It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is the Constitution infallible to some?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Methinks you don't quite understand the constitution, or the amendments, if you have such a simple view of it.
how was this Not insulting first?




posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Frankly, there are a lot of the base rights in the COTUS we can make the argument that some people shouldn't be allowed to have.

Should pornography be allowed? I'm not talking about soft-core stuff, but the nastiest hard core stuff. And yet because some people take freedom of speech and expression to those extremes, I am not willing to say lets scrap the 1st.

Similarly, I'm not willing to scrap the 1st because groups like WBC, Jeffers' branch of the LDS church, and Muslim extremists will use it to their advantage.

Plenty of people are more than willing to negate private property rights because they don't like that some people have what they deem "too much."

And if we allow all these things to happen, you and I lose a significant amount of our own personal freedoms and protections for those freedoms.

The same thing happens with the 2nd, even though there are indeed those who should never be allowed near either a gun or a knife.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Some parts of the constitution don't reflect the current state of technology and many things our forefathers could never have envisioned. The constitution really needs to incorporate some of the many problems we face today. Our forefathers could never in their wildest dreams foresee the development of the computer, television, social media, cell phones, e-mail, terrorism, semi-automatic rifles, WMD's, electronic spying, high speed travel, etc....



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy




o so many people here the Constitution is everything that is good and just in the world. It is the superior document and it contains the language which can be used to give all humans freedom and liberty. Clearly not though as witnessed by the necessity for countless laws needed to protect people from each other, the environment, and vice versa.


The Constitution does NOT grant any liberty or right. What it does do is prevent government from making laws that infringe or restrict those rights. At the end of the day, if the congress, state law makers, and law enforcement don't care about the constitution, then it is worthless.

Laws written under constitutional authority in order to reverse a problem or to punish some kind of unethical behavior is not a sign of weakness in the document itself. The Constitution grants the power of legislation for those purposes to the congress and to state legislatures for a reason.




There are a million examples of how new laws are needed to keep immoral individuals from exploiting land and people.


The government and courts exist to arbitrate between disputing parties in these cases. As a result laws are written to ensure the protection of rights of property and our shared environment. In that regard the EPA is instrumental...Or at least it could be if it wasn't trying to make onerous policy.




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


Much of what you posted shows a profound misunderstanding of the constitution. It's been amended 27 times. Meaning that no one thinks its infallible. We do, however, think that the Bill of Rights is important because of how it is written.

"Congress shall make no law" "Shall not be infringed" "No person shall be" so forth and so on. That language cannot be construed to mean that government grants rights. It doesn't. The language of the constitution acknowledges PRE EXISTING rights that are protected by restricting the actions of government with regard to the stewardship of our rights as citizens.

I HIGHLY recommend reading the Federalist, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution itself, and many of the the early court cases that shaped the constitutions impact on our society today.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The Founding Fathers gave us their ideal in the Constitution, the blueprint for the United States, the foundation, and relied upon those who inherited their legacy to be true to their dream of an ideal government.

All we've done with it over the centuries is f**k it up with endless iterations of what contemporaries consider their "brilliant" interpretations of a very simple document.

It is a sound piece of broad wisdom and should be respected for what it represents - the ultimate sacrifice of our ancestors who broke with a powerful monarchy in order to live freely under a government consisting of freely chosen representatives of the people being governed.

If you don't recognize and respect its profundity then you don't deserve the freedoms it guarantees.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

When a document clearly presents a 'line in the sand' for Government that cannot be crossed on the issue of individual freedom and personal liberty then it is obviously a step in the right direction.

If the Constitution has any flaws it is laws of omission in that our rights were not protected strongly enough. Fortunately we can create amendments to further protect our rights.

Our Founding Fathers would have expected that our protections would have extended to the Internet and Cell Phones, but apparently our Government needs to be put back in check by an amendment or a Conservative interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

I think it is clear that Government spying should be limited by the Bill of Rights, but the Government will take any opportunity to violate our liberty.

The Bill of Rights and limitation on Government are the reason the Constitution is so damned important.


edit on 2016/7/18 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Probably because you're asking me to explain something that I not only did not say, but is in fact the opposite of what I did say.

Just spitballin', though.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Methinks you don't quite understand the constitution, or the amendments, if you have such a simple view of it.
how was this Not insulting first?

He wasn't trying to be insulting, he was making an observation. So he didn't say it with enough sensitivity. Sometimes words on a screen can come across that way. Sheesh.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You make an excellent point that is relevant to more than the US, hard core porn is actually harmful both psychologically and to society in general and children should never be exposed to it so that kind of information is NOT what the writer's of the US constitution intended.
If the constitution was to be thought of not as litteral interpretation but in the manner it was intended under ENGLISH LAW then it is not so much what is written but what the spirit of what was written was intended to mean.

And of course that is were the US really should have something like Our law lord's to debate that matter and update it to plain language which would definitely not include freedom to have hard core sado masichistic perverted porn, neo nazi propeganda (if the spirit intended behind those words was interpreted) or anything Deviant of that nature.

