures against terror".
Greetings everybody! Staunch Republican and United States Army veteran here, unemployed since the beginning of the year, can't seem to find work in my field. In an effort to keep going I've created two stores with great Tea Party, 2A & RTKABA, pro military/police, Gadsden and Join Or Die Flag clothing designs. Check out my stores at cafepress (dot) com (forward slash) illinoispatriot AND zazzle (dot) com (forward slash) illinois_patriot Bookmark and watch the stores for future new designs!
We are in a post modern ? Can you be truly objective ? You always impose your presuppositions. Hermeneutics is the best way of interpreting anything however we need to be aware of our presuppositions to be more careful not to impose them on the interpretation
"America lost all call to the claim of a democratic republic around 1897 to 1913"
The problem is, there's not a sinlge democratic republic or a representative democracy out there that still practices libertarian, right wing policies. Everybody is sucking on the tits of the government now-a-days. Personally, I think the USA is a better place to live then anywehre else. Yes, we have tons of problems, but we're better then any of the shitty countries in Europe
I beleive the 49th in literacy part. But 2nd in pvoerty? That would mean we are poorer then every 3rd wordl nation in Africa. At least in America we are nourished and have economic sustinence. I'd rather live in America then any 3rd world nation.
You are totally right about us printing money out of thin air, and now the bloody Obama administration wants over a trillion dollars in deficit spending. Dual citizenship is not such a bad idea
that's not a bad idea either. Glenn Beck was talknig about it on his show a few months ago. Too bad it will probably enver happen though. ):
Look, i'm right wing libertarian, its just that I view the constitution as the problem and not the solution to the massive government takeover thats going on under left wing hacks like obma, Reid, and Palosi
I will guarantee you that a revolution WILL happen if these trends continue. Congree no longer represents the people, but represents their own greed and selfish agendas.
These left-wing hacks, are TRAMPLING over our constitution.
"...the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." - John Adams
we can agree to disagree on the constitution. The bottom line is, something has to be done. I really hope talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Mark levin and watchdog groups like the Heritage foundation keep on exposing the Obama government for what it is. I think his election has galvanaized right-wing Americans to take action, and now the government is feeling the heat. The republicans are sure to take over Congress in 2010 at this rate, and then Romney will get elected in 2012
I think that if Romney or somebody like Romney gets elected in 2012, then we can go back to the prosperous days of the 1980's and forget this economic crisis ever happened. Lets pray for the best
you couldn't be a Libertarian and believe the way you believe. Libertarians want strict adherence to the Constitution and none of this living and breathing crap. Liberty is too precious to be allowed to be arbitrarily changed by a bunch of blowhard demigogues in DC at their whim. The Constitution must remain very hard to change and the supreme law of the land, nullifying any other law that contradicts it.
CIA dir nominee Greenburg is CEO of AIG; Ret CIA dir Slatkin is on Citibank board; Ret CIA dir Deutch boards Citigroup; CIA Exec Dir Krongard profited in millions off 911 insider trading & Chaired investment bank A.B. Brown & Vice Chair of Banker's Trust; VP of NYSE Doherty is x-CIA; CIA Dir Casey chairs SEC; Bush Sr worked CIA since 63 & chair investments with Bin Ladens, younger Bush runs WTC security (allowed 6 days w/out security prior to 911), only money Lil Bush made was through Bin Ladens
If we followed the constitution to a T, and did not allow the federal government to enact anything not authorized by it, we would not be in the world of trouble we're in today.
No debts, no entangling alliances, no income tax or IRS, no gigantic wasteful government beaurocracies, no over-regulations or ridiculous taxes/tariffs, no PORK, and one hell of a wealthy, secure, and happy nation unmatched by any other on the planet, ever.
Hey, if the government is not currently disregarding those rights, great! That's the way it needs to be now and FOREVER. That's why our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. The Founders experienced these conditions being perpetually violated and wanted to make sure their families and countrymen never had to suffer the indignity. I agree with them 100%. I don't trust anyone for one instant to take away my guarantee of those rights and say, "Hey, don't worry, we super duper promise
...to not ever take advantage of this situation." Maybe not now, maybe not in 100 years, but that year 101 can be a beast. I want those rights carved in unmoving, set-for-all-time stone, with no possibility of anyone ever having the slightest chance at even thinking about removing them.
Now, as to the Founders' expression of our rights being granted by "Nature's God": this was their way of expressing that their belief was the rights they wrote regarding should exist in perpetuity outside of any legal framework whatsoever. To buttress this, they stated that the supreme expression of ultimate moral authority, i.e. God, grants our rights. Therefore (again, in their thinking), if God grants you your rights, no government can ever take them away. Thus, the government as outlined
in the Constitution, was not ever meant to grant or take away these rights--merely to exist as a perpetual guardian of them. This was the point of the Constitution being written--placed as a limit on possible (I say "possible" because you seem to believe just because they haven't recently they never will) government depredation. This was the the whole I idea behind "enumerated powers": the gov't CAN'T go beyond what the Constitution ALLOWS them to do. This is not a concept that was ever
meant to expire! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything to the effect of "wait till 1963 and the do whatever you want." The original Constitution is still in effect! Therefore from a mere chronologically progressive standpoint your idea of a "living document" (which it is, someone already pointed out the amendment process that you so despise) doesn't have a logical place. If you're really so keen to throw over a document whose principles have created a nation unparalleled in all
of human history, take over a small country somewhere and see if you can do better. I am indeed a conservative, and that's not a title, it's a belief: we need to conserve the things that has made this country a jewel among nations, past and present. We are not averse to improvements, but demolishing the principles that have brought us safely thus far is a bad idea. We should build ON those principles and their foundation, not break them and launch into policies which are
"we need to conserve the things that has made this country a jewel among nations, past and present."
I'm a conservative as well, but not because Iw ant to conserve anything. I simply want to go with what works and whats logical. Thats why i want the government to keep their hands off the economy and out of my wallet. Thats why I want almost all social programs should be eliminated. thats why I supprt the death penalty and a tough foreign policy. And thats why I support gun rights
"Therefore from a mere chronologically progressive standpoint your idea of a living document doesn't have a logical place"
The constitution didn't make this country great,. Its nothing more then a piece of paper with fancy words, written by men who lived in a whole different generation with whole different circmstances and ideas, and written by men who were mysoginist slaveowners. Why should we care what their intention was?
"That's why our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution."
Well, if nothing else, emanemdments 4-8 need to be modified. Because the fact is, the liberal idiots on the Supreme Court (like Earl Warren and William Brennan) have/are using those amendments to give first degree criminals and even international terrorists a bag of "constitutional" rights. We need to modify those amendments to ensure they only apply to innocent civlians and American citizens like me and you
Well, it's fine if you want to trust the gov't never to abuse our rights. I don't. Therefore, the logical conclusion if we're going to live in the same country is to leave the governmental checks in the Constitution. Then you can trust the government, and I can enjoy legal protection of them and stay vigilantly suspicious at the same time and there's no negatives for either of us.
Only the weight of the beliefs of those who are willing to fight and die defending and upholding the ideals written on that paper. So, the threat is as great as the number people who believe in it and support those who work to enforce it.
"The framers never spelled out why these rights are so important " It is obvious why Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is a good thing...and they talked about it plenty, just read their writings.
well, for starters, most of amendments 4,5,6, and 8 should be completely ignored and disregarded b the Supreme Court, but on the other hand, the 1st and 2nd amendment should be interpreted very broadly. You know the part in the 2nd amendment where it says "a well organized militia"? I say fuck that. The suprme court should focus one only one part of the 2nd amendment: the right of people to keep and bare arms should not be infringed. fuck the militia part
Because, the government is composed of human beings. To say that one group of human beings has the power over another group of human beings to grant or take away these rights* is a completely discredited philosophy, if you can even call it that.
* "these rights" refers to the basic, incontrovertible rights not to be KILLED, not to be STOLEN FROM, and not to be TRIED UNFAIRLY IN A COURT OF LAW. Just a few easy ones for you try and grasp.
