Commonly Misconstrued Intent of the Constitution

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by airspoon

God (whoever or whatever you believe him to be) gave you those rights and the Constitution prevents the government from taking them away.

This is why TPTB's #1 objective is destroying God in the minds of the people.

If there is no God, we have no God given rights.

Go upstream thread far enough and you'll always find the truth.

You can't destroy something that isn't there.

2nd line.

I really recommend George Carlin's commments.
He should have a wing on the documents like the way the Chinese put commentaries on their ancient boks like the Art Of War, or the I ching.
Which I believe should be included in a body of work that as a whole describes sensible Government.
www.constitution.org...
the anti federalist papers
thomas.loc.gov...
and the pro federalist papers.

And of course anything written or said by Davy Crockett, should be there with George Carlin too.
" Make sure you are right, then go ahead"- shall be the whole of the law...




[edit on 14-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Danbones]

I completely agree, airspoon. It is the interpretation of the Constitution as "granting" rights which in my observations seems to enable those who seek to curtail our rights to justify doing so.

For example, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzallez told the senate judiciary committe, in an attempt to justify the elimination of habeas corpus under certain circumstances under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away." en.wikipedia.org...

In my opinion this kind of thinking is extremely dangerous. It seems historically clear that the drafters of the Constitution did not intend to grant rights, but to protect already existing rights which they viewed as inherent. This is in my opinion clear from both the Declaration, other texts not enshrined in the constitution, as well as in the tenth ammendment, which states (emphasis mine,) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Great thread man.

S&F for sure, if you showed this to 90% of the public they'd crap themselves.

The constitution was created behind closed doors, and is extremely ambiguous, I don't think it ever really meant anything to be honest. It was designed to be abused, and give people the illusion of a government that some how protected, or was prohibited from interfering with peoples rights.

We the People...

Looks like Washington chrurns out a ton of laws they have no business sticking their federal noses into after re-reading the Constitution. The federal government should be by law securing our borders, which it does not do very well. The feds are good at putting on a big shows to make themselves look important wherever they go; Like a circus with clowns and illusionist.

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by zroth

 

They aren't "God-given" rights. They are inalienable rights.

Think beyond borders. Our God-given rights are specific to the only race, which is the human race.

Borders and nations are man made.

I find it interesting the filters applied to the word God in my original post.

Whatever you feel allowed for you to exist, extended rights to you as its created. Man chooses to take those rights, by force, from others.

The separation of un-Scriptural powers is both dialectical and materialistic. (You may recognize the terminology of class warfare from Hegel or Marx.)

Ever hear of the Delphi Method for building consensus in a framed debate?

The false hope of equal representation accomplishes the goals of scientific dictatorship, in that participation (according to precise rules) is assumed to be voluntary.

Consider your two party system. Other countries are called democratic republics (a contradiction in terms), and they have constitutions, also implied to limit the rights of their government branches -- often called the "People's," at every juncture.

One such dictator said he had no individuality and was, himself, "the people." His followers use the words liberated and revolutionary to describe themselves.

Their philosophical underpinnings, like yours, borrowed heavily from an "Enlightenment," which originated in earlier cults, whose idols are currently enshrined in your high places, gazed upon in wonder, organized upon talismanic grid lines, as the accouterments of a pagan altar, sealed as in a contract.

If JudeoChristians created these monuments, you might have asked where the image of Yahweh was displayed, as they claimed to fellowship with you.

reply to post by zroth


I think you may be misunderstanding the term 'inalienable rights'. This simply means natural or moral rights as opposed to civil or legal rights. The Amendments of the US Constitution (which is the topic) was an excellent example of a nation's attempt through its constitution (its foundation) to protect its citizens and to ensure their natural rights are not impeded by the very same government.

I do agree with the post to which I am replying - I just don't think "taking away God" will have an impact on what is defined as inalienable rights. By definition, these rights aren't God-given - they exist because, as a society, we agree that each human being is entitled to these basic rights - just as you illustrated, every person is born with these rights - And as Airspoon illustrated, the US Constitution simply ensures that these inalienable or natural rights are not infringed upon (in theory).

I believe the largest threat to the infringement of our rights is fear-based politicking, i.e. using unfortunate events that are extremely infrequent in reality to instill fear in the populace - which are ultimately and slowing reducing the effectiveness of any nation's protection of its citizens natural or inalienable rights. It sadness and disgusts me to say, but lately this is seemingly by design.

