Can a Constitution Destroy Our Rights?

[antagon]

It is all constitutional no matter how much we disagree with it and think that the implementation of that power makes our life more difficult.

Is that better?

As far as it goes.

I'd say the more power the government has, the more it will make EVERYONE'S life difficult, particularly if that power is in areas that the government really isn't suited for. In many cases, people try to make the federal government micromanage the details of people's lives, and it becomes akin to playing the piano while wearing boxing gloves, or swatting flies with a sledgehammer.

It's always amazed me that the same people who advocate conducting military operations with "just enough force" never want to apply that theory to anything else they want the government to do.

I agree with you but the point I was trying to make is that the constitution just constitutes the powers of the government and as long as it stays within those confines, no matter what it does for good or for evil, it will always be constitutional to do those things.

I think sometimes people on the left believe that the constitution is some kind of ethereal document that they protects their causes such as allowing abortion yet it may not protect anyone's notion of what their rights are simply because its possible to create a constitution that violates what you think are your rights.

now is that just a left-wing tactic? summoning the constitution is real popular with the fringes of both ends if the political spectrum. youve got the left wing painted spot on, but the right fringe claims the constitution is their key to reducing or eliminating taxes and entitlements.

your broader point presents a starkly obvious reality: we have to act within our government to shape its policy, and increasing rely on our own lives to affect freedom and prosperity through opportunity, rather than through the most basic rights.

 

[Citizen]

That is a very strange theory because without government (assuming that is possible) a person is pretty much free do to anything without any restraint whatsoever so I wonder how does the freedom of anyone depend on the existence of government?

Maybe we should let our Declaration of Independence give us some of the answers.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If you read the first part it says that our rights are endowed by our creator and the part you highlighted simply says that government's exist to secure the already existing rights that were given to us by our creator.

Absolutely correct. Governments are established to protect the individual rights of the people, not to control their actions and lives.

Our Constitution establishes the powers granted the government and restricts their power to infringe upon our individual rights, although over the last decades the government has far exceeded it constitutional powers and infringed upon our individual rights.

It is not just a Democrat or Republican thing because both parties grow government in excess of its limited powers granted by our Constitution.

Anytime the government can confiscate property without even due process, or infringe upon our rights to do anything we wish, as long as we do not infringe upon the individual rights of others, it has clearly exceeded its Constitutional powers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution violates the first two Commandments, so I am pretty sure that it is not a fundie bible. Because it is an organic document constructed so that it can incorporate and adapt to a changing culture, nothing inherently neither prevents a regulated right to abortion nor prevents same sex marriage. The Constitution has stood the test time, has weathered Dred Scott and Southern treachery, to great world wars, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Dick Cheney and the neo-cons.

The Constitution is doing just fine.

 

[jillian]

I don't think that I said it was fundie's bible in fact the constitution specifically states you can't create a state church nor interfere with private creation of one. It does not prevent the creation of laws that happen to be based on someone's religious teachings.It only prevents the state from establishing a religion of its own which would have a competitive advantage with any other religion in existence. So get off this kick that people are jamming christian laws down your throat because it is constitutional to do so and if it wasn't then "thou shall not steal" and "thou shall not kill" are going to have to be taken off the books.

Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder are moral tenets... they are not based on religious teachings... unless of course, you think only religious types have something against murder and stealing.

I'd suggest that a law prohibiting girls from going to school because some wack job religion thinks they shouldn't WOULD NOT be an acceptable basis for a law.

See the difference?

I actually think that a person's own religious belief or any moral belief that says that a person exists since conception is sufficient grounds to ban abortions legally.

Whose religion? Yours or mine?

Getting the picture now?

Why is your religion such that it should impose some stupid condition on me?

If your religion doesn't believe in contraception or in vitro fertilization... and supports allowing women to die even if a termination would save her life....,,why should it be imposed on me? or anyone else who isn't a believer in your religion?

Following yet?

In that case, that freedom should be taken away from you since you are harming another person just like the freedom to murder and steel is taken away from you. You may not agree but if it is constitutionally legal for the government to do then how can you say that the government can't do that?

see above... thankfully, the constitution DOES prevent someone else's religion from being shoved down my throat....

if your religion prohibits reproductive choice, good luck to you and yours and by all means follow those beliefs.

just understand, others couldn't care less about what your religion prohibits or doesn't...

and THAT is the INTENT of the First Amendment

 

[jillian]

That is a very strange theory because without government (assuming that is possible) a person is pretty much free do to anything without any restraint whatsoever so I wonder how does the freedom of anyone depend on the existence of government?

really? strange?

tell that to the second generation americans of Japanese descent who were interned during WWII.

Ask them how much the government protected their rights.

And no...you don't get to do what you want to. Your rights stop at my nose....

and there is no such thing as land without government. so your comment is kind of pointless.

although i suppose in some fantasmagorical blue lagoon kind of way, you could run around naked all you want in the wilderness... of course you wouldn't be able to buy food... or oil for heat... or anything else.

and you wouldn't have the internet that you're using to spew...

and you wouldn't be able to opine about things you really know nothing about...

