The true constitutionalist

Wow. This is a very excellent post. Our Constitution is truly amazing Isn't it?
I know I have claimed to be a constitutionalist a few times, mostly recent. When you talked about how some people do that on only key issues, this is what a TRUE constitutionalist is, I was a little worried at what I might find out about myself. I happened to agree with everything you said though, so I'm glad that my beliefs are more largely shared than I thought. Great post.

P.S.-Be Careful though, you fit under one of Homeland Security's classifications as a possible domestic terrorist.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Dienekes]

Hey SG-

You and I usually agree on everything. Again, your post has not dissapointed.

It is interesting to me how more often that not Libertarians or Constitutionalists seem to hold "socially conservative" views especially on such hot button topics as equal rights in regards to marriage or freedom of religion...You have pointed out in its purest form that these rights are most definately protected by the Constituion so anything to the contrary would boarder on the hypocritical.

Again, that is not a complete generalization. I do recognize there are "liberal" Libertarians as well as Conservative.....however I believe to be a true Libertarian you would have to err on the side of the "liberal" in regards to these issues.

It is also interesting to note how occasionally those who favor a strict Originalist constituional interpretation, say textualism, usually err on the side of the socially conservative and never cease to bring up how "Christian" the founding fathers were, when most were indeed Deists.

I suppose you cannot have your cake and eat it too.....

Hey SG-

You and I usually agree on everything. Again, your post has not dissapointed.

It is interesting to me how more often that not Libertarians or Constitutionalists seem to hold "socially conservative" views especially on such hot button topics as equal rights in regards to marriage or freedom of religion...You have pointed out in its purest form that these rights are most definately protected by the Constituion so anything to the contrary would boarder on the hypocritical.

Again, that is not a complete generalization. I do recognize there are "liberal" Libertarians as well as Conservative.....however I believe to be a true Libertarian you would have to err on the side of the "liberal" in regards to these issues.

It is also interesting to note how occasionally those who favor a strict Originalist constituional interpretation, say textualism, usually err on the side of the socially conservative and never cease to bring up how "Christian" the founding fathers were, when most were indeed Deists.

I suppose you cannot have your cake and eat it too.....

reply to post by Vitchilo

In fact, it kinda did.

The whole constitution is based on natural law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God.

Thanks for proving my point so well.

"In fact, it kinda did."

Is the kind of qualifying statement that can easily be translated to "In fact it Kinda of Didn't"

The only mention of G-d in the Constitution was using the Christian Calendar to make note of the date it was signed!

Nature's G-d appared in the Decleration of Independence...that you "Kind of" imagine they meant Jesus Christ and or Yaweh, which Christians view as a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that Jews and Muslims see only the Father figure of and reject the Son and Holy Ghost part in an argument that rages 2000 years later in war and violence...

That our For very read Forefathers did not want spilling over into the Government or it's functions or how it functions.

Other wise the Decleration of Independence would have kind of read "Under the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" instead of Nature's God and Natural Law.

True to Charachter though when ever the riddled enigma of G-d is mentioned in to anything it kind of does set off this silly argument by so many people of various sects and faiths all purporting that they know precisely what was meant but not specifically written that not only leads to the contention that causes Christians to fight amongst themselves, Jews to fight amongst themselves, and Muslims to fight amongst themselves, and between the three, often tragically and often violently to this very day, and there is no kind of there, or need to qualify it, and that my friend is why State and Church were seperated and absolutely no mention of the Christian, Jewish, Hebrew or Muslim G-d was made in the Decleration of Independence or the Constitution besides the dating of the Document by noting which year in the A.D. system of dating that was universally in use to denote date.

When the religious violate that clearly stated principal as founding Father and President Adams wrote in the Treaty of Trippoli only a few years later "We are by no means a Christian Nation" that Congress passed without exception, they do in fact bog down government and taint it's effectiveness and cohesiveness with that argument about defining G-d that is so violently evident in a world that practically does nothing but fight as to what G-d meant, all the while kind of thinking that what ever very loose interpetation that allowed them to kind of think they are right, is worth causing chaos to convince others.

That's what they wanted to avoid, because it has no function within Government and Nature's Law truly is survival of the fittest, because when you put down the gun, the bible, your house made of straw, sticks or bricks, and your Big Mac and go out into nature what you are going to see is natures law, where each living thing is designed to sustain, and enrich, not dictate to any other living thing.

