What Ever Happened to the Constitution? - Judge Andrew Napolitano

I could go on some long, meandering rebuttal to a lot of what you've said with regards to some thing but I'd much rather save the time and energy for something like this:

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by rnaa

 

"Dred Scott was absolutely constitutional" = LOL

="You are correct in every sense of the word but instead of losing face I'm just going to laugh the remark off and pretend it didn't happen."

That's a great argument though, I'll have to remember that the next time I'm debating someone I don't agree with, "LOL! Moving on."

reply to post by links234


Two of you?

LOL

I mean seriously, you want to argue that its constitutionally legal to enslave someone and deny them due process?

You consider this constitutional prior to the 14th amendment?

The last guy is making that claim that enslaving someone and denying them due process is constitutional, yet warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.

I mean do you people have no shame?

Are you racists?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Let us count the ways slavery violates the constitution prior to the 14th amendment:

1. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. (congress can not legislate a penalty against a specific group of people, hence they can not legislate slavery into legality)

2. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (no loss of liberty without due process, which means a jury conviction for a breach of law.)

3. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. (a person can not be seized into captivity without a judicial warrant)


In fact entire books have been written on this subject of the unconstitutionally of slavery prior to its abolition in the 13th amendment.

Here's a full freaking novel on the subject by Spooner written in 1845

medicolegal.tripod.com...


Pay particular attention to the "service or labor" clause dissected here.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yet...it still took a constitutional amendment (13th) to end it and make it officially unconstitutional.

LOL

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Most of their felony offenses (any violation of the Constitution is automatically a felony-level offense!) are a matter of public record!

Please cite the law that makes those votes a felony. We don't get to prosecute people just because we want to. That's what tyranny really is.

The Oath of Office to support, defend & uphold the Constitution is what all government officers are obligated to...It's the Supreme Law of the Land & any vote in favor of violating the Constitution IS an action that violates the law. For example, Congress was never granted any kind of "interpretation power" for the Constitution, but the Obamacare Bill was pushed on propaganda that "healthcare is a right." No, it is not a Right that is enumerated under the Constitution or the Common Law & Congress has no authority to "define" what Rights are or what they are not. They acted in Breech of Oath by even bringing it up for a vote & violated "Enumerated Powers" when enacting it into law. In short, the only valid laws made are those "in pursuance of the Constitution." Actions by Officers taken that are in Breech of Oath is a criminal act.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Has Congress declared war on Mexico? Are illegal immigrants coming in armed, then getting reinforced by Congress? If not, you're completely incorrect.

No congress has not declared war on Mexico. The last official, Congressional Declaration of War was for WW2. But then again, you seem to leave out the fact that we're not the ones invading Mexico, we're being invaded by Mexico. Just because it's Mexican civilians & criminal drug-runners instead of official Mexican troops doing the invading doesn't make it any less of an invasion! By your own words, you seem to presume that we're the ones invading Mexican territory when the exact opposite is the truth!

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Completely unConstitutional. The Constitution says they are elected to their terms - 2 years for Representatives; 6 years for Senators. You don't get to make up new rules to remove them from office.

I'm NOT making up new rules...These are laws already on the books. Just as We the People ordained & established the Constitution, we also delegated our government officers with the Power of Impeachment. This does nothing to prevent us from exercising OUR OWN Power to remove criminals from office! You can also check with your own City Hall, State government & the United States Code to confirm it. Calling for Special Elections IS a lawful option for the general public & we can put whatever Ballots of interest on it we wish...Including Recall.

The only thing that really varies about it at various levels of government is the exact procedures (such as which specific forms to use or which specific offices to submit the orders for Special Elections) to get it done & there's very little difference there. Impeachment is how the government removes officers, but Recall is the Due Process of Law for the People to remove officers. Also consider that in the Constitution itself calls for removal upon officers that commit high Crimes and Misdemeanors. It does NOT specify that Impeachment is the only lawful way to do it.

Originally posted by babybunnies
The Constitution has been being marginalized for years. It started when they stopped teaching the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independance in our schools.

I agree that this IS being done by design. About 7 years ago, I started remembering that old homily, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," so I decided to no longer be ignorant of it...Especially after seeing numerous examples of the kind of "laws" that have been getting enforced!