I believe it was more intended to keep governance from becoming tyranical and that is were it fail's, not as it is written but as it is interpreted to be written, as it's meaning is interpreted and applied.

When they say all religion's for example it did not litterally mean all religion's but all religon's of the European's whom had settled there, primarily branches of Christianity and Judaism so in that event that is yet another part that is abused and misinterpreted but once more it need's an equivelant of the Law Lord's to debate and interpret it correctly.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
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,


Sorry you mislabel me, I am more of the type whom believed the Lord Protector was Correct "There is no King but Christ".
So don't assume that just because I am British that I am a royalist, it just so happen's and Agree with what the BRITISH whom then lived in the the Colonies of the America's did, they Revolted against a REVOLTING tax by a fat ugly inbreed of a supposed king and his cronies.

Now as for Gun's when a nation has to protect itself against itself with gun's there is a problem as that mean's there is therefore actually no nation there just oppression, think about it?, the best weapon is the one your founding father's intended you to reach for first Knowledge which is why there was never intended to be secret's withheld from the US public and any that are (When not in time of war) are therefore held AGAINST the people of the nation.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767
Spoken like a true Dominionist.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ketsuko

Probably because you're asking me to explain something that I not only did not say, but is in fact the opposite of what I did say.

Just spitballin', though.


What part of misunderstanding each other did you not get? I didn't understand exactly what you were after, and you darn sure didn't understand what I was saying.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
The constitution is a compound document.

It contains several things.

Part of the document is simply the encoding of "natural law" into the text using some fancy language.

The "natural law", as such, doesn't need any protecting. You can't violate the natural law.

It's there simply to "remind" those who can read, that this is the way things work.

And by cooperating with the natural law the captains of the ship will have smooth sailing.

But, any attempt to act against the natural law will bring disastrous consequences.

So, in a way, it's a document that contains a warning.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

If I was stateside I am afraid that is the view I would take though personally I would have respect for the native religion's and especially the Jewish religion for two reason's, my religion is of course originated from it and I am part Jew myself.

But you can't have it two way's to be Christian you have to tollerate other's regardless of there faith (But not caste your pearl before swine?) and not persecute them so a fairly liberal form of Dominionism but not secular as that simply has never worked, a secular society has always had problem's with unity, conversely twisting religious ideology of any faith including SOME people's abuse and mis interpretation of Christianity can also cause the same harm by polarizing society and dividing it in a different way with the same end result.

Actually I have a hard time listening to some American preachers whom idea's of Christianity ignore the social aspect and care for the poor, they most often claim to be Protestant but are neither Protestant nor Christian in there attitude's and ideology's and it always makes me laugh at how a TV preacher drived a Ferrari and has multiple mistresses often younger than themselves yet that seem's par for course with many of them.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

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, and sometimes it is/has been, if not directly, at least indirectly with its use of often-confusing language. That's why there is written into the document instructions on how to amend it.

I think that the biggest issue with the majority of people is that they fail to recognize the document for what it is--it is a document that described what the federal (and, in a few spots, the states) government can and cannot do. It was designed specifically with the intent at the forefront of its writing that the federal government would be limited, leaving most of the legislative and regulatory duties up to the states.

At the beginning of the 20th century (and a little of the end of the 1800s), we derailed from that intent, even though much that limits the size of the central federal government is still written out in plain English within the Constitution. But regardless as to the original intent of the Constitution (which is very well documented by the founding fathers), our Supreme Court and other agencies have often taken it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution in a way in which it was never intended to be used, and once that process started, it was a very steep and quick fall away from the original spirit of the document.

What most of us who like to cite the Constitution or hold it in high regard are looking for is a return to the small-government principles on which the federal government was founded, and for the states to regain much of the authority that is specifically stated to be theirs in the 10th Amendment. The overreach of the modern federal government has bastardized what this nation was meant to be at its core, and while most of us agree that some minimal regulation over industry and what have you is a necessary thing, the extent to which our government goes in regulating everything from what I can ingest of my own free will to whether or not I can take a bottle of water from my car onto an airplane (and everything in between and out on tangents) has destroyed the original intent of the founding of our country.

Sure, some things may need updated or rescinded or just clarified from time to time, but there is a process for that, and our government side-steps that process every chance that it gets--and many of us are absolutely fed up with it.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Excluding a few exceptions like rights for minorities, women & gays, the constitution has not been followed since before 1913 when the Federal Reserve Bank was created. This brought us into an era of fascism (corporations controlling government) vs. the people controlling government. A FRB member named Prescott Bush even helped support Hitler's rise to power. Every economic downturn & war since 1913 was caused by the FRB. Under fascism we have lost our individual rights to privacy, property & due process. We are now considered guilty until proven innocent instead of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, as evident by asset forfeiture laws (many other laws & government agencies violate our right to due process too). Corporations are also considered people now. Imo, fascism is better than communism (governments controlling corporations). Imo, Idealy, what we need is an amendment to the constitution calling for the separation of corporations & state. I don't believe criticism is warranted for the constitution, since the constitution is not being followed.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join