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.
The Consitution is a Vague Document
page: 2share:
Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
You all do know what a "living" document means, right?
I have always wondered why that term was ever applied to our Constitution. It really is in direct conflict with the preamble.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Ironically enough, if we didn't have a public education system everybody would be a lot smarter. Because then they couldn't enforce a policy of
lowering standards because some can't keep up. We can't keep lowering standards because some are left behind.
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
Whether we debate it is or it isn't a living document, it should be.
The basis of it is very nice. No doubt about that. The thing is though is that the problems of society go further than natural rights.
For that reason, we sometimes need to create new laws, while at the same time abolish them.
The original post mentioned banks. Let me tell you something. The idea behind banks is not a bad idea at all. Creates so many more economic opportunities, and if we did not have "big" banks, we would have small lenders which would transform into the monsters we have today.
Or how about the fact that the original constitution excluded women? Or the writers had slaves?
I can keep going on how it is NOT a perfect document. I never said it needs to be changed, but it is not perfect. In due time, everything falls in place.
Whether we debate it is or it isn't a living document, it should be.
The basis of it is very nice. No doubt about that. The thing is though is that the problems of society go further than natural rights.
For that reason, we sometimes need to create new laws, while at the same time abolish them.
The original post mentioned banks. Let me tell you something. The idea behind banks is not a bad idea at all. Creates so many more economic opportunities, and if we did not have "big" banks, we would have small lenders which would transform into the monsters we have today.
Or how about the fact that the original constitution excluded women? Or the writers had slaves?
I can keep going on how it is NOT a perfect document. I never said it needs to be changed, but it is not perfect. In due time, everything falls in place.
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
The document is dead it has been dead. That is why the framers of it allowed Amendments and that is why the amendment process is so stringent so the congress can't go around changing the meaning of it at random.
The whole basis of a "living document" means that one thing can mean something today, but tomorrow it can mean something totally different. It doesn't work that way.
The document is dead it has been dead. That is why the framers of it allowed Amendments and that is why the amendment process is so stringent so the congress can't go around changing the meaning of it at random.
The whole basis of a "living document" means that one thing can mean something today, but tomorrow it can mean something totally different. It doesn't work that way.
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
We should take most public schools, privatize them, subsidize their funding with tax payer money that would have otherwise gone to the school while it was a public institution, then let them compete with each other to produce the desired results.
Taxes would stay the same, and in addition to that, there might be a further charge on the parents for additional funding, but such is the price of a good education in a capitalist society. Deal with it.
We should take most public schools, privatize them, subsidize their funding with tax payer money that would have otherwise gone to the school while it was a public institution, then let them compete with each other to produce the desired results.
Taxes would stay the same, and in addition to that, there might be a further charge on the parents for additional funding, but such is the price of a good education in a capitalist society. Deal with it.
From what i can gather its more of an obsolete document more than anything after all the changes that have been made and parts taken out....
If anything its just a memory / toursist attraction of what your country used to be about before the Federal Reserves / bankers got hold of it and sold it out.....
If anything its just a memory / toursist attraction of what your country used to be about before the Federal Reserves / bankers got hold of it and sold it out.....
reply to post by Kaytagg
Sounds like a good idea to me actually. As long as whatever was taxed to fund the school all the tax money went to the point of education so they can all have art programs and the like I would have no problem with it.
Also keep the teachers Unions out of the educational process. I have no problem paying taxes as they are needed, but it should not be more than 15% of the income on necessities.
No more income taxes the federal government gets 5% and the states can get 10%. The rich will automatically pay more because they spend more money and buy higher priced items.
Sounds like a good idea to me actually. As long as whatever was taxed to fund the school all the tax money went to the point of education so they can all have art programs and the like I would have no problem with it.
Also keep the teachers Unions out of the educational process. I have no problem paying taxes as they are needed, but it should not be more than 15% of the income on necessities.
No more income taxes the federal government gets 5% and the states can get 10%. The rich will automatically pay more because they spend more money and buy higher priced items.
The Constitution is vague?
Let's take an actual look at that document and discover the truth of such an assertion. The Constitution for the United States of America begins with the:
Preamble
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Vague? Hardly vague at all. The preamble is the statement of purpose for all that follows and in this particular statement of purpose it is made clear who is stating the purpose, what the purpose is and who ultimately has the authority to achieve this. Who is stating this purpose?
"We the People" are.
What is the purpose?
"...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Who has this authority, or to more specific who holds the inherent political power?
"We the People" of course are the ones who ordained and established this Constitution. Before any power is transferred to political representatives it is made perfectly clear who holds the original political power and who at all times holds that power, which is the people. There is no mention of creating a constitution in order to grant ourselves rights as it is self evident that these rights exist prior to establishing governments and we the people do not need a government in order to have rights, we form a more perfect union to secure the Blessings of those rights. That is the purpose of government, to help protect the rights of the people.
What follows the preamble is the transference of power to government officials for a limited amount of time and only grants a limited amount of power. The first transferal of power begins with Article I:
Legislative Power
This Article begins with a description of this legislative branch of government and describes a bicameral Congress divided between House of Representatives and the Senate. It then goes on to describe how this legislative branch is chosen, which is through a process of election. Section 1 is simply a brief description of the legislative branch and Section 2 does not take too much time at all before begins listing exactly what Congress can and can not do. Before even acknowledging that Congress has the power of taxation, Section 2 first deems it necessary to place certain restrictions upon that taxation while combining that rule of apportionment with how House members are elected.
Pretty clear so far, and not at all vague. The number of Representatives are proportional to the number of people in any state and direct taxes are to be apportioned among the states. So clear is this rule of apportionment the Constitution goes into great detail how it works. How much clearer does that need to be? Even before this rule of apportionment a certain age requirement has been placed upon the ability to hold office and no one under the age of 25 years old and must have at least seven years of citizenship to even entertain the idea of running for Congress let alone holding office. Too vague?
Section 2 of Article I ends by granting the House the right to choose its own speaker and the power of impeachment. Thus far, no special powers of tyranny have been granted, simply a description of the legislative branch, a right to choose, or as the Constitution would put it; chuse, a speaker and a power of impeachment which is not a power over the people but a check upon the other two branches of government.
Section 3 of Article one describes the nature of electing Senators and the limitation of only two Senators per state. An interesting note, and one that was never vague in its meaning, is that the Senate used to be chosen by members of the House as this was how the Constitution set up that process. Senators were not directly elected by the people but chosen indirectly by the people who elected Representative who would then collectively choose a Senate. This is a decidedly undemocratic nature to the Constitution and that undemocratic nature will be made even clearer later.
Not at all attempting to be vague in its language about its undemocratic nature, the Constitution had all ready made perfectly clear from the get go that we the people are forming this government to, among other things, secure the Blessings of Liberty, and thankfully that document knew the dangers of democracy and how foolish people can be in voting away their rights. Thus, certain checks are placed upon the government and the people in order to insure that rights are not perceived as a privilege granted by government, but instead preexist governments and it is the governments responsibility to secure these rights.
Section 3 of Article I continues by placing an age requirement of no less than 30 years on any given Senator and must have at least nine years of citizenship. It further grants certain powers such as choosing their own officers, in absence of a Vice President choosing a President pro temp, and the sole power to try all impeachments, with the caveat that if it is the President who is being tried that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over this impeachment. Section 3 further demands that a two-thirds vote from the Senate is required in order to convict any officer of impeachment. There is a further restriction of limiting said conviction to just the removal from office, and any criminal liability that officer has accrued will belong to the judicial branches among the states.
Section 4 of Article one is a remarkably clear and concise limitation of power that has been remarkably rewritten by Amendment, in that the House no longer chooses the Senators but they are now elected by the people of their states. Yet, the Constitution has made clear that Congress had no authority to alter or abolish this section of the Constitution by Amendment and it is not in the vagueness of the language that this happened but by a populist notion of democracy where the people have willingly turned a blind eye to this blatant act of unconstitutionality and in doing so paved the way for my unconstitutional acts to follow.
Only at Sec. 4 and already out of space...
Let's take an actual look at that document and discover the truth of such an assertion. The Constitution for the United States of America begins with the:
Preamble
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Vague? Hardly vague at all. The preamble is the statement of purpose for all that follows and in this particular statement of purpose it is made clear who is stating the purpose, what the purpose is and who ultimately has the authority to achieve this. Who is stating this purpose?
