It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We, who know the true intent of the Constitution, must educate others and offer documentable evidence of the facts. Just as JPZ, always, does. I think, however, when addressing this to others, we should refrain from using the terms "natural" or "unalienable". Too many don't want to take the time to learn the definitions of those and simply revert to what they've heard for years.
I think the simplest descriptive term is Constitutionally protected rights. After all, that is (was???) the true intent of the Constitution. To protect us from our government. To prevent the taking away of what is rightfully and plainly ours.
Additionally, I get annoyed when I hear "living document", in defining the Constitution. It is not and was never intended to be. Unfortunately, it is too late to correct the error of allowing federal legislators to expand on what should have been left alone.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
How can we possibly educate people on the true intent of The Constitution for the United States if we cater to the laziness ignorance?...
...It doesn't matter that people don't want to take the time to learn definitions, I don't want to take the time to make my bed and clean the toilet, but the consequences of such laziness does not ever lead to any good. We will never be able to effectively communicate if we don't insist that words be defined precisely and hold consistent with their meaning.
It is never too late my friend, and reigning in a beast used to running wild can be difficult but not impossible, and when we know what we are doing, even probable.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...we can eat that Chateau Briand in front of them and savor every morsel while we wipe the carrot pudding from their chins...
...diligent wiping of chins, while we endeavor to pull humanity up by their boot straps and march ever closer to universal freedom.
Well, if the rights enumerated in the Constitution were granted by God, "natural law," or what have you, there would be no need for a man-made written constitution to secure these rights. God gave the rights to the people and they could not be taken away.
This is where the Constitution comes in. The Constitution just does not enumerate our God given rights. If that is all it did, there would be no need for it. The Constitution is a legally operative document. It forms the basis for a legal remedy whenever a legal right has been violated.
Another quote from the case that is important is when Marshall says, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." According to Marshall, who was a founding father, the judiciary has the solemn responsibility of interpreting the law. You may not like the idea of the "priest class" telling everybody what the law is and is not, but at least according to one founding father, the Constitution allows the judiciary to do this.
1. I never said that rights can be taken away, but rather in the real world people interfere with basic human rights. Nobody can take away your right to free speech, but people can arrest you, commit violence on your person, etc. if you exercise your duty of free speech. Unless you are relying on a thunderbolt from heaven to help you every time a cop beats you for saying the wrong thing, you need some sort of legal system to protect your rights.
That is where the Constitution comes in. It is a legally operative document that operates to provide a legal remedy when a right is violated or interfered with.
2. With regards to the common law, the common law actually does have a statutory basis. The common law has its basis in writs issued by the kind and statutes issued by the Parliament. These writs and statutes were relatively bare bones, Over the centuries courts have interpreted them and expounded on them, creating the complex body of rules that we know today as the Common Law.
That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.
In a way, the Constitution operates as the Common law does. The Constitution is relatively bare bones, but has been expounded on by the courts. The constitution itself is only a few pages long, yet there are hundreds of court cases that expound upon it. If you walk into any Law Library you can find treatises on the Constitution that are hundreds of pages in length.
3. You are right in that a few founding fathers did not like Marbury v. Madison. Here lies the problem when people claim to know the true original intent of the founding fathers, the founding fathers were not a monolithic group. They had many of the same disagreements we have today. How can we say the Constitution has one true original intent if the people that wrote had disagreements over it.
Originally posted by ComeAndGetMe
I prefer the hanger steak. :-)
Is anyone familiar with the Restore America Plan?
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’(1)
"WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America."(2)