"To say that one group of human beings has the power over another group of human beings to grant or take away these rights* is a completely discredited philosophy"
well guess what, when we give a first degree criminal the death penalty, we are taking away that criminals right to life. This philsophy of humans taking away another humans rights for a righteous purpose has never been discredited. Or how about when we throw criminals in jail? This takes away their right to the pursuit of happines
The criminal INITIATED the use of force against an innocent party, therefore he is GUILTY and no longer has a legitimate claim to any rights the innocent pos. Can you not make the distinction between the use of force and the initiation of force? Example: If you were to break into my home and while carrying a knife, attack me or my family (I'll spell it out for you - that's initiation) I have every legitimate right to shoot you in the face with my gun (using force for defense).
Please show me how the framers morals and standards are different than ours. Are you proposing that morality changes over time? If so, then what use is it establishing a philosophical system if it is subject to never ending changes? Or are you conceding that yes, indeed the framers had a different sense of morals and standards as compared to our "rulers" today? Which is true, we are ruled over by thieves and tyrants. Except you think our government does a great job of governing us, am I correct?
Wow, you didn't hear a word that man said. Amazing...we have a whole country full of people like you now. Way to go Dept. of Education! You did your job!!!
If you are talking about pguitarb, I resoponded to what he said in a private message. If you aee talking about Ed Vierra, then I responded to him lik 4 months ago. Check out some of the early comments
Sociatal and moral changes in a society shouldnt encourage our Supreme Court to "pick and choose" which rights we are still entitled to. If THE PEOPLE agree to ratify our constitution, they can do so by adding or changing ammendments.
It is not up the descretion of a few men and women to decided the rights of the populous.
"Sociatal and moral changes in a society shouldnt encourage our Supreme Court to 'pick and choose'"
Congress makes laws that we don't like, and the Supreme Court makes decisions we don't like. This is why we must make sure the right people are in both branches of government. I, for one, do not beleive any rights are inalienable. I think the government should determine which rights we do and do not have.
I believe there are many inalienable rights. Especially those laid out in the constitution. The government isnt there to mandate right to the people, it is there to ensure the protection of those rights.
Government is inherantly corrupt. That is why is was meant to be as small as it was originally. States had more power and people could chose to leave that state if it wasnt passing laws they liked, or if it wasnt doing its job. Government has overstepped its boundaries. THAT is the problem.
Ambiguity is only recent. Only in the last 100yrs or so have there been desicussions on its interpretation and I believe this is do to lack of proper education on the subject. Before then, Supreme Court decisions were usually 9-0. Now you will regularly see decisions that are mixed.
actually, the ambiguity is inheret in the constitution. Read the 1st amendment for example. There is absolutrly nothing in that amendment that is clear cut or well defined. what qualfies as freedom of speech? religion? the press? what about these rights conflicting with eachother (and these rights conflicting with other amendments). Ask any constitutional scholar: the language of the constituion makes it rediculously ambigious
The first 10 amendments were not giving any rights to the people, they were identifying "natural rights" that were not to be infringed upon under any circumstances. So, therefore the lack of a narrow definition of speech or religion was intentional. Good Lord man, I thought you would have known that.
You're missing the point: the consitution's ambiguity allows anybody on the supreme court to manipulate it to fit whatever they want. Natural rights be damned.
"Supreme Court decisions were usually 9-0. Now you will regularly see decisions that are mixed"
the supreme court has been interpreting what the constitution says ever since the Marbury vs. madison decision in 1803. Judicial activism is nothing new. Its been gonig on for 200 years. I really get sick and tired of all the supreme court bashing. The problem isn't the supreme court. Its the people on the supreme court (Earl Warren, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, etc)
"they can do so by adding or changing ammendments"
but the amendment process is too damn cumbersome. a 2/3 approval by Congress plus a 3/4 approval by the states? I prefer 50-50 for both. I hate to say this cause i don't particular admire this contintent, but look at how fast and effficiently Europe passes laws and makes changes. I crave that kind of fast, eficient law making (albeit not the left wing decisions they make)
The Amendment process is only cumbersome because our beaurocratic government has made it that way. The federal government shouldnt have the authority to mandate new amendments or change/remove the ones we do have. States have the right to radify their amendments any way they see fit, as long as it doesnt object w/ the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution isnt the problem. Its the growth and expansion of power the federal government has seized.
"The Amendment process is only cumbersome because our beaurocratic government has made it that way."
actually, its cumbersome beause of the constitution. Simply put: securing approval from 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states is not easy. The framers obviously beleived in "slow and steady wins the race." I don't buy that shit. I buy the mantra that the fastest way from point A to point B is a straight line (to make an analogy),
A straight line, when dealing w/ hundreds of beaurocrats, isnt always a straight line. Nor does it always lead to point B. You are abiding by the concept that congress is competant. Obviously our founding fathers had the wisdom of realizing the contrary. I believe that is the reasoning of it (among others).
Just look at last fall's bailout package that was hurried along. It has failed in a very big way. This year's stimulus package was hurried along in the same manner and is failing as well.
"A straight line, when dealing w/ hundreds of beaurocrats, isnt always a straight line"
This makes sense in theory, but if you look at European legislatures and how fast they get things done, your theory doesn't make sense in practice. A straight line can and is a straight line if your government is setup properly and if you don't have a cumbersome piece of paper like the constitution guiding you.
"Just look at last fall's bailout package that was hurried along"
the fatc that the stimulus package has failed simoly means that government stimulus bills are disastrous economic policies, not that hurrying things through Congress is a bad thing. Congress could ahve taken 2 months to pass that stimulus bill, and it still would have failed. The fact it was hurridly passed does not prove that passing legislation quickly and efficiently is a bad thing.
ask any physicist: the fastest way from point A to pojnt B is a straight line. we tried the idea of the framers that slow and steady wins the race, and that policy has failed us. Aseop was wrong. Taking things slowly is not good. We cannot possibly get out of the mess we are in by taking it slowly. The democracts in Congress and the executive branch won't take things slowly, and neither should we. the consitution is our enemy, not our friend.
The USA is the greatest country in the world because of laisse faire free market capitalism and a belief in individualism and liberty. The Framers certainly held those beliefs, but lets not delude ourselves by believing that we are what we are strictly because of the framers. some of the framers believed in a monarchy you know. and all of them believed in slavery
A lot of that was true but many of the founders despised slavery.
The two party system in general is the cause of our failures.
The Democrats are only part of the problem.
Reverting to the Constitution would in fact save our country.
The statements are not up for debate. There's more then enough evidence to convince any neutral observer of this truth. I won't argue with you because I don't need to argue....Thx
"A lot of that was true but many of the founders despised slavery"
true. And I'm not saying the framers were bad men. They were great men and great leaders with revolutionary ideas. I'm just saying its not like the USA became a great nation because of them. The framers shared the IDEAS which made this country the superpower its become
"Reverting to the Constitution would in fact save our country"
I think what you meant to say is 'revert to the framers original intention.'
.......Only if you listen to the Supreme court. They've got everybody believing that the Constitution is written in some unknown Tongue that only they can interpret.
The Constitution is Very clear and does not need to be interpreted.
Take the literal words....Literally.
The Constitution is NOT a living document.
The only way you can change the constitution is with a convention.
yes, absolutely. take the 1st amendment for example. what falls under the relam of free speech? and freedom of the press? what qualifies as establishment of religion? what qualifies as infringing upon religion? where, when, and how can you assemble with others? all these questions are undefined by the constitution, and the supreme court has had to define what they mean for 200 years. look at the results.
Establishment of religion...Anything affecting a religious establishment.
Infringing religion....Anything that interferes with the rights of religions to practice what they believe so long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of others.
