Why do lots of people think the constitution doesn't matter?

It seems to me that we're just a vocal minority here on ATS. On the outside world... you'll find tons of people from the MSM, and, tons of people from many differing ideological backgrounds arguing that the constitution doesn't matter.

Now of course there are your classical liberals and libertarians, and your conservatives or progressives and centrists who care deeply about the constitution. But they're just a minority. People seem to think that the constitution isn't supposed to limit the government's power... or that if that was the case a long time ago we can't let it get in the way of security and what not. I just don't get why people think that the constitution isn't supposed to limit the power of government. In fact, it sets out the powers of government quite clearly
Powers of Congress
Limits on Congress

It talks about the President and the executive and what it can or cannot do
www.usconstitution.net...
www.usconstitution.net...
www.usconstitution.net...

It lays out the powers of the supreme court and the judicial branch
Powers of the Judicial Branch

It grants us the right to a trial by jury
Right to a trial by jury

It protects us from unauthorized search and seizure (it's supposed to anyhow)
4th amendment

It doesn't say that you give up your right to a trial in times of war
It just says you have to answer to a capital or infamous crime when one occurs...

We have the right to a speedy trial too!

You're supposed to have the right to a fair trial and the government can't do what it has been doing over the last 8 years, preventing people from having a fair trial, and locking them up in terror cells even if they've done nothing wrong (Jose Padella?).

And yes, you have the right to a trial by juryThe government doesn't have the right just to lock you up for political activities. If they do that, they're going away from the constitution

We can't be given cruel and unusual punishment for a petty crime. The 8th amendment grants us protection from excessive punishment.

And, oh yeah, We have free speech because of the constitution

The right to bear arms: www.usconstitution.net...

And, Those rights not listed in the constitution are respectively granted to the states or to the people. It's thanks to the tenth amendment that we have other rights, that aren't specifically enumerated and so they cannot be denied to us.

And of course, last but not least, everyone is entitled to the same rights as every other U.S. citizen


I guess I thought I would make this thread because I've been reading the constitution a lot lately. Lots of people seem to think that the constitution doesn't matter because of the war on terror. But it still matters. People say that it's not supposed to be a check on the executive or on the congress. But it clearly gives out well defined rules that they have to follow. So... why did this whole idea that the constitution doesn't apply to us today come about? The whole point of the constitution is to limit the government and to give it a clear set of powers.

Can anyone answer my question? I don't get it.

The amount of brainwashing to humanity and in particular the west over the last 100 years is incredible. Literally 100s of movies and television programs have promoted the idea that the "police" have to violate the constitution to keep us safe. The cultivation of crimes and criminals and infiltrations to magnify their impact and profit from their existence only re-inforces in people these false notions. Judges are promoted as kind hearted, wise and just. In more recent times, that the founding fathers where a bunch of scum bags and the US a demon that should be destroyed. Polls and statistics are a well established means of cultivating peer pressure, fear and dependency. The media and more recently education promote this destruction of a healthy living environment. Add to that all of the degradations that weaken the thinking capacity of people and the distractions like sports, gambling, pornography and it's no wonder things have steadily declined and the constitution is looked at as an obsolete idea. Especially when no real education of the constitution has ever existed in the uSA. The floods of immigrants now and in the past only help to establish an environment where the constitution was not clearly understood and appreciated.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


"if people base their identity on identifying with authority, freedom causes anxiety.

They must then conceal the victim in themselves by resorting to violence against others. arno Gruen"


5 % of the people think, 5% think they think and the other 90% would
rather die than think.-Mark Twain

The Sheeple are not going to wake up, ever. They will die in their sleep.-R

reply to post by Frankidealist35


As a student of the Constitution, and a follower of it, the 1787 version, not the 1865 version. Click here:
America’s Two Constitutions (One for the Rich, One for the Poor) Here is the sticking point: The Original 13th Article of Amendment

So you see, what we have is a law that no lawyer/judge (Esquire) or "Knight of the Realm." Other "laws" were passed also, not always when Congress was in session.
The Law that Never Was

So, to sum up, we still have a Constitution, a Law of the Land, as it were, but! It is not that simple. You, as a "citizen" have no rights unless you assert them as such. Did you know that there is a Public Law that says you are not required to show your S.S. card for services? Social Security Number Not Required

And, there is some hope that our original Constitution will be restored.

War Dept. document from 1825 reveals critical clue to missing 13th Amendment
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT

So, yes, for all of it flaws, we do have one. Perhaps it is somewhat messed up, we as a People can clean this all up. Actually, I think we can clean up this whole planet if we got together and made up our minds to just do it.

This is a good question and it's mainly the Progressives who are socialist and Marxist.

One of the most important things the Constitution did was restrain Government.

The Founders realised all governments will be corrupt because of human nature. You put a small group of people over vast resources and you will get corruption.

They also realised the Government was a neccessary evil, so they restrained Government which gave Freedom and Liberty to the individual.

People like Obama, Reid and Pelosi don't like this restraint.

Obama said in a 2001 interview that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrains government and it doesn't talk about the redistribution of wealth.

Obama doesn't like these restraints because they stop him from controlling people's lives. Progressives think they know what's nbest for you instead of your conscious because your too stupid.

This is why Obama talks about changing and transforming America.

Progressives see the United States as evolving towards sometime of Socialist or Marxist paradise. They love people like Che, Mao, Chavez and Castro.

One of the things Obama talks about is minimizing risk but you have to have risk in a free society.

So they want to control the car you drive through cap and trade, control your healthcare, control car companies, banks, insurance companies and more. They want a massive, union based government which will really hurt America in a Global economy with cheap labor.

Until the mid 19th C, the US was populated by the descendants of those that fought and won the Revolution. They had a common frame of reference and were, by and large, British with several notable but highly compatible exceptions.