"We the People" are.
What is the purpose?
"...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Who has this authority, or to more specific who holds the inherent political power?
"We the People" of course are the ones who ordained and established this Constitution. Before any power is transferred to political representatives it is made perfectly clear who holds the original political power and who at all times holds that power, which is the people. There is no mention of creating a constitution in order to grant ourselves rights as it is self evident that these rights exist prior to establishing governments and we the people do not need a government in order to have rights, we form a more perfect union to secure the Blessings of those rights. That is the purpose of government, to help protect the rights of the people.
What follows the preamble is the transference of power to government officials for a limited amount of time and only grants a limited amount of power. The first transferal of power begins with Article I:
Legislative Power
This Article begins with a description of this legislative branch of government and describes a bicameral Congress divided between House of Representatives and the Senate. It then goes on to describe how this legislative branch is chosen, which is through a process of election. Section 1 is simply a brief description of the legislative branch and Section 2 does not take too much time at all before begins listing exactly what Congress can and can not do. Before even acknowledging that Congress has the power of taxation, Section 2 first deems it necessary to place certain restrictions upon that taxation while combining that rule of apportionment with how House members are elected.
Pretty clear so far, and not at all vague. The number of Representatives are proportional to the number of people in any state and direct taxes are to be apportioned among the states. So clear is this rule of apportionment the Constitution goes into great detail how it works. How much clearer does that need to be? Even before this rule of apportionment a certain age requirement has been placed upon the ability to hold office and no one under the age of 25 years old and must have at least seven years of citizenship to even entertain the idea of running for Congress let alone holding office. Too vague?
Section 2 of Article I ends by granting the House the right to choose its own speaker and the power of impeachment. Thus far, no special powers of tyranny have been granted, simply a description of the legislative branch, a right to choose, or as the Constitution would put it; chuse, a speaker and a power of impeachment which is not a power over the people but a check upon the other two branches of government.
Section 3 of Article one describes the nature of electing Senators and the limitation of only two Senators per state. An interesting note, and one that was never vague in its meaning, is that the Senate used to be chosen by members of the House as this was how the Constitution set up that process. Senators were not directly elected by the people but chosen indirectly by the people who elected Representative who would then collectively choose a Senate. This is a decidedly undemocratic nature to the Constitution and that undemocratic nature will be made even clearer later.
Not at all attempting to be vague in its language about its undemocratic nature, the Constitution had all ready made perfectly clear from the get go that we the people are forming this government to, among other things, secure the Blessings of Liberty, and thankfully that document knew the dangers of democracy and how foolish people can be in voting away their rights. Thus, certain checks are placed upon the government and the people in order to insure that rights are not perceived as a privilege granted by government, but instead preexist governments and it is the governments responsibility to secure these rights.
Section 3 of Article I continues by placing an age requirement of no less than 30 years on any given Senator and must have at least nine years of citizenship. It further grants certain powers such as choosing their own officers, in absence of a Vice President choosing a President pro temp, and the sole power to try all impeachments, with the caveat that if it is the President who is being tried that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over this impeachment. Section 3 further demands that a two-thirds vote from the Senate is required in order to convict any officer of impeachment. There is a further restriction of limiting said conviction to just the removal from office, and any criminal liability that officer has accrued will belong to the judicial branches among the states.
Section 4 of Article one is a remarkably clear and concise limitation of power that has been remarkably rewritten by Amendment, in that the House no longer chooses the Senators but they are now elected by the people of their states. Yet, the Constitution has made clear that Congress had no authority to alter or abolish this section of the Constitution by Amendment and it is not in the vagueness of the language that this happened but by a populist notion of democracy where the people have willingly turned a blind eye to this blatant act of unconstitutionality and in doing so paved the way for my unconstitutional acts to follow.
Only at Sec. 4 and already out of space...
Continuing...
It is tempting to continue listing the Constitution Article and Section by Article and Section, but I suspect this would merely be pedantic and trust those taking the time to read this post will read the Constitution for themselves if they need to and even trust many reading this have no need to read the Constitution yet again to know that there is nothing vague about the document and such a notion of vagueness is not evident in the document itself but truly evidence of the propaganda and indoctrination the permeates a public school system.
To the original poster I would like to say that I have, in the short time I have been a member of this site, read many threads that you have created and admire your willingness to attack such complex issues as Constitutional law, and other issues with the, if you'll pardon the expression, wide eyed idealism you seem to possess. I admire your willingness to jump right in and assert your natural right to express your opinion and to continue to do so while weathering the attacks and snide remarks that others can be too willing to post in response to your own assertions.
It is not at all my intention to be one of those who would attack you or offer snide remarks as response to your valid question of changing the Constitution for the United States of America. As to the assertion that it is too vague, I can't help but suspect you've come to believe this because of a lack of effort in simply reading the Constitution thoroughly and carefully and that you've fallen prey to the indoctrination of propaganda that aspires to convince the populace of that documents vagueness and malleability. The Constitution is not nearly as open to interpretation as many progressives would have you believe and their insistence that it is open to interpretation is how they gained the label of liberal, as they take too liberal o view of that Constitution hence conservatives form in order to preserve the Constitution as written.
I suspect you have not thoroughly read this document and that you have fallen prey to teachers and other people who insist the Constitution is too vague because what I have read of your threads thus far is indicative of a very bright person worthy of respect and to be treated as a peer. You are just too smart to not understand the Constitution so I suspect you have not made the time to properly read it. Many of the posters who have responded to your question I believe have properly stated that it is not a flaw within the Constitution that exists but a flaw with the people who have too willingly abdicated their own personal inherent political power and used the electoral process as a means of voting themselves "free" money.
There is one particular poster who made reference to the doctrine of corporate person hood and I believe Seiko came close to addressing that concern but I would like to add to that. The belief that SCOTUS granted corporations the right to person hood is not a part of any ruling but is dicta which is merely a passing remark not part of the ruling. The ruling that poster was referring to is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company and serves as an excellent example of how we the people so easily fall prey to propaganda.
It has no doubt served corporations well that people believe in the efficacy of the doctrine of corporate person hood, but there is no SCOTUS ruling that has granted such rights to corporations. How that belief became a part of the American folklore lies in an unfortunate headnote by the court reporter of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company ruling. The court reporter, J.C. Bankcroft Davis, summarized the ruling in a headnote by placing a focus on what was said through dicta, not a part of the opinion itself, and in doing so paved the way for future mistakes of fact where too many have come to believe that corporations enjoy the full rights as people do.
It only goes to show how powerful belief can be and how often times it will dramatically overshadow the truth. Simple logic dictates that corporations do not have the same right as people since corporations exist solely by grant of statute and people need no such grant in order to exist. A corporation can not exist unless it has been allowed to by the people. People do not require the same permission of existence. No court, SCOTUS or otherwise can grant any rights to either people or corporations. Every ruling made by a court and in particularly the Supreme Court, tends to be very narrow in its ruling and attempting to place broad application across the board is subject to dismal failure.
The Constitution is simple and clear and thankfully brief in its legislation as the Supreme Law of the Land, unlike much legislation created after the fact. If you would like to read vague legislation open to interpretation try reading the Internal Revenue Laws, particularly Title 26 of the United States Code. That legislation is a marvel of circumlocution that appears to have been written to be purposely vague and impossible to comprehend. This law and the current "health care reform Act" or the "Patriot Act" are, in stark contrast to the Constitution, thousands of pages in length filled with circumlocution in their definitions that rival Abbot and Costello's Who's On First routine.
Perhaps the strongest point made by so many of the posters who have replied to your simple question is that the people have been remiss in ruling the government they hold the inherent political power over. We are all presumed to know the law as a matter of law and as a matter of fact we would all be well advised to know the law. That should begin with the Supreme Law of the Land which is the Constitution for the United States of America.
It is tempting to continue listing the Constitution Article and Section by Article and Section, but I suspect this would merely be pedantic and trust those taking the time to read this post will read the Constitution for themselves if they need to and even trust many reading this have no need to read the Constitution yet again to know that there is nothing vague about the document and such a notion of vagueness is not evident in the document itself but truly evidence of the propaganda and indoctrination the permeates a public school system.
To the original poster I would like to say that I have, in the short time I have been a member of this site, read many threads that you have created and admire your willingness to attack such complex issues as Constitutional law, and other issues with the, if you'll pardon the expression, wide eyed idealism you seem to possess. I admire your willingness to jump right in and assert your natural right to express your opinion and to continue to do so while weathering the attacks and snide remarks that others can be too willing to post in response to your own assertions.