One thing I learned is that the phrase actually carries 2 different meanings. One being, if you don't know the law, then how can you tell when you're violating it? The other meaning being, if you don't know the law, how can you tell when YOU'RE the one being violated?

By intentionally keeping us ignorant of law & our rights, we have no idea when they're violating us & we can't even stand up for ourselves!

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Perhaps you should do some research on the 16th amendment. There are several good arguements that it was not legally ratified. Ive looked into it, and there is good arguement for it.

It also seems that the SCOTUS is very reluctant to ave a hearing on the matter too...And this is in addition to the SCOTUS ruling on numerous specific cases where SCOTUS ruled that the 16th Amendment grants "no new Powers of taxation." Which means we have to go right back to the original Constitutional text, that does specify Tax Powers.

Originally posted by rnaa
Doctor is an honorific earned by achievement, not by practicing a profession.

True. A person doesn't even need to be educated in any Medical profession to use the title "Doctor." If there's any colleges/universities that award a Doctorate Degree in Basketweaving, the title is still appropriate...And the Doctorate Holder in basketweaving could still actually earn a living with Ceramics & still use the title, for that matter.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Yep, the whole of your post that I'm referring to is the whole crux of the matter. Any divergance away from the Constitution IS A CRIME for anyone under the Oath of Office. That also includes any office under Public Trust, right down to include (but not limited to) the local dog catcher.

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by links234

 

Enacting legislation that is outside constitutional limits is not fine.

I've never read the constitution and considered it limiting to anything. It is, in some ways, the embodiment of freedom.

Well, the only limitations in the Constitution are the lawful authorities that can be exercised by government. There's no phrase, clause term or condition therein that limits the People, except as to provide punishments for those who violoate the Rights of others. This is necessary to prevent total anarchy...If people can violate the Rights of others with impunity, then there are no Rights at all. The main goal of the US Constitution was constructed in the manner to uphold Rights, not to define, create or violate them. The Bill of Rights only mentions some specific Rights, but these were directly derived from the Common Law...And the 9th Amendment specifies that the Bill of Rights is NOT all-inclusive anyway. The Constitution was not written to empower the government...It was written to limit the government.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by links234

 

To take a completely atheistic viewpoint; your rights are endowed, not by some unseen, ultimate power, but by your government.

Stalin would love you.

I'd have to agree with your reply here, mnemth1. This is a completely warped view of the matter. The Constitution may have been written by religious men, but they also took care to specify (in the Declaration of Independance) that our Rights are bestowed by the Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator. Belief in the Creator is irrelevant compared to the fact that the Laws of Nature are real, observable & have effect in everyday life. These are the Laws of Nature that give some form of Order to the Universe, keeps the stars & galaxies together & have aloowed life itself to become evident on our planet. All life, all of existance, is governed by the Laws of Nature. You may as well refer to the Laws of Nature as being equal to the Laws of Physics if you happen to be an atheist. This is why our Rights are referred to as Natural Rights, and why Common Law is also referred to as Natural Law.

Here's one example: All lifeforms have a Natural Right to Self-Defense. The turtle has it's shell, the impala has its speed, the birds have their wings to fly away. These are in-born through evolution & promote individual survival. Humanity doesn't have such in-born defenses, especially against other humans who try to prey upon us...We were born with our intellect & the ability to make tools. It is this ability to make tools is why we have built armor (like the turtle), we can fly (with an airplane), we can increase our speed (with vehicles) & we can make guns to defend ourselves by keeping the attacker from reaching us (like the Spitting Cobra defends itself). Wow, this last part sounds a lot like the 2nd Amendment, doesn't it? Everything we are, everything we do, our entire existance (as individuals & as a species) is all subject to the Laws of Nature...We can never truly create anything new, excepts perhaps our ideas, but to make an idea into reality, we are still limited to re-shaping that which already exists within nature.

-----------Continued Below---------

------Concluded From Above-------

Originally posted by whatukno
What happened to the Constitution? I'll tell you, the RIGHT WINGERS STARTED ATTACKING IT IN LATE 1994!

