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.

 

How the government continually violates the constitution (with normal operating procedures).

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Let's forget about our civil liberties for a second. Okay, no don't forget about them. People will constantly say that our civil liberties are being violated and that lots of laws go against the constitution. That is true. But let's talk about what else is being violated in the US constitution. I want to present a case in this topic that the constitution is being violated all the time- and people aren't doing anything about it.

People will ask time and time again why congress isn't doing anything. People will wonder why the executive branch is screwing up our economy. They'll wonder why the executive branch is running us into deeper and deeper in debt. Almost every Government class I've had my professors and teachers have always taught me about delegated powers, and, how congress delegates its powers to someone else. Congress has no authority to delegate its powers to an agency outside of it or to some other branch of government.

We're taught that because of the new deal the functions of government has changed and now the government can regulate the economy over and over. Now the executive branch with its many agencies are controlling the economy like with the department of transportation, the department of education, the department of agriculture, the department of labor, and so on. We're also told that we need these independent agencies like the federal reserve, and the FCC, and, these other agencies to be outside the 3 branches of government to be free of the political process.

We're also told that because of the necessary and proper clause of the constitution allows the government to increase its size and scope to do anything. That is not true. The necessary and proper clause only allows it to carry out its functions ascribed by the constitution.

Many people also talk about the idea that the bill of rights are just simply a bill of privileges. Just how is it that people seem to think this? Are the bill of rights really privileges? They don't know about article 6 of the US constitution- which makes every law that's passed by the federal government and the constitution supreme of the law of the land itself.

Some people seem to think that states can deny individual citizens certain portions of the bill of rights through incorporation. They think that the bill of rights aren't really that important.

Is this really the way it's supposed to be? I've already laid to you the claims that many people make about the constitution and how they think the way we're operating is normal operating procedure. I'll show sections of the constitution which help me prove that the US constitution is continually being violated, and, many of the claims about it aren't really true and they're made by people who just would want an efficient government, and that they think the constitution would get in the way.

I'm probably going to need multiple posts to do this... so bear out with me on this.


Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

topics.law.cornell.edu...

Let's take a look at that. As you can see- sections 8 9 and 10 of article 1 of the US constitution are very important. They lay out the powers of congress.

Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to regulate the commerce with foreign nations, several states, Indian tribes. They can create rules that deal with bankruptcies. They can coin money, regulate its value, fix the standards of weights and measures of it. They can provide for the punishment of counterfeiting coins. They're supposed to declare war, write letters of Marquis. The founding fathers wanted us to be able to have an army, but only for two terms. They thought that standing armies would lead to despots. The constitution also says that no money shall be drawn from the treasury. It also says that congress may suspend the right to habeas corpus, but only when times of public safety requires it. Plus, states can't omit bills of credit or make anything but silver and gold.

Now, let's just think about that for a second. How often is this section of the constitution being violated? Let's think about it. Congress is supposed to be the one borrowing money. Not the fed. Congress is supposed to deal with bankruptcies. Not the fed. They're supposed to coin money. Not the fed. They have to regualate its value. Not the fed. They are supposed to keep coins from being counterfeited- NOT THE FED or the treasury. So, why do these people think that the fed is super powerful and can do anything it wants to and should be free from political influence? They don't know or don't care about the constitution or they just want to do it for expediency.

Do not post, I'm not done yet.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Frankidealist35]




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
As for the war powers, congress, not the executive power is supposed to suspend habeas corpus. It seems like the executive power has a tendency to override their power, and, just suspend it whenever they feel like creating a state of emergency. Congress is supposed to declare war. Now despite how many times Bush has overreached the constitution- he actually wanted a declaration of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, so you have to give him credit for that. But many wars in our nations past were undeclared wars, and thus unconstitutional wars. We have a long standing army that the founding fathers feared. And the FDIC continually borrows money from the treasury despite the fact that it's unconstitutional to do so. States continually go in debt, and, they omit bills of credit to keep up.

Oh yeah, I forgot about something. Article 1 section 7 clearly gives the power for revenue bills to the house. The revenue bill is supposed to originate in the house. But now scholars always say that they originate in the executive branch- which, they aren't supposed to. And most importantly article 1 section one says that all legislative powers BELONG to the congress of the United States.

Article 2 seciton 2




The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

topics.law.cornell.edu...

Article 2 section 2 is consistently being violated. Ever since World War II executive branches have felt that it was their prerogative as the commander in chief and representative of the nations that they could just go out and negotiate with other nations and form back door deals without the approval of congress. Presidents have negotiated back door covert deals in outh Korea, Laos, Thailand, Ethiopia, and Spain, and other nations. The constitution does not mention executive agreements anywhere in it and only says that treaties have the supreme law of the land. The federalist papers are silent on this as well.

www.americanforeignrelations.com...

Article 3 of the US constitution is supposed to grant every citizen a trial by jury.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

topics.law.cornell.edu...

As we know with the Bush administration starting with Jose Padilla that the government had decreed that it had the right to detain anyone they wanted to without a trial on the idea that they were an enemy combatant. Apparently, the courts have even ruled that the government can detain anyone whom they want to without a trial and do it indefinitely for any amount of time.


