It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Respect the darn constitution!!!

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:45 PM
I am getting pretty tired of people posting on ATS who claim they support our Constitution, but then say something that is clearly in defiance of its' laws. Most people will say that they support the constitution, but then you ask them such questions as...

Gays in the military
Gay marriage
Legal drugs
Legal prostitution, gambling, euthanasia
Foreign wars, pre-emptive wars

Then all of a sudden the constitution, well that was written over 200 years ago. Fug you! Either we uphold the constitution or we light it on fire and stomp on it!


Preemptive war
International military alliances
Protect other nations
Befriend any other country
Assassinate American citizens
Force us to buy health insurance
Rob us at gun point for the fruits of our labor
Nation build
Maintain foreign military bases
Declare war without passing a Decleration of war by Congress
Prefer one religion over any others
Forbid gays from marrying
Forbid gays from military service
Discriminate against any group of people
Have a central bank
Wiretap American citizens
Suspend habeaus Corpus
Have or maintain a welfare state
Require us to have any identification(Drivers license, ID card, Social Security)
Make drugs, prostitution, gambling, euthanasia, sex, drinking illegal for anyone

Remember, I am only talking about what the Federal Government is/is not permitted to do. This does not stop the states from doing whatever they want within their constitutional bounds and within the Federal constitutional bounds.

Here is a link to our constitution. I hope you study it in and out.

Here is a link to the state constitutions. I hope you study your state constitution in and out.
(Just visit the link and select your state)

Here are some famous quotes by our founding fathers...

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
~ John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

"Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry."
~Benjamin Franklin, Positions to be Examined, April 4, 1769

"Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence."
~ Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride legitimately, by the grace of God."
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?"
~James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788

"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute."
~ Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791

"Can you then consent to be the only sufferers by this revolution, and retiring from the field, grow old in poverty, wretchedness and contempt? Can you consent to wade through the vile mire of dependency, and owe the miserable remnant of that life to charity, which has hitherto been spent in honor? If you can — GO — and carry with you the jest of tories and scorn of whigs — the ridicule, and what is worse, the pity of the world. Go, starve, and be forgotten!"
~ George Washington, letter to the Officers of the Army, March 12, 1783

[edit on 5/27/10 by Misoir]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:52 PM
S/F: Great post. People use the Constitution like a race card, simple as that.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:01 PM
I agree 100% star and flag!

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:10 PM
I think the next step in human evolution is to progress past the point of having to have written laws to govern the people, and to govern the people governing the people.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by Misoir

Good job there .

I am please to see other people have a view of what the founding fathers really wanted when they created the Constitution .

I wish ALL the members of our government would follow the principals of the document they are sworn to up hold !

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:54 PM
While I agree that the constitution is full of great ideas and is a great basis for how the country is ran, it is also old and times have changed. 99% of what it says should be upheld but I do see things that stick out because the world has changed so much they could never have been foreseen when writing it.

I 100% agree that many people will spout off about our founding fathers and the constitution without knowing much about or understanding either. This drives me nuts! I wont begin to sit here and tell you I can spout off every line or that I'm a major history buff but at least I can admit it and not hide behind a lie.

Good post and I hope it sparks some discussion, even though you probably don't see eye to eye with me on it.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by whoshotJR

I strictly see it as original intent.

But like I stated in the OP, I believe states should be allowed to do things such as welfare, taxes, public services, etc... I just don't think the federal government should do it.

This would allow states to compete for migrants(not immigrants). If people want universal health care, social welfare, and a minimum wage they can go to state A. If they want government out of their lives entirely they can go to state B.

Get what I'm saying?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:25 PM
If states were asserting their privileges you could chose to live in a state were drugs were legal or chose states were they are not legal.

States that had free health care, drugs, prostitution etc, would go bankrupt on their own, without dragging the entire nation into bankruptcy.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:27 AM
Glad to see you bringing a lot of my points to your discussion Misoir.

As for your Original Intent component, the meanings of words have changed over the centuries. This is where those that want to change the Constitution, without actually doing it legally, do it.

e.g. The right to arms. I just do not understand how anyone could not understand-"shall not be infringed".

This is so straight forward there is NO wiggle room. Whatsoever.

Another that I find heinous is the rights to PROPERTY.

This is what REALLY pisses me off. Labor is property. Period. If one does not own their very labor, what else is property?

I would like anyone to point to any income tax whatsoever in the beginning of the US. Please, anyone at all please field this.

Also, someone point me to the part where taxation of property such as land was allowed in the beginning of the country.

If you look into your home Republic's Constitution, you will find the majority of them refer to the seizure of property also. Only by just compensation is usually in there.