It is not at all my intention to be one of those who would attack you or offer snide remarks as response to your valid question of changing the Constitution for the United States of America. As to the assertion that it is too vague, I can't help but suspect you've come to believe this because of a lack of effort in simply reading the Constitution thoroughly and carefully and that you've fallen prey to the indoctrination of propaganda that aspires to convince the populace of that documents vagueness and malleability. The Constitution is not nearly as open to interpretation as many progressives would have you believe and their insistence that it is open to interpretation is how they gained the label of liberal, as they take too liberal o view of that Constitution hence conservatives form in order to preserve the Constitution as written.
I suspect you have not thoroughly read this document and that you have fallen prey to teachers and other people who insist the Constitution is too vague because what I have read of your threads thus far is indicative of a very bright person worthy of respect and to be treated as a peer. You are just too smart to not understand the Constitution so I suspect you have not made the time to properly read it. Many of the posters who have responded to your question I believe have properly stated that it is not a flaw within the Constitution that exists but a flaw with the people who have too willingly abdicated their own personal inherent political power and used the electoral process as a means of voting themselves "free" money.
There is one particular poster who made reference to the doctrine of corporate person hood and I believe Seiko came close to addressing that concern but I would like to add to that. The belief that SCOTUS granted corporations the right to person hood is not a part of any ruling but is dicta which is merely a passing remark not part of the ruling. The ruling that poster was referring to is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company and serves as an excellent example of how we the people so easily fall prey to propaganda.
It has no doubt served corporations well that people believe in the efficacy of the doctrine of corporate person hood, but there is no SCOTUS ruling that has granted such rights to corporations. How that belief became a part of the American folklore lies in an unfortunate headnote by the court reporter of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company ruling. The court reporter, J.C. Bankcroft Davis, summarized the ruling in a headnote by placing a focus on what was said through dicta, not a part of the opinion itself, and in doing so paved the way for future mistakes of fact where too many have come to believe that corporations enjoy the full rights as people do.
It only goes to show how powerful belief can be and how often times it will dramatically overshadow the truth. Simple logic dictates that corporations do not have the same right as people since corporations exist solely by grant of statute and people need no such grant in order to exist. A corporation can not exist unless it has been allowed to by the people. People do not require the same permission of existence. No court, SCOTUS or otherwise can grant any rights to either people or corporations. Every ruling made by a court and in particularly the Supreme Court, tends to be very narrow in its ruling and attempting to place broad application across the board is subject to dismal failure.
The Constitution is simple and clear and thankfully brief in its legislation as the Supreme Law of the Land, unlike much legislation created after the fact. If you would like to read vague legislation open to interpretation try reading the Internal Revenue Laws, particularly Title 26 of the United States Code. That legislation is a marvel of circumlocution that appears to have been written to be purposely vague and impossible to comprehend. This law and the current "health care reform Act" or the "Patriot Act" are, in stark contrast to the Constitution, thousands of pages in length filled with circumlocution in their definitions that rival Abbot and Costello's Who's On First routine.
Perhaps the strongest point made by so many of the posters who have replied to your simple question is that the people have been remiss in ruling the government they hold the inherent political power over. We are all presumed to know the law as a matter of law and as a matter of fact we would all be well advised to know the law. That should begin with the Supreme Law of the Land which is the Constitution for the United States of America.
Some food for thought.
Who was the Constitution written for?
Who exactly is the Posterity referred to in the Preamble?
Is the Posterity referred to the common folk or is it the Posterity of the writers of the Constitution?
From Merriam Websters dictionary:
pos·ter·i·ty
Pronunciation: \pä-ˈster-ə-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English posterite, from Anglo-French pusterité, from Latin posteritat-, posteritas, from posterus coming after
Date: 14th century
1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations
Definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition
Posterity - All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation
Interesting that in Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 edition, there is no definition for posterity.
Since the first definition on the MWs is the offspring of one progenitor and the definition in Black's is all descendants of a person, it seems as if the Constitution was written for the posterity of the writer's of the Constitution, not for the general populace.
Did the writer's of the Constitution go with the 1st definition of posterity and Black's definition or did they mean the 2nd definition given in the Merriam Websters?
Now, I will admit I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the writer's of the Constitution were pretty precise in what they wrote, so I think it's not too far out of line to question exactly what Posterity they were referring to.
An interesting article on the Constitution that got me to really thinking about this is The Constitution Con. IF what is contained in this article is true, then it sheds light on why things are such a mess for us common folk.
Quote from the article: Their Constitution is likewise largely deceptive in form and substance. It allowed for an aristocracy to preside in America. The American-based aristocrats may not wear crowns or sit on thrones, but they are, in many cases, directly connected to the royal dynasties of Britain and Europe.
You cannot use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. Padleford Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermann of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520
Since I wasn't there, I don't know exactly who's posterity they intended, but this article is worth the read and some thought.
Lot's of references and recommended reading at the end of the article. I have read a few of those listed, but not near enough to come to a conclusion on this particular question.
Who was the Constitution written for?
Who exactly is the Posterity referred to in the Preamble?
Is the Posterity referred to the common folk or is it the Posterity of the writers of the Constitution?
From Merriam Websters dictionary:
pos·ter·i·ty
Pronunciation: \pä-ˈster-ə-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English posterite, from Anglo-French pusterité, from Latin posteritat-, posteritas, from posterus coming after
Date: 14th century
1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations
Definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition
Posterity - All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation
Interesting that in Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 edition, there is no definition for posterity.
Since the first definition on the MWs is the offspring of one progenitor and the definition in Black's is all descendants of a person, it seems as if the Constitution was written for the posterity of the writer's of the Constitution, not for the general populace.
Did the writer's of the Constitution go with the 1st definition of posterity and Black's definition or did they mean the 2nd definition given in the Merriam Websters?
Now, I will admit I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the writer's of the Constitution were pretty precise in what they wrote, so I think it's not too far out of line to question exactly what Posterity they were referring to.
An interesting article on the Constitution that got me to really thinking about this is The Constitution Con. IF what is contained in this article is true, then it sheds light on why things are such a mess for us common folk.
Quote from the article: Their Constitution is likewise largely deceptive in form and substance. It allowed for an aristocracy to preside in America. The American-based aristocrats may not wear crowns or sit on thrones, but they are, in many cases, directly connected to the royal dynasties of Britain and Europe.
You cannot use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. Padleford Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermann of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520
Since I wasn't there, I don't know exactly who's posterity they intended, but this article is worth the read and some thought.
Lot's of references and recommended reading at the end of the article. I have read a few of those listed, but not near enough to come to a conclusion on this particular question.
Originally posted by inthesticks
Some food for thought.
Who was the Constitution written for?
Who exactly is the Posterity referred to in the Preamble?
Is the Posterity referred to the common folk or is it the Posterity of the writers of the Constitution?
From Merriam Websters dictionary:
pos·ter·i·ty
Pronunciation: \pä-ˈster-ə-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English posterite, from Anglo-French pusterité, from Latin posteritat-, posteritas, from posterus coming after
Date: 14th century
1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations
Definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition
Posterity - All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation
Interesting that in Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 edition, there is no definition for posterity.
Since the first definition on the MWs is the offspring of one progenitor and the definition in Black's is all descendants of a person, it seems as if the Constitution was written for the posterity of the writer's of the Constitution, not for the general populace.
Did the writer's of the Constitution go with the 1st definition of posterity and Black's definition or did they mean the 2nd definition given in the Merriam Websters?
Now, I will admit I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the writer's of the Constitution were pretty precise in what they wrote, so I think it's not too far out of line to question exactly what Posterity they were referring to.
An interesting article on the Constitution that got me to really thinking about this is The Constitution Con. IF what is contained in this article is true, then it sheds light on why things are such a mess for us common folk.
Quote from the article: Their Constitution is likewise largely deceptive in form and substance. It allowed for an aristocracy to preside in America. The American-based aristocrats may not wear crowns or sit on thrones, but they are, in many cases, directly connected to the royal dynasties of Britain and Europe.
You cannot use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. Padleford Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermann of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520
Since I wasn't there, I don't know exactly who's posterity they intended, but this article is worth the read and some thought.