That's nature's law and if you doubt, leave everything else, take your Bible out into nature, show the bear it that wants to eat you, and it truly will help you about as much as it did the true Christians when they died violent deaths in the Roman Arenas.

State and Church aren't kind of meant to be seperate, it's written in black and white, because the founders were very learned and read men, more than intellignet enough to formulate their precise thoughts into what would be a legal and binding document meant to disuade the "Kind of" crowd from imagining anything else being implied.

That is why Church needs to be kept out of State, so State can function in a natural way to promote the good and harmony of all, and there is no harmony in the religious world. Israel always wants weapons even though the "Meek shall inherit the Earth", Christians always want everyone to kind of see things their way even though the 500 some odd subsects can't get one another to kind of see things their way as they kind of try to impose their views on the matter on everyone else, and the Muslims who kind of can't agree with one another either, kind of basically agree they don't like Christians kind of forcing them to adopt the concept of the Trinity even though they see Jesus as a prophet and like and follow his teachings, who often worry the kind of better force the Christians to adopt that, because they kind of think the Christians are always forcing them to adopt that, while the Israelis kind of arm themselves to the nines for the armeggedon argument all this argueing is kind of sure to bring under Natures Law which is Survival of the fittest...

Me I am not kinda of like our forefathers, I am like my forefathers who no matter what their spiritual beliefs were did in fact want State and Church seperate which is why they made NO attempt to make either inclusive to the other, by kinda of trying to define the meaning of G-d, but just simply mentioned that something bigger part of Nature exists that we all live under, and the definition of what that is, is not a function of State.

There are no two ifs ands or buts about that and while you kind of think it's important to redress what you would like to imagine was an error, ommission, or discretion in a Legal Binding Document, to kind of suit your veiw as to why you Kind of think they meant different...

Our Treasury is being robbed by real not kind of crooks,

We are embroiled in two bankrupting wars that are being fought with religious undertones involved.

We are finding our constitutional liberties stripped of us by people who imagine it's what G-d wants and far too often sell it as what G-d wants

So just like Justinian discovered you can be a dictator by putting off your dictatorial actions on a diety not subject to the democratic process, that you can not engage in a democratic process, but simply must follow the edicts of that aren't just kind of subject to a whole lot of interpetation by those who want to usurp them for their advantage but are interpeted loosely by people who want to dictate who naturally aren't up for the task of being dictators when they say kind of, because even they know its a poorly substantiated argument that only works for them or the like minded and only against the weak minded.

What the forefathers all believed is Religion corrupts government, and government corrupts religion when you mix the two together, and there is no kind of involved there.

It's in the Constitution in Black and White.

Democracy isn't a religion, it's a process of seeking a majority oppinion through a process of free and unfettered speech and the exchanging of any idea where no idea is considered to be "Blasphemous" by the kind of interpedation of someone who believes in something that is not there in person to speak freely in their own tongue with their own words to sway those of differing oppinions to forge a concensus that not only then creates the states wisest way forward, but also gaurantees the right of dissenters to dissent using free speech while being obligated to follow the laws that the true democratic process always allows them to keep voicing their dissent to in order to modify and change laws that are unjust, stupid, or hurt the state instead of kind of helping it when a majority first decided to try it.

The singular notion of a Christian Nation disrupts and destroys that entire process and principals and I sure do not want to live in a Christian Nation but a democratic one where Church and State are seperate and if you need a Bible to tell you that when you steal something from someone else or hurt someone else for your own vein and selfish reasons then chances are you aren't going to stop doing those things with a Bible and reading the Bible but opt for the it's ok clause...I will ask my savior for foregiveness.

Please stop trying to steal my constitution, and my rights, and my representative democracy...because you kind of think Bible and G-d and all it's ok. So you prove my point that even armed with a Bible it doesn't mean much to those carrying it except as a justification to steal and hurt others which in there estimation is foregivable to G-d by G-d.

Which then leaves you stuck with Natures Law of survival of the fittest.

The Christian Kingdom you imagine you want, the Bible claims is in that G-d's heaven and you have to die naturally as a human being under nature's laws to get there, it can not be created in Washington D.C., and our forefathers had no intention of creating it in Washington D.C., but instead they chose to found the United States of America a democratic nation dedicated to the right to self determination, personal liberty and free speech, and I really wish those who kind of think they imagine G-d has a better plan would first stop trying to kill each other and tear nature up with this constant violence because they can't agree with what G-ds better plan is.

