Can a Constitution Destroy Our Rights?

[ihopehefails]

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.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but are you saying that the supreme court has the right to invalidate constitutionally legal laws?

 

[Fayebelle]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but are you saying that the supreme court has the right to invalidate constitutionally legal laws?

Any group can become power hungry- if we do not hold them in check then they will ASSUME the right to do as they please. There are checks and balances in our system but the ones holding the scale should be the citizens electing to office those that make the 3 branches. Though we don't directly elect the Supreme Justices we should demand transparency in their actions and why they are not being held accountable when they overstep their bounds.

 

[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!!

And laws can be reviewed judicially by the Supreme Court.

It was an Constitutional Ammendment!! The crazies wanted America to be drier than the Nevada Desert!! Thank goodness for Whores, Organized Crime Bosses and White Horse!!

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

I see what you are saying and that the constitution is the supreme law of the land so it applies to everyone. This is correct since it is possible to write an amendment stating a citizen shall not do XYZ and proscribe penalties for it just like any law passed by congress. The only problem is is that 75% of it is written to restrict the power of either federal or state governments so most of it applies to the citizens that happen to be appointed to government simply by its construction.

The big difference between a law passed by congress and the constitution which is just more laws is that, unlike laws passed by congress, the constitution is the supreme and unalterable law of the land. This is why constitutions should be more difficult to amend than the normal legislative process.

 

[ihopehefails]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but are you saying that the supreme court has the right to invalidate constitutionally legal laws?

Any group can become power hungry- if we do not hold them in check then they will ASSUME the right to do as they please. There are checks and balances in our system but the ones holding the scale should be the citizens electing to office those that make the 3 branches. Though we don't directly elect the Supreme Justices we should demand transparency in their actions and why they are not being held accountable when they overstep their bounds.

The judiciary branch is somewhat limited anyways in its jurisdiction. Anything outside that jurisdiction is not touchable by that particular branch.

 

[Contumacious]

Can a Constitution Destroy Our Rights?.

Yes, of course.

For example , the 1935 Constitution of the Welfare/Warfare State:

Article 1 section1. Clause 1

Congress shall have the power to enslave the people in the name of national security and the common good.

.

 

[Toome]

My apologies for the bluntness of my comments; I mean no personal offense; but the only way to communicate the strength of my convictions is to defer back to my paratrooper vernacular:

Are you fucking retarded?

The constitution does NOT give us our rights. Those rights already existed long before the first drops of ink were used to write the preamble. What the Constitution of the United States does is define the government in terms of what it may and may not do with respect to our pre-existing rights. That's why the language is NOT that we have a right to bear arms. Instead, the language is that the government may not infringe upon the right to bear arms. The difference is that we've always had the right, and the government may not take it away.

The Constitution is a good document. Interpretation, on the other hand, is a different issue. And it's ironic that those who call themselves "conservative" and those who claim to be "liberal" often contradict themselves in how they interpret the Constitution. But that's what happens when you take a cardboard approach to politics.

 

[Contumacious]

The constitution does NOT give us our rights. Those rights already existed long before the first drops of ink were used to write the preamble.

True.

But read

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865971285/lewrockwell/"]Cato's Letters, Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects (2 Vol. Set) (Hardcover)[/ame]


Government bureaucrats have wiped their collective asses with written constitutions.

The Palladium of all liberties is our absolute right to bear arms,

,

 

[Citizen]

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?

Maybe you should read the 10th Amendment, along with the writings of those that were there at that time.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

The 4 principal reasons why a federal government was formed: "(1) The common defense (national security); (2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; (3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; (4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787 - a founding father with most important interpretation of the Constitution.

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people is superior to the people." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78.

There are many other quotes available, but these should explain that the government was never envisioned to be a power unto itself, as it is today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Citizen, very nice, but the Supremes interpret what the Constitution means, not you or me. They disagree with you, don't they?

 

[Citizen]

Citizen, very nice, but the Supremes interpret what the Constitution means, not you or me. They disagree with you, don't they?

Maybe, just maybe, you did not read one of my posted quotes.

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people is superior to the people." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78.

"On every question of construction (of The Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when The Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson

Also, there are others of the founders that would take exception to your assumption that the Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land.

Researching historical documents, to define conflicting terms, was important because it allowed an understanding of how the principles these terms represent relate to the United States Supreme Court (USSC), and was essential for a knowledgeable, impartial comparison. Major findings were that USSC rulings have largely defined the debate about The Constitution; that not even the extreme Federalist Alexander Hamilton believed the USSC was the sole and final arbiter of constitutional questions; and that today’s judiciary fulfills the Founders’ worst fears. In conclusion, at recent confirmation hearings stare decisis (precedent) was touted by some elected officials as the guiding principal of judicial decisions. In most instances, they referred only to recent precedents set over the past 50-60 years, while ignoring centuries-old precedents established at our nation’s founding. Implications are that unchecked, the judiciary will continue to discover “rights” lurking in the “shadows” of our Constitution. The judiciary is not solely to blame for this usurpation of We the People’s sovereignty. Through ignorance and indifference an unelected judiciary has been allowed to dominate our constitutional system. If the court has become the Super Branch, We the People are largely to blame. Education and involvement are a sure cure. Discovering the Founders' Attitudes Toward the United States Supreme Court

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know exactly what Hamilton believed on the issue, and that is not the point here.