I've said it before & I'll say it again...We've been betrayed by BOTH major parties. They have the same goal (total control by government), but argue only over the methods to acheive that goal. Indeed, rats do come in all colors...The reason why the "Progressives" are the ones mostly on the hotseat right now is because they're the rats that have been squeaking the loudest at this time.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Liberty is not granted to you by government. Only a nut would think that. Your rights come from the fact you are human. They have nothing to do with government granting them to you.

You are obviously the product of a public educational system.

Indeed, the only credit I can give to the public education system is that it let me know what I needed to "unlearn" after I graduated...

reply to post by Funkydung

Good video, lots of common sense in it. Yet, we must also understand that the US Founding Fathers knew of this also. They were highly educated, well-read people who knew their own history. Thomas Jefferson described government as a "necessary evil" & nothing more or less than raw, naked "force." Benjamin Franklin told us that we were given, "A Republic, if you can keep it," knowing full well from his knowledge of history that it would take work & diligence to make the Republic continue.

And what do we have today? A Cartel of Organized Crime that has undermined & usurped the Republic out from under us...This is a failure on We the People. We came to a point where we only listened to their words & stopped watching their actions & our government was taken over by criminals. As Wedell Phillips said:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.

We the People ordained the Constitution, therefore We the People are the masters of our own government...BY LAW, the government officers are Civil Servants, but they have turned our Public Offices into illegal "self-service" occupations.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Don't bother me, and I won't bother you. Outside of that keep your interest away from my private affairs.

Very similar to the way I see it, differing mostly in how I would describe it: Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by links234


I apologize for pinning you down on this one question but - do you really believe the Constitution is just a piece of paper? Do you agree with George Bush?

Consent of the governed.

I no longer give CONSENT!

I because of what I have learned, no LONGER give consent.

Therefore, I rely upon the tenet of the Constitution.

To do no harm, to no infringe upon another's rights of life, liberty or property.

I hope that the last and most precious right we have, right to jury trial by our peers, will protect me.

If not, there is ONE RIGHT left.

Peace and God Bless!

reply to post by Smack

So you say. But from where does the Federal Government derive this power to manage the nations education? ANd yea, that was a lame thing for him to say.

I never said anything about the Feds having the power to manage the nations education in that post. Public schools are run by the States and the Communities.

But since you ask, I do believe that the Feds definately have the obligation to help ensure that all American Children have an opportunity to obtain a quality education. Meaning that children should not be disadvantaged due to what state they live in, all schools in all states should operate to minimum standards, poor states should not be forced to provide poor education because they cannot afford it. Ensuring education opportunity for all regardless of their home state is in the national interest.

The power to do so comes from the opening clause in Section 8 of the Constitution:

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

Yes, you are absolutely correct - in the basic idea of education. But do we need corporations and foundations indoctrinating our children?

Absolutely not. When I went to public school they did not. We couldn't even have a calendar provided by the local electricity company in the classroom if it had the Company's name on it. I haven't dealt closely with American schools lately, in what way are "corporations and foundations indoctrinating our children"? Is this a phenomena that has appeared because reactionaries have squeezed the budgets of the one time best in the world American Public Education system to the point where they have to go begging for corporate sponsorship? If so, that is not the School System's fault, it it the fault of the vandals that are white-anting it. And yes, in the spirit of ATS, I consider that the most insidious conspiracy active in the world today (because it isn't just in the United States, it is also in Australia and the UK).

Edit to add: when I was in the states last year, the "big controversy" was about whether or not kids should be allowed to listen to a message from the President. Faux News was ranting and raving and drooling at the mouth about the gall of the President of the United States encouraging the youth of America to stay in school and work hard. Parents were being encouraged to believe that their kids were going to be hypnotised into drug-crazed, sex-fiend, commie Muslims or something.

Is this what you mean by corporate indoctrination? The total BS that the Australian Owned News Ltd. foists on the American citizenry, even poisoning the minds of school children too young to think for themselves (not that many adult Faux followers are very good at that, of course).

If that is what you mean I couldn't agree more.

Are the schools really teaching or are they just creating obedient, unquestioning servants? -see George Carlin

George Carlin is great, but this question is a lot older than him, and has nothing to do with a Public School education. See also Pink Floyd or even "Tom Brown's Schooldays".

Way to take the high road, Dude. You know, I agreed with a some of your post, and was enjoying it - right up to the point where you put your foot in your mouth.

