The Consitution is a Vague Document

reply to post by die_another_day


Here is a website I strongly recommend: Charters of Freedom

...As English men and women, the American colonists were heirs to the thirteenth-century English document, the Magna Carta, which established the principles that no one is above the law (not even the King), and that no one can take away certain rights...

From the first page under the tab "Making of the Charters".

It is, fairly easy to understand, provided you study the background and determine the basis for the wording of the documents. Vagueness can be presumed of anything, if one isolates single words or phrases, without their historical meanings.





[edit on 21-12-2009 by WTFover]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Here is a great example of the ridiculous shenanigans progressives will engage in just to convince people that the Constitution is open to interpretation.

If you have made the assumption that I am a progressive because I posted this article, I can assure you, you are wrong. Whether the author of the article is a progressive, I do not know, but I have read, studied and researched more than a few of the references he provided. It might behoove you to do the same.

While this poster goes to great lengths to define Posterity, take note how no effort has been made at all to define We the People, as it is just too clear what that means.

I didn’t feel the need to definite who We the People are/were, because that was addressed in the article. But, of course, you didn’t actually read the article, did you?

I do not agree with your statement that it is "just too clear what that means". It is NOT clear because we don't know what definition of Posterity the writer's of the Constitution intended. Because most today do not know the difference between words and terms, or know the proper use of English grammar, we don‘t know the difference between perception and truth. We perceive that We the People means all of us, but People is capitalized. It is a proper noun and refers to a specific one-of-a-kind item. WE, meaning the drafters of the Constitution, NOT the common people. Our Posterity, therefore, would be the posterity of the drafters of the Constitution, NOT the posterity of the common people.

There is no vagueness in the beginning of the preamble when it states We the People, it is not code for a select few people but means all people

Are you sure about that? Wasn't the Constitution written behind closed and locked doors, in secret by just 55 men - not a single one of them from the working class - but 41 politicians and 34 lawyers of which at least 21 of them favored some kind of monarchy? Also, is in not true that those Federalists pushing the Constitution were wealthy landowners, a good number of them slave owners, and of the elite aristocracy? And, isn’t it also true that the majority of the general population of the 13 colonies were quite satisfied and happy with the government operating under The Articles of Confederation and did not want a federal government created that would diminish the power of the individual state governments? What input or influence did the common man have in the writing of the Constitution? NONE! When have the elite EVER gave a damn about the common man?


If the Founders wanted to secure the Blessings of Liberty solely for they and their Posterity, then it can be reasonably surmised they would have said so rather than saying We the People.

Oh really? Does our government today not consistently deal in trickery in order to get bills passed? Do they not constantly say one thing, yet mean something entirely different? Why would you believe those drafter’s of the Constitution would not also indulge in a bit of trickery in order to achieve their desires. There are plenty of quotes from the likes of Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Andrew Jackson, just to name a few, that tried to give warning as to what the Federalists were up to.
Maybe you need to go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

attempting to convince we the people that we have no say in our government but are subject to the Founders and their progeny instead.

LOL! All one has to do is look at our government and what it does to know that we DON’T have any say. If we had any say in the government, a great deal of the crap legislation we now have would have NEVER been passed into law.

Please tell me when our government has EVER done anything for we the people rather than for We the Corporations and Special Interest groups.

Why don’t you actually READ the article, then research a few of the references. You might find some validity in what he says.

The quote being bandied about the internet to convince people they can not use the Constitution as defense in a court of law is this: " 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."

Try going into court and using the Constitution as a defense and you will be told by the judge that you CAN’T use the Constitution as a defense. Do some research and you will find many, many cases where the defendant has attempted to use the Constitution as a defense and were told they could NOT use the Constitution as a defense. I have defended myself in court - and won - and learned this from Sui Juris researchers far wiser & much more experienced than myself. One of which appeared in the Supreme Court of the United States in Sue Juis to defend his company. And, he won.

An important part of knowing the law is not just in knowing what has been written but also knowing what hasn't been written.

And of course, one cannot really understand what has or hasn’t been written if one does not understand the difference between TERMS and WORDS. TERMS are used in the law and have an entirely different meaning from the words we use in everyday life.

Go to the law library, find the shelves that contain the set of books titled, Words and Phrasespull any volume out and start reading. Words and Phrases is a huge multi-volume of legal reference and research, primarily for lawyers, that contains words and phrases that have taken on special meaning in the law. You will be surprised to learn that what YOU think something in law means is entirely different from what it REALLY means.

reply to post by inthesticks


I did read the article and if you had read my follow up post you would know I spent the better part of an hour trying to find the full text of case law cited as well! Furthermore, I have gone into court and relied upon the Constitution to have charges against me dropped. The trick is to challenge the jurisdiction before pleading. Once a person has plead to the charges against them the trial moves into the fact finding portion of that trial and the Constitution no longer has bearing. In order to rely upon the Constitution one has to zealously assert their rights immediately.

