Can a Constitution Destroy Our Rights?

[Sunshine]

The constitution is said to be the instrument of our freedoms but how is this possible when most constitutions that are written state the functions of government such as deciding term limits for public officials, what is considered a majority, under what circumstances can money be spent, and other mundane boring things that have nothing to do with the personal lives of individual citizens.

Further, it is possible to write into any constitution something that would remove someone's rights just as it can have things that protect someone's rights (like the first amendment). This means a constitution can do great harm or do great good and makes the concept of a constitution neither a force for human rights or a force for tyranny but a lifeless legal document that states the rules that a government functions by.

Since a constitution is nothing more than a glorified charter for the government it must suggest that our rights do not come from a constitution since any action, including ones that might violate our rights, it can legally take would still be constitutionally legal for that government.

This means that a constitution does not embody our rights since free and unregulated people create constitutions that establishes a government so it is impossible for any constitution to grant any additional freedoms that the same people did not have before they created it.

You will have all your questions answered if you read the Constitution for the Peoples Republic of China.

CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

I know my opinion alone does not have any power over the law but the supreme court does not have any power over my opinion.

BTW, the supreme court is not perfect and makes mistakes which is why people with contrary opinions have to challenge the incorrect rulings.

 

[antagon]

i dont get it. who else's opinion is empowered by the constitution?

..im presuming that we're talking about legal decisions, not whether lasagna is better than quiche.

 

[Citizen]

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.

The fact is that we do not have a "living constitution", it is a written document, and as such, it means the same today as when it was written.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that we do not have a "living constitution", it is a written document, and as such, it means the same today as when it was written.

The document changes in meaning as the country changes in politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc.

 

[coolius_jeezer]

Constitutions are written for the perpetuation of the government.

 

[coolius_jeezer]

The fact is that we do not have a "living constitution", it is a written document, and as such, it means the same today as when it was written.

The document changes in meaning as the country changes in politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc.

First you have to start with an understanding of the definitions of words that those writing the Constitution used, even words change meanings over the years.

 

[Murf76]

The fact is that we do not have a "living constitution", it is a written document, and as such, it means the same today as when it was written.

The document changes in meaning as the country changes in politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc.

No, it most certainly does not. The U.S. Constitution features a legal method of changing the document through Article V and requires a consensus of two-thirds of both houses of the legislature and three-quarters of the States. THAT is how the document changes.

The Constitution means what it says it means. To claim otherwise repudiates Marbury v. Madison which is the basis for judicial review here in America and would thus also repudiate Supreme Court authority (which statists commonly site to justify their depredations upon our liberties). A fairly neat trap, don't you think?

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ___ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

So.... you can't very well utilize the broad interpretation of Congress's power to regulate commerce per Wickard unless you first agree that SCOTUS has the authority to make the call. It took that authority upon itself in Marbury, which also states (above) a "limited government" view of the Constitution.

Wickard v. Filburn, of course, is the basis for much of Washington's depredations upon our liberties. But not only is it the result of a Supreme Court in duress due to FDR's "court packing scheme"... it fails to account for the defined meaning of the word "commerce" at the time the Constitution was written. There are lots of references, some within the document itself, which clarify the intent of the word.

Here's a fairly concise article siting a few:
Does the ‘Interstate Commerce’ clause authorize congress to force us to buy health insurance?



What we saw with Wickard was coercion. That, and a deliberate twisting of the meaning of "commerce" which did not take into account the intent of the framers of our Constitution. It was wrong then. It's still wrong now.

And rather than correct that particular piece of tyranny... our current Congress seeks to expand upon it.. They refuse to utilize the correct and legal means of changing the Constitution through the amendment process because Democracy means NOTHING to modern-day "Democrats". If it did, they'd go after the broad consensus of two-thirds legislature and three-quarters of States on Obamacare. But instead, they smuggle their liberty-killing, illegal, power-grab through the back door of the Capitol Building, because they KNOW we don't want it.

 

[Murf76]

The constitution is said to be the instrument of our freedoms but how is this possible when most constitutions that are written state the functions of government such as deciding term limits for public officials, what is considered a majority, under what circumstances can money be spent, and other mundane boring things that have nothing to do with the personal lives of individual citizens.