You can assemble with others whenever and however ya want so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others
Like I said....We don't require the Supreme court to interpret but to "apply"
yeah, and in accordance with marbury vs. madison, its up to the Supreme court to define what does and does not fall under free speech, and as a result, we have seen judicial activism in one form or another ever since the early 1800's.
i agree with you that the supreme court should not define what falls under free speech.But the law is the law, and until you realize that the legal foundation of this country is an ambigious document that is constantly circumvented by statists, you will continue to see liberal-activist judges constituionalizing their anti-human viewpoints
no its not. just look at all the supreme court cases that ahve arisen over free speech. you never see a supreme court case arriving over the 35 years old requirement, cause there's nothing to interperet, and no questions to be answered. thanks to the ambiguity of the first amendment, free speech is whatever the supreme court says it is. this is unfortunate but true
"if you read the federalist papers a lot of this is addressed."
the federalist papers are not a legally binding document. do you think justices like Ginsburgh give two shits what the federalist papers say? They don't. If you want to permently stop left-wing judicial activism, you need to bind them to a document which is uninterpretable, and the constitution is the opposite of that.
what is an establishment of religion? does prayer in public schools establish religion? what about prayer before a fopotball game? or what about bible readings in graduation speeches? or the pledge of alliegence? You may think establishment of religion is slef-explanatory, but as you can see by obseriving U.S history, it is not.
Is a School a religious establishment? How about a football game?
Are Graduation speeches a religious establishment?
Not the last time I checked.
However freedom of religion is demonstrated here. A Student should be allowed to pray in school so long as others are not forced to join them. Bible readings are also covered explicitly by Freedom of speech and religion.
Atheists have to listen to bible readings just as much as Creationists have to listen to the theory of evolution.
you're missing the point: the supreme court has had to answer all those questions before, which proves my point that the 1st amendment IS ambigious and unclear. My friend, me and you probably see eyet to eye on political issues like taxes, foreign policy, etc. But if you really think the answer to left-wing activism is to have judges 'follow the constitutions principles,' then you're building your house on a sandbank.
"Bible readings are also covered explicitly by Freedom of speech and religion"
no they aren't. there's nothing in the first amendment which allows bible readings or any religious readings in public schools.
BTW, I think the teaching of darwinian evolution as a fact in public schools should be illegal. I don't mind it being taught as a theory, but as a fact? no. thats the statist enforcing his religion on me. fuck that
On the basis that I have read the writings of the founders including the federalist papers. If one takes the time to read the writings of the founders It is obvious that they intended the Constitution to be Literal. I also understand my own personal rights to govern myself as a independent entity regulated by law ONLY when I infringe on the ability of others to govern themselves.
Take the Constitution literally people.
if it says "grass is green" No amount of rulings can make the grass blue.
With respect, strictly "literal" meaning of words does not exist, since the meaning of words evolves over time. So you need to decide what set of meanings you ascribe to the words you are reading — usually the choice is between contemporary or some specified period.
Given your insistence on the founders, I would imagine that you prefer using the founders' meaning for the words. If that is the case, then your stating that "we are free to say anything and everything we want to say" is false.
Unfortunately for your argument, the Constitution isn't just made of simple words like the "grass is green" — or else there would be no controversy. The Constitution contains lofty ideas like "cruel and unusual", "commerce among the several states", "unreasonable search and seizure", "the people" and so on. It is the meaning of these words, and many many others that has evolved. It is in words like these that controversy lies.
Concerning "the people": do you think that "the people" included blacks in 1789?
If yes, then please explain how slavery continued to exist for more than half a century.
I don't think anyone in the South would have considered black slaves as "citizens" and part of "the people" — blacks were "property" (yet another fine word whose meaning has evolved).
I don't think anyone today would question that blacks are part of "the people".
How do you explain this difference in understanding?
The statement is false because at the time of founding, defamation was a very serious issue, and none of the founders would ever have endorsed an untrammeled right to free speech that would have allowed people to defame others without consequence.
The founders were serious people who cared about their reputation. Average citizens at the time cared about their reputation. No one at the time would have understood the right to free speech as a right to defame others.
The Founders were serious people who cared about their reputation which is why they established the court system as well as the ideal that all men are innocent until proven guilty.
This does not affect the rights of someone else to claim something was true, it simply required them to prove it was true in a court of law if the person being accused wished to reaffirm his/her good name.
I fail to see how your reply makes my statement incorrect.
If I can sue you, and can get a court to order you to pay me damages and stop saying certain things about me, then it is clear that you do not "have the right to say anything and everything" you want to say.
If you did, then I would not be able to sue you, I would not be able to get a court to order you to pay me money and refrain from saying certain things.
You have a right to say SOME things, not ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.
I have reiterated repeatedly that ALL individual rights end when they infringe on the rights of others. This doesn't include merely offensive words.
Also I'd like to point out that defamation is not usually a criminal offense. You can prove that you loaned someone 500 dollars and they owe it to you but you can't have them imprisoned for it. the same principle applies.
I know that defamation is not a criminal offense. But your statement regarding freedom of speech points to an absolute freedom: freedom to say anything and everything you like. If a freedom is absolute, than it cannot be abridged by either the courts (whether they be criminal or civil) or legislatures.
If you don't believe in absolute rights, then don't make absolute statements.
If you choose to disregard this advice, don't be surprised if people misunderstand you.
Now you're trying to twist things around to suit your perspective. It doesn't work like that. Civil courts are the Neutral unbiased parties that two opposing parties go to for Justification.
The fact that Defamation isn't a Criminal offense should be more then enough to prove my case.
If I have a dispute with you and we both agree to take it to a third person who we both know is neutral, this doesn't affect our ability to say what we wish to say. It simply provides Justification for one of us. There is no crime committed. Do you understand?
I don't understand why you are insisting on courts and the criminal law. But that's ok.
On the freedom of speech issue, my point was simply that to say that we can "say anything and everything" we want to say is misleading because saying certain things can get you in trouble (either civilly or criminally) and always could.
You seem to agree with this since you say that our rights end where others people's rights start.
I'm getting the education I should have gotten from school here on YouTube.
bradwatson7324 4 months ago
With this batch of current professional politicians running our country, only the self interest of their respective political parties matters.
bertly71 7 months ago
I love how Dartmouth college discussion on the Constitution has comments disabled? Rockefeller sign on the front of the podium should state for the students stating "a deliberate steering away from those self evident truths expressed in the "Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Congressional Investigation 1954 Reese Committee.
anewgift4u 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IF YOU ARE HERE Watching these YouTube TRENDS then you are a perfect Example and Validate that you are a victim, and your brain has been formatted systematically. You Must Understand this was made to enslave you. All was designed by The Governmental Education Complex and the Globalist (The Elite) and you do not understand that these Trends are only used to distract you! Understand, I am NOT insulting You!!! Learn more and tell everyone you know after seeing this site PayForFreedom. (com)
expose1secretaday 9 months ago
We can never find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard Fine / Dr Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
danielcooper1000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Need more traffic in your web page?Then you need to make others work for you, by adding an affiliate program to your web page,The GAS AFFILIATE SYSTEM is the best choice,Because all others require you to have very good programming skills,Download it at GAS-AFFILIATEdotCOM.
dharmastipulate 1 year ago
The living constitution preamble: We the Oligarchy of the US, in Order to form a more perfect central government, establish only criminal Justice, insure controlling Tranquility, provide for the common redistribution, promote social Welfare, and secure Liberty to the Oligarchy and our Posterity, do establish this erratic constitution for the US. Wakeup folks, we are on the road to serfdom.
Mike10four 1 year ago 2
its so obvious through how this guy speaks that he knows a lot about a lot
harshLesson 1 year ago
I disagree with the Living Document theory, but he misrepresented it.
loya2 1 year ago
To late for words, Dem's have tested the grit of America, zip happend!?
So they just keep pushing. It will take guts to put congress and the President under house arrest for subverting the constitution! Let the supreme court pick up the pieces!