Lot's of references and recommended reading at the end of the article. I have read a few of those listed, but not near enough to come to a conclusion on this particular question.
Here is a great example of the ridiculous shenanigans progressives will engage in just to convince people that the Constitution is open to interpretation. While this poster goes to great lengths to define Posterity, take note how no effort has been made at all to define We the People, as it is just too clear what that means. Actually posterity really needs no defining either but is merely used as a parlor trick in this act of smoke in mirrors of a post, attempting to convince we the people that we have no say in our government but are subject to the Founders and their progeny instead.
An important part of knowing the law is not just in knowing what has been written but also knowing what hasn't been written. If the Founders wanted to secure the Blessings of Liberty solely for they and their Posterity, then it can be reasonably surmised they would have said so rather than saying We the People. There is no vagueness in the beginning of the preamble when it states We the People, it is not code for a select few people but means all people and the evidence of that lies in the unfortunate incorporation of the three-fifths clause of the Constitution. That stupid compromise between slave states and anti-slave states declares, (and to the O.P. here is the only vague part of the Constitution), "all other persons" to be only three fifths of a person and not worthy of the same rights a person would have.
The three-fifths clause was meant to get around the uncomfortable reality that several states relied upon slave labor for economy and to grant those slave states an increase in apportionment to help rival the more populated northern states that tended towards anti-slavery. This compromise was incorporated to secure the ratification of the Constitution by all thirteen states at the time it was written, but was a unfortunate black mark on an otherwise remarkable document.
The ridiculous claim that the Constitution was written solely for a few Founders and their Posterity is not rooted in any honest interpretation of that Constitution but rather a willful con act designed to fool those not paying attention. We the People is not We the Founders and any attempt to frame the preamble as saying as much is just more shenanigans from people with some other agenda besides securing the Blessings of Liberty for all.
the idea that a person or persons can create a document that implies what a being is constituted of is crazy.
in my opinion it seems like someone saw a holy text and felt it should be emulated.
in my opinion it seems like someone saw a holy text and felt it should be emulated.
reply to post by die_another_day
Ideally, the Constitution is supposed to be a living document that is capable of revision and adaptation to the current generation. It was not drafted to shackle all future generations in perpetuity to the will and aspirations of men and the world they lived in which have been dead for generations. The dead do not suffer tyranny, or passion for liberty. The living do.
There seems to be a popular misconception that the Constitution establishes and protects our rights. I don't think this is correct. It is actually a mechanism by which to limit rights and freedoms so as to establish justice. The Constitution was not the product of radical thinkers with hearts of gold that "discovered fire", as it were. It was a new and applied synthesis which had been hashed out from generations of the political philosophies of progressive social thinkers before them. Men like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Hugo Grotius.
The basest state of all human rights is the one found in a state of nature. The right of the individual to everything to ensure survival and prosperity, by virtue of being capable of claiming that right. This subverted the idea of "God Given" rights as a basis for society, because while men can worship different gods - we ALL exist in this world together.. and this world has finite limitations.
Say you and I are walking through a desert, lost and starving. We come upon a small oasis where a withering bush has only bore a single piece of good fruit. Who has the right to eat it? We both do... but we can't both eat the same fruit. My right to eat it and hopefully avoid starvation, to me, trumps your right to eat it - because my rights are most primarily of importance to me. Just as your right to eat it and avoid starvation trumps my right to eat it... because your survival is more innately important to you than my survival.
I would hope that most here would suggest sharing the fruit, because that's the right thing to do. But know that the very act of sharing means you relinquish your right to half of that fruit, just as I have relinquished my right to half of it. As Thomas Hobbes put it:
... and this is where I think hippies and pop-anarchists get it wrong by leaving the philosophy behind on that cheery note. We should all just share and love and be peaceful to one another... or conversely, that I refuse to give up my right to everything - and any resultant struggle between our rights will promote an overall fitter and stronger people. While both views have merit, they are only part of the larger picture. And this is where government comes in - as a mediator between the two. As a means by which to establish a contract wherein the rights of men are balanced and enforced to establish a peace where society can flourish.
Yet that contract is only binding if it can be enforced. It's all well and good to agree to share that fruit, but that agreement means nothing if I then punch you in the face and take the whole fruit anyhow. What's to stop me? What's to stop you from doing the same? Maybe I've got reason to think you might, so I have to punch you preemptively so I can ensure you won't take the whole fruit. And who exactly is going to split that fruit and ensure you don't give me a rotten half?
When I was a child, my father had a clever way of teaching this lesson. He'd give my sister and I a candy bar to share, and to ensure we didn't fight over it he laid down the rule; one person cuts it, the other one chooses which of the two pieces they want. So the temptation to split it disproportionately was weighed against the risk of her picking the bigger piece. I still could have shoved her and taken the bigger piece, or just walked off with both pieces. But then... would it have been worth getting wacked by the belt for a piece of candy?
Some people may not like it, but the enforcement of laws and the establishment of government are the only practical means of ensuring peace we have... and it will eventually extend to world wide government. The history of the 20th century, above all other periods in history, has made it abundantly clear that social entropy between powerful independent nations is balancing life on the blade of a razor... especially with ever more powerful technologies. If we really want global peace, the United States will eventually have to agree to give up our sovereignty and lend our military to a global government system as a means of ensuring our prosperity and peace. Just as my state, Indiana, has given up a portion of it's sovereignty and identity to a centralized federal government. And while I may not like it if the Federal Government is passing laws which apply to my State because of events in Michigan or Illinois... I have to weigh this perceived tyranny with the peace and prosperity that Indiana has enjoyed by not being engaged in a bloody resource war with the Kentucky & Tennessee alliance.
... and if our Federal Government were only afforded the political & military power to broker and enforce a peace that the United Nations, could I really lay my head down at night with the security of knowing that those buckeyed bastards in Ohio won't drop the bomb on us? And if the United Nations had the authority and enforcement capabilities over the nations of Africa that the Federal Government has over the United States... how would their intervention in the Sudanese conflict have been different? Do you think that Africa as a continent would be a much more stable and prosperous land than it is now if all the nations agreed to join under a social contract of centralized African government? How much more prosperous would America be with a strong and prosperous Africa developing new medicines, new industries, new technologies.
I don't blame anyone for being apprehensive about the idea of a one world government. It does carry some frightening implications and a very tangible threat. But then... these same concerns applied to the poor dirt farmers of Virginia who's lives and businesses were uprooted in a war for independence they did not start, and were now asked to give up some of their new found liberties to establish what could easily be seen as "a new monarchy". Where their rights and freedoms were being delegated and debated by a group of social elites like Benjamin Franklin who spent much of the war, not suffering frostbite and starvation with a rifle in the frigid winter snows while the British hunted him... but cavorting with the French Aristocracy, enjoying the gracious audience of King Louis himself.
Of course, that's not how history judges Franklin... because we know of the good his work did over there in securing French assistance in our struggle. We can read his works and correspondence of his day, and see his (and other) influences on how our Constitution was drafted. We can read the works of Paine, and Jefferson, and Hamilton... and other social philosophers who inspired them, like John Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. We can weigh the merit of Thomas Paine's argument against Edmund Burke. We can see where Hobbes version of unquestionable authoritarian government can be amended to provide mechanisms for overthrowing that authority to prevent tyranny... and how checks and balances of several authorities, comprised of the people included in the contract, can help limit the risk of the authority abandoning the common good - for it's own good. The framework for the "NWO" people fear has been around for centuries... but in all that time, history has show it hasn't tended towards the tightening the grip of oppression - but has been molded to help facilitate the common good.
America wasn't the first experiment in applying the social contract theory, and some would argue not even the best which has come since. But if anything, it provided proof of concept... that it can and does work... and can be the basis of a lasting government without the prop of monarchy or theocracy. The Constitution is not perfect, and we should not bemoan or fear the thought of perhaps even abandoning it for a new social contract... even a global contract. But it's something we are going to have to engage and be informed about. Reason carefully, and weigh the pros and cons in your mind. Work to improve public education and civil discourse. That's the only way we can work to help try and ensure the next system of government will be more just and equitable than the previous... that will promote the common good as those before us have. There are risks... but only with risk comes the chance of reward.
What would the conversations between the founding fathers be like if they knew their progeny did not have the courage to risk building upon the work towards a better and more equitable social contract they strove for?
