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.


Does our Constitution even exist anymore?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:46 AM
1. 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.

When it comes to freedom of speech, it is required to have a "protest permit", without one, you can be fined a minimum of $50. The fact that you have to actually file paperwork technically means that your "right to protest" can be denied. Now granted, I do believe protests should be peaceful in nature and should be used as a stage to bring attention to issues, and therefore not spout random madness and cause discord through blocking of traffic or any malicious content as to cause grief to the public, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a law that serves to prohibit. Now, the laws may have been instated so that the places where protests are taking place have a "heads up", but in essence, these permits may be denied and if anything, may inhibit demonstrations and protests due to the monetary block of it. The fees of holding a protest vary depending on the venue, so as much you think we are free to assemble and protest, there sure is a lot of money to invested, especially if everyone must obtain a "protest permit". The executive Branch Reform Act, which thankfully isn't passed, but on the table, is a law stating that government officials would have to report any dealing and the subject of those dealings with anyone. Meaning, even if you have a closed-door session with an official, the would still have to report your name and the subject of the meeting, which could hinder the right for redress.

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, I can you can use the National Guard as the militia, but I don't see it as "well-regulated". If were truly everyone's right to keep and bear arms, why is it that you must go through background checks and again, get the proper permits? So if they do not approve the background check, no gun. The amendment, does not state that "just some people have the right to own guns if the government okays them". I believe that all of the hoop-la with permits and background checks "infringes" our right to keep and bear arms. ( Infringe : Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright". or Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy". ). I believe that those permits and background checks are to limit and/or undermine the rights of all to keep and bear arms.

3.No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
There were gross violations during the War 1812 and the Civil War. There were claims in excess of $500,000 during that time in just the northern states, which I believe was a crazy amount of money back then. The Southern states were not considered to even have grievances because they were at the time, not considered part of the United States. If another civil war broke out, could we count on its protection? Probably not.

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, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act itself pretty much destroyed this amendment. To obtain warrants, wiretaps, searches, etc etc, you would just have to be suspected of terrorist activities or activities that would hinder the US government or undermine it. The least amount of "probable cause" would be to have an accusation of have terrorist ties. This site is almost a beacon of government dissent and technically we could all be subject to various intrusive investigations because of our views on wars and government corruption. We fell way down the rabbit hole when we allowed this to pass and then get extended.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Everyday, land is being gobbled up by the government for corporations in efforts to secure land for pipelines, resources, etc. It has been decided, that corporations may take land if it can prove that the land will benefit the community and must pay just compensation. It is said that the entity must pay a "just compensation" which is normally market value. Unfortunately, we know that market values can be manipulated and corrupted. Let's say that you have oil on your land, but you did not know it. A corporation that knew these details could withhold that information while making a case that it could use the land that could benefit the community in some other way. They could pay you pennies on the dollar for your land considering it is not a wide known fact that you have oil on your land.
I will save rest of the trial arguments for the next one since it goes along the same lines.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:46 AM
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

It can be said that due process is hazy because the amount of money needed to defend one's rights can be greatly skewed. Its can almost be stated as fact that more money equals a better defense and lesser penalties for crimes. Unfortunately, the levels of corruption knows no bounds within our judicial system. Those with big time lawyers do not have to sit in jail waiting for their case. Trials that are of supposed great importance get bumped to the front of the line while the trials slated for those dockets get moved back and those that are charged in those trials must sit and wait longer for their day in court.
It is within itself, wrong to move trials out of the district where is was perpetrated. Unfortunately, with today's media, it is hard to guarantee an impartial jury. I do believe that if an American citizen chosen for jury duty should do his or her best to become a "blank slate" and hear the arguments with fairness and without prejudice.

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This amendment isn't violated as much as bypassed. When in a civil suit with larger corporations, the army of corporate lawyers will generally bury you with the law that even though a jury trial can be most advantageous, especially during these times. Most plaintiffs are too bankrupt, too tired, or too scared to go against the large corporations. And, for a Federal court, it must be at least $75000 now to hear the case. Maybe they should have amended that one.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Its funny to see how many of the defendants who seek bail for the same crimes tend to be different. I do not envy the role of a judge, but its a proven fact, that bail is different for different people for the same crime. It is a gray area in my mind because I understand the difficulty in those assessments of bail.
I believe my beef with this amendment are some of the excessive fines that are starting to happen. Fines should be a deterrent, but it seems that these days our governments from city to federal are using fines to line the coffers. Even with current copyright laws, it is actually cheaper legally to steal the DVD boxed set ( 1 Year in jail and a minimum $5000 fine, while much of the time, it may be settled out of court with payment for said item and smaller fine.) vs illegally downloading it from the internet ( 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines, and also what goes with civil litigation).

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

This is an amazing amendment. This amendment was created as a "there were other rights that you have, but we wouldn't remember them at the time" amendment. This amendment has been cited in Roe vs Wade and technically could be cited in many other ways. First off, I do not condone drug use. I am not for drug use of any kind, but I do believe that we have the right to do with our bodies what we to do. If that means the freedom to inject, snort, or smoke whatever you wish, I believe this is your amendment. The founding fathers knew that they wouldn't and couldn't think of everything nor see the future, but the "right to do with your body what you please as long as it does not harm others" SHOULD be covered under this I believe. Such topics as abortion and euthanasia should be covered under this. Homosexual rights in matrimony could be covered under this. Hell, the civil rights should have been covered by this. Unfortunately, this amendment is pushed aside and ignored. It is played down so that the government can do whatever they want as long as it not specifically mentioned in the above amendments. That what its suppose to protect, rights that haven't been specifically called out and should be protected under this amendment.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:51 AM
Our Constitution has been trampled on and amended to become something else.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:51 AM
10. 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.

