Why is the Constitution infallible to some?

I guess I wasn't clear in my wording. Oh well.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Do you, as a constitutionalist, take that to mean that murder is okay since it's not specifically referred to in any of the aforementioned documents?

Murder is not defined in the US constitution.

However when RIGHTS become in jeopardy exceptions are made.

Such as 'stand your ground' and when the STATE goes to war.

A means was laid out in the second.

The STATES and the people had the right to self defense per militia, and armed people.

Just an opinion though.

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

And your point again is ?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Shamrock6

If I may,

Murder is the ultimate infringement of individual rights.

Then why isn't it in the constitution? Sure a strict constitutionalist would argue that it must be legal because it's not specifically mentioned, right?

The point I'm making is that the constitution itself doesn't specifically outlaw or legalize anything. It sets up the government and spells out what the rights and duties are of the government. The bill of rights spells out both individual freedoms and the limitations the government has on it when it comes to certain freedoms. Subsequent amendments do the same.

Within the framework of those documents exists the power to legislate, both federally and otherwise. Who has the authority to legislate, and how they can exercise that authority, is what's spelled out. What those entities can NOT legislate is spelled out. But the constitution does not have a line at the bottom that says "ps if it's not in here, go nuts!"

a reply to: neo96

Exactly, thank you.

The documents provide a framework within which laws can be passed to protect rights. They are not the end all list of what's legal and what isn't.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The Constitution isn't about "law".

It's about limiting government.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Which is exactly what I said, but thanks for clearing it up for the OP.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Sorry, I posted that more for my benefit than anyone else's.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Then please explain to me where in the COTUS it says that murder would be against the Constitution? Are you arguing that we have a right to murder our fellow citizens?

There is part about promoting the general welfare in the preamble. Hence, laws ruling out murder promote the general welfare of the citizens and protect their rights to life, liberty and property thus promoting their general welfare.

It operates like this:

If the COTUS says The people's right to the color red shall not be infringed. Then a law that proposes to make red taillights illegal would be unconstitutional, not because the idea of making taillights illegal is bad but because of the idea of the color red. The law could be re-written to make yellow or blue taillights illegal, but not red.

Or they could simply make a law making it illegal to make taillights red.

But they could not ban red.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Lol no worries. You were way more succinct than I was.

a reply to: ketsuko

You should probably reread my comments, in their entirety and not just the first line, if that's what you somehow managed to get from what I said.

a reply to: Shamrock6

What it really comes down to is;

What people THINK the role of government should be as to what the role of government was MEANT to be.

And that is a conversation Americans have been having since the days of George Washington.

There are benefits to a limited government. More freedoms for the people.

Our power was virtually limitless.

The STATES on the other hand was limited at every turn within the confines of that piece of paper.

originally posted by: neo96
There's nothing wrong with that piece of paper as it stands today.

Particularly the BILL of RIGHTS, and the 14th amendments. Yes added later.

No descriptors are used, No special interests implied.

Universal words for the STATE to live by.

The problem is apparently people either don't know how to read it, or comprehend those words.

The piece of paper isn't broken,

The state, and the PEOPLE are.

Thank you neo96 - you said it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

No, you just said the COTUS doesn't explicitly ban murder.

A law that is made needs to be within the framework set by the COTUS, so which part argues that we have the right to murder each other?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Shamrock6

No, you just said the COTUS doesn't explicitly ban murder.

A law that is made needs to be within the framework set by the COTUS, so which part argues that we have the right to murder each other?

And then I said a bunch of other stuff about how the documents I mentioned spell out what the states are supposed to do and what they have a right to do. The 10th amendment lays out that the states, and the people, retain whatever powers that were not delegated to the federal government, or that the constitution prohibited them from having.

Ergo, states had the power and authority to pass laws criminalizing murder.

Not whatever bullsnip you're trying to claim I said.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy

The basic question is, can this sacred document be wrong in any form and why not?

Of course it can be "wrong," though "wrong" is a relative term. What was not wrong in the 1780's is wrong today. That's why the Constitution was built with an amendment structure so people can change it. But that can also go awry. For example, a bunch of Do Gooders managed to get the 18th amendment passed and created Prohibition. That, in turn, caused a tremendous amount of organized crime. The 22nd amendment repealed it.

But you've also got to look at the Constitution in context of the times. When it was written the world had never seen a document like it, though it did have some precedents in documents like the Magna Carta. The prevailing philosophy at the time was based on the Divine Right of Kings. The idea was that the monarchies derived their right to rule directly from God. So for the Americans to come along and say, "No, governments actually derive their right to rule from the people themselves." was a HUGE difference in approach.

After the American constitution was was printed and distributed it inspired a great many revolutions around the world, the most famous being the French Revolution. Monarchies fell all over the world, or, as in the UK, became more symbolic as "rule by the people" in Parliament basically took over the actual rule of that empire.

Today, of course, there are many constitutions that emulate the original American one and many declarations like the UN one on Human Rights that have taken the Bill of Rights and expanded it to include a whole lot more. Some people will say, "Hey, ours is better!" for one reason or another, but what "theirs" is is derivative.

So to answer your original question. It's not "sacred," but it deserves a venerated place in history because it caused massive change in the world. And it IS the "Law of the Land" and you can change it if enough people agree with you.

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

I am not in the state's but to me the Constitution is a little like the bible in that it is a fantastic and good thing that set's out a set of law's that are perfect (in the end result) but like the bible pass it through the digestive tract of human nature and what you get out at the end seldom look's OR smell's like it did going in.

I actually believe the US constitution is a wonderful thing, not divinely perfect perhaps but one of the very greatest and most humane document's or power of the past thousand years and it has yet to be bettered in it's intent (Except that many signatory's were of course slave owners and it was written on hemp paper which make's you wonder what they had in there pipe).

Joking aside the the people of the US are very fortunate (if not blessed) to have such a document as the basis of there governance but like most people in the world they are somewhat less fortunate at how it has been interpreted in the last 50+ years by those in power, I don't like the arm's bit though as some people really should not have gun's let alone knive's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I don't like the arm's bit though as some people really should not have gun's let alone knive's.

King George thought that as well.

Didn't turn out too well for him,

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Shamrock6

No, you just said the COTUS doesn't explicitly ban murder.

A law that is made needs to be within the framework set by the COTUS, so which part argues that we have the right to murder each other?

And then I said a bunch of other stuff about how the documents I mentioned spell out what the states are supposed to do and what they have a right to do. The 10th amendment lays out that the states, and the people, retain whatever powers that were not delegated to the federal government, or that the constitution prohibited them from having.

Ergo, states had the power and authority to pass laws criminalizing murder.

Not whatever bullsnip you're trying to claim I said.

I don't think we're actually arguing. Just misunderstanding.

I said it had the framework that allowed laws to be passed outlawing murder and why they were constitutionally justified.

In other words, we don't have to have every reason a law might be passed in the COTUS in order for the law to exist. That's not the purpose of the COTUS.

You are basically saying the same thing, but you think I'm not for some reason.