Yeah, I'm not against ditching the Constitution if it means a chance for a better world than we have now. I think we can fight a new revolution in the public forum, with points of discussion rather the point of a rifle. And I think insight and reason will make better weapons than bullhorns and vitriol laced slogans.
Do you guys think we need a new Constitution?
Ideally, the Constitution is supposed to be a living document that is capable of revision and adaptation to the current generation. It was not drafted to shackle all future generations in perpetuity to the will and aspirations of men and the world they lived in which have been dead for generations. The dead do not suffer tyranny, or passion for liberty. The living do.
There seems to be a popular misconception that the Constitution establishes and protects our rights. I don't think this is correct. It is actually a mechanism by which to limit rights and freedoms so as to establish justice. The Constitution was not the product of radical thinkers with hearts of gold that "discovered fire", as it were. It was a new and applied synthesis which had been hashed out from generations of the political philosophies of progressive social thinkers before them. Men like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Hugo Grotius.
The basest state of all human rights is the one found in a state of nature. The right of the individual to everything to ensure survival and prosperity, by virtue of being capable of claiming that right. This subverted the idea of "God Given" rights as a basis for society, because while men can worship different gods - we ALL exist in this world together.. and this world has finite limitations.
Say you and I are walking through a desert, lost and starving. We come upon a small oasis where a withering bush has only bore a single piece of good fruit. Who has the right to eat it? We both do... but we can't both eat the same fruit. My right to eat it and hopefully avoid starvation, to me, trumps your right to eat it - because my rights are most primarily of importance to me. Just as your right to eat it and avoid starvation trumps my right to eat it... because your survival is more innately important to you than my survival.
I would hope that most here would suggest sharing the fruit, because that's the right thing to do. But know that the very act of sharing means you relinquish your right to half of that fruit, just as I have relinquished my right to half of it. As Thomas Hobbes put it:
...that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.
... and this is where I think hippies and pop-anarchists get it wrong by leaving the philosophy behind on that cheery note. We should all just share and love and be peaceful to one another... or conversely, that I refuse to give up my right to everything - and any resultant struggle between our rights will promote an overall fitter and stronger people. While both views have merit, they are only part of the larger picture. And this is where government comes in - as a mediator between the two. As a means by which to establish a contract wherein the rights of men are balanced and enforced to establish a peace where society can flourish.
Yet that contract is only binding if it can be enforced. It's all well and good to agree to share that fruit, but that agreement means nothing if I then punch you in the face and take the whole fruit anyhow. What's to stop me? What's to stop you from doing the same? Maybe I've got reason to think you might, so I have to punch you preemptively so I can ensure you won't take the whole fruit. And who exactly is going to split that fruit and ensure you don't give me a rotten half?
When I was a child, my father had a clever way of teaching this lesson. He'd give my sister and I a candy bar to share, and to ensure we didn't fight over it he laid down the rule; one person cuts it, the other one chooses which of the two pieces they want. So the temptation to split it disproportionately was weighed against the risk of her picking the bigger piece. I still could have shoved her and taken the bigger piece, or just walked off with both pieces. But then... would it have been worth getting wacked by the belt for a piece of candy?
Some people may not like it, but the enforcement of laws and the establishment of government are the only practical means of ensuring peace we have... and it will eventually extend to world wide government. The history of the 20th century, above all other periods in history, has made it abundantly clear that social entropy between powerful independent nations is balancing life on the blade of a razor... especially with ever more powerful technologies. If we really want global peace, the United States will eventually have to agree to give up our sovereignty and lend our military to a global government system as a means of ensuring our prosperity and peace. Just as my state, Indiana, has given up a portion of it's sovereignty and identity to a centralized federal government. And while I may not like it if the Federal Government is passing laws which apply to my State because of events in Michigan or Illinois... I have to weigh this perceived tyranny with the peace and prosperity that Indiana has enjoyed by not being engaged in a bloody resource war with the Kentucky & Tennessee alliance.
... and if our Federal Government were only afforded the political & military power to broker and enforce a peace that the United Nations, could I really lay my head down at night with the security of knowing that those buckeyed bastards in Ohio won't drop the bomb on us? And if the United Nations had the authority and enforcement capabilities over the nations of Africa that the Federal Government has over the United States... how would their intervention in the Sudanese conflict have been different? Do you think that Africa as a continent would be a much more stable and prosperous land than it is now if all the nations agreed to join under a social contract of centralized African government? How much more prosperous would America be with a strong and prosperous Africa developing new medicines, new industries, new technologies.
I don't blame anyone for being apprehensive about the idea of a one world government. It does carry some frightening implications and a very tangible threat. But then... these same concerns applied to the poor dirt farmers of Virginia who's lives and businesses were uprooted in a war for independence they did not start, and were now asked to give up some of their new found liberties to establish what could easily be seen as "a new monarchy". Where their rights and freedoms were being delegated and debated by a group of social elites like Benjamin Franklin who spent much of the war, not suffering frostbite and starvation with a rifle in the frigid winter snows while the British hunted him... but cavorting with the French Aristocracy, enjoying the gracious audience of King Louis himself.
Of course, that's not how history judges Franklin... because we know of the good his work did over there in securing French assistance in our struggle. We can read his works and correspondence of his day, and see his (and other) influences on how our Constitution was drafted. We can read the works of Paine, and Jefferson, and Hamilton... and other social philosophers who inspired them, like John Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. We can weigh the merit of Thomas Paine's argument against Edmund Burke. We can see where Hobbes version of unquestionable authoritarian government can be amended to provide mechanisms for overthrowing that authority to prevent tyranny... and how checks and balances of several authorities, comprised of the people included in the contract, can help limit the risk of the authority abandoning the common good - for it's own good. The framework for the "NWO" people fear has been around for centuries... but in all that time, history has show it hasn't tended towards the tightening the grip of oppression - but has been molded to help facilitate the common good.
America wasn't the first experiment in applying the social contract theory, and some would argue not even the best which has come since. But if anything, it provided proof of concept... that it can and does work... and can be the basis of a lasting government without the prop of monarchy or theocracy. The Constitution is not perfect, and we should not bemoan or fear the thought of perhaps even abandoning it for a new social contract... even a global contract. But it's something we are going to have to engage and be informed about. Reason carefully, and weigh the pros and cons in your mind. Work to improve public education and civil discourse. That's the only way we can work to help try and ensure the next system of government will be more just and equitable than the previous... that will promote the common good as those before us have. There are risks... but only with risk comes the chance of reward.
What would the conversations between the founding fathers be like if they knew their progeny did not have the courage to risk building upon the work towards a better and more equitable social contract they strove for?
Yeah, I'm not against ditching the Constitution if it means a chance for a better world than we have now. I think we can fight a new revolution in the public forum, with points of discussion rather the point of a rifle. And I think insight and reason will make better weapons than bullhorns and vitriol laced slogans.
After an exhaustive search using numerous search engines in an attempt to find the full text of this mysterious ruling made by The Supreme Court of
Georgia, I have been unable to find any site willing to provide the ruling in its entirety. Instead all that is offered are numerous sites that use
the same single quotation from this ruling ad nauseum which is used out of context of this ruling. The quote being bandied about the internet
to convince people they can not use the Constitution as defense in a court of law is this:
" But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."
Not having the opportunity to read the ruling in its entirety I can only take the word of these numerous sites that use this out of context quotation to insist that "the courts" have decided the people may not rely upon the Constitution as either a defense or opportunity to bring suit against the government. It should first be noted that the Constitution itself makes clear that no person can bring suit against the government without the express agreement of the government to be sued to begin with.
It has been argued that it was the Eleventh Amendment that made clear by the assertion of sovereign immunity for the U.S. government and the states. The Eleventh Amendment states:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Ah, but you might say, that's a pretty vague assertion of sovereign immunity! As I have stated earlier and will state again, when understanding law, it is important to not only read what has been said by this law but come to understand exactly what has not been said as well, for surely what has not been said is more likely to be interpreted than what has been said. In the case of the Eleventh Amendment it is exactly what has not been said rather than what was said that has been interpreted to give the U.S. government sovereign immunity. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, the court states:
"...we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention."
The Blatchford ruling serves as a fine example of the ability to read into a law what has not been stated. However, in fairness to that court, the notion of sovereign immunity is a long held tenet of common law principle and this is what that court is referring to. Alden v. Maine makes that idea even clearer when that Court states:
"...sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.