After the Unpleasantess, which killed 600,000 of these "Sons of the American Revolution", it became necessary to import laborers to replace not only the war dead, but their children never born.

Thus was born Ellis Island, The Melting Pot, and endless mischief ever since -- including the evil twins of the Populist and the Progressive movements.

So much for the context, now the point:

When we imported tens of millions of European peasants, we imported their cultures and values as well.

What is a peasant but a serf or a slave literally bred to toil at the behest of his master, the land lord etc.

These people have no connection to 1776 let alone 1620s Plymouth Bay Colony. They are bred to be docile and subservient. They require a king or Caesar to tell them what to think and do.

These persons now comprise the vast majority of inhabitants.

Is it any wonder they have no use for an "old piece of paper" written by "dead White men" (i.e., our Founding Fathers - not theirs)?

Please note one of my great-great-grandfathers came via Ellis Island. But he came to be an American and was grateful to his adopted land and successfully passed that to all his generations, including the one that married my mother a Daughter of the American Revolution.

In other words, Peasants are unfit for Liberty. They must be led.

[edit on 10-2-2010 by joeofthemountain]

[edit on 10-2-2010 by joeofthemountain]

This comes down to how one views the Constitution.

Is it static or is it living?

A static Constitution requires a more conservative view (notice I did not capitalize "conservative" for a reason.) It requires one to view the document in its entirety as the backbone of the central portion of Government within the numbered States.

Being in a static form, one must adhere to the guidelines put forth within to how Government is formed, maintained and its responsibilities. There are other factors on how to update the Constitution also (although, increasingly politicians find it cumbersome and have also realized that the general American public doesn't pay attention).

A 'living' Constitution gives a whole different view upon the document. It is merely seen as only the general guidelines given by our Founders and should not be taken at face value. Most proponents of the 'living' status feel and believe that the Constitution is outdated and 'today is a different time' than in the 1700s. The notion that the Federal Government is hamstring to do anything by a piece of paper fuels their ideas that not only is it a hindrance, but also an archaic document that no one pays attention to anymore!

Ever since the Federal Reserve Act, you might as well wipe your ass with the constitution.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by thisisjacob23]

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
This comes down to how one views the Constitution.

Is it static or is it living?

A static Constitution requires a more conservative view (notice I did not capitalize "conservative" for a reason.) It requires one to view the document in its entirety as the backbone of the central portion of Government within the numbered States.

Being in a static form, one must adhere to the guidelines put forth within to how Government is formed, maintained and its responsibilities. There are other factors on how to update the Constitution also (although, increasingly politicians find it cumbersome and have also realized that the general American public doesn't pay attention).

A 'living' Constitution gives a whole different view upon the document. It is merely seen as only the general guidelines given by our Founders and should not be taken at face value. Most proponents of the 'living' status feel and believe that the Constitution is outdated and 'today is a different time' than in the 1700s. The notion that the Federal Government is hamstring to do anything by a piece of paper fuels their ideas that not only is it a hindrance, but also an archaic document that no one pays attention to anymore!

It is precisely in the language so often used by liberals or progressives that reveals their hopeless illogical reasoning. They rely upon language such as "living" Constitution, and then use the phraseology to justify intruding into the lives of We the Living. They justify their progressiveness or liberal view of the Constitution by arguing that that document is outdated and that today is a different time than then. However, that Constitution, as a static non living piece of paper, allows for it to be destroyed or changed through Constitutional convention, yet those who argue it is outdated do not want to destroy or change it, but to continually interpret it to their pleasure. They want a malleable Constitution that will suit their purposes, which is almost always to rule over We the Living.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I don't think it's conservative at all to want the government to follow the constitution. Throughout much of our history- since the 1787 Alien and Sedition Act, our government has had its times where it's gone way beyond from what the constitution.

To me, it's more about if you want limits on the government... and I don't believe that wanting the government to be unlimited in its scope is a liberal view at all... that sounds more like an illiberal view. People have made this debate about if it should be living or not, where, the fact is if you look at history you'll see this that constitutions were developed to limit the scope of government and give it certain powers.

So... I don't really see why people think it's supposed to be living. You can make changes to it. I'm fine with that. If you're going to make a change to it- you have to do it through the constitutional framework. But, it's meant to be a guiding document. And, so are other constitutions. After all, what good is a constitution if it has no meaning?

simple...Because if it did mean something, they would be hung.for treason.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


You have taken what I mean by a conservative view upon the Constitution the wrong way.....hence the absence of capitalization.

To conserve the Constitution is to abide by the contract that freemen willingly and openly entered. It is to see the document as a guiding force that limits and restricts Government as you have stated.

I specifically left out political leanings because left/right, liberal/conservative all view it in a different way.

There are liberal conservatives that believe the Constitution grants powers and their are conservative liberals that believe the Constitution limits powers. Its wholly interchangeable.

Politicians love to use words with vague meaning for their purposes.

They want to bring down the system. We are all that's left look around how many countries can you own a gun? What about free speech and they also know one day will snap it could 20 years from now but when we do we will ring freedoms bell from every corner of this globe.

well there just stupid I guess, it say's right there it is the supreme law.
and that rights are not able to be liened. so therefore ...

and since I aint british, I dont subject myself to her majasty's court.
www.youtube.com...


check out this gentalmen name Jordan Maxwell, I have had the pleasure of digging through his website and well - if you havent done that yet.. you are really missing out. you would be shocked and you will be..
www.jordanmaxwell.com...



[edit on 13-2-2010 by Anti-Evil]

I believe that liberals prefer the "living" definition because it does not inhibit their drive to use big government to create a "nanny state" as we see being constructed in the UK now.

Also, having a framework or structure to our government gets in the way of their general "anything goes" philosophy.