 

[antagon]

Absolutely correct. Governments are established to protect the individual rights of the people, not to control their actions and lives.

thats very presumptive. it is certain that government controls lives and actions through law, it is only a question of extent.

Our Constitution establishes the powers granted the government and restricts their power to infringe upon our individual rights, although over the last decades the government has far exceeded it constitutional powers and infringed upon our individual rights.

It is not just a Democrat or Republican thing because both parties grow government in excess of its limited powers granted by our Constitution.

do the enumerated powers really imply limitation?

its commonly assumed that government will grow at a greater rate than the wider economy. the US is no exception. add to that, lawmakers make laws, but they rarely repeal them... what to do?

 

[ihopehefails]

The Constitution violates the first two Commandments, so I am pretty sure that it is not a fundie bible. Because it is an organic document constructed so that it can incorporate and adapt to a changing culture, nothing inherently neither prevents a regulated right to abortion nor prevents same sex marriage. The Constitution has stood the test time, has weathered Dred Scott and Southern treachery, to great world wars, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Dick Cheney and the neo-cons.

The Constitution is doing just fine.

The people who want to "change" usually do it in such a way that makes the what the legislative arm of the government wants it to do since they did not like what they were limited to so a living constitution destroys the point of having something that stops the government.

No one ever said that the constitution can not change. Thats why we have amendments to alter it.

Anyways, a living constitution is nothing more than connecting the document to the spiritual body of the people much like divine right of kings did with the king's body.

 

[ihopehefails]

I don't think that I said it was fundie's bible in fact the constitution specifically states you can't create a state church nor interfere with private creation of one. It does not prevent the creation of laws that happen to be based on someone's religious teachings.It only prevents the state from establishing a religion of its own which would have a competitive advantage with any other religion in existence. So get off this kick that people are jamming christian laws down your throat because it is constitutional to do so and if it wasn't then "thou shall not steal" and "thou shall not kill" are going to have to be taken off the books.

Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder are moral tenets... they are not based on religious teachings... unless of course, you think only religious types have something against murder and stealing.

I'd suggest that a law prohibiting girls from going to school because some wack job religion thinks they shouldn't WOULD NOT be an acceptable basis for a law.

See the difference?

I actually think that a person's own religious belief or any moral belief that says that a person exists since conception is sufficient grounds to ban abortions legally.

Whose religion? Yours or mine?

Getting the picture now?

Why is your religion such that it should impose some stupid condition on me?

If your religion doesn't believe in contraception or in vitro fertilization... and supports allowing women to die even if a termination would save her life....,,why should it be imposed on me? or anyone else who isn't a believer in your religion?

Following yet?

In that case, that freedom should be taken away from you since you are harming another person just like the freedom to murder and steel is taken away from you. You may not agree but if it is constitutionally legal for the government to do then how can you say that the government can't do that?

see above... thankfully, the constitution DOES prevent someone else's religion from being shoved down my throat....

if your religion prohibits reproductive choice, good luck to you and yours and by all means follow those beliefs.

just understand, others couldn't care less about what your religion prohibits or doesn't...

and THAT is the INTENT of the First Amendment

A law that prohibits girls from going to school actually violates other parts of the constitution so you would not have to worry about someone's religious belief interfering with your right.

It really has nothing to do with the first amenmdment since the first amendment only forbids the establishment of a religion such as a state church and allows the freedom of any religion to exist. This was done to make sure any religion would not be banned and that the government would not create a church that would have the force of government on its side to kill other churches.

None of what you say has anything to do with the first amendment.

 

[ihopehefails]

That is a very strange theory because without government (assuming that is possible) a person is pretty much free do to anything without any restraint whatsoever so I wonder how does the freedom of anyone depend on the existence of government?

really? strange?

tell that to the second generation americans of Japanese descent who were interned during WWII.

Ask them how much the government protected their rights.

And no...you don't get to do what you want to. Your rights stop at my nose....

and there is no such thing as land without government. so your comment is kind of pointless.

although i suppose in some fantasmagorical blue lagoon kind of way, you could run around naked all you want in the wilderness... of course you wouldn't be able to buy food... or oil for heat... or anything else.

and you wouldn't have the internet that you're using to spew...

and you wouldn't be able to opine about things you really know nothing about...

Umm...The japs were interned because of government force and without its existence they would have picked up arms and killed the first person to try to take them away.

 

[ihopehefails]

Absolutely correct. Governments are established to protect the individual rights of the people, not to control their actions and lives.

thats very presumptive. it is certain that government controls lives and actions through law, it is only a question of extent.

Our Constitution establishes the powers granted the government and restricts their power to infringe upon our individual rights, although over the last decades the government has far exceeded it constitutional powers and infringed upon our individual rights.

It is not just a Democrat or Republican thing because both parties grow government in excess of its limited powers granted by our Constitution.

do the enumerated powers really imply limitation?

its commonly assumed that government will grow at a greater rate than the wider economy. the US is no exception. add to that, lawmakers make laws, but they rarely repeal them... what to do?