Further, it is possible to write into any constitution something that would remove someone's rights just as it can have things that protect someone's rights (like the first amendment). This means a constitution can do great harm or do great good and makes the concept of a constitution neither a force for human rights or a force for tyranny but a lifeless legal document that states the rules that a government functions by.

Since a constitution is nothing more than a glorified charter for the government it must suggest that our rights do not come from a constitution since any action, including ones that might violate our rights, it can legally take would still be constitutionally legal for that government.

This means that a constitution does not embody our rights since free and unregulated people create constitutions that establishes a government so it is impossible for any constitution to grant any additional freedoms that the same people did not have before they created it.

People often misuse the word "rights" in order to force their own agenda upon other people. The way I look at it...an imposition upon the natural rights of one citizen for the benefit of another cannot be justified. That is, if we view natural rights as what we are able to provide for ourselves by virtue of being human animals without imposing upon the right of our fellow citizens to do the same.

People these days, commonly refer to things like healthcare and education as "rights". But really, we are not self-fruitful in these things. They are dependent upon the labor or property (money) of other citizens. So, when you follow the line of thought concerning government-granted "rights" out to the worst case scenario... you'll find conscription of labor and property to the detriment of some citizens for the benefit of others. Natural rights are impeded. Equality is destroyed.

 

[ihopehefails]

The fact is that we do not have a "living constitution", it is a written document, and as such, it means the same today as when it was written.

The document changes in meaning as the country changes in politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc.

I would like to know how the meaning of any contract signed or any legal document in existence gets re-imagined over time. The people signed the constitution believing it meant something and then it gets changed. I think if a car salesmen told me that the contract I signed with him changed because of "politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc" I would ask was anything altered in the contract. I would then wonder why the contract is getting changed even though it was the same words as the contract I signed.

I wonder the same thing with the constitution since it to is legal document signed with certain implied meanings between the signees and the signors just like any other legal contract. This is why the document does not change "meaning" because the signors were all told this is what this means and it would be fraud for someone to alter that meaning after it was signed.

 

[antagon]

The fact is that we do not have a "living constitution", it is a written document, and as such, it means the same today as when it was written.

The document changes in meaning as the country changes in politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc.

I would like to know how the meaning of any contract signed or any legal document in existence gets re-imagined over time. The people signed the constitution believing it meant something and then it gets changed. I think if a car salesmen told me that the contract I signed with him changed because of "politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc" I would ask was anything altered in the contract. I would then wonder why the contract is getting changed even though it was the same words as the contract I signed.

I wonder the same thing with the constitution since it to is legal document signed with certain implied meanings between the signees and the signors just like any other legal contract. This is why the document does not change "meaning" because the signors were all told this is what this means and it would be fraud for someone to alter that meaning after it was signed.

living constitution is a hated term, but it refers to the inevitable subjectivity of any document over time when held to application by people in the distant future. look at the bible: there are fundamentalists and papists and other hard-liners and soft-liners. while the bibles they use are relatively the same, the interpretations create appreciably different faiths.

back to the constitution, just this debate over the meaning and the intent of the constitution has it painted in a number of ways. the justices and lawmakers have shaped its interpretation through their work. can anyone deny that? you want to say general welfare is not an ambiguous term with broad subjective potential?

the living constitution arguement is a semantic debate which could be satisfied by pointing out it is affected by the living, notwithstanding the ink and paper being inanimate.

 

[ihopehefails]

The constitution is said to be the instrument of our freedoms but how is this possible when most constitutions that are written state the functions of government such as deciding term limits for public officials, what is considered a majority, under what circumstances can money be spent, and other mundane boring things that have nothing to do with the personal lives of individual citizens.

Further, it is possible to write into any constitution something that would remove someone's rights just as it can have things that protect someone's rights (like the first amendment). This means a constitution can do great harm or do great good and makes the concept of a constitution neither a force for human rights or a force for tyranny but a lifeless legal document that states the rules that a government functions by.

Since a constitution is nothing more than a glorified charter for the government it must suggest that our rights do not come from a constitution since any action, including ones that might violate our rights, it can legally take would still be constitutionally legal for that government.

This means that a constitution does not embody our rights since free and unregulated people create constitutions that establishes a government so it is impossible for any constitution to grant any additional freedoms that the same people did not have before they created it.

