The true constitutionalist

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+15 more 
posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I see plenty people proclaiming themselves constitutionalists here but only on certain aspects. The fact of the matter is that if you are to proclaim yourself a staunch constitutionalist you have to claim it in its full, not certain ammendments, sections or meanings. Sure certain parts of the constitution are not clear, but Ill go down to what a constitutionalist should roughly be.... and it goes beyond "guns" and "taxes".

The true constitutionalist respects ones choice of religion and the freedom for them to practice their religion within this great land of ours. The true constitutionalist respects the choice of religion of another regardless of race, culture or "middle name".

The true constitutionalist recognizes the importance of seperating religion and states in order to protect the freedom of religion. The true constitutionalist opposes any religious laws, whether it be by the majority or the minority, for he or she recognizes these united states as a republic and a government that needs be free of one religion inorder to be free for all. Further more the true constitutionalist recognizes that no law should discrimminate a fellow american on the bases of race, religion or creed. Recognizes that even if there may be disagreements, that no law should be forced down upon unwilling law abiding american citizen, regardless of race, religion or sexuality. The true constitutionalist would have the term "marriage" removed from law and replaced if they see it as religiously sacred, and as if it is to be forced upon unwilling citizens.

The true constitutionalist has the right to bare arms but at the same time recognizes that they are of no pity or support from the constitution to abuse that right.

The true constitutionalist respects the freedoms of his or her fellow american regardless of color and race and sexuality. The true constitutionalist respects the backyard of their neighbours.

The True constitutionalist knows of the freedom to vote for all american citizens, knows of the rights to democracy for all americans regardless of color, race or religion. The true constitutionalist would have been a civil rights advocate during the 60s.

The true constitutionalist recognizes the equality of all americans and seens such laws as those of the affirmative action as a danger to equality for all. Further more the true constitutionalist frowns upon his or her fellow american who refuses to recognize equality in all americans whether that be through employment or "trust".

the true constitutionalist recognizes all suspects as innocent until proven guilty regardless of race, religion, sexuality or culture. They recognize that the burden of proof lies on the accuser if one it to be charged, but at the same time recognizes the right to those accused to defend.

The true constitutionalist recognizes the rights of american citizens regardless of their race, culture, religion or sexuality to serve in the military and represent their nation but also recognizes the rights to those members to freely express.

The true constitutionalist knows that America is above torture.

The true constitionalist respects the freedom of press, protest, regardless of whether they disagree with it. At the same time those carrying out those freedoms concerned respect the rights to other americans to be highly critical. Regardless of how corrupt we feel certain aspects of media are, we respect their rights to free speech.

The true constitutionalist does not incite violence upon those who practice their freedoms of different opposing religions, ideology and so forth.

The true constitutionalist recognizes the military as the defense of these United states under evident enough circumstances, not a military of foreign interests.

The true constitutionalist knows that ones religion, culture or sexuality within their private lives should not bar them from rights of their fellow americans.

Hopefully those who call on the constitution when defending their arguments, do so on all accounts. Self proclaimed constitutionalist should be defending the constitution in its entirety

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Good post.

I agree with everything you said...but I also think it is easy for someone to slip up on staunch support of the Constitution...due to one's personal beliefs and/or religion...which is often tied in together. It's up to others to call them out on this when it happens.

I've always believed this...

If someone isn't infringing on my personal rights...then they have every right to do as they wish..as long as it isn't infringing on another's rights.


It's pretty simple really.

Whyothers feel they need to dictate and shape what others should believe in...because they themselves think it's the only way..is flat out wrong.

Everyone in this country should be a Constitutionalist...no matter what party they consider themselves to be apart of. And by that I mean that all of us should defend it..and know it. I never used to.

The Constitution can unite all of us under different colors and beliefs.

It's truly the one thing that holds us together.

It's the core of our country...and vital for us to have as much freedom as possible.

As i stated...

Couldn't agree more with you on equality, civil liberties, religion, war, etc.

Our only real difference is how we think those things should be obtained.

Most of us want the same things in the end...we just feel it needs to be achieved in different ways.

