Can a Constitution Destroy Our Rights?

[Murf76]

I agree that people have a right to property but how does that right exist exaclty?

The thing that stands out for me in contemplation of unalienable rights is the difference in outcome between when these rights are respected and when they are not. When people are respected in their natural rights, there's peace and harmony. When they are not, there's tumult and chaos.

Consider the error in our original constitution which allowed human beings to be deprived of these natural rights. This was a compromise done to bring slave-holding states to the table in an expedient manner. I imagine our framers thought it was a problem that could be solved later on down the pike after they got all the states on board. But this 'kicking of the can' was an affront to the meaning of the document itself, based as it was upon man's natural state of freedom. In depriving human beings of freedom, a state of peace and harmony could not exist, not for long anyway. On a large scale, the destabilizing influence of tyranny can thrust an entire society into chaos, as we've seen. We become less predictable animals.

On the smaller scale, if someone takes your property, the outcome of their action becomes variable as well. You might respond with legal recourse or you might respond with illegal violence. Human beings have the propensity for both reason and rage. But all in all, human nature becomes less predictable when wrongs are committed.

I think, it's probably not enough to try and define natural rights as simply what we're born with as human animals. In context, it's the absence of respect for these unalienable rights which determines whether human beings, social critters that we are, can actually maintain a functional, civilized society. And so, in absence, they further define themselves.

 

[beowolfe]

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.

And it took you how long to have this 'epiphany'?

 

[Murf76]

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.

The Constitution CAN change. It's called Article V.

Sheesh. How many times do we have to say it???
If you want socialized fucking medicine in the United States... you need an AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION which ENUMERATES that particular power to CONGRESS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Murf76, no, you don't. You don't get to be the final interpreter of the charter. I don't care if you don't like it, that's the way it is.

 

[Murf76]

Murf76, no, you don't. You don't get to be the final interpreter of the charter. I don't care if you don't like it, that's the way it is.

Oh... I'm not saying that Obama and his Merry Band of Looters won't pass their pile of shit. They probably will. But I, and others like me, WILL forever view it as arbitrary, baseless Law at the point of a gun. Tyranny.

We'll fight it in the courts and we'll fight it in the voting booth.... and we won't care if YOU like it. That's the way it is.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution CAN change. It's called Article V.

Sheesh. How many times do we have to say it???
If you want socialized fucking medicine in the United States... you need an AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION which ENUMERATES that particular power to CONGRESS.

Where in the Constitution does it require a particular economic system?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Murf76, no, you don't. You don't get to be the final interpreter of the charter. I don't care if you don't like it, that's the way it is.

Oh... I'm not saying that Obama and his Merry Band of Looters won't pass their pile of shit. They probably will. But I, and others like me, WILL forever view it as arbitrary, baseless Law at the point of a gun. Tyranny.

We'll fight it in the courts and we'll fight it in the voting booth.... and we won't care if YOU like it. That's the way it is.

Feisty. I like that. But you are right, that is the way we do it.

 

[Citizen]

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.

Granted the Constitution can change, and the method is clearly spelled out in Article 5, it is called Amendment, and the only way our Constitution can be changed is through Amendment, not interpretation.

 

[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.

Granted the Constitution can change, and the method is clearly spelled out in Article 5, it is called Amendment, and the only way our Constitution can be changed is through Amendment, not interpretation.

Go tell that to John Marshall, if you can find him, and all the members of the SC since then.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Considering the constitution states that GOD gives us our rights and not the government I would have to say the constitution can not take away our rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution can only protect them from government inteference.

Thus, an attempt to legislate public prayer in the public schools is patently unconstitutional.

However, creating a public option for health care is clearly not unconstitutional.

 

[Darkwind]

actually it restains governments interference in our INDIVIDUAL liberties...

That is correct. Our individual liberties means a U.S. Citizen.

you know, that whole waterboarding torture thingy...

As you said previously. Our individual rights. Those rights do not extend to enemies of our country trying to kill us.

and attempts to interfere with a woman's control over her own body...