I was just echoing his stupid remark. It was merely a rejoinder in kind.



[edit on 12/8/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 12/8/2010 by rnaa]

I find it interesting as I reread through the thread:

1: On one hand we have a group of people that are pointing out that certain amendments could fall under unconstitutional. While it does seem like an conundrum; being that which is put into the Constitution is deemed Unconstitutional, it can happen.

Case in point the 18th Amendment being an unconstitutional amendment as shown with the repeal thereafter with the 21st Amendment. This effectively placed the power back into the States hands. Unfortunately, the Federal Government did not give up and now uses the Federal Highway Act to strong arm and hold States hostage in regards to laws in place.

That being said, when people call out that an amendment is unconstitutional, they are doing so based upon the fact that the amendment violates or contradicts a tenet within the Constitution itself.

2: On the other hand, we have people saying that the amendments are to be held as true because they were introduced and ratified according the Constitution. This is correct, but no one is advocating not paying their income tax (at least if they did, I over read or missed it.) Where it is incorrect is to put down those that are bring up points within the Constitution that may ultimately be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thus repealed.

Case being the 17th Amendment if seen for what it truly is, that of probably the most overt power grab by the Federal Government in taking away the seats that the States used to hold in the Senate and bringing the Senate under mob rule.

Once that change was made, the People's vote and voice became truly nothing at the Federal level. Where the original multi-tiered system of the Lower House being that of the People, the Upper House that of the States was a problem for the power hungry Federal Government.

Alas, in the end people will continue to argue over whether Judge Napalitano should be addressed as such and not focus on the points that he brought up in his speech. One where he was giving his point of view but also engaging the audience to stimulate discussion and debate. The very questions that as a self-governed society we should be asking and pressing.

reply to post by rnaa

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." -- James Madison

I see Madison's concerns as prophecy. How 'bout you? Oh, don't tell me, you don't believe in original intent.

reply to post by mnemeth1

I mean seriously, you want to argue that its constitutionally legal to enslave someone and deny them due process?

You consider this constitutional prior to the 14th amendment?

No, it was not constitutionally legal to enslave someone, after the 13th amendment.

However, the former slaves states were moving to restore de-facto slavery, and the due process clause in the 5th Amendment did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment corrected the oversight, among others.

You can refer to Wikipedia for an article on the Landmark SCOTUS case Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) which held that the Bill of Rights was not meant to apply to the individual States,only the Federal Government.

I encourage you to study the history of the 14th amendment and find out why it it needs to define citizenship (to fix Dred Scott) and extend the Bill of Rights protections to the States (to fix Barron) and the other stuff it does. There was a fair bit of to clean up after the 70 years of experience with the Constitution, especially after the 13th amendment found a whole lot of new citizens that needed protection that the States were moving to deny them.

You should really understand what damage is going to be done before listening to people who want to trash it and agreeing with them in a kneejerk reaction.

reply to post by mnemeth1

"Dred Scott was absolutely constitutional" = LOL

Sorry, what do you find funny about it?

Slavery was legal. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for a state to confiscate a person's private property.

Pretend that today it is illegal to own a motor vehicle in California, but it is legal in Arizona. Suppose you drive your car from Arizona to California. Does California have the right to confiscate your car?

Or even closer to the Dred Scott example, suppose California didn't confiscate you car and you returned to Arizona. A week later you sell your car to someone in New Mexico. Does California now have the right to demand you turn your car over to them, just because you once drove it in California?

Of course Dred Scott was constitutional. Tragic, but constitutional.

reply to post by Tyrannyispeace

Consent of the governed.

I no longer give CONSENT!

Duly noted.

However, since we live in a democracy, majority rules. The majority still gives consent.

You must abide by majority rule, or find another place to live.

Been nice knowin' ya.

Originally posted by Tyrannyispeace
If not, there is ONE RIGHT left.

Yep...The one Right that allows us to defend all other Rights, as expressed by here by Charlton Heston.

Yes, THAT Charlton Heston...The character Taylor from the original Planet of the Apes movie & Ben Hur fame.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

1: On one hand we have a group of people that are pointing out that certain amendments could fall under unconstitutional. While it does seem like an conundrum; being that which is put into the Constitution is deemed Unconstitutional, it can happen.