S & F


[edit on 8-5-2009 by David9176]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Exactly david, I think both sides have made attempts to turn the constitution into their own, lets imbrace it in its entirety. I dont like Limbaugh, fox news or savage for that matter, but its their right to express whatever they want, its their freedom and I wouldnt want it any other way. Once we make little acceptions in the constitution, we slowly turn it away from what the founding fathers wanted.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Also I have a question to ask you.

Are you worried?

Not just about the shape of our economy, country, and the world....but with both parties in general?

I just don't see a difference anymore. They both seem to cater to each other...and the result is one giant entity that we really have no control over.

I know how you feel about the Bush administration..and believe me I don't think very highly of them either..in fact...it was a complete disaster of mass proportions.

But aren't you starting to see some similarities?

What happened to all of the anti war coverage the media was giving before Obama was in office? Why does the media downplay the spending now but blew it out of the water before?

The coverage switched in the major news networks...the only difference is Fox's continued railing of religion. They don't criticize the war...no one does anymore. The whole premise seems to have been lost.

I do think there are good people out there..in both parties...but they are FAR in the minority.

Alan Grayson..for example...who I criticized before over AIG bonuses..because i believed it was a violation of contract...which is vital IMO...but I don't believe he did it just to do it...i think he was doing what he thought was right..although I didn't believe that till he asked some tough questions on the federal reserve recently..and got no answers...and realized that they would not answer his questions on how trillions of dollars are not accounted for.

Major kudos to him on that.

I believe at least 15 dems have now co sponsored the HR 1207 audit the fed bill...which is great news....and more are joining it seems every day.

I don't like Limbaugh, savage is a freak IMO, and I absolutely HATE Hannity. Hannity has the intelligence of a toe nail.

But they should be able to speak...as should Olberman...and Matthews.

All of them do make good points once in awhile...it's just unfortunate that once you hear news from any news network...you have to search to find if it's true or if there are any facts that weren't told.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I had never heard the term before I joined here a few months ago, and I had since wondered if I fit the bill of a "Constitutionalist" There's some words with strange meanings that get thrown around on this site, you know? This has clairified it for me, as it fits the definition I thought was correct for the word. Thank you for this post!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Our only real difference is how we think those things should be obtained.

Most of us want the same things in the end...we just feel it needs to be achieved in different ways.
[edit on 8-5-2009 by David9176]


Awesome post on how things should be !!!

But I truly feel like that is not the way most people are now, and that is why we find ourselves in the situation we are in. I mean, the federal government trampling all of our rights, privacies, freedoms, liberties... etc etc etc.

The truly sad reality is that many people feel more than happy to snitch on their neighbors. There are enough people in the world who support things like the "Patriot" Act, because they think it keeps them safe from the rest of us.

There are enough Americans that truly support disarming the rest of us, because they truly do feel it will keep them safe.

There are enough Americans who are willing to have their every E-mail and phone call monitored, because people who disagree with them on aspects will be listened to also... and therefor it protects them.

People seem to be supportive of these invasive policies... Because we are so much divided in this country, that they believe they need protection from other fellow Americans.

Rant End.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Also I have a question to ask you.

Are you worried?

Not just about the shape of our economy, country, and the world....but with both parties in general?


You and me david, and most here evidently have our differences when it comes to our view of where this nation is heading to. We disagree on support on Obama but I can agree with some aspects of the otherside. For the moment its too early to judge this administration as with any in my opinion... although a democrat majority does worry me as with any party having such a strong majority, over time there is danger and risk, however for now its early days, the nation is still healing, the policies implemented in my opinion will take a while to show themselves in their full.

Our withdrawal from Iraq, our prime focus on the economy is what im looking to for now.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


great thread, but 1 thing lol

sorry to nitpick btw

but you said a constitutionalist would have been a civil rights advocate in the 60's

but i have to clarify, a constitutionalist is always a civil rights advocate, Always!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I appreciate the time and effort you took to construct your OP.

I am also not blind to the liberties you took in constructing your view on what is to be considered constitutional.

I applaud the effort even if I don't buy the message....



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaveTheDrama
I appreciate the time and effort you took to construct your OP.