The importance of these rulings and their relevance to this mysterious lower court ruling by some clown in the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1854 is that the U.S. Constitution is not so much a contract in the same sense as contract law but is more a coordinating mechanism that preexists contract law. In other words we could not have a court structure in place to decide contract disputes without first having a Constitution which delegated that power to settle disputes.
If we are to believe that this quote taken out of context from the Padelford ruling is actually an assertion that the U.S. Constitution is a contract subject to contract law, then clearly that court was in gross error by this ruling. That court was in error on many levels. If we are to even entertain the ridiculous notion that the Constitution is a contract and subject to contract law, the assertion that a person who has not signed that Constitution is not party to it, ignores the long held tenets of verbal agreements, where no party signed a damn thing yet courts will settle the dispute and accept the non existent document that would serve as contract as being valid as long as both parties agree that an agreement was made.
However, the notion that the Supreme Court of Georgia was correct in their ruling should not even be entertained even for a second. Ah, but you might say, what if a judge tells me I can't rely upon the Constitution based upon this ruling? Here is where knowing the law becomes paramount to dealing with rogue judges and justices who intend to usurp your government and abrogate and derogate your rights. If a judge intends to assert that you have no standing to rely upon the Constitution based upon this mysterious ruling then it would be fair enough to ask that judge if he or she signed the Constitution.
While judges can be pretty old it is certain none are so old as to be able to answer with a straight face that yes they did sign the Constitution. The point is, if we the people have no right to rely upon the Constitution because we did not sign it, then neither does the government have any right to rely upon that Constitution since none of they have signed it either. Not even the progeny of the Founders if we are to take that poster who started this suggestions seriously, for they did not sign that "contract" either.
If this mysterious ruling is to be believed in the way it is presented it is clear that this court was in error and lacked basic understanding of law, contract law and constitutional law. No person should accept as final any judges assertion that reliance on the Constitution is moot.
" But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."
Not having the opportunity to read the ruling in its entirety I can only take the word of these numerous sites that use this out of context quotation to insist that "the courts" have decided the people may not rely upon the Constitution as either a defense or opportunity to bring suit against the government. It should first be noted that the Constitution itself makes clear that no person can bring suit against the government without the express agreement of the government to be sued to begin with.
It has been argued that it was the Eleventh Amendment that made clear by the assertion of sovereign immunity for the U.S. government and the states. The Eleventh Amendment states:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Ah, but you might say, that's a pretty vague assertion of sovereign immunity! As I have stated earlier and will state again, when understanding law, it is important to not only read what has been said by this law but come to understand exactly what has not been said as well, for surely what has not been said is more likely to be interpreted than what has been said. In the case of the Eleventh Amendment it is exactly what has not been said rather than what was said that has been interpreted to give the U.S. government sovereign immunity. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, the court states:
"...we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention."
The Blatchford ruling serves as a fine example of the ability to read into a law what has not been stated. However, in fairness to that court, the notion of sovereign immunity is a long held tenet of common law principle and this is what that court is referring to. Alden v. Maine makes that idea even clearer when that Court states:
"...sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity" [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.
The importance of these rulings and their relevance to this mysterious lower court ruling by some clown in the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1854 is that the U.S. Constitution is not so much a contract in the same sense as contract law but is more a coordinating mechanism that preexists contract law. In other words we could not have a court structure in place to decide contract disputes without first having a Constitution which delegated that power to settle disputes.
If we are to believe that this quote taken out of context from the Padelford ruling is actually an assertion that the U.S. Constitution is a contract subject to contract law, then clearly that court was in gross error by this ruling. That court was in error on many levels. If we are to even entertain the ridiculous notion that the Constitution is a contract and subject to contract law, the assertion that a person who has not signed that Constitution is not party to it, ignores the long held tenets of verbal agreements, where no party signed a damn thing yet courts will settle the dispute and accept the non existent document that would serve as contract as being valid as long as both parties agree that an agreement was made.
However, the notion that the Supreme Court of Georgia was correct in their ruling should not even be entertained even for a second. Ah, but you might say, what if a judge tells me I can't rely upon the Constitution based upon this ruling? Here is where knowing the law becomes paramount to dealing with rogue judges and justices who intend to usurp your government and abrogate and derogate your rights. If a judge intends to assert that you have no standing to rely upon the Constitution based upon this mysterious ruling then it would be fair enough to ask that judge if he or she signed the Constitution.
While judges can be pretty old it is certain none are so old as to be able to answer with a straight face that yes they did sign the Constitution. The point is, if we the people have no right to rely upon the Constitution because we did not sign it, then neither does the government have any right to rely upon that Constitution since none of they have signed it either. Not even the progeny of the Founders if we are to take that poster who started this suggestions seriously, for they did not sign that "contract" either.
If this mysterious ruling is to be believed in the way it is presented it is clear that this court was in error and lacked basic understanding of law, contract law and constitutional law. No person should accept as final any judges assertion that reliance on the Constitution is moot.
Originally posted by Flakey
Originally posted by WTFover
Originally posted by Flakey
Lord knows the congress-critters probably would not even read an amendment before voting on it these days.
Unfortunately, neither would the voting masses.
That is your opinion sir and I respectfully disagree with it. But I will fight for your right to express it.
Good to know you would fight for free speech, but at the moment you're not in any direct position or situation where his right to voice his opinion is threatened. I don't tend to consider opposition, even strong opposition, to an opinion as being the same as limiting that expression.
In my view, you're doing him a disservice by not challenging his opinion... because if we weren't challenged in our opinions, we would become slaves to our opinions. Further, not all opinions are worthy or deserving respect. I don't respect the opinion of idiots who think it's socially acceptable to strap bombs to themselves and blow up cafes. Nor do I respect the opinion of NAMBLA chomo's who think molesting children is socially acceptable. I would hope that nobody else here does either. But would you still fight for their right to voice their opinion on such matters?
I would fight for that right of theirs, distasteful as it is, because I don't want my right to voice my opinion limited... and then I'd turn around and give them my opinion on how @&%$'ng sick and vile those actions are.
Similarly, I have no respect for wantonly uninformed opinions. My standards aren't generally too high... and even if I disagree, if the conversation remains a civil (even if pointed) exchange of ideas and point/counter-points, I'll tend to respect an opposing position. But if I get the sense that someone's "opinion" is little more than emotional sentiment with tenuous, clumsy arrangements of non-correlative words and subjects meant to invoke a vague mental imagery of "things that are bad"... then I'll call an idiot an idiot and completely disregard them. After all... if their opinion isn't worth the time to be at least minimally informed, then what makes them think it's worth my time to consider their opinion?
reply to post by Lasheic
My esteemed colleague and friend Lasheic, I have enjoyed reading your considered thoughts in this thread and appreciate the effort you have put forth but can only fully appreciate your words in that they serve to demonstrate to the original poster just how clear the Constitution is in its meaning and how the vagueness of meaning and openness of interpretation only lies within those who dare to take a liberal view of that text.
First let me address your assertion that:
"There seems to be a popular misconception that the Constitution establishes and protects our rights. I don't think this is correct. It is actually a mechanism by which to limit rights and freedoms so as to establish justice."
I must agree with you that it is a misconception that the Constitution establishes rights, but heartily disagree that it is a misconception that same Constitution protects rights. The rights of people preexist the Constitution and the strongest evidence of that lies in the Declaration of Independence that acknowledges certain unalienable rights and the Articles of Confederation that served as the first constitution to the United States before being replaced by the one that now exists. The rights of the individual were not established by Constitution but merely acknowledged.
Your assertion that the Constitution is actually a mechanism by which to limit rights is only correct in that it limits the rights of the government and any freedoms that government may enjoy but in no way limits the rights of the people. Even the unfortunate three-fifths compromise doesn't limit the rights of the people since that ridiculous assumption was an assertion that slaves were not people, and was a stupidity wholly rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.
The assertion that certain rights must be limited in order to establish justice seems to ignore the long held tenet that justice is a protection of rights to life, liberty and property. If someone murders another they did not do so because they had a right to do so, they didn't and murder should be distinguished from self defense and as a matter of law it is. A person who willfully abrogates and derogates the rights of another is acting criminally and as such will forfeit their own right to liberty and that is as far as the limitation of rights on the people go.