No, it can't. A constitutional amendment is part of the constitution. It changes the constitution, that is why it is called an amendment. It is an integral part of the constitution. It cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional. Period.

Case in point the 18th Amendment being an unconstitutional amendment as shown with the repeal thereafter with the 21st Amendment. This effectively placed the power back into the States hands. Unfortunately, the Federal Government did not give up and now uses the Federal Highway Act to strong arm and hold States hostage in regards to laws in place.

The 18th amendment is not unconstitutional. "We the People" decided in our collective minds that a ban on Alcohol was a good thing. It is an amendment to the constitution, changes the constitution, and is an integral part of the constitution.

The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. Not because 18 was unconstitutional, but because "We the People" changed our collective minds about its appropriateness. The 21st amendment specifically takes the control of Alcohol out of the hands of the Feds and puts it squarely in the hands of the States. In what way does the Federal Highway Act 'strong arm' the States? 21 makes it illegal for alcohol to be shipped into a State for consumption in that State against the laws of that State. That doesn't prevent booze from being legally transshipped through the State for consumption in another State. What is your argument here?

That being said, when people call out that an amendment is unconstitutional, they are doing so based upon the fact that the amendment violates or contradicts a tenet within the Constitution itself.

So you would say that the 13th amendment is unconstitutional because it ends slavery which is permitted by the 'original' words of the constitution. That is ridiculous. Amendments CHANGE the constitution, they do not 'violate' the constitution.

Case being the 17th Amendment if seen for what it truly is, that of probably the most overt power grab by the Federal Government in taking away the seats that the States used to hold in the Senate and bringing the Senate under mob rule.

Since when is the popular vote of the people "mob rule". You are in fact advocating tyranny. In what way is it a "overt power grab by the Feds" to give to the people the right to elect their Senators at the expense of the privilege of the powerful elite in the individual states to appoint them? If anything the power elites would be much easier to control from a Federal Government point of view, and even more so from a Corporate Oligarcy Star Chamber.

Your statement is completely wrong headed. You really should make an attempt to understand the issue before making a knee-jerk response to those people who attempting to trash the Constitution in the guise of restoring the Constitution. What's next? Repeal of the 13th?

reply to post by Smack

I see Madison's concerns as prophecy. How 'bout you? Oh, don't tell me, you don't believe in original intent.

This is a good question. In this quote, Madison is arguing against a bill to provide a subsidy to one small segment of the population, a particular cod fisherman I believe (though it may have been an entire fishing village, I'm not sure now). I'd say he was also being hyperbolic, since he was well aware of what the Bill of Rights said about the Government and Religion.

He was arguing that 'General Welfare' didn't mean open house for every narrow vested interest, for if it did then it would never stop. He was arguing that 'General Welfare' meant the 'well being of the United States in general'.

Ensuring that every child in America has an equal opportunity to get a quality education is absolutely a 'General Welfare of the United States' issue. Giving a subsidy to fisherman because he supplied free fish to his Congressman is not.

I won't argue with you that there is one heck of a lot of 'free fish' being rewarded these days (lobbyists should shipped to Diego Garcia), but that does not change the fact that providing for quality education is absolutely fits under "providing for the General Welfare".

Setting standards and providing funds for projects deemed in the national interest is not the same thing as the Feds taking over the classrooms. That is still 100% the responsibility of the States and the Community. Teachers are not federal employees, never have been, and never will be. It is facile to say so.

[edit on 13/8/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by rnaa


Really? I'm just astonished...

Just because something follows the process as outlined in the Constitution to ratify amendments does not necessarily make the amendment it's self constitutional in nature.

The constitution provides a scope for government operations to comply within. Not a basis for it to extend outward from.

Just wow dude. I mean I want to debate this with you, but you're so far off on so many issues. It would take pages.

In short, I'm curious if you understand what "rights" are? Or the "purpose of government".

Or are you even aware it ISN'T A DEMOCRACY!?

It's a REPUBLIC. Were we elect people to REPRESENT us and PROTECT our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS from being DEPRIVED to us.

And these REPRESENTATIVES can agree to pass laws to PROTECT our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS by specifying which behaviors are unlawful that VIOLATE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

This is the basis of the criminal justice system... Everything else is contractual...