The Senate and Congress are not seminaries, they are places for men and women of all races, walks, faiths and strata of society to come together and speak their minds to establish a majority oppinion that allows people to Unite based on common protective and empowering principals not dictatorial ones imposed by a diety not in presence or part of that process.

Thanks for doing a great job of proving my point.





[edit on 9/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

[edit on 9/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Maybe you misunderstood me... but I probably expressed myself in a very bad way... French is my first language after all.

Anyway, I totally agree and I'm totally for the seperation of church and state so the government doesn't claim they have their powers from god and that kind of BS. Nor I was saying that the founders were christians nor establishing the country under a religion... anyway. My earlier post was just saying that they used natural law to have a basis for many of the bill of rights and that many were religious, but were not in favor of establishing a one-religion country but a country that would give each person freedom of religion and that to avoid many problems, government would be secular.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Vitchilo]

reply to post by Southern Guardian

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

Sorry man but I have every right and freedom that allows me to believe that the US military could in fact be a force fighting for foreign interests.


Especially if there is any truth to that statement.

So as a constitutionalist maybe one can understand that sometimes the Federal military is not enough, but perhaps that is why every man, woman, and child who are citizens of this Country are also recognized by the constitution as members of the people's militia.

Soory SG.

I do not agree with the you view of the Constitution on Marriage, Religion, and Torture.

Good effort, though

One thing that has been touched upon here is the very important matter of States Rights. As the 10 Amendment to the Constitution so clearly states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The issue of gay marriage, for example, should be decided on a state-by-state basis, since there is no protection or mention of it in the Constitution.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The whole constitution is based on natural law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God.

Nonsense!

There is no such thing as natural law...

its a conceit that some people use when they don't want anyone to argue with them about it.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Soory SG.

I do not agree with the you view of the Constitution on Marriage, Religion, and Torture.

Good effort, though

I am at a loss as to why you would post this. Marriage is not in the Constitution, it is the very first part of the Uniform Commercial Code. By getting "legally" married, you give your life and future over to the federal government for control. They make you a federal U.S. citizen and subject to Federal Law. Below is just a part of the original U.C.C.

The founding fathers would never have imagined this coming to be. It is the tool the government uses to enslave us. What people don't seem to understand is that you DO NOT need a license for anything. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that "a license conveys a privilege to do something that without such license would be illegal or unlawful". And "a license and a tax are restrictive and therefore unconstitutional". Why would you NEED the governments permission to join another for a life partnership if you are in love? Again, it's all about CONTROL of the PEOPLE. The government can Regulate, they may not restrict or prohibit.

100 YEARS OF UNIFORM LAWS
An Abridged Chronology

1890 - New York state legislature passes first state act authorizing governor to appoint three commissioners. The American Bar Association (ABA) recommends that other states follow New York's lead.
1891 - Connecticut's Lyman D. Brewster named to chair newly-created ABA committee on uniform law. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Delaware appoint commissioners.
1892 - First conference held in Saratoga Springs New York. Above states plus Georgia attend formal meeting.
1893 - Committees appointed on such subjects as wills, marriage and divorce, commercial law, descent and distribution.
1895 - Conference requests committee on commercial law be formed. Drafts, Negotiable Instrument Law, precursor to Article 3 of Uniform Commercial Code.
1896 - Negotiable Instrument Law approved by Conference. First time that a uniform act is adopted in every state and the District of Columbia.
1897 - For the first time, Commissioners urged to work toward enactment of uniform legislation in their states.
1898/1899 - Sessions devoted to the consideration of proposed divorce legislation.
1899 - At the end of the 1890s, 33 of the existing 45 states and two territories had appointed uniform law commissioners and eight uniform acts had been drafted, each enacted in at least one state. All these acts were subsequently superseded or declared obsolete.
1900 - Uniform Divorce Procedure Act adopted. Louis B. Brandeis begins five years of service as member of Massachusetts commission.
1901 - Woodrow Wilson begins tenure (until 1908) as commissioner from New Jersey.
1903 - ABA makes first appropriation in support of work of Conference. James Barr Ames of Harvard Law School commissioned to draft the Uniform Partnership Act.
1905 - Samuel W. Pennypacker, Pennsylvania Governor, invites other governors to send delegation to a national divorce conference--meets twice in 1906; three acts endorsed.
1906 - First roll call by states as Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act is approved. Legal scholar Roscoe Pound serves for one year as a commissioner from Nebraska.
1907 - Uniform Desertion Act and Non-Support Act and Uniform Marriage Act authorized. Act Regulating Annulment of Marriage of Divorce adopted. Also, Act Providing for the Return of Marriage Statistics, Act Providing for the Return of Divorce Statistics.