Understand, I was ticketed by a police officer for selling goods on a public sidewalk. The ordinance in which the police officer ticketed me was clear in its language and was a flat out prohibition of vending on a public street or sidewalk. It took me less than five minutes to convince the judge there was no proper jurisdiction and the case was dismissed. End of story.

Why don't you go to a library and learn the law, that is what I did and have little problems in convincing rouge officials to back the hell off. That this one police officer acted contrary to the law was easily corrected by a five minute visit to a judge and a challenge of jurisdiction by relying heavily upon the Constitution. Learn the law!

Originally posted by die_another_day
Do you guys think we need a new Constitution?

no, i don't
a new government, definitely
but the constitution is somewhat of a marvel, imo
especially when understood and applied as intended

the US is a Republic of individual states
the problem is that this has been forgotten and/or discarded

TOP-HEAVINESS is the root of our present difficulties

Originally posted by die_another_day
Who is We? The elites?

no, the PEOPLE
we are the people
all of us

What is a perfect Union? To what degree?

to perfection!
all the way to perfect.
union is a perfect concept, on its own
it implies TEAMWORK

What is Justice? For whom? What is "just?"

Justice is defined as:
The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

and for whom?
THE PEOPLE

that which is just is that which favors none nor condemns the undeserving
everyone gets a fair shake
no one gets railroaded or discriminated against for any reason
everyone is entitled to the same opportunities as well as being held to the same accountability

What is domestic Tranquility?

peace at home
true homeland security!
not what they peddle these days, in the zealous diversionary tactic called 'the war on terror'
there is NO terror in tranquility
even when bad stuff happens...fear should never even be an option except in the first reactive response...

Tranquility for who?

for the PEOPLE
for us
the PEOPLE

Does martial law count as tranquility?

of course not
surely you know this

What is "common defence?" What is this?

safety in numbers, so to speak
no one's left out to the wolves and no one's given special protection over and above those of his fellows

it is also something that is shared
we share in both the good and bad
we stick together and we survive and thrive

if we are attacked, we stand together!

united we stand
so that we will not fall
divided or together
we will stand if we remain united

What is "general welfare?"

good and beneficial circumstances for everyone
for the PEOPLE
both as individuals as well as communities of various sizes and boundaries

In what form?

what do you mean?

What is "Liberty?"

freedom
literal free will that does not impose upon that of your fellows...

Liberty? Liberty is a set of privileges that can be taken away.

no.
civil rights can be taken away
human rights are inalienable and universally applicable to every human being

liberty is BEYOND privilege but at the same time, it is intrinsically linked with RESPONSIBILITY

click here for a much better explanation of liberty than my own

reply to post by Dean Goldberry


The Constitution is clear, the only problem is that certain groups have been trying to taint it's meaning for decades just to further their own political ideals which happen to be Socialist.

For example, this I have posted many times before..

The Constitution CLEARLY says in article 4 Section 4 that the ONLY form of government that shall be guaranteed to every state is a REPUBLICAN form of government...

Do you know what is the excuse those with an agenda to transform this nation into a Socialist dictatorship claim?..... "No one really knows what they meant by a Republican form of government"......

If the Constitution had thousands of appendixes, and in a clear manner described exactly what the forefathers intended, those with an agenda to transform the Republic into a Socialist dictatorship would claim "it isn't clear enough"......

BTW, once again a Republican form of government is not the parady that has become of the Republican party....

If the forefathers rose up from their graves and saw what has become of the Republican party they woudl demand for almost every Republican in power to step down...

[edit on 22-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Fortunately, Liberty does NOT require the consent of the majority! The horses of war have become restless, and the Fedral Government can not spend its way out of this one.

Three pages before some one even posted a reference link to the topic of this discussion..

How many of you, who have posted, read and understood the Charters of Freedom? Which one of you has read the entire Declaration of Independance, The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights?


Only asking, because if it was read AND understood, there would be no questions, or obvious ignorance in regards to it.

I have my own personal pocket sized copy of all three and checked its accuracy to the official one. There is nothing in there that even comes close to being vague, none of the documents were written in a format that could be mis interpreted or misconstrued out of context.

The drafting of the documents, and their physical material are not just pieces of paper.

