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.

 

Questions for Constitutionalists

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I see a growing number of people throw around phrases like "I support the Constitution" or "So-and-so candidate will protect the Constitution."

Well, which Constitution are we talking about, the original one signed in 1787 with 10 Amendments, or the one that exists today with 27 total Amendments, one of which repealing a previous Amendment?

If you support the Constitution, then you must also support the ability to amend the Constitution, since that's in the Constitution. en.wikipedia.org...

So, what are Constitutionalists actually afraid of? The Constitution can and will be amended, as written in the Constitution, and Amendments can be repealed anyway.




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Just a guess, but maybe they are afraid that the Constitution is being ignored or disregarded by a group that seems to harbor malice for the document and the intent of the founding fathers.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


Fair enough, but how do they feel about Amendments? Are they afraid of "losing a right" which can just be repealed or amended again??? Seems irrational to me.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


Excellent question. As a "Constitutionalist" myself, I often ask myself the same question.
I definitely glad for most of the amendments. I of course, support equal rights for all people regardless of race, gender, religion, personal beliefs, etc.
I think what we "Constitutionalists" that feel this way should create a new name and a better definition.

For me, I feel that I want America back to the pre Spanish Civil War era, sometime after the American Civil War time, with the updated Equal Rights for All acts that we have today.
An America that does not really interfere with the outside world to the extent that Globalization and regulated world markets have created. An America that has its own bank and own pile of wealth that is not in the hands of a World Bank. An America that creates its own energy and food and ALL PRODUCTS from cars to computers, to everything.
This America should be a very difficult place to migrate to and an individual would need to be very advanced in a subject matter, etc to be allowed permanent residency.
This America would have a strong military that was home based with their families but instantly ready to annihilate any enemy force that got to close for comfort amidst their day to day wars and squabbles over various gods and oil fields.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
I see a growing number of people throw around phrases like "I support the Constitution" or "So-and-so candidate will protect the Constitution."

Well, which Constitution are we talking about, the original one signed in 1787 with 10 Amendments, or the one that exists today with 27 total Amendments, one of which repealing a previous Amendment?

If you support the Constitution, then you must also support the ability to amend the Constitution, since that's in the Constitution. en.wikipedia.org...

So, what are Constitutionalists actually afraid of? The Constitution can and will be amended, as written in the Constitution, and Amendments can be repealed anyway.


I am not aware of any "fear" of amendments or where you get the idea that Constitutionalists are afraid of amendments. On the contrary. We are, as a group, in favor of the amendments and the amendment process. We are afraid of all the laws that are being enacted which are in direct opposition to the Constitution and are, in effect, illegal. Unfortunately, those that are sworn to uphold the constitution are to dumb to understand it or to afraid to actually defend it.

If, for example, it is found to be a good idea to have people stopped for no good reason in an airport, on the highway, in a bus station, in a train station, and then have their belongings rifled through and their genitalia groped that is fine. The Congress should amend the Constitution to repeal the 4th Amendment and then put it to the states for approval. This is how it works. If Congress passes the Amendment and the States pass it then we will no longer have the 4th Amendment protections we should be able to enjoy today. Now, what are the odds of that happening? Zero. So, since Congress can't pass these illegal laws as Amendments to the Constitution they pass them as just regular laws and ignore the Constitution completely.

THAT is what we are afraid of. That the Constitution is being ignored completely. Not that it has Amendments, as it should.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The Constitution is the Constitution, so I'm not quite understanding your opening question.

What we're afraid of, though, is the government. The Constitution was made to restrain the government, but right now, the only thing that can truly keep the government in check, the people, is allowing the government to ignore the Constitution, and allowing it to act in the same tyrannical manner that our Founding Fathers fought to overcome.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
onthedownlow, TimesUp, and Bakatono have stated, eloquently, the direct issues, and, THAT, my friend, is da troof!

Reread as necessary.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
I see a growing number of people throw around phrases like "I support the Constitution" or "So-and-so candidate will protect the Constitution."

Well, which Constitution are we talking about, the original one signed in 1787 with 10 Amendments, or the one that exists today with 27 total Amendments, one of which repealing a previous Amendment?

If you support the Constitution, then you must also support the ability to amend the Constitution, since that's in the Constitution. en.wikipedia.org...

So, what are Constitutionalists actually afraid of? The Constitution can and will be amended, as written in the Constitution, and Amendments can be repealed anyway.


I support the Constitution...one could say it's words are written into my heart.

There is only one Constitution and it is a 'living' document providing a strict set of rules managing how it evolves.

but Amendments are not easy things to achieve....and its probably even more difficult to Amend the Constitution today than lets say 15 years ago.

I'd bet good money that most of you will be dead long before it sees a 28th Amendment.

and another thing...people who are applying for the job of President...you weren't asked to give your opinions regarding its contents. that's not your job. your job and oath is to defend the Constitution...no questions asked!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Amendments are one thing. Blatantly subverting the Constitution, by bastardizing things like "The Commerce Clause", "The Necessary and Proper Clause", etc. is another thing entirely.

Any person who claims to advocate for the Constitution must necessarily advocate for the Amendment process, which is contained therein. You can't have one, without the other.


Originally posted by michaelbrux
There is only one Constitution and it is a 'living' document providing a strict set of rules managing how it evolves.