While Hobbes, Locke and to a lesser extent Grotius had an influence on the Constitution so did the common law principles of the Iroquois and most importantly the common law principles of England a land ruled by Monarchy where it was not just "progressive thinkers" who acknowledged a right to life, liberty and property, but even conservative loyalist to the Crown of England. Freedom is not some fanciful notion thought up by philosophers it is the natural state in which all species tend towards. Lions, tigers and bears do not seek out zoos in order to be caged, they live in their own habitat sure of their freedom and right to do so, just as any human does.
It is typical of the modern day progressive to stress the baseness of natural rights and imply with that a more civilized state of government granted rights. While any individual may attempt to assert their right to "everything" what distinguishes rights as a matter of law is that rights exist as long as they are not injurious to the rights of others. One right can not trump another right, all rights work universally and in harmony with each other and any abrogation or derogation of a right is caused by injury or harm to another without just cause. Just cause for harming another is self defense.
It is yet another typical characteristic of modern progressive to show a proclivity towards hypothetical scenarios in order to explain their reasoning. The real world with its very real scenarios seems inefficient to explain the correctness of such notions as one right trumps another, so a hypothetical scenario like three men in a two man boat must be invented to explain their reasoning. In your case instead of a two man boat with three men in it, you present a vast desert where two lost men stumble upon an oasis with a bush bearing only one fruit to eat.
While you have graciously and very admirably allowed for the possibility that these two men would agree to share the fruit to better ensure both their survival, you also present a scenario absent of government of which you only one paragraph later stress is essential to arbitrate any struggle that might come about by two men starving in a desert and discover a sole fruit by which to survive. It is heartening that you acknowledge merit to the two arguments of peaceful coexistence and survival of the fittest, that you presume to explain the importance of a government that would declare the authority to limit rights by presenting a hypothetical situation void of that government is nonsensical.
Let us assume, for a second that, a government was in place to establish justice between these two starving men who stumble upon the oasis. By what fruit do the officials of this government eat? How is it there is only one fruit and yet a government in place able to survive this disparity of fruit? Where is the populace this government governs? Nay I say to you even in this hypothetical, if there is a government in place to arbitrate the sharing of fruit, indeed there is more than just one piece of fruit!
This leads us back to the assertion that a constitution is by nature a contract. Even as a metaphor this can only work if it is understood it is a contract neither subject to the laws of contract nor binding as a contract. What binds the rule of constitution is not its nature as contract but by the enforcement of it by the people. When the people abdicate their right to enforce it, history has shown how willing the government can be to negate the rules established by this constitution.
Finally we come to the heart of your argument which is the assertion that a one world government is inevitable and while that may be, clearly in today's world what is stopping the current form of a one world government is the Constitution for the United States that prohibits the government from making any such treatise that would subvert that Constitution to another.
Continued...
My esteemed colleague and friend Lasheic, I have enjoyed reading your considered thoughts in this thread and appreciate the effort you have put forth but can only fully appreciate your words in that they serve to demonstrate to the original poster just how clear the Constitution is in its meaning and how the vagueness of meaning and openness of interpretation only lies within those who dare to take a liberal view of that text.
First let me address your assertion that:
"There seems to be a popular misconception that the Constitution establishes and protects our rights. I don't think this is correct. It is actually a mechanism by which to limit rights and freedoms so as to establish justice."
I must agree with you that it is a misconception that the Constitution establishes rights, but heartily disagree that it is a misconception that same Constitution protects rights. The rights of people preexist the Constitution and the strongest evidence of that lies in the Declaration of Independence that acknowledges certain unalienable rights and the Articles of Confederation that served as the first constitution to the United States before being replaced by the one that now exists. The rights of the individual were not established by Constitution but merely acknowledged.
Your assertion that the Constitution is actually a mechanism by which to limit rights is only correct in that it limits the rights of the government and any freedoms that government may enjoy but in no way limits the rights of the people. Even the unfortunate three-fifths compromise doesn't limit the rights of the people since that ridiculous assumption was an assertion that slaves were not people, and was a stupidity wholly rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.
The assertion that certain rights must be limited in order to establish justice seems to ignore the long held tenet that justice is a protection of rights to life, liberty and property. If someone murders another they did not do so because they had a right to do so, they didn't and murder should be distinguished from self defense and as a matter of law it is. A person who willfully abrogates and derogates the rights of another is acting criminally and as such will forfeit their own right to liberty and that is as far as the limitation of rights on the people go.
While Hobbes, Locke and to a lesser extent Grotius had an influence on the Constitution so did the common law principles of the Iroquois and most importantly the common law principles of England a land ruled by Monarchy where it was not just "progressive thinkers" who acknowledged a right to life, liberty and property, but even conservative loyalist to the Crown of England. Freedom is not some fanciful notion thought up by philosophers it is the natural state in which all species tend towards. Lions, tigers and bears do not seek out zoos in order to be caged, they live in their own habitat sure of their freedom and right to do so, just as any human does.
It is typical of the modern day progressive to stress the baseness of natural rights and imply with that a more civilized state of government granted rights. While any individual may attempt to assert their right to "everything" what distinguishes rights as a matter of law is that rights exist as long as they are not injurious to the rights of others. One right can not trump another right, all rights work universally and in harmony with each other and any abrogation or derogation of a right is caused by injury or harm to another without just cause. Just cause for harming another is self defense.
It is yet another typical characteristic of modern progressive to show a proclivity towards hypothetical scenarios in order to explain their reasoning. The real world with its very real scenarios seems inefficient to explain the correctness of such notions as one right trumps another, so a hypothetical scenario like three men in a two man boat must be invented to explain their reasoning. In your case instead of a two man boat with three men in it, you present a vast desert where two lost men stumble upon an oasis with a bush bearing only one fruit to eat.
While you have graciously and very admirably allowed for the possibility that these two men would agree to share the fruit to better ensure both their survival, you also present a scenario absent of government of which you only one paragraph later stress is essential to arbitrate any struggle that might come about by two men starving in a desert and discover a sole fruit by which to survive. It is heartening that you acknowledge merit to the two arguments of peaceful coexistence and survival of the fittest, that you presume to explain the importance of a government that would declare the authority to limit rights by presenting a hypothetical situation void of that government is nonsensical.
Let us assume, for a second that, a government was in place to establish justice between these two starving men who stumble upon the oasis. By what fruit do the officials of this government eat? How is it there is only one fruit and yet a government in place able to survive this disparity of fruit? Where is the populace this government governs? Nay I say to you even in this hypothetical, if there is a government in place to arbitrate the sharing of fruit, indeed there is more than just one piece of fruit!
This leads us back to the assertion that a constitution is by nature a contract. Even as a metaphor this can only work if it is understood it is a contract neither subject to the laws of contract nor binding as a contract. What binds the rule of constitution is not its nature as contract but by the enforcement of it by the people. When the people abdicate their right to enforce it, history has shown how willing the government can be to negate the rules established by this constitution.
Finally we come to the heart of your argument which is the assertion that a one world government is inevitable and while that may be, clearly in today's world what is stopping the current form of a one world government is the Constitution for the United States that prohibits the government from making any such treatise that would subvert that Constitution to another.
Continued...
reply to post by Lasheic
Continuing...
Thus, the only way a one world government can successfully incorporate the United States into its fold is by either accepting as their constitution the Constitution for the United States, in effect creating a United States of the Word, or by defeating the U.S. through force. If it must be by force then so much for peace.
Let me go back to your earlier assertion that it is a misconception that the Constitution establishes rights and protects them. The Bill of Rights should be clear evidence in the conception that rights have been protected and not just those rights enumerated by Amendment but as the Ninth Amendment thankfully states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'
How much more clear does the Constitution have to be that rights are not established by Constitution but preexist it? Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment makes clear that rather than limiting the rights of the people, it allows for whatever rights are not even listed which only baffles me how this could be construed as a limitation of rights.
I would like also to address your assertion that the great State of Indiana in which you reside has forfeited a portion of its sovereignty in order to be a part of the Union known as the United States. Are you not aware of your states legislature recent passing of SR42? On April 9th of this year Indiana felt compelled to pass into legislation a reassertion of their own sovereignty as made clear exist by the 10th Amendment. Just for clarification, the 10th Amendment 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.'
Again, there is nothing vague at all about this Amendment just as clear as the Ninth and all preceding Amendments are. Wherever the notion came that Indiana or any other states sovereignty was in part or fully forfeited by its agreement to join the Union it did not come from the Constitution itself. In fairness to you, clearly too many people believe as you do that this sovereignty was forfeited, either in part or wholly, which presumably is what compelled the Great State of Indiana to reaffirm their own sovereignty by statute in the form of SR42.