And as for torture and religion. The Military is wrong. The Constitution only allows for it to exist for a period of 2 years and that is for Defense only. And the right of religion and the freedom to worship is everyones right no matter what religion you "believe" in.

And as for the equal rights of all, Article 4 section 2.

reply to post by daddio


Great post daddio!

If I could have flagged your individual post, believe me I would have.

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The whole constitution is based on natural law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God.

Nonsense!

There is no such thing as natural law...

its a conceit that some people use when they don't want anyone to argue with them about it.

...dang, I hate to disagree with Grover...but I have to this time.
What has made our Constitution survive is that which is from "Natural law" the poster that first said this gets a high five from me.

The Bill of Rights is the key. Madison made sure to get those in or Virginia and New York were going to be hard sells, it was meant to hinder the power of the central government. Now they punish federalism through the 14th.

Nobody of any significance is a strict "constitutionalist" ....no one. sorry if any of you happen to believe you are, but chances are you are not a significant part of the government.

Are some of you under the impression that the Constitution was some document that everyone at the time thought, "damn, this is awesome."

Your champion is Scalia these days....but he certainly takes his libertys when it suits him so don't crown him.

If I weren't decompressing after a week of final exams, I would love to engage further in this debate. But I'm not going to change any minds and especially those of you that believe that the constitution is some magical tome like the Bible or something. Both are wonderful guide books but we have twisted them so badly over the years that no one, I mean no one, can say what is truly meant in either of them.
....yes, I am graduating from law school next saturday.

There are ideals that have evolved through the centuries that we have come to feel are just and right... and I am a big advocate of them...

I just don't claim that they come from some transcendent power... they come from us as the social consciousness of our cultures have evolved...

Jefferson was a self described skeptic/deist aka an agnostic not to mention a child of the enlightenment and like Goethe and Voltaire, probably its finest embodiment.

If anyone hasn't read "The Jefferson Bible" I highly recommend it. In those days prior to computers and quarkxpress he cut and pasted the four gospels into one coherent story and made a point of editing out all references to the supernatural... so that it ends with the sealing of Jesus' tomb. It is still to this day handed out to new members of the Senate upon swearing in... it is still also the most concise source of Jesus' life and teachings stripped down to the fundamentals as it were. I stress the word concise.

Jefferson worked hard to keep the divine out of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights... and he had good reason to.

Unlike the spoon fed TV nation that we have become, he read and he knew his history and knew the evils the state sponsorship of religion had caused... remember the 18th century was just a 100 years removed from the reformation, the counter-reformation, the St. Bartholomew massacre when the forces behind the French crown tried to exterminate all the protestants in the realm. Then there was the bloody 30 years war, which by all accounts put Germany (where it was mostly fought) back 200 years. Not to mention the inquisition and the forced conversion of Jews in Spain, along with the witch trials and burnings at the stake in both Europe and America to trust state involvement in religion.

Originally the he was asked to include a bill of rights and a separation of church and state by the Baptists of Virginia to protect them from the Episcopalians who they were afraid would prosecute them if left unchecked.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by grover]

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

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

Sorry man but I have every right and freedom that allows me to believe that the US military could in fact be a force fighting for foreign interests.


Especially if there is any truth to that statement.

So as a constitutionalist maybe one can understand that sometimes the Federal military is not enough, but perhaps that is why every man, woman, and child who are citizens of this Country are also recognized by the constitution as members of the people's militia.

Dalan we are not the police of the world, the founding fathers in no way intended these United states to become heavily involved in matters of the world. Sure you could have referenced world war two, but inevitably that was a threat to Americas defense the minute Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, it became a matter of defense.

I dont know where you get the idea that our military is the police of the world under the constitution but in the past we have learned the consequences as such and in no part does the constitution give us that authority.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The founders meaning of seperation of religion and states ONLY APPLIED to the Federal government. The states can go into religion, but they need to treat religions as equals.

That was a typo sorry yes I recognize states can go into religion. Isnt it GA that has the religious monument infront of its courthouse? Yes I have no issue if its by the states. I ment federal law.

Yep. According to the founders, the national religious holidays are unconstitutional.

Indeed they should be, but that doesnt mean we cannot celebrate them. Some of the constitution in contradictory... thats true... but we have to still recognize that line. Christian is an important religious holiday to me, but if I had the chance for the sake of the constitution I would remove that from the law as well and rather have it as a "volunteer agreed consensus among states to make it a public holiday" if you see where Im coming from. But yes Christmas is so deeply involved in law there is nothing we can do about it.