Furthermore slavery was never lawful under the Constitution. It was simply permissible according to societies standards at the time.

After all...

"All men...created equal...right to life, liberty...happiness"

It's a nice document, I suggest you read it some time.

Government exists solely to protect individual freedom by preventing individuals from depriving others of their rights through the courts.

reply to post by mryanbrown

. I mean I want to debate this with you, but you're so far off on so many issues. It would take pages.

I think that's what he wants.

I'm not sure why, given he's just digging himself into a ditch.

He's making the claim that because the supreme court says something is constitutional, it must be constitutional.

While the Judge and all the rest of us are saying that's utter hogwash.

Which is what leads him to saying such things as "slavery was constitutional" while clearly it was not.

He's also making the claim that the bill of rights didn't apply to states prior to the 14th amendment, which is also ridiculous considering the bill of rights addresses our natural rights - which don't change no matter who is governing.

Again, just because the supreme court says they don't apply to everyone at all times doesn't mean they don't. The supreme court is a criminal institution of federalists. The federal government can not be an impartial arbiter of disputes in regards to its own power.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mryanbrown

Really? I'm just astonished...

Just because something follows the process as outlined in the Constitution to ratify amendments does not necessarily make the amendment it's self constitutional in nature.

The constitution provides a scope for government operations to comply within. Not a basis for it to extend outward from.

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


I'm just wondering. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Or are you even aware it ISN'T A DEMOCRACY!?

It's a REPUBLIC. Were we elect people to REPRESENT us and PROTECT our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS from being DEPRIVED to us.

No s**t Sherlock. Are you not aware that those Representatives are ELECTED in a DEMOCRATIC manner? A republic is the opposite of a monarchy, it is not the opposite of a democracy. It is perfectly possible to have a democratic monarchy (UK, Australia, Canada) and a non-democratic republic (North Korea). If you going to go so hyperbolic, at least take a civics class before shooting yourself in the foot.

As a side question, is this part of your argument for repeal of the 17th? Because that would mean you don't get to elect your Senators, you know.

Furthermore slavery was never lawful under the Constitution. It was simply permissible according to societies standards at the time.

Another reading comprehension problem, I suppose. Have you ever actually read the Constitution?


Article 1 Section 2
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


So the constitution defines Free Persons which is to include indentured servants but excludes Indians that are untaxed to be counted as one person, and 'other persons' to be counted as three fifths of a person. 'Other Persons' is Slaves. If the Constitution does not recognize slavery as legal, why does it distinguish them as separate for enumeration purposes?


Article 1 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 Federal Government is here being explicitly barred from banning the importation of new slaves until 1808. This is explicitly acknowledging the legality of the institution of slavery and the right to continue to kidnap human beings and import them as slaves.

It even gives the Feds the right to tax the importation of slaves. If that is not explicitly acknowledging the legality of slavery what is. Is there any other illegal activity that is allowed to be taxed acknowledged in the Constitution?

Congress passed a ban on January 1, 1808 ending the (legal) importation of new slaves. Do you consider that constitutional or unconstitutional? After all is slavery is legal in the states, why should the importation of slaves be illegal? Smoking is legal, is it constitutional to ban the importation of cigarettes? Cuban cigars?


Article 4 Section 2
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.


Here the Constitution is explicitly guaranteeing that escaping slaves must be returned to their owners. This is a Constitutionally based endorsement of concept that one human being can be the private property of another human being.

Have you ever considered that you could read the Constitution yourself and form your own opinion with out filtering it through the drug addled brains of TV talk show ego maniacs?

Furthermore, since the Constitution, before the 13th Amendment did not give the power to regulate slavery to the Federal government, it was a power reserved to the States. The Constitution is not a document to make things legal. It did not specifically say "X is Legal" where 'X" is anything including Slavery. It recognized that Slavery existed and could be legal if the individual States chose to make it so, and protected the status of slaves as personal property.

On the other hand, the Constitution did outlaw many things, one of which was the regulation of slavery by the Federal Government until it was modified by the 13th amendment.

"All men...created equal...right to life, liberty...happiness"

I thought we were discussing the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence. Both are great documents, but only one is the Constitution. You should read it sometime.



[edit on 13/8/2010 by rnaa]