I am also not blind to the liberties you took in constructing your view on what is to be considered constitutional.

I applaud the effort even if I don't buy the message....


what do you not "buy"?

so you dont agree with the Constitution?

would you rather be imprisoned and tortured? i mean come on this is a easy question here

either you agree with freedom and equality or you dont, its simple



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You have obviously missed the hidden agenda that lies within the message.

It's a political one.

BTW, I am pro-Constitution..



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaveTheDrama
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You have obviously missed the hidden agenda that lies within the message.

It's a political one.

BTW, I am pro-Constitution..





yes i did miss it (if it exists)

what type of hoodwinking do you believe is going on here?

im sure we can discuss this without it becoming dramatic or anything, so i dont see any problem with you filling me in , if you dont mind of course



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SaveTheDrama
 





You have obviously missed the hidden agenda that lies within the message.


I disagree with SG on MANY things...we've often duked it out in other threads...mainly on the Obama administration.

Stating that...

i see NO hidden agenda here.

Quite frankly, i think this is the best thread SG has ever made...and well thought out.

A Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, or Independent can agree with the OP.

Once again, i see absolutely nothing wrong with it.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaveTheDrama
I appreciate the time and effort you took to construct your OP.

I am also not blind to the liberties you took in constructing your view on what is to be considered constitutional.

I applaud the effort even if I don't buy the message....


Could you please further explain your issue with the above? Are all americans not equal under freedom? under rights? under law? Does the private life of a fellow american necessarily effect their rights to serve their nation? have equal opportunities?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 





There are enough people in the world who support things like the "Patriot" Act, because they think it keeps them safe from the rest of us.


The one thing that irks me the most about the Patriot act...

Our borders have been nothing short of WIDE OPEN since 9/11. WIDE OPEN.

Yet somehow...not one...not a single terrorist attack? Not one guy can sneak in...who is not an american citizen and off the radar...stay away from phones and carry out an attack on this country?

The patriot act is nothing but a tool to keep tabs on the AMerican people...and a complete and total thrashing of our individual rights.

9/11 brought about terrible things on our rights....and have put this country into a tailspin.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Oh, no need to be dramatic, and I don't want to derail the OP's efforts, it's just when I read it, while a very good effort, it was obvious to me the political leanings, the liberties taken were in that direction. Just an observation.

I never said it wasn't a good effort, and I never said I was against the Constitution..

Being more centrist politically, I tend to look for the angle when reading...

I just saw one here...

No biggie, I posted my perception of the OP, everyone is entitled to their own views and I can respect that.

Carry on



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


You are so right about the borders being wide open..... If it was true, what 'they' want us to believe, we would have surely been attacked by now, since it feels like we have been trying to welcome it?

Yeah... they tell us there's Muslims who would blow us up. While at the same time, leaving the borders open to let them in. Yet it doesn't happen.

I used to wonder if it disappointed the government, that a bunch of terrorists never did use the borders to come in and attack?

My guess, the threat of 'enemies' doesn't exist, so they have to say WE are the enemies. Forget a war on Russia, Iran, Kora, whatever... A war on Americans(from within) might be much more profitable?

Sorry, another rant. One of those days.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SaveTheDrama
 


I assure you me and the rest of the posters here do not see eye to eye on many things politically, aint a secret
. I aint changing any stances I assure ya. I dont have an agenda because I have no need to hide any of my past views. David certainly doesnt agree with me in general and he had no issue supporting the post and the definition of the constitution without suspecting any "agenda".

In another thread you may believe something, and I will have no issue challanging that belief of yours. However if we are on the same eye level regarding the constitution, if we recognize that we both fundamentally stand for the basics of individual freedoms and rights, thats something by the least we can agree on.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by SaveTheDrama
I appreciate the time and effort you took to construct your OP.

I am also not blind to the liberties you took in constructing your view on what is to be considered constitutional.

I applaud the effort even if I don't buy the message....


Could you please further explain your issue with the above? Are all americans not equal under freedom? under rights? under law? Does the private life of a fellow american necessarily effect their rights to serve their nation? have equal opportunities?