Yep and the right to bear arms comes from NATURAL LAW, meaning that no legislation can stop you from having the means to defend yourself as it is in nature.

Yes, and if you abuse that right and continue to do so the law should be obligated to take action.

A true constitutionalist supports a FREE MARKET.

Now this is where my agreement with my fellow conservative ATSers end. First off there are a number of definitions of the free market. During the time of the constitution the US was still young, there was plenty of space to move politically, the conditions today, without the rule of law protecting all individual will cause for disaster. This is another discussion vitch... but for now Ill disagree.

A true constitutionalist would be prepared to defend the USA from enemies, both foreign and domestic. He would train in and help maintain his local militia that is independent and not affiliated with the Feds. He would be not fight or involve himself in foreign wars but initiate trade and good will among all nations. He would not use Federal Reserve notes as legal tender because only congress has the authority to coin our money because our founding fathers did not want any outside source to control or influence our monetary supply. Since 1900 our beloved dollar is now become worth less than two cents due to the policies of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve. A CSA note was worth more at the end of the war with the north. A true constitutionalist would not file W-2 forms or pay taxes because the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. A true constitutionalist would not have fought in the war of Northern Aggression because every state has the right to secede from the Union. A true constitutionalist would have required President Obama to show his original birth certificate before being sworn in as president. A true constitutionalist knows that we have God given unalienable rights and that we grant privileges to the government and not the other way around.
You do not need a license to get married. Marriage is an agreement between you, your wife and God. A license is a privilege granted by the state. If you will read the constitution, it is simply written and easy for any person with a sixth grade education to understand. The Bill of Rights was added as additional protections to our liberty. As long as the $2.99 buffets stay open and the greedy Americans can slop up to the trough, nothing will change. We are Americans! We do not torture! We pay our bills! Our government does not make cars or own banks or brokerage firms. We are generous to the unfortunate but do not leave debts that our great great grandchildren will have to pay.

I agree with 10% of your post but every Amendment is equal in importance. What Amendment is more important than another? While in the US, I carry arms and have no license to do so. The second amendment grants me that right and a license gives permission. There is no independent major media. We are forced fed lies and bull crap from our “elected” officials. Carry a copy of our constitution with you at all times. Millions have died so that you could have one yet you never read it or try to use it.

Then the Amendmentalist confronts the Constitutionalist and changes everything.



Nice thread

Will there be an amended version?

Well, the opening poster obviously has never read nor understand the constitution.

Notice he preaches what a constitutionalist SHOULD believe, instead of showing why by quoting of it? It's a great example of twisting the truth.

It's so trivial, why have it front page?

This is the general "beef" I have with human beings in general. It seems that everyone has a way to interpret something, and if others do not interpret it the same way, it is wrong, or frowned upon.

I can reference the Bible and the hundreds of sects of Christianity. All of them are preaching about how one should interpret things in the Bible, when in reality it is something for you to interpret yourself, to find your relationship, and to learn from. A priest on some pulpit is not going to lead to to spirtual guidance just because you sit and listen to his side of the story every Sunday morning.

But in terms of laws of nature and what now, one could argue that the 10 Commandments are laws of nature. However, I can tell you that if I knew nothing about the 10 Commandments, I would still follow them, because there is something in human nature that provokes a feeling of what is right and wrong.


The Constitution isn't something new, some kind of grand plan that the forefathers came up with in order to maintain government. Rather, it is a document used to remind people exactly why we fought for independence. I consider the Bill of Rights more sacred than the Bible because it contains the things that we as human beings should have as a right, and it reminds us of that when things get out of hand.


It isn't up to someone to tell you if you are a Constitutionalist or not. It is plain and simple. If you do not believe in 100% equality and 100% freedom in all things, then you are not one. If you have to second guess yourself as to whether or not you would allow someone to do something, as long as it did not impose on your rights, you are not a Constitutionalist.





I can proudly say that I am, and always have been, a Son of Liberty. Til my dying breath I will fight and sacrifice myself to the freedoms I am gauranteed, not because of some paper our forefathers wrote, but BECAUSE IT IS WHAT IS RIGHT.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Hmmm...I think that we might not be communicating clearly.

I thought that you meant that if you are a Constitutionalists, then you have to accept the fact that our military does indeed, fight for foreign interests...instead of protecting the American people.

I think I may have misunderstood you.