People often misuse the word "rights" in order to force their own agenda upon other people. The way I look at it...an imposition upon the natural rights of one citizen for the benefit of another cannot be justified. That is, if we view natural rights as what we are able to provide for ourselves by virtue of being human animals without imposing upon the right of our fellow citizens to do the same.

People these days, commonly refer to things like healthcare and education as "rights". But really, we are not self-fruitful in these things. They are dependent upon the labor or property (money) of other citizens. So, when you follow the line of thought concerning government-granted "rights" out to the worst case scenario... you'll find conscription of labor and property to the detriment of some citizens for the benefit of others. Natural rights are impeded. Equality is destroyed.

This is what I was referring to. I was referring to rights that exist outside of law and are independent of the government or natural rights as some would like to call them. Most people thought I was talking about your legal rights which is the things the government allows you to do but they failed to realize the separation between legal rights and rights attached to your person (the worst part is that they assume that legal rights and natural rights are identical to each other).

These rights have two conditions that have to be met and that is is that they can be restrained by a third party's action and can not be created by a third party. A good example is someone's right to speak freely. My ability to communicate by whatever ability I have is not something that is created outside of me but is created by my own being but it can be restrained by a third party such as the government.

My right to a possession is not something that is created by me unless it is my own body such as an organ. It has to be created by another. The person who can create their own healthcare has an inalienable right to it but no one can create their own healthcare so they have to use their inalienable right to property such as money and tools to create a new piece of property known as healthcare. They then can transfer their right of property over their healthcare to another which is done by performing a checkup via a doctor's visit (or some other medial practice).

 

[Murf76]

.... the justices and lawmakers have shaped its interpretation through their work. can anyone deny that? you want to say general welfare is not an ambiguous term with broad subjective potential?

the living constitution arguement is a semantic debate which could be satisfied by pointing out it is affected by the living, notwithstanding the ink and paper being inanimate.

To replace Law with an arbitary "interpretation" of law... is not law.

By your math, I could "interpret" YOU as being a cabbage. It doesn't mean you ARE a cabbage though, does it?

Either words mean something or they don't. And, as Ihopehefails points out, a contract must deal with the meaning of words at the time of the signing as an indicator that all parties involved understand their agreement thus making the agreement a legal and binding one.

And yes... the words "General Welfare" were quite ambiguous at the time. That's WHY there are many writings by the framers meant to clarify the meaning and WHY the 10th Amendment was included in The Bill of Rights. So, while those words might have been considered ambiguous before ratification, they certainly shouldn't have lost a day in ambiguity since.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
--James Madison

 

[ihopehefails]

The document changes in meaning as the country changes in politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc.

I would like to know how the meaning of any contract signed or any legal document in existence gets re-imagined over time. The people signed the constitution believing it meant something and then it gets changed. I think if a car salesmen told me that the contract I signed with him changed because of "politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc" I would ask was anything altered in the contract. I would then wonder why the contract is getting changed even though it was the same words as the contract I signed.

I wonder the same thing with the constitution since it to is legal document signed with certain implied meanings between the signees and the signors just like any other legal contract. This is why the document does not change "meaning" because the signors were all told this is what this means and it would be fraud for someone to alter that meaning after it was signed.

living constitution is a hated term, but it refers to the inevitable subjectivity of any document over time when held to application by people in the distant future. look at the bible: there are fundamentalists and papists and other hard-liners and soft-liners. while the bibles they use are relatively the same, the interpretations create appreciably different faiths.

back to the constitution, just this debate over the meaning and the intent of the constitution has it painted in a number of ways. the justices and lawmakers have shaped its interpretation through their work. can anyone deny that? you want to say general welfare is not an ambiguous term with broad subjective potential?

the living constitution arguement is a semantic debate which could be satisfied by pointing out it is affected by the living, notwithstanding the ink and paper being inanimate.

No one ever considers if the law gets shaped incorrectly and assumes that whatever shape it is in at any given moment in history is correct. This implies that any shape, any meaning, and any form is the correct form. This could be correct but if so what would be the point of writing anything at all. Wouldn't it been more efficient for the writers of the constitution just to sign blank parchments and let the the living document grow over time to take whatever shape it wants.