I think that he sees you promoting an agenda, SG, and I'll come out and say what it is - gay rights.

Gays in the military are obviously on your plate. Also, I strongly suspect that gay marriage is also.

I also have a suspicion that there is a message hidden in there regarding one particular religion.

Then again, you may have been just using these as examples, without an agenda.

There are great differences in what is defined as rights, and thus protected by the Constitution. For example, the 'right' to marriage. Is there such a right? That is very debatable. And thus is a point of contention in the nation.

Don't take this as a provocation for argument - I respect your thread and applaud your attempt to discuss it.

One of the "best" Constitutionalists I know is Judge Andrew Napolitano.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Well thanks for atleast telling me this Jso. Its unfortunate the prior member was reluctant to come clear and further discuss this.

Excuse me if this is long.


Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that he sees you promoting an agenda, SG, and I'll come out and say what it is - gay rights.


The business of my neighbour, how he or she runs their lives are of no business to me. Neither do I feel there should be laws discrimminating them. So long as its two consenting adults, in their house, their lives, their business, the law shouldnt be having any impact on it what so ever in my opinion. Its their business, their lives, two consenting adult, they aint hurting anybody, they should be able to carry on under the same rights as other americans.


Gays in the military are obviously on your plate.


Yes it is. Somebodies sexuality should not effect whether they serve their nation or not. They shouldnt be barred. If straight soldiers feel threatened by gays it would be on the bases of them fearing "they may catch the gay" or that this "gay member" will put him or herself onto them or perv.That whole fear is that of the individual. Doesnt reflect the gay soldier who intends to be there to serve his or her country. Somebodies personal "distractions" or "insercurities" should not have any bases in law.

We are a nation of the free, and yet freedom of sexuality, by two consenting adults, in their own backyard should be some kind of exception to this?


Also, I strongly suspect that gay marriage is also.


Funnily enough I dont support Gay marriage and it is because of my religion.... and thats exactly why I support taking marriage out of the law and avoiding breaking the constitution. Religion has no business mixing with state, the founding fathers warned us of such a thing and its only caused us trouble, namely in the last 8years. You ask anti-gay marriage supporters and the vast majority will base their reasoning on christianity itself. With that it automatically constitutionally brings down the argument.

If marriage is religious, it has no business in the law. I dont agree with gay marriage, but at the same time neither do I want one single religion in a text law discrimminating all law abiding americans. Take out marriage, replace it with civil unions for straight and homosexual couples, that way we have religion out of the picture, its back in christian hands, the religious are no longer "threatened", state and religion are further seperated and the founding fathers intended.

Spirituality is important, spirituality is only dependant on the decision of the individual. Entire governments were created to govern the land nevertheless.


I also have a suspicion that there is a message hidden in there regarding one particular religion.


Christianity, islam, Judism, hindu and so forth. They dont have business in the law of the land. Religion in your own backyard and thats how it should stay. I will preach the word of god, preach my belief, but in no way will I force it into law to bare down on all americans. God taught us to preach, not command and conquer.

We have seen what has happened in the past when religion mixed with state, look at Iran, Pakistan and even Israel. Look at the conflict. Governement should be impartial to religion if it is to work internally and externally. Allowing religion to even dominate government endangers the freedoms of the people within and a peaceful foreign policy.


Then again, you may have been just using these as examples, without an agenda.

There are great differences in what is defined as rights, and thus protected by the Constitution. For example, the 'right' to marriage. Is there such a right? That is very debatable. And thus is a point of contention in the nation.


The mere fact marriage is seen as religious by the vast majority of individuals ends that debate right there.


Don't take this as a provocation for argument - I respect your thread and applaud your attempt to discuss it.


Not an issue at all. I posted this to further discussion on "constitutionalism" as a whole. Admittedly much of what the founding fathers left us is blurry at best. It was the 18th century after all, things were different, im sure many of them would not have been able to comprehend the changes, socially, foreign, economically and so forth. That being said it is important we all have a consensus closest to what the founding fathers intended, because there are individuals out there corrupting the meaning of the constitution in the wrong direction.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]





new topics
 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join