A government is nothing but authority in our lives.

 

[Fayebelle]

The opening post leads to ambiguous argument here as The Constitution of the United States of America is only an example of a document that sets forth rules for freely joining members.

The Commandments were used as an example for Christianity- anyone that CHOOSES not to adhere to the 10 commandments can choose another (or no) religion OR they can try to persuade other members to change these rules of their group.

An addict in recovery can CHOOSE to adhere to the 12 steps of NA/AA, try to change the group, or they can choose another route to recovery.

Likewise the US Constitution works as a welcome/exit announcement to voluntary members - play by our rules, try to change them, or get out.

So the constitution provides freedom for an individual to enter with their eyes open - be welcome in the society, try to change the rules, or take the next boat out.

Just because the majority doesn't agree with your terms of change doesn't mean the original rule and the group as a whole are wrong- it just means YOU don't fit in that place at that time.

Nobody is a slave to the US Society - we have the freedom to leave at any time. The basic laws of our society are plainly displayed in our constitution. You enter or exit at your own risk.

Nations that lack such a document tend to be dictatorships or anarchy - funny enough you will find entering and leaving THOSE societies much more difficult.

 

[Samson]

The opening post leads to ambiguous argument here as The Constitution of the United States of America is only an example of a document that sets forth rules for freely joining members.

.....

Nations that lack such a document tend to be dictatorships or anarchy - funny enough you will find entering and leaving THOSE societies much more difficult.

Yes all homosexuals should be exhaled!!

 

[ihopehefails]

The opening post leads to ambiguous argument here as The Constitution of the United States of America is only an example of a document that sets forth rules for freely joining members.

The Commandments were used as an example for Christianity- anyone that CHOOSES not to adhere to the 10 commandments can choose another (or no) religion OR they can try to persuade other members to change these rules of their group.

An addict in recovery can CHOOSE to adhere to the 12 steps of NA/AA, try to change the group, or they can choose another route to recovery.

Likewise the US Constitution works as a welcome/exit announcement to voluntary members - play by our rules, try to change them, or get out.

So the constitution provides freedom for an individual to enter with their eyes open - be welcome in the society, try to change the rules, or take the next boat out.

Just because the majority doesn't agree with your terms of change doesn't mean the original rule and the group as a whole are wrong- it just means YOU don't fit in that place at that time.

Nobody is a slave to the US Society - we have the freedom to leave at any time. The basic laws of our society are plainly displayed in our constitution. You enter or exit at your own risk.

Nations that lack such a document tend to be dictatorships or anarchy - funny enough you will find entering and leaving THOSE societies much more difficult.

That was actually the point of what I was trying to say. Good, Evil, right, wrong, dark side, or good side of the force a constitution just sets fourth the rules of our government and as long as it follows those rules then it is "constitutional" even though that constitutional act might be of the dark side of the force.

A good example is the patriot act. I actually think that it might be constitutional even though some of the things it might allow might not be safe to allow our government to do but if it is constitutional then what right does the supreme court have to strike it down or to even say it is illegal for our government to do?

 

[Fayebelle]

sorry reply jumped before post- see below

 

[Fayebelle]

Yes all homosexuals should be exhaled!!

Are you implying you inhale them first?

 

[dilloduck]

Yes all homosexuals should be exhaled!!

Are you implying you inhale them first?

oh shit----you're going to be fun I can tell !

 

[Fayebelle]

A good example is the patriot act. I actually think that it might be constitutional even though some of the things it might allow might not be safe to allow our government to do but if it is constitutional then what right does the supreme court have to strike it down or to even say it is illegal for our government to do?

The constitution is a document regarding citizens- not just citizens appointed to government. There will always be new situations developing as life progresses - change is the nature of the human beast - if we as citizens CHOOSE as a whole to allow these situations to continue- than it is US that say the supreme court has that right.

One good thing in our society - we always have time to learn from the past and make a difference in the future. To accept one situation as "not fair" and react by sulking is not acting responsibly as a citizen of THIS nation. We are only hindered by our own inaction.

 

[Samson]

Yes all homosexuals should be exhaled!!

Are you implying you inhale them first?

****damn...I meant exiled, and you know it!!!!****

Yes all homosexuals should be exhaled!!

Are you implying you inhale them first?

oh shit----you're going to be fun I can tell !

Give her a TY and some rep.......she's a HUGE rep....erm.....

she REALLY likes REP....a lot

 

[amrchaos]

Remember, many people believe that the constitution list our rights as citizens and humans.

The constitution can be ammended!!

Recall Prohibition, folks!! The right to drink good Whiskey was destroyed for a while!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Remember, many people believe that the constitution list our rights as citizens and humans.

The constitution can be ammended!!

Recall Prohibition, folks!! The right to drink good Whiskey was destroyed for a while!!

And laws can be reviewed judicially by the Supreme Court.