Those who wrote the constitution wrote precise words with static meanings that were meant to embody the meaning of the constitution. The meaning of those words shaped the constitution into something that the signers would want because another constitution, known as the articles of confederation, was rejected based on the meaning the words conveyed to them. They chose the current constitution based on its meaning not on what it might mean someday in the future. This makes the constitution a static document.

Any yes, legal documents do get interpreted differently over time but this is done mainly because of human error and the living constitution theory seems to imply that all interpretations are correct which can't be true.

 

[Murf76]

The constitution is said to be the instrument of our freedoms but how is this possible when most constitutions that are written state the functions of government such as deciding term limits for public officials, what is considered a majority, under what circumstances can money be spent, and other mundane boring things that have nothing to do with the personal lives of individual citizens.

Further, it is possible to write into any constitution something that would remove someone's rights just as it can have things that protect someone's rights (like the first amendment). This means a constitution can do great harm or do great good and makes the concept of a constitution neither a force for human rights or a force for tyranny but a lifeless legal document that states the rules that a government functions by.

Since a constitution is nothing more than a glorified charter for the government it must suggest that our rights do not come from a constitution since any action, including ones that might violate our rights, it can legally take would still be constitutionally legal for that government.

This means that a constitution does not embody our rights since free and unregulated people create constitutions that establishes a government so it is impossible for any constitution to grant any additional freedoms that the same people did not have before they created it.

People often misuse the word "rights" in order to force their own agenda upon other people. The way I look at it...an imposition upon the natural rights of one citizen for the benefit of another cannot be justified. That is, if we view natural rights as what we are able to provide for ourselves by virtue of being human animals without imposing upon the right of our fellow citizens to do the same.

People these days, commonly refer to things like healthcare and education as "rights". But really, we are not self-fruitful in these things. They are dependent upon the labor or property (money) of other citizens. So, when you follow the line of thought concerning government-granted "rights" out to the worst case scenario... you'll find conscription of labor and property to the detriment of some citizens for the benefit of others. Natural rights are impeded. Equality is destroyed.

This is what I was referring to. I was referring to rights that exist outside of law and are independent of the government or natural rights as some would like to call them. Most people thought I was talking about your legal rights which is the things the government allows you to do but they failed to realize the separation between legal rights and rights attached to your person (the worst part is that they assume that legal rights and natural rights are identical to each other).

These rights have two conditions that have to be met and that is is that they can be restrained by a third party's action and can not be created by a third party. A good example is someone's right to speak freely. My ability to communicate by whatever ability I have is not something that is created outside of me but is created by my own being but it can be restrained by a third party such as the government.

My right to a possession is not something that is created by me unless it is my own body such as an organ. It has to be created by another. The person who can create their own healthcare has an inalienable right to it but no one can create their own healthcare so they have to use their inalienable right to property such as money and tools to create a new piece of property known as healthcare. They then can transfer their right of property over their healthcare to another which is done by performing a checkup via a doctor's visit (or some other medial practice).

Overall, I'm in firm agreement, but I'd differ by saying that your right to a possession is certainly yours if the possession is something you created or bought with your own "created" wealth. IOW, the possession or the wealth did not exist before YOU brought it into being. So, who has a right to take it from you save by "right of might", which is uncivilized and unlawful?

If you imagine citizens being each surrounded by a bubble encompassing their unalianable rights, impositions are easy to see. What blows my mind is that we can teach little children the basics of "personal space" and the wrong of invading it. But we can't expect as much from Ivy League-trained politicians in Washington.

 

[ihopehefails]

The document changes in meaning as the country changes in politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc.

I would like to know how the meaning of any contract signed or any legal document in existence gets re-imagined over time. The people signed the constitution believing it meant something and then it gets changed. I think if a car salesmen told me that the contract I signed with him changed because of "politics, economy, culture, religious attitude or lack of it, sexism, racism, globalism, etc" I would ask was anything altered in the contract. I would then wonder why the contract is getting changed even though it was the same words as the contract I signed.

I wonder the same thing with the constitution since it to is legal document signed with certain implied meanings between the signees and the signors just like any other legal contract. This is why the document does not change "meaning" because the signors were all told this is what this means and it would be fraud for someone to alter that meaning after it was signed.

living constitution is a hated term, but it refers to the inevitable subjectivity of any document over time when held to application by people in the distant future. look at the bible: there are fundamentalists and papists and other hard-liners and soft-liners. while the bibles they use are relatively the same, the interpretations create appreciably different faiths.

back to the constitution, just this debate over the meaning and the intent of the constitution has it painted in a number of ways. the justices and lawmakers have shaped its interpretation through their work. can anyone deny that? you want to say general welfare is not an ambiguous term with broad subjective potential?

the living constitution arguement is a semantic debate which could be satisfied by pointing out it is affected by the living, notwithstanding the ink and paper being inanimate.