The principles of universal freedom are embodied in the intrinsic values
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

If people would just stop refreshing their myspace or god knows how many other social sites pages, for one hour. That leaves 23 hours of your day to keep refreshing the same myspace page over and over, or some thing that exercises your brain, could be worth looking into.

Omg mental usage, hey just be glad they are not taxing us to think...yet.


All I am asking is that, before any single one of you who has not read those documents, completely, and understood what was read, says or converses any further.

To at least give yourself the opportunity.

It is not an emulation of any thing, and historically one of a kind. Ignorance of such is wild fire crazy, and to be matter of fact about it, I am quite disgusted at the blatent and obvious ignorance of the very principles and values emboddied in the drafting of the documents.

So many of you should be ashamed to even consider, that you are not ignorant in this.

What I see as a figure of speach, are the same kind of people who go around "bible thumping" their ideas on things, when they havn't even read the whole bible.

It's like some one read or had some one read to them one paragraph, and all of a sudden they think they are experts on the subject.

No.


Don't be that guy people, just don't.

Give your self the common courtesy, to at least have read not glanced over or speed read, but comprehend and understand.

Charters of Freedom

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Three pages before some one even posted a reference link to the topic of this discussion..

How many of you, who have posted, read and understood the Charters of Freedom? Which one of you has read the entire Declaration of Independance, The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights?

...................

I also have the pocket size version of those documents right by my side, (Documents of Freedom, among other copies)on the first drawer which I keep rereading once in a while, I have the electronic copy, and the copy of the original Declaration of independence in paper and I have read them all.

Noticed I said it is clear, it is only those who have an agenda that have been obscuring, and tainting the documents printed, and agreed on by the forefathers.

There has been, and continues to be a systematic destruction of these documents, and we have heard presidents, and politicians of both sides of the spectrum claim "those are just old pieces of paper"...

But the problem is also that there has been a systematic indoctrination being done for decades to change the perception of Americans, just so they accept "CHANGE"....

I am saying "they" because I am not part of the group that is accepting this "CHANGE" which has been occurring for a long time.



[edit on 22-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by inthesticks


I began a look at your source, "The Constitution Con", which is an overview of a book entitled "Hologram of Liberty". It appears to be long on conjecture and short on facts.

A couple of quick points;

1)

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

Why did the author chose to only address the capitalization of "People" and ignore the other 14 capitalized words in the Preamble, i.e. Order, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, etc.? The answer is agenda. The fact is, it was, simply, capitalized because that was the writing style of the time period. Nouns were often capitalized.

2)

When members of the police or military swear to serve, uphold, and protect the Constitution, and the "United States," they probably imagine that their oath is sworn to the American people. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are, in fact, swearing to give their labor, and possibly their very lives, for the diabolical corporate executives of Washington D.C.

Very presumptuous, in my opinion. If they "imagine" that their oath is sworn to the American people, doesn't that make it so? It is, after all, what is in the heart and mind of the person taking the oath that matters, not the words. Take our politicians, for example, they take a similar oath, but where do their loyalties lie?



[edit on 22-12-2009 by WTFover]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Just maybe you're the one to ask; do you think there are two Constitutions?

My point here, Read the organic document, Titled: The Constitution of the united states of America
Then read the Washington D.C. Constitution Titled: The Constitution for the United States of America
A word change makes it a new document...
The act of 1871 may be the way this Constitution For the USA was instrumented when it created the District of Columbia.

I'd like to point you to Dr. Ed Rivera's web site,
He states there are no article III courts, saving maybe one Hawaii...


Ed also points out the President has not taken the correct oath of office.


Do you have an opinion on the Clearfield doctrine? Doesn't it make all city county and state governments a business corporation? If it does then how can a business corporation enforce its laws upon a freeman that is not an employee nor does he have a binding contract with said entity?

Personally, I don't feel that the Constitution is vague by accident. There are definitely some entities of vagueness in some bills and some very specific in others. I don't really think that it should be re-written or modified. I think that some things should have definitions in them. The unfortunate part is that too many specifics can also create loopholes. By leaving certain Constitutional Laws vague it allows that amendment to adhere to the societal and economic times deemed correct by SCOTUS. The problem isn't that it's "just a piece of paper, get over it" it's mentalities like that and those being elected officials that obviously have no moral compass.

Someone here pointed out that how no one can actually define certain things like what a "well-regulated militia" is. The unfortunate part is that your government has institutionalized you so much that you forget a militia is a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement against threats to the United States both foreign or domestic according to the Constitution. Well regulated means that we should have access to train in the same manner as National Guardsmen etc.