Yesterday, the full Fourth Circuit appellate court, in a 5-4 ruling (.pdf), expanded that Draconian power even further. This ruling was issued in al-Marri's case, whose extraordinary plight I've previously written about in detail. Al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar who, in 2001, was in the United States legally, on a student visa. He was a computer science graduate student at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, where he had earned an undergraduate degree a decade earlier. In Peoria, he lived with his wife and five children. Shortly after the 9/11 attack, al-Marri was detained as a material witness and subsequently charged in a civilian court with a variety of crimes relating to credit card fraud and making false statements as part of the 9/11 investigation. He vehemently denied those accusations, and -- in June, 2003 -- he was preparing for his criminal trial, scheduled to begin the following month.

Suddenly -- a month before his trial was to begin -- George Bush declared him to be an "enemy combatant" and ordered the U.S. military to seize him from civilian officials and transfer him to military custody. There -- in a South Carolina military brig -- al-Marri has remained for the last five years, with no criminal charges having been brought against him and no meaningful opportunity to contest his guilt in a court of law. He has been kept in solitary confinement and denied any contact with the outside world other than his lawyers.

The Fourth Circuit's 5-4 ruling yesterday upheld the President's authority to detain al-Marri in a military prison as an "enemy combatant." What makes the ruling so striking is that -- unlike Hamdi and Padilla -- not even the Bush administration claims that al-Marri fought alongside the Taliban, fought against U.S. forces, or had even been to Afghanistan. He's simply a civilian accused by the President of being involved in a terrorist plot. As one of the seven separate opinions issued as part of the court's ruling yesterday noted [p. 28]:


The Judge who was the swing vote in this ruling (Judge Traxler) -- whose opinion became the court's binding decision -- described, with remarkable casualness, the power that the al-Marri court was therefore vesting in the President [Dec. at 70]:


Thus, the President can order anyone in the U.S. imprisoned in a military brig as an "enemy combatant" -- even if they have never fought on a battlefield or with a foreign power against the U.S. Rather, mere accusations by the President of "terrorism" are sufficient to justify the indefinite incarceration of such an individual as an "enemy combatant," who is then denied basic Constitutional guarantees.

To say that such individuals can be held "for the duration of relevant hostilities" means, of course, that such individuals can be imprisoned by the President in a military brig not just for years but for decades [Dec. at 62]:

www.salon.com...

The 5th amendment protects people who are being accused of a crime with the due process clause. Now as you know the Obama administration has even extended the philosophy of the Bush administration, and, now has extended their belief to killing any American citizen they believe is an enemy combatant, without a trial. Article 3 of the US constitution that says that trials of crimes have to have a trial by jury and the 5th amendment are continually being violated and now with the enemy belligerent act and all of these other things going on where people feel that they can just strip peoples citizenship rights out whenever they feel like- it's not only wrong- it's constitutionally wrong. If this isn't tyranny what is?

Article 4 section 2 has been violated continually throughout our history. This should be quick...



The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

topics.law.cornell.edu...

Even if we were to ignore the 14th amendment, all the rights of citizens in every state are the same. So gay people have to be allowed to marry or they wouldn't have the same rights that other citizens have and they can't marry women, since, they're gay... and that's their preference. Their privilege is being denied to them. Article 4 section 2 not only guarantees us rights, but, also privileges. And this is constantly being denied to many people around the USA based on their skin color, or, whatever it is.

Article 5 is the amendment process. It's supposed to be there for a reason. Whenever government wants to change its structure it's supposed to go through a constitutional convention. It can't just break it whenever it feels like for expediency's sake (topics.law.cornell.edu...).


.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

topics.law.cornell.edu...

As for article 6 all this says is that the government is supposed to follow the constitution and so is everyone else. And politicians are bound to it. They're not supposed to break it! That's all I have space for... I hope you liked this!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Well stated, my friend. Here's one that caught my eye.

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10."

I interpret this to mean that when presidents are granted knighthood from the Queen of England they are supposed to decline the honor. I wasn't aware of that. But then, I would be surprised to find any section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that our government does not violate.

I need to figure out how to flag posts. Hope you don't mind if I add you to my friends list, another thing I need to figure out.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Thanks. Yeah I think that's what congressman are supposed to do. The founding fathers had a deep contempt for royalty because they fought against the British crown. Remember that's who they were rebelling against. They didn't want to become like them. I think they're supposed to turn down knighting or anything like that. Ted Kennedy didn't... and I'm surprised there wasn't an uproar when he accepted the knighting by Queen Elizabeth about the constitutionality of it.

You can add me to your friends list. I just wanted to make this topic because I feel that so many people are desensitized by everything that's going on that they don't realize how important the constitution is to us. I think we as a society should be more conscientious about the constitution and not just think that we can just do anything we feel like because of changing times... the constitution is the letter of the law and we need to follow it. If we don't like some parts about it, we can change it. That's what article 5 of the constitution is for.

I also wanted to make this topic to show just how often the government violates the constitution. So many people will say hey the government is taking away our civil liberties. But... that's not all they do. They also do all this other stuff.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Legally, rights and privileges are the same. Or rather, no legal distinction is made between them anymore.

Presidential signing statements are, IMO, unconstitutional.

The Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. Even if it is constitutional, it is applied unconstitutionally.

Congress won't do anything about someone's civil rights being infringed. A person who has suffered an injury, or is in danger of suffering an injury, has to challenge a law. In other words, someone has to have standing to challenge a law. Standing = injury, causation, redressability



new topics

top topics
 
5

log in

join