[edit - clarity]

[Edit to add: The only Christian New Testament God-given right that I'm aware of is free-will - And even this isn't true for the old testament, which endorses slavery in numerous passages - which goes so far as defining what a slave owner is and isn't allowed to do to their slaves.]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by misinformational]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by misinformational]

Whether one believes in a "god" or not (I'm agnostic personally, for instance,) the question isn't what we believe; it's what the drafters of the Constitution believed. The declaration and other texts, as well as the language in certain amendments, in my opinion make it clear that they believed all people were endowed with inalienable rights, and not that the Constitution granted those rights.

One can choose to frame the "creator" as an anthropomorphized "god," nature itself, physics, fate, or whatever else one chooses. But the question is, "Did those who drafted the Constitution intend to protect us from the deprivation of rights they believed were, for whatever reason, inherent?" And in my personal opinion the answer to that question is, "Yes."

The Constitution categorically lays out protections against the curtailing of rights which it does not necessarily enumerate or "grant." In my opinion it wouldn't do so unless its creators believed that those rights already existed, inherently, universally. When we say that the constitution grants us our rights, we give those in power the tools necessary to take those rights away from us in my opinion.

Ok, I'm confused here. I'm not American, and I know I may get flamed for what I post, but...

If you believe that natural rights are ''God-given'', then surely that depends on your own personal interpretation of God ?
I'm sure there are many religious teachings that would contradict the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

How can you have a consensus on what ''God'' wants, if every believer's interpretation is different ?


If you don't believe that natural and inalienable rights are ''God-given'', then you surely accept that they were just the philosophical and ethical opinions of the Founding Fathers.

Why do you unquestioningly accept a supposed ethical document that was drafted by people who thought that it was acceptable to keep other human beings as ''property'', deny women the vote, treat people as lesser human beings purely because of their race, rape women and endorse other such nefarious activities and beliefs.


I understand that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are revered amongst Americans because of their symbol as part of the USA's national identity.

But, the US constitution was adopted in 1787, and what year was slavery abolished ?

I know that there have been amendments since, but why would anyone accept, unquestioningly, the ''natural laws'' outlined by people that thought it was ok to ''own'' another human being ?


What a lot of us outsiders can't understand, is the fact that a centuries old document is still held up as the epitome of ''freedom'', ''justice'', and ''rights'' by most Americans, even so times and attitudes change over the decades.

How is it logical to hold up this document as the anything other than a group of people's ideology ?
And why are people that disagree with it automatically called ''traitors'' and ''treasonous'' ?

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Simply put - the constitution of any republic is its foundation - It is the basis for the principles for any democratic nation. The US Constitution created and ensures a checked and balanced government for the people, by the people.

It is true that slavery was around for quite some time after the creation of the US Constitution - As nothing is perfect, neither is the US Constitution. But even in its creation, it did not endorse slavery regardless of the atrocities of that times slave owners.

IMO, there is no better example of a nation's foundation than the US Constitution as it protects its citizens by establishing the framework of a government for the people, by the people.

It is that very idea that most Americans hold so close and dear.

reply to post by AceWombat04


I think you may be mistaken. This is not a question of how one interprets the words written by the framers, rather this is how it is and how it is know. For instance, the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first Amendment is clearly only preventing government from infringing upon your already retained rights.

This is only but one example and if you actually read the other nine Amendments that make up our "Bill of Rights", it is the same theme. This is not left up to interpretation, rather this is just how it is.

--airspoon

airspoon, Thank You for this. It was a nice reminder for me, right when I needed it.

For the crusaders out there, 'inalienable' does not equal 'god-given'.

quote from a post "The constitution was created behind closed doors, and is extremely ambiguous, I don't think it ever really meant anything to be honest. It was designed to be abused, and give people the illusion of a government that some how protected, or was prohibited from interfering with peoples rights."

If anything puts my conspiracy radar at 100%, is people mimicking this piece of propaganda regarding the constitution. I think it is tasteless to burn an American flag, but the flag is only a symbol. When people start attacking (burning) the constitution, it's time for them to get the hell out of my country.

Signed a Liberal.

The Constitution. . .Love It or Leave It.

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by zroth

 

I think you may be misunderstanding the term 'inalienable rights'.

Nope clear on that. This was why I asked folks to think beyond borders.

There is one race.

There is one planet.

There is one right and one wrong.

There is one God.

While we continue to separate ourselves we will continue to have these issues.

Duality is used by those with knowledge to control the rest of those without.

When I write "God", everyone applies their level of understanding to the concept. This causes disagreement but I only offer a word as an anchor, I have not added anything beyond. In the literal sense, God is Good.

Man has dominion on this spaceship called Earth. Right now we are failing by separating the Earth into "owned" territories.

Originally posted by misinformational
Simply put - the constitution of any republic is its foundation - It is the basis for the principles for any democratic nation. The US Constitution created and ensures a checked and balanced government for the people, by the people.