But any more ignorance of those watching the gates to Washington will be the end of this country! We cannot keep turning away! Who is in charge of the constitution when it's under defiance!!?? No body!
buddo1999 2 years ago
There are those who employ the practice of objectivity & others employ subjectivity. But it's ridiculous that there should even be an argument. For just as with science, subjectivity is undesirable for obvious reasons. As he explained, objectivity does not concern itself with what one particular framer wrote, but the understanding that the writing gives the reader
Thus, "separation of church & state" is not only a mere excerpt from a private letter. But also,
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
an extremely subjective, private opinion of 1 particular man. That same man signed, thus agreed with the objectively discernible identification of solely "Congress" being disallowed from making such laws
The horrendous results of employing subjectivity were seen after prop. 8 when it was being taken as far as believing that its unconstitutional for private citizens to vote according to their religious beliefs. Now the subjective ones even want separation of church goers & the democratic process
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
because in their Utopian view of the world, there needs to be equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. In order to effect social change in society according to their sense of morality, they need a strong powerful central government where the power is taken from the hands of the average man and the taxpayer, and given to political experts who "know whats best" for the majority of men in the community.
danwk7 2 years ago 5
@danwk7 Spoken like a true idiot.
lexscripta1 1 month ago
What wingnuts argue when they speak of "original intent" is really simply "rule it my way". They don't give a damned about original intent. For example, there is NOTHING in the Costitution about "executive priviledge" but it diidn't stop the criminal Bush administration from invoking it every single chance they got.
Go fucking cry in your SOUR GRAPE TEA and let the adults finish their work. Booo fucking hoo.
gumpydoood 2 years ago
Actually what Original intent refers to is the literal meaning of the words in the constitution. For example. When it says in the second amendment for example that this right shall not be infringed upon. We believe that it means literally......That the Government does NOT have the power to infringe on those rights. Got it?
There are several elements in the constitution that go against my preferences but I accept them as part of the whole Constitution which is the supreme part of the land.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago 7
If you're going to speak to the "original intent", then there is not one word in the document about "executive priviledge". The problem with the entire subject is that wingnuts always speak about original intent until it interferes with their idea of how things should be and then it flies right out of the fucking window.
gumpydoood 2 years ago
Correct, there is no word about executive privilege. I'd like to hear your definition of "wing nut"
In order to adequately respond. I do know that Democrats and Republicans are guilty of picking and choosing what they like and dislike about the Constitution and then emphasizing what they agree with while ignoring what they don't. If you're trying to attack a single party with this accusation then you're way off base.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago 2
The idea of relativism and historicism as it applies to the constitution were originated at the beginning of the progressive movement in the late 18 hundreds. Most of the misinterpretation of the constitution comes from liberals on the supreme court. Its just a fact, simply because the constitution and the bill of rights limit the government in size and in power, and most liberals view this as a wall in front of progress.Progressives want to use the government to engineer socioeconomic equality
danwk7 2 years ago 2
@Twisteddreamer78 What some people think was meant as a loose interpretation was not to allow the fed gov't to do whatever it wanted, but that 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of the house could call a Constitution Convention to change it or add on to it. The elites have tricked Americans to think that a Con Con isn't needed and loose intrepretation is all that is needed which is not the case. Our founders allowed us to CHANGE the Constitution over time, NOT to jumble their words in the document.
residentzombie 1 year ago
@Twisteddreamer78 I don't mean to be confrontational, but what you're talking about sounds more like textualism than original intent.
greenday439 1 year ago
@greenday439 In this case they're one and the same.
The founders meant exactly what they said in the literal sense......Researching the rest of their writings and quotes provides more than ample evidence for this.
Twisteddreamer78 1 year ago
@Twisteddreamer78, FYI, Scalia and most originalists would disagree with you strongly. The "literal meaning" of words often produces absurd unintended results. The text must be read in context to discern the original meaning. Thus, "no vehicles in the park" must be interpreted to cover motorized vehicles, not a kid on a tricycle, as the literal meaning would. Regarding the 2d Amd., the Court in an opinion by Scalia made clear that it was not an unqualified right; guns can be regulated.
etsneroj 1 year ago
@etsneroj Not overly concerned with who would or wouldn't disagree with me.
I speak/read English and therefore when something is written or spoken in English I understand it..
The Constitution is written in English and I honestly don't need someone else to tell me what something means when I'm quite capable of reading and comprehending it myself. You think I'd give credence to someone that tells me words don't mean what they say?
Twisteddreamer78 1 year ago
@Twisteddreamer78, I wish understanding what the constitution and statutes mean in various situations was as easy as understanding the English language. As a lawyer I can tell you it is not. The text often uses open-ended language. Or it uses concrete language that is so simple it cannot cover all situations. Or it is in tension with another provision of the same law or constitution. Or a case arises that the drafters never anticipated and someone must decide how the law applies, if at all.
etsneroj 1 year ago
@etsneroj It really is that easy, If it says "The grass is green" for example.....The grass is according to that document always green unless there is something else that clarifies or allows others to clarify.
I believe The Supreme court decides how to apply the Constitution although it's been awhile since I read up on that. I believe it was Madison said that if we want to know the intent of the Constitution, we should put ourselves in the shoes of those that signed it.
Twisteddreamer78 1 year ago
@Twisteddreamer78, What if the statute simply says: "No vehicles in the park." The literal meaning would include children on tricycles; a sanitation worker's golf cart; a car swerving to avoid hitting a helpless person. The literal meaning is not sufficient. A good judge looks for the original intended meaning as best as you can derive from context (context of the subject being regulated, contemporary laws, etc). Any judge, conservative or liberal, will tell you: it really is not that easy.
etsneroj 1 year ago
@etsneroj Original intent is the literal meaning where the Constitution is concerned as is obvious when you look at all the other writings and sayings of those that signed it..
Simply define "vehicles" according to the time the statute was instated and the intent of those that instated it according to their objectives and you have your meaning.
No vehicles in the park means no vehicles in the park. If a tricycle is a vehicle, It might not be a good idea to bring Tricycles to that park.
Twisteddreamer78 1 year ago
@Twisteddreamer78, Now it sounds like we agree. You've added to the "literal meaning" reasonable inferences based on the drafters' "other writings," as well as "intent" and "objectives." It was just a hypothetical, but probably, one would find that "no vehicles," read in context, means no motorized vehicles like motorcycles, cars, etc. and that tricylces, which fit the literal dictionary definition were not intended.
etsneroj 1 year ago
@etsneroj That's the thing....In the Constitution, the Literal meaning is the original intent. The founders kept it simple. The problem is that our courts are trying to interpret things that don't need to be interpreted. Freedom of speech means we're free to say whatever we want for example, yet if you say some things, you can be prosecuted and charged with BS like "verbal assault". The only time our rights are subject to the rule of law is when we violate the rights of others
Twisteddreamer78 1 year ago
@etsneroj 2nd amendment for example....We look at What was considered arms in those times and then any Fire arm that is in that class and is "bear" able is justifiably accounted for. That's how we know what can not be infringed upon.....Keep it simple. It fits when you do.
Twisteddreamer78 1 year ago
@Twisteddreamer78 Yeah, like how the 16th Amendment says tax the population, but it doesn't say use the dollar. I take that to mean we still gotta use gold and silver. After all, that was never repealed. They need to collect gold and silver as the tax. Sorry for the necropost, but I had to respond.
psxwarrior 1 month ago
@psxwarrior Actually, the 16th Amendment doesn't say "tax the population." It says that Congress no longer has to apportion certain taxes. "Income" had/has a specific meaning. The case this Amendment was trying to address (Pollock)said that one had to consider the source of GAINS or PROFITS (income) and if you had to apportion the source of the income (for example a tax on land), then you also had to apportion the GAIN or PROFIT derived from it. No new taxing power was given under the 16th.
MrHalified 2 weeks ago
@MrHalified Wages were not "income" even though ordinary people tend to think of it that way. Wages was considered an even exchange. You trade an hour of your life for an hour's wages. No profit; no gain. If you invest your wages in a bank and receive interest, then you have capital--that interest is then "income." But they have played on our ignorance and fear of their brute force to soak the working people.
MrHalified 2 weeks ago
@MrHalified (continued) It is also my understanding that the Federal Government may tax the wages of any of its employees or those subject to Federal Jurisdiction, such as in Washington D.C. or territories--or if one worked for the railroad, for example, as these were all created/chartered by the Federal government. I am uncertain about this, but it makes sense. I have to investigate it further. Not that it matters. Congress and the courts do as they please, it seems.