The point here is that your point is irrelevant, will have no impact on anything. We are not going back to 1791, ever. Right?

 

[Citizen]

I know exactly what Hamilton believed on the issue, and that is not the point here.

The point here is that your point is irrelevant, will have no impact on anything. We are not going back to 1791, ever. Right?

Although we will never go back to 1791, we may go back to the Constitutional restraints placed upon the government, if enough of us grow weary of an oppressive government that becomes destructive to our individual freedoms and exercise our right to alter it back to its original intent.

As stated in our Declaration of Independence, when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism, it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off, or change such Government, and we could do so by returning the government to its constitutionally limited role.

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison - 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (1759-1806)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Enough of us are not going to do anything of the sort. Too many Democrats, Republicans, and independents are just feeling puddle wonderful about how matters are, or at least to the point, they won't rock the boat. Not being mean, just realistic. I won't interrupt again, and I will read with interest.

 

[jillian]

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

lovely as an expression of political philosophy. but the Declaration has no force of law.

 

[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?

Maybe you should read the 10th Amendment, along with the writings of those that were there at that time.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

The 4 principal reasons why a federal government was formed: "(1) The common defense (national security); (2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; (3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; (4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787 - a founding father with most important interpretation of the Constitution.

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people is superior to the people." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78.

There are many other quotes available, but these should explain that the government was never envisioned to be a power unto itself, as it is today.

presuming that we've both read the 10th amendment, it begs the same question i posed above: do the enumerated powers imply limitation?

the wisdom i attribute to the constitution and its founders is for me borne in the constitution's ability to charter our modern, world-leading country despite having been put together 200+ years ago. the federalist papers would fail in that endeavor. have you read those? i couldnt say theyre superior to the constitution. the founders, despite the probability of their dissent with the evolution of government, didnt betray their posterity with the presumption that their wisdom alone could could manage the next three hundred year's government. thats their greatest credit. thats our constitution.

...yet you champion madison's confederacy.

in exercise of government, most of the federal laws we're subject to, work through the commerce clause and the tax/spend clause. both have been interpreted to significantly empower the feds. states have also succumb to the tax and spend clause participating in federal bribery.

constitutionality is challenged by the aggrieved, normally convicted, and presents the real test of constitutional standards. the lopez kid, for example, was aggrieved in a decision to uphold a 3 or 4 year old, constitutionally enacted law. where is this level of standing for anyone who feels aggrieved by the expansion of government? again, what to do?

 

[antagon]

Enough of us are not going to do anything of the sort. Too many Democrats, Republicans, and independents are just feeling puddle wonderful about how matters are, or at least to the point, they won't rock the boat. Not being mean, just realistic. I won't interrupt again, and I will read with interest.

ill carry the torch of your puddywonders. im convinced i can affect more freedom and power for myself through my industrious nature than through my rebellious.

 

[ihopehefails]

Citizen, very nice, but the Supremes interpret what the Constitution means, not you or me. They disagree with you, don't they?

The supreme court has a limited jurisdiction as stated in the constitution. While that jurisdicition covers quite a lot the fact that it is limited to interpreting the constitution to those cases means that it is possible for other courts and entities to interpret the constitution differently. What power those entities have after they made their interpretation depends on what powers they have. Any state court can interpret federal law but since it has no power over federal law enforcement or the federal government its power only exist over the state itself so it can declare that federal funds given to states are unconstitutional for the federal government to do so. It may then order the state legislature to stop recieving those funds or stop cooperating with the federal government on those issues.

The supreme court jurisdiction does not include my opinion, your opinion, or anyone's opinion so their say over what the constitution means officially means squat.

 

[ihopehefails]

My apologies for the bluntness of my comments; I mean no personal offense; but the only way to communicate the strength of my convictions is to defer back to my paratrooper vernacular:

Are you fucking retarded?

The constitution does NOT give us our rights. Those rights already existed long before the first drops of ink were used to write the preamble. What the Constitution of the United States does is define the government in terms of what it may and may not do with respect to our pre-existing rights. That's why the language is NOT that we have a right to bear arms. Instead, the language is that the government may not infringe upon the right to bear arms. The difference is that we've always had the right, and the government may not take it away.

The Constitution is a good document. Interpretation, on the other hand, is a different issue. And it's ironic that those who call themselves "conservative" and those who claim to be "liberal" often contradict themselves in how they interpret the Constitution. But that's what happens when you take a cardboard approach to politics.

I asked is it possible for the constitution to destroy our rights which implies that those existed before any amendment that could possibly destroy our rights were put into practice because in order for the constitution to destroy our rights they have to exist before hand.

I definately do not like the "living constitution" as it usually is bent towards the direction of someone's politics which is nothing more than placing the constition that lives in someone's mind in place of the one that exist. This is dangerous because it turns the supreme law of the land into what someone else wants and not what it actually means.

 

[antagon]

The supreme court jurisdiction does not include my opinion, your opinion, or anyone's opinion so their say over what the constitution means officially means squat.

it is the highest opinion officially established by the constitution. its your opinion, mine, and everyone else's that means squat. we've got to have standing and merit to contest the law and a prayer when that contest comes before the high court.