I respectfully disagree with the use of the term "living document". That implies the authority for individuals to interpret the words as they choose and that is a very dangerous thing, as we are now witnessing. The words have meaning and those meanings have not changed. Those who support the idea of a "living document" are only interested in applying that interpretation to the sections that suit them at the time. However, if it is to be viewed as such, then it must be done so in its entirety. Otherwise, it is simply agenda and in no way protects the integrity of The Constitution.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
This is the thing that always flabbergasts me.

I'm not from the USA, but, as far as I understand, the Supreme Court of the United States adjudicates whether something is constitutional or not.

Therefore, every single piece of legislation in the US today is, by definition, ''constitutional'', as it has either been upheld or not struck down by the SCOTUS.

I think that self-styled ''constitutionalists'' are merely control freaks who want to live in some la-la ''libertarian'' fantasy land, which is only governed by their rules.


edit on 17-3-2012 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This is the thing that always flabbergasts me.

I'm not from the USA, but, as far as I understand, the Supreme Court of the United States adjudicates whether something is constitutional or not.

Therefore, every single piece of legislation in the US today is, by definition, ''constitutional'', as it has either been upheld or not struck down by the SCOTUS.

I think that self-styled ''constitutionalists'' are merely control freaks who want to live in some la-la ''libertarian'' fantasy land, which is only governed by their rules.


edit on 17-3-2012 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)


Not true at all. We don't want to live in some "la la" land. We want to live within our Republic as it was designed. The Constitution and the Amendment process are genius. They are there to create a small federal government and ensure that the individual states within the Republic have a significant amount of authority. It is to ensure that the federal government can only do what is specifically and explicitly defined within the Constitution and its Amendments.

The problem is that the federal government has grown well beyond its authorization. The States have abdicated their responsibilities and now suckle the federal teat. The federal government takes taxes from the citizens of the States and then gives it back to the States if they meet some federal mandated requirement, kind of like some sort of incentive to do what the federal government wants. Just look at how the national highways are funded; if your state has a drinking age of under 21 or you don't require seat belts, you get no "federal" money. This has caused the States to grow in such a way as to always defer to the federal government so they can get the money that was taken from them. So, the States are not doing their job. Once they allowed general elections to pick the Senators (Who were originally picked by state legislatures to ensure they worked for the good of the state) they basically gave up all rights and became vassals of the federal government. Now that their senators do not work for the states but for a "party" these senators go about creating various "laws" which are abhorrent to the Constitution and the Republic. They do this continually and without restriction. The general population is not smart enough to understand what is going on beyond a few sound-bites on the "news" so these politicians get away with murder (of the Constitution). If they were picked by state legislatures this should not happen as they will be reporting to people who 1) understand what is going on and 2) who can fire them.

But, what can be done about it? When the States gave up their responsibilities they ensured tyranny of a overreaching federal government without checks or balances. The Executive office of the President and their party in Congress are in lockstep. They are not balances or checks on one another unless the opposite party is in charge, and even then they do a pretty poor job of providing a check or balance. They are still a part of the overreaching federal government, regardless of party, and so they are both ultimately abusive to the States and their citizens.

Sure, the SCOTUS is supposed to decide what is Constitutional but they are 1) people who are appointed by partisan individuals based on their partisan beliefs and 2) they pick and choose what they will address and only then when the issue has "standing".

See, the SCOTUS is a very partisan group so deciding on the "Constitutionality" of a law is merely a matter of who has more partisan people on the Court; "conservatives" or "liberals". In addition to that many laws cannot be challenged unless you can prove you have "standing". They will be tossed out way before they get to the SCOTUS. In order to have "standing" you have to prove you have been directly affected in some way by the law. So, if the government passes a horrible law like NDAA, which allows for illegal and indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil without any charges being field or due process, you cannot challenge the law in court unless you have been illegally and indefinitely detained without charges or due process. See, you don't have "standing" unless it has been done to you. Of course, if it has been done to you how can you challenge the law while you are being illegally and indefinitely detained???

So, there are a lot of laws which are being passed which are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS is not a watchdog who goes out, finds, and strikes down laws all on their own. Someone needs to bring it to them, with standing, and then they have to agree to hear the case. When this works, it takes years for one case.

In closing, to say that just because the SCOTUS has not struck down a law it is therefore Constitutional is not correct. It merely means that no one has either brought it to the SCOTUS' attention or has not had "standing" to do so. Basically, the American system of government is broke.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 

I support and Defend the Constitution of 1787, et all, and not the newer Constitution for the Rich.

There was an outstanding debt of 17 million silver Lira from french banks over 21 separate occasions all due on December 1, 1789.

Therefore, a bankruptcy Charter had to be drafted. On September 17, 1787, twelve State delegates approved the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors.

"Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt."
--Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not. The people are not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

The judge in the Padleford case stated; "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."
--Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520

"Articles" establish a sovereign nation of people, but all "Constitutions" are bankruptcy charters or compacts.

President Andrew Jackson paid the debt in the 1830's. In 1832, while discussing the Bank Renewal Bill to a delegation of bankers, he said, "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."

The Articles of Confederation
are still in operation.

American Governance - Corporate, and Original

U.S.A. The Republic - The House Nobody Lives In

Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - 1777 -

The Virginia Ratification of the Constitution of the United States



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


Fair enough, but how do they feel about Amendments? Are they afraid of "losing a right" which can just be repealed or amended again??? Seems irrational to me.


Amendments are wonderful- The Founding Fathers understood that there is always room for improvement and that hindsight might be invaluable in the engineering of a document that was intended to stand forever. It only takes 2/3s.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join