MrHalified 2 weeks ago
@MrHalified (continued) In Eisner v. Macomber (1920) the Court held: "Income may be defined as the GAIN DERIVED from capital, from labor, or from both combined, PROVIDED IT BE UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE PROFIT GAINED THRU A SALE OR CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSETS. Emphasis mine. In order words, if you labor and increase the worth of your capital assets and then convert them to cash, that labor which increased your worth would be taxed. This "labor" does not mean "wages" as I understand it.
MrHalified 2 weeks ago
@MrHalified opps! Wages were not was.
MrHalified 2 weeks ago
With four degrees, this guy knows what he is talking about. A lot more then the box of rocks we have in office now.
Texpilot22 2 years ago
Four degrees in Bullshit.
gumpydoood 2 years ago
Once again: my point regarding black slaves:
You say that the meaning of "the people" never changed.
I say false because in 1789, in many states, blacks were not a part of "the people". They could not vote, could not own land, couldn't do much at all except be slaves and hope that their owners didn't work them too hard.
Whereas today, blacks are a part of "the people".
So the way we understand "the people" has changed.
patrikgs 2 years ago
The meaning of the word "people" has not changed.
Look at it this way.....After the Revolution The Constitution basically applied to White men.
After Blacks fought for their rights in the mid 1900's the Constitution also applied to them...
Then Women Fought for and gained access to the ideals described in the Constitution.
When you step back and look at it, Freedom, personal rights and self government has never been "given"
It has always been achieved.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago 2
Or "Claimed" The Constitution is only a piece of paper unless we fight maintain its restrictions upon our government or a poor interpretation of special interests.
shopken1 2 years ago
Good point.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
Right on !
phenom10304 2 years ago
It has always been FOUGHT FOR and WON.
gumpydoood 2 years ago
Yes, you make a good point, we were a new born nation in 1789. We have come a long way, to long for us to lose our rights now. Socialism is around the corner, pretty soon uncle Sam will own everything, including our Constitutual rights as free citizens. Socialism with a happy face..
Texpilot22 2 years ago
In addition:
If "cruel" and "unusual" still mean the same thing, does that mean that you consider public lashing and branding of the right hand — both of which were very common in 1789 — are acceptable forms of punishment (i.e. NOT cruel and NOT unusual)?
patrikgs 2 years ago
Really?
If a state decides to enact public lashing and branding of right hands as punishment for crimes committed I guess it would be acceptable.
So long as it was a uniform punishment and the representatives that were responsible for voting this measure in were actually representing the people.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
Ok. If that's your position on punishment, fair enough.
At least you're consistent in this respect.
patrikgs 2 years ago
In Germany, the Secretary of State for the Interior, Wolfgang Schäuble, continually tries to rape the constitution over and over again, avoiding a due amendment process. The only line of defense against this madman is the Supreme Court, but every time it bans his parliamentary bills, he comes up with another one. And parliament doesn't learn from these mistakes but still backs his initiatives. Why? He goes right for the constitution's jugular, but sells it as "sensible measures against terror".
TeehpodT 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Greetings everybody! Staunch Republican and United States Army veteran here, unemployed since the beginning of the year, can't seem to find work in my field. In an effort to keep going I've created two stores with great Tea Party, 2A & RTKABA, pro military/police, Gadsden and Join Or Die Flag clothing designs. Check out my stores at cafepress (dot) com (forward slash) illinoispatriot AND zazzle (dot) com (forward slash) illinois_patriot Bookmark and watch the stores for future new designs!
illinoispatriot1776 2 years ago
We are in a post modern ? Can you be truly objective ? You always impose your presuppositions. Hermeneutics is the best way of interpreting anything however we need to be aware of our presuppositions to be more careful not to impose them on the interpretation
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Gimme a break!
We are at the non-sustainability point of Democracy!
The Empire devoured the State & Now NORTHCOMs homeland defense force trains on US soil to combat civil unrest in the States
America is entirely bankrupt!
Help yourself - Get another citizenship & move your currency out of the US dollar!
America lost all call to the claim of a democratic republic around 1897 to 1913
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago
"America lost all call to the claim of a democratic republic around 1897 to 1913"
The problem is, there's not a sinlge democratic republic or a representative democracy out there that still practices libertarian, right wing policies. Everybody is sucking on the tits of the government now-a-days. Personally, I think the USA is a better place to live then anywehre else. Yes, we have tons of problems, but we're better then any of the shitty countries in Europe
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Poole
I agree with your former; but disagree that America is best place
US is 49th in literacy & 2nd only to Mexico in poverty
US lost all but no 3 of its Bill of Rights
US is ENTIRELY bankrupt & allows foreign bankers to print its money out of thin air
The solution: live the life of an International Corporation, (obtain additional citizenship etc)
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago
I beleive the 49th in literacy part. But 2nd in pvoerty? That would mean we are poorer then every 3rd wordl nation in Africa. At least in America we are nourished and have economic sustinence. I'd rather live in America then any 3rd world nation.
You are totally right about us printing money out of thin air, and now the bloody Obama administration wants over a trillion dollars in deficit spending. Dual citizenship is not such a bad idea
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Nat Geographic Roper 2002 Global Survey: Of all industrialized countries, USA is 2nd only to Mexico in Poverty
US & S.Africa only industrialized countries not to offer Health Care; Health care in USA is ranked 54th in world
US is 41st in Infant mortality rate, (Cuba is better)
Women are 70% more likely to die during childbirth in USA than Europe
US houses 1 in 4 blacks in prison; holds more prisoners; has lowest quality of life for indust nations
US currency is flawed; & bankrupt
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago
"Dual citizenship is not such a bad idea."
I prefer sucession and revolution if necessary.
northernpatriot54 3 years ago
" prefer sucession and revolution if necessary"
that's not a bad idea either. Glenn Beck was talknig about it on his show a few months ago. Too bad it will probably enver happen though. ):
Look, i'm right wing libertarian, its just that I view the constitution as the problem and not the solution to the massive government takeover thats going on under left wing hacks like obma, Reid, and Palosi
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
I will guarantee you that a revolution WILL happen if these trends continue. Congree no longer represents the people, but represents their own greed and selfish agendas.
These left-wing hacks, are TRAMPLING over our constitution.
"...the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." - John Adams
northernpatriot54 3 years ago
A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. - Thomas Jefferson
northernpatriot54 3 years ago
we can agree to disagree on the constitution. The bottom line is, something has to be done. I really hope talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Mark levin and watchdog groups like the Heritage foundation keep on exposing the Obama government for what it is. I think his election has galvanaized right-wing Americans to take action, and now the government is feeling the heat. The republicans are sure to take over Congress in 2010 at this rate, and then Romney will get elected in 2012
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
I think that if Romney or somebody like Romney gets elected in 2012, then we can go back to the prosperous days of the 1980's and forget this economic crisis ever happened. Lets pray for the best
Thanks for talking to me, and take care (:
-Dan
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
you couldn't be a Libertarian and believe the way you believe. Libertarians want strict adherence to the Constitution and none of this living and breathing crap. Liberty is too precious to be allowed to be arbitrarily changed by a bunch of blowhard demigogues in DC at their whim. The Constitution must remain very hard to change and the supreme law of the land, nullifying any other law that contradicts it.
EvilMongrelMonkey 3 years ago 2
"you couldn't be a Libertarian and believe the way you believe"
I hold alot of libertarian beliefs, but I'm not a strict hardcore libertarian.
" Liberty is too precious to be allowed to be arbitrarily changed by a bunch of blowhard demigogues in DC at their whim"
the constitution is not gonig to protect our liberty as its currently constructed. Its too ambiguous to protect our liberty.
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
AIG got 10 times more than Autoindustries; and sent most of it to Europeans!
Then spent over 400,000 for a weekend pedicure in Malibu!