Are you aware of the perfect inch? Its the perfect inch that exits and where the length of every other inch is compared to in order to see if it is an inch. Since all other inches are going to have some degree of human measuring error it can be said that all inches measured are not a perfect inch. You can say that all inches measured are affected by the living but does this make all inches measured an actual inch since they are not perfect inches? Of course not, but they do attempt to mimic the perfect inch so and all imperfect inches are just errors in measurement and those imperfect inches can not be used to compare all other inches to.

This makes the original meaning of the constitution the perfect constitution in which we are to compare all other interpretations to in order to see how correct those interpretations are. The incorrect interpretations are not to be treated as the perfect interpretation since that interpretation only tries to be the perfect interpretation itself. It is the one true meaning of the constitution that we should seek just like a carpenter that measures out an inch seeks the one true measurement of an inch in order to be accurate.

 

[ihopehefails]

People often misuse the word "rights" in order to force their own agenda upon other people. The way I look at it...an imposition upon the natural rights of one citizen for the benefit of another cannot be justified. That is, if we view natural rights as what we are able to provide for ourselves by virtue of being human animals without imposing upon the right of our fellow citizens to do the same.

People these days, commonly refer to things like healthcare and education as "rights". But really, we are not self-fruitful in these things. They are dependent upon the labor or property (money) of other citizens. So, when you follow the line of thought concerning government-granted "rights" out to the worst case scenario... you'll find conscription of labor and property to the detriment of some citizens for the benefit of others. Natural rights are impeded. Equality is destroyed.

This is what I was referring to. I was referring to rights that exist outside of law and are independent of the government or natural rights as some would like to call them. Most people thought I was talking about your legal rights which is the things the government allows you to do but they failed to realize the separation between legal rights and rights attached to your person (the worst part is that they assume that legal rights and natural rights are identical to each other).

These rights have two conditions that have to be met and that is is that they can be restrained by a third party's action and can not be created by a third party. A good example is someone's right to speak freely. My ability to communicate by whatever ability I have is not something that is created outside of me but is created by my own being but it can be restrained by a third party such as the government.

My right to a possession is not something that is created by me unless it is my own body such as an organ. It has to be created by another. The person who can create their own healthcare has an inalienable right to it but no one can create their own healthcare so they have to use their inalienable right to property such as money and tools to create a new piece of property known as healthcare. They then can transfer their right of property over their healthcare to another which is done by performing a checkup via a doctor's visit (or some other medial practice).

Overall, I'm in firm agreement, but I'd differ by saying that your right to a possession is certainly yours if the possession is something you created or bought with your own "created" wealth. IOW, the possession or the wealth did not exist before YOU brought it into being. So, who has a right to take it from you save by "right of might", which is uncivilized and unlawful?

If you imagine citizens being each surrounded by a bubble encompassing their unalianable rights, impositions are easy to see. What blows my mind is that we can teach little children the basics of "personal space" and the wrong of invading it. But we can't expect as much from Ivy League-trained politicians in Washington.

I agree that people have a right to property but how does that right exist exaclty? Is the right to any piece of property inalienable or is it the right to give and recieve property to one person or the other for whatever reason you want inalienable?

The right to healthcare exists as a mutual choice between two people because anyone has the right to receive it but in order to get something someone else must use their right to give something to another person. This makes right to any piece of property the mutual free choice between two people and not a choice of one person to demand it from another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ihhf, your argument is inconsistent, in that the most consistent fact in the universe is change. Either the constitution can change with the universe, or it will soon die. This is not 1791.

 

[ihopehefails]

ihhf, your argument is inconsistent, in that the most consistent fact in the universe is change. Either the constitution can change with the universe, or it will soon die. This is not 1791.

In what way?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Technology, globalization, shrinking of time and geography in terms of travel, diversity and inclusion and end of slavery, growth and decay of the modern city, and so many more. All of them affect how the constitution is understood.