There should absolutely be NO direct taxation from the feds of anyone's income or property. If a Republic rightfully amended there Constitution to allow property tax or income tax, that could be allowed. But NOT by the fed.

You are learning Misoir. S&F.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:48 PM
Wow Misoir, when I saw the post title I thought it was gonna be one of those, "If you don't like it here then git out", threads.
I agree, they need to quit passing laws that deny the Rights that The Constitution guarantees.
Excellent post. Star and Flag.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:09 PM

Originally posted by zzombie...drugs, prostitution etc, would go bankrupt on their own, without dragging the entire nation into bankruptcy.

Because the massive taxes on the drug and sex trade is actually negative money. For every dollar you collect, you actually LOSE a dollar. It's an insidious plot developed by the same people that created "monkey-lution." I know it's true because it's right there in the bible. Cheech 4:20 clearly states, "Whoa to those that collect taxes on fun things, for those dollars will surely be anti-dollars, and annihilate when combined with a standard dollar."

Straighten up America!

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

The only reason I have changed my mind is when I read about Economic democracy. No, it is not a form of government but instead a form of economics. It still uses free markets and I think with economic democracy and voluntary unions we wouldn't need a national welfare state or anything like that. Maybe a state welfare system, but not federal.

Do you agree with economic democracy? It is the belief that everything you earn should be yours, not stolen by your boss. And the market it not rigged so that a few rich stock holders(investors) and ceo's can get rich off of the labor of the workers. You keep what you earn and no one else is permitted to take it from you.

That means Wal-Mart would be taken over the shareholders and employees equally. If you want to work hard for 15 hours per day to make extra money then you can do that. If you only need to work 5 hours a day because that's all the money you need, then that's all you work. No minimum wage because you keep whatever your labor is worth. That would slash unemployment, income inequality, regulations, and all that other crap. This only goes for corporations though, private business stays with the owner(s).

What do you think?

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:39 PM
the gravity of this thread deserves a "Damn" in the title.

that aside, we are in accord.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by Misoir

Well, what you are describing could be considered what is a cooperative set up or even a partnership management corporate structure.

In many partnerships the structure is set up just like your description. I had planned on setting up my business that way when I ran it. The problem was in certain businesses, like a sales structure, scheduled work needs a certain quantity of people to facilitate the business.

In many law firms, the lawyers bill the company an hourly rate for billable hours that they bring into the firm.

Having a regimented structure for an entire economy is problematic at best.

That is what is so wrong about government controlled or manipulated systems. Nothing is flexible. When a smaller component becomes so large or so regimented, it has to continue or you get a large detriment to a society at large. Smaller non interconnected business is free flowing and able to make adjustments to necessary and inevitable problems.

We see this in the auto industry now. It has become so large and rife with problems, that the government feels that it cannot be allowed to fail. Hence, instead of them being allowed to fail, the society at large has to take the hit instead of the business.

Will wait for reply.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Well the plan would be to break up the corporations we currently have into many small corporations. Then hand them over to workers and shareholders. They will obviously have a boss, but he must be democratically elected and his/her salary selected by the workers/shareholders democratically. Same goes with everything else in the business like your example of lawyer costs, it should be taken from the workers overall evenly.

But the point of it is to have full disclosure of all costs and expenditures and have it democratically voted upon much like how our House of Representatives works. We have the house speaker which is elected and they run the business, but they don't make much more money and it is fully transparent.

The point is to keep as much money with the workers and keep the business fully transparent.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by Misoir

How are you going to decide who to give the businesses to?

Let us just take for example British Petroleum since they are in the news.

Now you could break it up easily. You could divide the existing stock into splits so that the current owners(stockholders) get equal amounts of each split company.

Here is the problem, if you take a look at who actually owns these stocks, you will find that numerous people own these stocks in their portfolios.

If I would not have gotten out of the market with my retirement package two years ago, I might have had stock in the company.

How are you going to deal with that?

Just one of the problems in this scenario.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Well I would have to ask the professionals that.

It doesn't have to be exactly as I said, but my point was to just say our corporations should become democracies where people keep as much of their labor as possible.

Personally I prefer what the founding fathers stated, Agrarianism is the best way to be good and productive and free from corruption.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by Misoir

Well, kind of what you have posited here, the people keeping their labor, you only tax the profits of the corporations. All the individuals labor is left alone.

This was what was done in the beginning of our country.

The government revenue stream was based off tariffs and corporate taxation.

Once the government and the bankster/corporate whores became partners, this taxation was shifted to the people.

Forcing the government to remain small because they could not spend what they did not have. Of course they worked around that one did they not?

new topics


log in