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago
CIA dir nominee Greenburg is CEO of AIG; Ret CIA dir Slatkin is on Citibank board; Ret CIA dir Deutch boards Citigroup; CIA Exec Dir Krongard profited in millions off 911 insider trading & Chaired investment bank A.B. Brown & Vice Chair of Banker's Trust; VP of NYSE Doherty is x-CIA; CIA Dir Casey chairs SEC; Bush Sr worked CIA since 63 & chair investments with Bin Ladens, younger Bush runs WTC security (allowed 6 days w/out security prior to 911), only money Lil Bush made was through Bin Ladens
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago
THANK YOU!!
FreedomLives1776 3 years ago
Ed Vieira is brilliant!
Johnhoulgate 3 years ago
If we followed the constitution to a T, and did not allow the federal government to enact anything not authorized by it, we would not be in the world of trouble we're in today.
No debts, no entangling alliances, no income tax or IRS, no gigantic wasteful government beaurocracies, no over-regulations or ridiculous taxes/tariffs, no PORK, and one hell of a wealthy, secure, and happy nation unmatched by any other on the planet, ever.
But no. We have the "living document" advocates.
neonsilkworm 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Hey, if the government is not currently disregarding those rights, great! That's the way it needs to be now and FOREVER. That's why our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. The Founders experienced these conditions being perpetually violated and wanted to make sure their families and countrymen never had to suffer the indignity. I agree with them 100%. I don't trust anyone for one instant to take away my guarantee of those rights and say, "Hey, don't worry, we super duper promise
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
...to not ever take advantage of this situation." Maybe not now, maybe not in 100 years, but that year 101 can be a beast. I want those rights carved in unmoving, set-for-all-time stone, with no possibility of anyone ever having the slightest chance at even thinking about removing them.
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
Now, as to the Founders' expression of our rights being granted by "Nature's God": this was their way of expressing that their belief was the rights they wrote regarding should exist in perpetuity outside of any legal framework whatsoever. To buttress this, they stated that the supreme expression of ultimate moral authority, i.e. God, grants our rights. Therefore (again, in their thinking), if God grants you your rights, no government can ever take them away. Thus, the government as outlined
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
in the Constitution, was not ever meant to grant or take away these rights--merely to exist as a perpetual guardian of them. This was the point of the Constitution being written--placed as a limit on possible (I say "possible" because you seem to believe just because they haven't recently they never will) government depredation. This was the the whole I idea behind "enumerated powers": the gov't CAN'T go beyond what the Constitution ALLOWS them to do. This is not a concept that was ever
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
meant to expire! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything to the effect of "wait till 1963 and the do whatever you want." The original Constitution is still in effect! Therefore from a mere chronologically progressive standpoint your idea of a "living document" (which it is, someone already pointed out the amendment process that you so despise) doesn't have a logical place. If you're really so keen to throw over a document whose principles have created a nation unparalleled in all
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
of human history, take over a small country somewhere and see if you can do better. I am indeed a conservative, and that's not a title, it's a belief: we need to conserve the things that has made this country a jewel among nations, past and present. We are not averse to improvements, but demolishing the principles that have brought us safely thus far is a bad idea. We should build ON those principles and their foundation, not break them and launch into policies which are
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
demonstrably historical and contemporary failures.
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
"we need to conserve the things that has made this country a jewel among nations, past and present."
I'm a conservative as well, but not because Iw ant to conserve anything. I simply want to go with what works and whats logical. Thats why i want the government to keep their hands off the economy and out of my wallet. Thats why I want almost all social programs should be eliminated. thats why I supprt the death penalty and a tough foreign policy. And thats why I support gun rights
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
"Therefore from a mere chronologically progressive standpoint your idea of a living document doesn't have a logical place"
The constitution didn't make this country great,. Its nothing more then a piece of paper with fancy words, written by men who lived in a whole different generation with whole different circmstances and ideas, and written by men who were mysoginist slaveowners. Why should we care what their intention was?
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
"That's why our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution."
Well, if nothing else, emanemdments 4-8 need to be modified. Because the fact is, the liberal idiots on the Supreme Court (like Earl Warren and William Brennan) have/are using those amendments to give first degree criminals and even international terrorists a bag of "constitutional" rights. We need to modify those amendments to ensure they only apply to innocent civlians and American citizens like me and you
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Well, it's fine if you want to trust the gov't never to abuse our rights. I don't. Therefore, the logical conclusion if we're going to live in the same country is to leave the governmental checks in the Constitution. Then you can trust the government, and I can enjoy legal protection of them and stay vigilantly suspicious at the same time and there's no negatives for either of us.
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
"(and what threat does a piece of paper hold?) "
Only the weight of the beliefs of those who are willing to fight and die defending and upholding the ideals written on that paper. So, the threat is as great as the number people who believe in it and support those who work to enforce it.
"The framers never spelled out why these rights are so important " It is obvious why Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is a good thing...and they talked about it plenty, just read their writings.
TheColoradoan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
like what? give an example.
thisisbunk 3 years ago
well, for starters, most of amendments 4,5,6, and 8 should be completely ignored and disregarded b the Supreme Court, but on the other hand, the 1st and 2nd amendment should be interpreted very broadly. You know the part in the 2nd amendment where it says "a well organized militia"? I say fuck that. The suprme court should focus one only one part of the 2nd amendment: the right of people to keep and bare arms should not be infringed. fuck the militia part
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
still not exactly sure i understand where you are coming from. take just one. amendment 4, ignore this part... why?
thisisbunk 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Because, the government is composed of human beings. To say that one group of human beings has the power over another group of human beings to grant or take away these rights* is a completely discredited philosophy, if you can even call it that.
* "these rights" refers to the basic, incontrovertible rights not to be KILLED, not to be STOLEN FROM, and not to be TRIED UNFAIRLY IN A COURT OF LAW. Just a few easy ones for you try and grasp.
pguitarb 3 years ago
"To say that one group of human beings has the power over another group of human beings to grant or take away these rights* is a completely discredited philosophy"
well guess what, when we give a first degree criminal the death penalty, we are taking away that criminals right to life. This philsophy of humans taking away another humans rights for a righteous purpose has never been discredited. Or how about when we throw criminals in jail? This takes away their right to the pursuit of happines
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
The criminal INITIATED the use of force against an innocent party, therefore he is GUILTY and no longer has a legitimate claim to any rights the innocent pos. Can you not make the distinction between the use of force and the initiation of force? Example: If you were to break into my home and while carrying a knife, attack me or my family (I'll spell it out for you - that's initiation) I have every legitimate right to shoot you in the face with my gun (using force for defense).
pguitarb 3 years ago
Comment removed
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Please show me how the framers morals and standards are different than ours. Are you proposing that morality changes over time? If so, then what use is it establishing a philosophical system if it is subject to never ending changes? Or are you conceding that yes, indeed the framers had a different sense of morals and standards as compared to our "rulers" today? Which is true, we are ruled over by thieves and tyrants. Except you think our government does a great job of governing us, am I correct?
pguitarb 3 years ago
Wow, you didn't hear a word that man said. Amazing...we have a whole country full of people like you now. Way to go Dept. of Education! You did your job!!!
cmcphee 3 years ago
If you are talking about pguitarb, I resoponded to what he said in a private message. If you aee talking about Ed Vierra, then I responded to him lik 4 months ago. Check out some of the early comments
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Sociatal and moral changes in a society shouldnt encourage our Supreme Court to "pick and choose" which rights we are still entitled to. If THE PEOPLE agree to ratify our constitution, they can do so by adding or changing ammendments.
It is not up the descretion of a few men and women to decided the rights of the populous.
northernpatriot54 3 years ago
"Sociatal and moral changes in a society shouldnt encourage our Supreme Court to 'pick and choose'"
Congress makes laws that we don't like, and the Supreme Court makes decisions we don't like. This is why we must make sure the right people are in both branches of government. I, for one, do not beleive any rights are inalienable. I think the government should determine which rights we do and do not have.
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
I believe there are many inalienable rights. Especially those laid out in the constitution. The government isnt there to mandate right to the people, it is there to ensure the protection of those rights.