But what's ultimately the point ?
Constitutions and ''rights'' are malleable, as we've seen with various legislation in the US, UK, and other countries.

You say that about the US constitution, but from people looking in from the outside, the US look one of the most corrupt countries in the Western world.

I accept that that's partly because it's the most powerful ( we pay it the most attention ), but it's still the fact that their Constitution appears to play little part in how the government runs.

One of the problems with any constitution, is what it doesn't legislate for, rather than what it does.

Originally posted by misinformational
It is true that slavery was around for quite some time after the creation of the US Constitution - As nothing is perfect, neither is the US Constitution. But even in its creation, it did not endorse slavery regardless of the atrocities of that times slave owners.

Should they have not included the outlawing of slavery in the Constitution or Bill of Rights ?

How, on one hand, can they consider it worthy to include the right to bear arms and no excessive searches in the Bill of Rights, yet not something along the lines of a simple: ''you are prohibited to own another human being as a slave'' ?

I've seen some interesting and informative posts on ATS about the differences in the legal definition of words; ''person'' being a more obvious one.

I'm pretty sure they didn't legally define slaves as ''persons'', therefore they weren't legally covered by the Constitution.

Originally posted by misinformational
IMO, there is no better example of a nation's foundation than the US Constitution as it protects its citizens by establishing the framework of a government for the people, by the people.

It is that very idea that most Americans hold so close and dear.

I agree that there seems something romantic about the foundation of the USA, and the supposed ideals of the Founding Fathers.

But why is it so ridiculous an idea to update it and change with the times ?

I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have scripted it very differently, if they'd been around in the 21st century.

Surely the ideals of the Constitution go beyond purely specifying how the government should work ?
Isn't there a deeper, non-governmental, ideology included in there ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
But what's ultimately the point ?
Constitutions and ''rights'' are malleable, as we've seen with various legislation in the US, UK, and other countries.

First, the "Bill of Rights" in the US Constitution only define what natural rights cannot be infringed upon by the government. The majority of the Constitution is only the framework for our government.

To understand better, let's take Wikipedia's definition of a constitution:

A constitution is a set of laws that a set of people have made and agreed upon for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is.

So by definition a constitution is only the framework for any political entity or government.

You say that about the US constitution, but from people looking in from the outside, the US look one of the most corrupt countries in the Western world.

I accept that that's partly because it's the most powerful ( we pay it the most attention ), but it's still the fact that their Constitution appears to play little part in how the government runs.

Agreed. But our Constitution provides us Americans exactly the framework necessary to invoke reform. Being for the people, by the people, we control who sits in Congress and the Whitehouse - So we directly control the people responsible for all that corruption and we can fix so long as we awaken enough people to necessary reform. The people we elect for these two branches of government control appointees to the Supreme Court.

So we directly control who's in power in 2 branches of our government and indirectly control the other branch. No need for a bloody revolution, just well-informed voters.

One of the problems with any constitution, is what it doesn't legislate for, rather than what it does.

It's not supposed to. It only defines what our government should be.

Should they have not included the outlawing of slavery in the Constitution or Bill of Rights ?

How, on one hand, can they consider it worthy to include the right to bear arms and no excessive searches in the Bill of Rights, yet not something along the lines of a simple: ''you are prohibited to own another human being as a slave'' ?

This was a sign of the times, many of the writers were slave owners themselves. There is now, obviously, legislation that prevents slavery. But this doesn't denigrate the value of our Constitution in its framing of our democratic republic.

I agree that there seems something romantic about the foundation of the USA, and the supposed ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Indeed there is.

But why is it so ridiculous an idea to update it and change with the times ?

It hasn't been - take a look at the Amendments - Most of these cultural atrocities were just that - cultural. America wasn't the only country that widely believe owning African slaves or the lack of female rights were just. Just look to the colonization of Africa by the Brits during the time period.

But a lot of people confuse natural rights and legal/civil rights - All corrections to civil rights is a matter of legislation by US Congress or the Supreme Court, not the Constitution. But as previously stated, the Constitution allows the framework for the changes as necessary.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have scripted it very differently, if they'd been around in the 21st century.

I don't think so.

Surely the ideals of the Constitution go beyond purely specifying how the government should work ?
Isn't there a deeper, non-governmental, ideology included in there ?

Nope, reference that definition of constitution above.

[edit - grammar]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by eNumbra

 

protection from the government but what protects us from each other?

A Republic of sovereign states and the rule of law, which was the clear intent and of the founders.

reply to post by airspoon


Did you mean to reply to me? I'm agreeing with you. The Constitution in my opinion does not grant us rights. It protects us from having inherent rights taken away from us which are inalieanable.