Much of your language has indicated a profound respect for the Constitution and for this I admire and respect your opinions greatly, and as one who believes himself to be conservative I have long held the notion that liberals are the necessary flip side to that same coin I claim conservatism. I claim conservatism in order to conserve the Constitution yet deeply understand that progress is made through progressive actions and it is the liberalism of people like you who give me relief in that I sense a respect of that Constitution strong enough to reasonably discuss the matter of progress. If we are to create a one world government it must be by the same agreement in which our Founders came together and established a government beholden to the people and not the other way around.
[edit on 21-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
Continuing...
Thus, the only way a one world government can successfully incorporate the United States into its fold is by either accepting as their constitution the Constitution for the United States, in effect creating a United States of the Word, or by defeating the U.S. through force. If it must be by force then so much for peace.
Let me go back to your earlier assertion that it is a misconception that the Constitution establishes rights and protects them. The Bill of Rights should be clear evidence in the conception that rights have been protected and not just those rights enumerated by Amendment but as the Ninth Amendment thankfully states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'
How much more clear does the Constitution have to be that rights are not established by Constitution but preexist it? Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment makes clear that rather than limiting the rights of the people, it allows for whatever rights are not even listed which only baffles me how this could be construed as a limitation of rights.
I would like also to address your assertion that the great State of Indiana in which you reside has forfeited a portion of its sovereignty in order to be a part of the Union known as the United States. Are you not aware of your states legislature recent passing of SR42? On April 9th of this year Indiana felt compelled to pass into legislation a reassertion of their own sovereignty as made clear exist by the 10th Amendment. Just for clarification, the 10th Amendment 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.'
Again, there is nothing vague at all about this Amendment just as clear as the Ninth and all preceding Amendments are. Wherever the notion came that Indiana or any other states sovereignty was in part or fully forfeited by its agreement to join the Union it did not come from the Constitution itself. In fairness to you, clearly too many people believe as you do that this sovereignty was forfeited, either in part or wholly, which presumably is what compelled the Great State of Indiana to reaffirm their own sovereignty by statute in the form of SR42.
Much of your language has indicated a profound respect for the Constitution and for this I admire and respect your opinions greatly, and as one who believes himself to be conservative I have long held the notion that liberals are the necessary flip side to that same coin I claim conservatism. I claim conservatism in order to conserve the Constitution yet deeply understand that progress is made through progressive actions and it is the liberalism of people like you who give me relief in that I sense a respect of that Constitution strong enough to reasonably discuss the matter of progress. If we are to create a one world government it must be by the same agreement in which our Founders came together and established a government beholden to the people and not the other way around.
[edit on 21-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
See, it is vague:
Who is We? The elites?
What is a perfect Union? To what degree?
What is Justice? For whom? What is "just?"
What is domestic Tranquility? Tranquility for who? Does martial law count as tranquility?
What is "common defence?" What is this?
What is "general welfare?" In what form?
What is "Liberty?" Liberty? Liberty is a set of privileges that can be taken away.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Constitution is vague?
Let's take an actual look at that document and discover the truth of such an assertion. The Constitution for the United States of America begins with the:
Preamble
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Vague? Hardly vague at all. The preamble is the statement of purpose for all that follows and in this particular statement of purpose it is made clear who is stating the purpose, what the purpose is and who ultimately has the authority to achieve this. Who is stating this purpose?
Who is We? The elites?
What is a perfect Union? To what degree?
What is Justice? For whom? What is "just?"
What is domestic Tranquility? Tranquility for who? Does martial law count as tranquility?
What is "common defence?" What is this?
What is "general welfare?" In what form?
What is "Liberty?" Liberty? Liberty is a set of privileges that can be taken away.
Originally posted by die_another_day
See, it is vague:
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Constitution is vague?
Let's take an actual look at that document and discover the truth of such an assertion. The Constitution for the United States of America begins with the:
Preamble
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Vague? Hardly vague at all. The preamble is the statement of purpose for all that follows and in this particular statement of purpose it is made clear who is stating the purpose, what the purpose is and who ultimately has the authority to achieve this. Who is stating this purpose?
Who is We? The elites?
What is a perfect Union? To what degree?
What is Justice? For whom? What is "just?"
What is domestic Tranquility? Tranquility for who? Does martial law count as tranquility?
What is "common defence?" What is this?
What is "general welfare?" In what form?
What is "Liberty?" Liberty? Liberty is a set of privileges that can be taken away.
Are you being coy? Who is we? We the People and if it was meant We the Elites then this is what would have been said. What is a perfect Union? The preamble clearly states in order to form a more perfect Union.
What is just? The respect of life, liberty and pursuit of property is Just!
Tranquility for who? Does martial law count as tranquility? Let me ask you something, do you imagine our Forefathers and Mothers sat around their PC's whining about loss of freedom, petulantly?
Is this how you imagine the United States was founded, a bunch of so called Elites who simply whipped up a document? Do you so cavalierly dismiss the bloodstained ground where farmers, shoemakers and blacksmiths laid down their lives in the name of freedom?
Do you imagine for a single second that the Daughters of the Revolution so smugly dismissed the assertions of rights and text their fathers to petulantly declare that King George declared martial law, had no respect for justice no care for the general welfare?
Is this your idea of freedom, to offer up nothing but a limp wrist protest and an ineffectual shrug of your shoulders? Do you for one single solitary second believe that the United States was forged by such effete snobbery and worthless whining?
It has been stated to you in this thread by far more than I, that it is up to We the People to stand up and fight for our freedom. Are you just too Elite to be bothered with such fingernail polish chipping action? Are you just too superior in your education to dare to be brave and bold and just, or do you truly not know what justice is?
Ho-hum, the Elites wrote a Constitution made for their kind and we the tiny helpless little people should sit in our gray little cubicles and type on our keyboards how we would be better off with a new Constitution written by us the tiny and ineffective little helpless people who are infinitely wiser than the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.
Do you actually believe your better read than any of these men? Do you seriously believe you could hold your own with anyone of them, even though they had not near the access to information you do today? If you believe this, I assure the evidence is surely lacking by your posts in this thread.
Instead of petulant questions that offer no solutions, why don't you write this better constitution you suggest we need and start with a better preamble than the one all ready supplied. Are you capable of such an action or would that be too much to ask one as Elite as you?
[edit on 21-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
Originally posted by inthesticks
Who was the Constitution written for?
Who exactly is the Posterity referred to in the Preamble?
Context, context, context! The first 7 words of the preamble answer your questions. "We the People of the United States..."
[edit on 21-12-2009 by WTFover]
new topics
-
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works: 1 hours ago -
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order: 5 hours ago -
President BIDEN's FBI Raided Donald Trump's Florida Home for OBAMA-NORTH KOREA Documents.
Political Conspiracies: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
President BIDEN's FBI Raided Donald Trump's Florida Home for OBAMA-NORTH KOREA Documents.
Political Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 28 flags -
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order: 5 hours ago, 10 flags -
Gaza Terrorists Attack US Humanitarian Pier During Construction
Middle East Issues: 17 hours ago, 8 flags -
Las Vegas UFO Spotting Teen Traumatized by Demon Creature in Backyard
Aliens and UFOs: 16 hours ago, 7 flags -
2024 Pigeon Forge Rod Run - On the Strip (Video made for you)
Automotive Discussion: 17 hours ago, 4 flags -
Is AI Better Than the Hollywood Elite?
Movies: 12 hours ago, 3 flags -
Maestro Benedetto
Literature: 12 hours ago, 1 flags -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works: 1 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Rupert Murdoch engaged at 92
People • 8 • : brodby -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 267 • : FlyersFan -
"We're All Hamas" Heard at Columbia University Protests
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 287 • : FlyersFan -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.3
General Chit Chat • 7753 • : F2d5thCavv2 -
Skinwalker Ranch and the Mystery 1.6GHz Signal
Aliens and UFOs • 144 • : brodby -
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order • 11 • : brodby -
European court rules human rights violated by climate inaction
Fragile Earth • 62 • : iaylyan -
What in the S.E.O. hell is this?
General Chit Chat • 27 • : reannamurphy -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works • 7 • : RussianTroll -
President BIDEN's FBI Raided Donald Trump's Florida Home for OBAMA-NORTH KOREA Documents.
Political Conspiracies • 21 • : CriticalStinker