Government is inherantly corrupt. That is why is was meant to be as small as it was originally. States had more power and people could chose to leave that state if it wasnt passing laws they liked, or if it wasnt doing its job. Government has overstepped its boundaries. THAT is the problem.
northernpatriot54 3 years ago
"The government isnt there to mandate right to the people, it is there to ensure the protection of those rights"
you obviously abide by Jeffersons morals. I, respectively, do not.
"Government has overstepped its boundaries. THAT is the problem."
Yes, government has overstepped its boundaries. and its the laughable ambiguity of the constitution that has facilitated expansion of government.
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
Ambiguity is only recent. Only in the last 100yrs or so have there been desicussions on its interpretation and I believe this is do to lack of proper education on the subject. Before then, Supreme Court decisions were usually 9-0. Now you will regularly see decisions that are mixed.
northernpatriot54 3 years ago
"Ambiguity is only recent."
actually, the ambiguity is inheret in the constitution. Read the 1st amendment for example. There is absolutrly nothing in that amendment that is clear cut or well defined. what qualfies as freedom of speech? religion? the press? what about these rights conflicting with eachother (and these rights conflicting with other amendments). Ask any constitutional scholar: the language of the constituion makes it rediculously ambigious
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
The first 10 amendments were not giving any rights to the people, they were identifying "natural rights" that were not to be infringed upon under any circumstances. So, therefore the lack of a narrow definition of speech or religion was intentional. Good Lord man, I thought you would have known that.
jpschubbs 2 years ago
You're missing the point: the consitution's ambiguity allows anybody on the supreme court to manipulate it to fit whatever they want. Natural rights be damned.
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
Well, I'm with you there.
jpschubbs 2 years ago
"Supreme Court decisions were usually 9-0. Now you will regularly see decisions that are mixed"
the supreme court has been interpreting what the constitution says ever since the Marbury vs. madison decision in 1803. Judicial activism is nothing new. Its been gonig on for 200 years. I really get sick and tired of all the supreme court bashing. The problem isn't the supreme court. Its the people on the supreme court (Earl Warren, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, etc)
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
"they can do so by adding or changing ammendments"
but the amendment process is too damn cumbersome. a 2/3 approval by Congress plus a 3/4 approval by the states? I prefer 50-50 for both. I hate to say this cause i don't particular admire this contintent, but look at how fast and effficiently Europe passes laws and makes changes. I crave that kind of fast, eficient law making (albeit not the left wing decisions they make)
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
The Amendment process is only cumbersome because our beaurocratic government has made it that way. The federal government shouldnt have the authority to mandate new amendments or change/remove the ones we do have. States have the right to radify their amendments any way they see fit, as long as it doesnt object w/ the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution isnt the problem. Its the growth and expansion of power the federal government has seized.
northernpatriot54 3 years ago
"The Amendment process is only cumbersome because our beaurocratic government has made it that way."
actually, its cumbersome beause of the constitution. Simply put: securing approval from 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states is not easy. The framers obviously beleived in "slow and steady wins the race." I don't buy that shit. I buy the mantra that the fastest way from point A to point B is a straight line (to make an analogy),
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
A straight line, when dealing w/ hundreds of beaurocrats, isnt always a straight line. Nor does it always lead to point B. You are abiding by the concept that congress is competant. Obviously our founding fathers had the wisdom of realizing the contrary. I believe that is the reasoning of it (among others).
Just look at last fall's bailout package that was hurried along. It has failed in a very big way. This year's stimulus package was hurried along in the same manner and is failing as well.
northernpatriot54 3 years ago
"A straight line, when dealing w/ hundreds of beaurocrats, isnt always a straight line"
This makes sense in theory, but if you look at European legislatures and how fast they get things done, your theory doesn't make sense in practice. A straight line can and is a straight line if your government is setup properly and if you don't have a cumbersome piece of paper like the constitution guiding you.
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
"You are abiding by the concept that congress is competant."
actually, when I talk about a straight line, I'm talknig about efficiency, not compatancy. Compatecny is a whole other issue.
Because of the constitution, congress is not a very efficient institution like European legislatures are. Congress should be much more efficient.
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
"Just look at last fall's bailout package that was hurried along"
the fatc that the stimulus package has failed simoly means that government stimulus bills are disastrous economic policies, not that hurrying things through Congress is a bad thing. Congress could ahve taken 2 months to pass that stimulus bill, and it still would have failed. The fact it was hurridly passed does not prove that passing legislation quickly and efficiently is a bad thing.
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
"Nor does it always lead to point B"
ask any physicist: the fastest way from point A to pojnt B is a straight line. we tried the idea of the framers that slow and steady wins the race, and that policy has failed us. Aseop was wrong. Taking things slowly is not good. We cannot possibly get out of the mess we are in by taking it slowly. The democracts in Congress and the executive branch won't take things slowly, and neither should we. the consitution is our enemy, not our friend.
Poole1Dan 3 years ago
The policy of the framers is how we became the most powerful country in the world.
Our economy and society in general is failing because we have left the original intent of the Constitution.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
The USA is the greatest country in the world because of laisse faire free market capitalism and a belief in individualism and liberty. The Framers certainly held those beliefs, but lets not delude ourselves by believing that we are what we are strictly because of the framers. some of the framers believed in a monarchy you know. and all of them believed in slavery
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
A lot of that was true but many of the founders despised slavery.
The two party system in general is the cause of our failures.
The Democrats are only part of the problem.
Reverting to the Constitution would in fact save our country.
The statements are not up for debate. There's more then enough evidence to convince any neutral observer of this truth. I won't argue with you because I don't need to argue....Thx
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
"A lot of that was true but many of the founders despised slavery"
true. And I'm not saying the framers were bad men. They were great men and great leaders with revolutionary ideas. I'm just saying its not like the USA became a great nation because of them. The framers shared the IDEAS which made this country the superpower its become
"Reverting to the Constitution would in fact save our country"
I think what you meant to say is 'revert to the framers original intention.'
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
I actually meant both. The original intention is The Constitution that we should revert to
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
The constitution itself is so damn ambigious that there's no way you can assert what belief system it does or does not endorse.
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
The Constitution is Ambiguous?
.......Only if you listen to the Supreme court. They've got everybody believing that the Constitution is written in some unknown Tongue that only they can interpret.
The Constitution is Very clear and does not need to be interpreted.
Take the literal words....Literally.
The Constitution is NOT a living document.
The only way you can change the constitution is with a convention.
It means exactly what it says.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
"The Constitution is Ambiguous?"
yes, absolutely. take the 1st amendment for example. what falls under the relam of free speech? and freedom of the press? what qualifies as establishment of religion? what qualifies as infringing upon religion? where, when, and how can you assemble with others? all these questions are undefined by the constitution, and the supreme court has had to define what they mean for 200 years. look at the results.
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
What falls under free speech?
Anything we say.....
Establishment of religion...Anything affecting a religious establishment.
Infringing religion....Anything that interferes with the rights of religions to practice what they believe so long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of others.
You can assemble with others whenever and however ya want so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others
Like I said....We don't require the Supreme court to interpret but to "apply"
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
"What falls under free speech?
Anything we say"
yeah, and in accordance with marbury vs. madison, its up to the Supreme court to define what does and does not fall under free speech, and as a result, we have seen judicial activism in one form or another ever since the early 1800's.
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
But it's NOT up to the supreme court to define what does and does not fall under free speech.
Free speech is self explanatory and if you read the federalist papers a lot of this is addressed.
The Supreme courts duty is NOT to interpret but to apply.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
i agree with you that the supreme court should not define what falls under free speech.But the law is the law, and until you realize that the legal foundation of this country is an ambigious document that is constantly circumvented by statists, you will continue to see liberal-activist judges constituionalizing their anti-human viewpoints
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
"Free speech is self explanatory"
no its not. just look at all the supreme court cases that ahve arisen over free speech. you never see a supreme court case arriving over the 35 years old requirement, cause there's nothing to interperet, and no questions to be answered. thanks to the ambiguity of the first amendment, free speech is whatever the supreme court says it is. this is unfortunate but true
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
"if you read the federalist papers a lot of this is addressed."
the federalist papers are not a legally binding document. do you think justices like Ginsburgh give two shits what the federalist papers say? They don't. If you want to permently stop left-wing judicial activism, you need to bind them to a document which is uninterpretable, and the constitution is the opposite of that.