This is probably the most violated of the amendments if you think about it. For this, we must look at the preamble.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Let's break this down.

To form a more perfect union. The Federal government is needed to get our states on the same page, but more importantly, to serve a national forum and that each state is represented equally and fairly. I do believe this is the purpose of a true and fair Congress. Congress should be made up of fair, unbias, constitutionally educated people who reflect the American Citizen's ideals and values, not represent their own greed and want. How many of us agree that our Congressmen and women represent us as citizens? I definitely do not.

Establish justice. I believe this section was to ensure Constitutional fairness and enforcement of the Bill of Rights.

Insure domestic tranquility. To truly ensure our domestic tranquility would be to provide a government free of corrupt, unethical, and grossly immoral representation.

Provide for the common defense. Common defense, not world police. Nuff Said.

Promote general welfare. I do not believe the Founding Fathers had the 8 million ABC departments in mind when their wrote this. I believe this was to provide minimum standards to protect our rights as citizens. Not invade our lives, nor give cause to infringe upon our many unalienable rights.

To secure the Blessings of Liberty and Posterity. In this, the governments role is make sure boundaries are in place so that one citizen's rights to not infringe upon others. Here is where the government should use critical thinking and only step in when absolutely needed.

By looking at was outlined by the Preamble, I truly do believe the Federal Government has outgrown its cage. Any powers not specified on Federal level should be left to the states to decide. The Founding Fathers knew that Americans would come in many different flavors so to speak and in that, each state can be its own haven for like-minded individuals. Instead of accepting that the states are inherently different due to nature of the Americans who reside in it, the Federal government has made us all believe that every state is the same and therefore should all be reared the same way. Great leaders in history are not known for having only one style of leadership, but many. Diversity is what strengthens us and should be embraced, not buried by restrictions and laws at a Federal level.

I think a lot of us need to start need to start looking at the panic button. The greedy, the tyrants, and the selfish have carved our constition over many many many years. Even with every bill taking only an inch, those inches have added up to a mile. I wrote this post in just a few hours the other. Information is out there, see for yourself. Right now, the government are taking feet instead of inches. # will hit the fan and unfortunately we are allowing it.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:56 AM
ya its still there. it's just cut up into little squares that politicians use to wipe their ass with.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by clarkness
There is still a Constitution.

We just have to remind those we placed as custodians that it still exists.

The Constitution was not written for the politicians to determine and interpret.

The Contitution was written for us, to us so that those in politics would never forget who is actually in charge.

And it's about damned time we reminded them.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:26 AM
You should never ask this question IMO, yes it exists and to make the constitution strong you must excercise your rights, for example, if you qualify get yourself armed and carry it about in a holster with you. That is exactly what I would do if I were in the USA.

You Americans need to start kicking some banker butt.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by clarkness

Great post. Another thing that I'm suprised you left out was the NDAA. This bill allows the military act as a police force on American soil, which violates the Posse Comitatus Act. They can indefinitely imprison American citizens without a charge or trial. "You want a lawyer? Too bad, rot in this cell for the rest of your life."

If my analysis is correct, that violates the 5th Amendment, because people are being deprived of their life/liberty without due process of law; the 6th Amendment, because people aren't being given a speedy and public trial; and the 7th Amendment, because people aren't being given a trial by jury.

Then for the 8th Amendment, don't forget about Guantanamo Bay and all of the torturing that goes on there, which is far beyond "cruel and unusual punishment". Just read the Abu Gharib report...

The TSA also violates the 4th Amendment like it's their job

So yeah, I'd say the Constitution is pretty much dead in America. Corrupt politicians not following it is one thing, but I talk to people who defend all of these unconstitutional things, and say things like "That's an outdated document", or "it's just a piece of paper". That's what really upsets me.

Here's a thread I made about basically the same thing: Violations of the Constitution
edit on 5-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:23 PM
That's the thing, I almost only wanted to use older items and examples just for the simple that there is always some shred of hope that these news laws like the NDAA won't hold up and or are not exercised. Its scary to think that nothing is being down with it and it will eventually send our country into a violent chaos.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:39 PM
I remember reading a while back that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the Constitution was a compact between the Federal Government and the states, therefore it never applied to the citizens. I'm looking for that information now, but haven't found it yet. I think it was part of a thread here on ATS.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by TheMindWar

Only a small percentage even think of the bankers. Its the money that fuels the evil in this world, but people don't want to see how deep it truly is. They want to blame this guy or that, but every time you take out a head it grows another so to speak. I doubt anything will do anything. The few of us who try are called crazy and full of sh%t. We are slaves of the money. Those of who aren't a slave to money either are somehow threatened through family or socially.

Even now, they are planning on pairing down the military. They are getting rid of the witness and we will lean more towards wildly bombing countries into submission so that those at the controls of the ships and aircraft won't see the actual violence and mayhem they cause.

They are slowly moving us towards an area where an American will have to do whatever the government tells them, to be obedient as can be or that citizen will not get its ration of food for the week. It will take a few more years to be at that place, but it will happen unless something drastic wakes up our country. I guess the only way to avoid waking the sleeping giant is to give it a good dose of drugs, brain rotting media, and endless supply of money.

new topics

top topics


log in