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
"Anything affecting a religious establishment"
what is an establishment of religion? does prayer in public schools establish religion? what about prayer before a fopotball game? or what about bible readings in graduation speeches? or the pledge of alliegence? You may think establishment of religion is slef-explanatory, but as you can see by obseriving U.S history, it is not.
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
Is a School a religious establishment? How about a football game?
Are Graduation speeches a religious establishment?
Not the last time I checked.
However freedom of religion is demonstrated here. A Student should be allowed to pray in school so long as others are not forced to join them. Bible readings are also covered explicitly by Freedom of speech and religion.
Atheists have to listen to bible readings just as much as Creationists have to listen to the theory of evolution.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
"Not the last time I checked"
you're missing the point: the supreme court has had to answer all those questions before, which proves my point that the 1st amendment IS ambigious and unclear. My friend, me and you probably see eyet to eye on political issues like taxes, foreign policy, etc. But if you really think the answer to left-wing activism is to have judges 'follow the constitutions principles,' then you're building your house on a sandbank.
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
"Bible readings are also covered explicitly by Freedom of speech and religion"
no they aren't. there's nothing in the first amendment which allows bible readings or any religious readings in public schools.
BTW, I think the teaching of darwinian evolution as a fact in public schools should be illegal. I don't mind it being taught as a theory, but as a fact? no. thats the statist enforcing his religion on me. fuck that
Poole1Dan 2 years ago
Free speech means that we are free to say anything and everything we want to say period. This would include saying or reading the bible.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
On what basis are you claiming that we are free to say anything and everything we want to say? Do you think the founders intended it to be that way?
patrikgs 2 years ago
On the basis that I have read the writings of the founders including the federalist papers. If one takes the time to read the writings of the founders It is obvious that they intended the Constitution to be Literal. I also understand my own personal rights to govern myself as a independent entity regulated by law ONLY when I infringe on the ability of others to govern themselves.
Take the Constitution literally people.
if it says "grass is green" No amount of rulings can make the grass blue.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
Real quick correction to my previous statement. It was overly general.
Not ALL of the founders believed in the literal Translation. The ones who didn't were called federalists.
The ones who did believe in Literal translations were called democratic republicans....That is Singular not separate.
Jefferson was one of these. The majority of the founders subscribed to Literal application.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
theres no translation its written in english
adzug 2 years ago
Exactly.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
With respect, strictly "literal" meaning of words does not exist, since the meaning of words evolves over time. So you need to decide what set of meanings you ascribe to the words you are reading — usually the choice is between contemporary or some specified period.
Given your insistence on the founders, I would imagine that you prefer using the founders' meaning for the words. If that is the case, then your stating that "we are free to say anything and everything we want to say" is false.
patrikgs 2 years ago
Inadequate generalization Patrikgs.
Yes there are some new meanings to words (like cool for example) that may confuse a founder but the basic meaning of words has not "evolved".
A statement such as "the grass is green" written in the Constitution would still in fact mean that grass is in fact green.
Like I said previously, in order to understand the original intent, you should read up on the other writings of the Founders.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
Unfortunately for your argument, the Constitution isn't just made of simple words like the "grass is green" — or else there would be no controversy. The Constitution contains lofty ideas like "cruel and unusual", "commerce among the several states", "unreasonable search and seizure", "the people" and so on. It is the meaning of these words, and many many others that has evolved. It is in words like these that controversy lies.
patrikgs 2 years ago
There is controversy because people don't like what is written in the Constitution.
The Constitution is very clear
Cruel and unusual actually mean the same that they always have.
Unreasonable search and seizure does as well.
"The people" Still refers to citizens of the USA.
There are those that prefer safety over freedom and those that would give up both for power.
They are the ones who want to change the meaning of those words.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
Concerning "the people": do you think that "the people" included blacks in 1789?
If yes, then please explain how slavery continued to exist for more than half a century.
I don't think anyone in the South would have considered black slaves as "citizens" and part of "the people" — blacks were "property" (yet another fine word whose meaning has evolved).
I don't think anyone today would question that blacks are part of "the people".
How do you explain this difference in understanding?
patrikgs 2 years ago
Did the people include blacks?
Were Blacks Citizens of the US?
I could go off on a whole other rant about Article one section 2 but I won't because it's irrelevant.
there is no difference.
Blacks became protected under the Constitution when they were recognized as Citizens of the US.
Quick fact for ya.....There were Blacks that fought for the south as Volunteers believe it or not.
Also the Civil war wasn't about slavery but states rights.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
[continued from previous]
The statement is false because at the time of founding, defamation was a very serious issue, and none of the founders would ever have endorsed an untrammeled right to free speech that would have allowed people to defame others without consequence.
The founders were serious people who cared about their reputation. Average citizens at the time cared about their reputation. No one at the time would have understood the right to free speech as a right to defame others.
patrikgs 2 years ago
Incorrect Patrikgs.
The Founders were serious people who cared about their reputation which is why they established the court system as well as the ideal that all men are innocent until proven guilty.
This does not affect the rights of someone else to claim something was true, it simply required them to prove it was true in a court of law if the person being accused wished to reaffirm his/her good name.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
I fail to see how your reply makes my statement incorrect.
If I can sue you, and can get a court to order you to pay me damages and stop saying certain things about me, then it is clear that you do not "have the right to say anything and everything" you want to say.
If you did, then I would not be able to sue you, I would not be able to get a court to order you to pay me money and refrain from saying certain things.
You have a right to say SOME things, not ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.
patrikgs 2 years ago
I have reiterated repeatedly that ALL individual rights end when they infringe on the rights of others. This doesn't include merely offensive words.
Also I'd like to point out that defamation is not usually a criminal offense. You can prove that you loaned someone 500 dollars and they owe it to you but you can't have them imprisoned for it. the same principle applies.
This is the essence of Self Government.
We are free to Govern ourselves Responsibly.
Always look at the bigger picture.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
I know that defamation is not a criminal offense. But your statement regarding freedom of speech points to an absolute freedom: freedom to say anything and everything you like. If a freedom is absolute, than it cannot be abridged by either the courts (whether they be criminal or civil) or legislatures.
If you don't believe in absolute rights, then don't make absolute statements.
If you choose to disregard this advice, don't be surprised if people misunderstand you.
patrikgs 2 years ago
Now you're trying to twist things around to suit your perspective. It doesn't work like that. Civil courts are the Neutral unbiased parties that two opposing parties go to for Justification.
The fact that Defamation isn't a Criminal offense should be more then enough to prove my case.
Continued below
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
Like I said, I'm not here to argue.
I do believe in absolute rights.
If I have a dispute with you and we both agree to take it to a third person who we both know is neutral, this doesn't affect our ability to say what we wish to say. It simply provides Justification for one of us. There is no crime committed. Do you understand?
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
I don't understand why you are insisting on courts and the criminal law. But that's ok.
On the freedom of speech issue, my point was simply that to say that we can "say anything and everything" we want to say is misleading because saying certain things can get you in trouble (either civilly or criminally) and always could.
You seem to agree with this since you say that our rights end where others people's rights start.
Do we understand each other now?
patrikgs 2 years ago
You are misunderstanding.....
Civil courts exist to resolve arguments, NOT crimes.
I can owe you all the money in the world but I don't have to worry about getting arrested for it.
Do you understand?
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
Like I said.......Our rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.
If there is a question of whether or not or rights infringed on the rights of another we go to court. the judge makes a ruling and wallah!.
However You can't take me to criminal court for insulting you or saying anything about you period.
Twisteddreamer78 2 years ago
I definitely can't take you to criminal court for anything. Only the State prosecutes crimes.
However, you have to consider that people did in fact used to be put in jail for debt. That may no longer be the case, but it was once routine.
patrikgs 2 years ago