Yes, because government should always kill the innocent for the convinces of someone else's life.

or consenting adults marrying whom they choose.

Of course. Because government should always be involved in our religious affairs.

so yeah, the government's been remiss ...

but don't worry... it's getting better.

oh...and there ISN'T any such thing as "rights" except as political philosophy... except for what the government you HATE will enforce.

In fact, it is getting worse. Government is to be restricted in all endeavors and given power only in the least amounts possible.

 

[ihopehefails]

The Constitution can only protect them from government inteference.

Thus, an attempt to legislate public prayer in the public schools is patently unconstitutional.

However, creating a public option for health care is clearly not unconstitutional.

A constitution only establishes the rules that a government will operate by and as long as the government operates by those rules it keeps the government from going any further than the people want it to. This prevents the government from interfering in their lives more than they actually want it to which is why government is limited to the constitution itself.

 

[antagon]

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.

nah. the original meaning of the constitution is subjective. whether the original meaning is the perfect meaning is a highly debated opinion. fail.

 

[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.

Considering the constitution states that GOD gives us our rights and not the government I would have to say the constitution can not take away our rights.

Yes. The only thing government and any constitutional or unconstitutional powers can do is use negative reinforcement like prison, fines, torture, etc, etc, and etc until we give up on executing our natural rights that God has given us.

I gave up on my right to drive faster than the legally posted speed limit a long time ago...

 

[antagon]

The Constitution can only protect them from government inteference.

Thus, an attempt to legislate public prayer in the public schools is patently unconstitutional.

However, creating a public option for health care is clearly not unconstitutional.

A constitution only establishes the rules that a government will operate by and as long as the government operates by those rules it keeps the government from going any further than the people want it to. This prevents the government from interfering in their lives more than they actually want it to which is why government is limited to the constitution itself.

youve got to say The Constitution. 'a constitution' does not have to have these virtues you attribute.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

nah. the original meaning of the constitution is subjective. whether the original meaning is the perfect meaning is a highly debated opinion. fail.

OK but then who is it subjective to? It must have had a subjective meaning to the people who signed it and the meaning that they thought it had was the reason they signed it because if it had a different meaning then they would not have signed it. That signature placed it into law and at that moment thus setting that meaning in stone forever until someone alters or abolishes the constitution.

 

[Murf76]

Where in the Constitution does it require a particular economic system?

Under Article I, Section 8, there are only 17 enumerated powers. And although the Constitution doesn't mention any specific "economic system"... I kind of doubt you'd be able to stretch those specific powers into any kind of meaningful collectivist economic system.

Once we've dispensed with the "Commerce Clause" and the "General Welfare Clause", and we have, there's not much to work with.

* To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
* To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
* To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
* To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
* To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
* To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
* To establish post offices and post roads;
* To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
* To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
* To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
* To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
* To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
* To provide and maintain a navy;
* To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
* To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
* To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
* To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles (16 km) square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.

I'd wish you "good luck with that"... but I think we both know I wouldn't mean it.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

nah. the original meaning of the constitution is subjective. whether the original meaning is the perfect meaning is a highly debated opinion. fail.

OK but then who is it subjective to? It must have had a subjective meaning to the people who signed it and the meaning that they thought it had was the reason they signed it because if it had a different meaning then they would not have signed it. That signature placed it into law and at that moment thus setting that meaning in stone forever until someone alters or abolishes the constitution.

That is correct. The Constitution really isn't that subjective in its interpretation. The meanings of the document are given over to what the signers of the document understood it to mean. That is to say, if the Founders believed that the Second Amendment said a thing a certain way, that is the way we must treat it.

 

[Murf76]

nah. the original meaning of the constitution is subjective. whether the original meaning is the perfect meaning is a highly debated opinion. fail.

Ihopehefails is right. If all words were subjective, there wouldn't BE a U.S. Constitution. There wouldn't be contracts. There wouldn't be laws.

The meaning of the language is well-supported by the writings of the era. Get yourself a copy of The Federalist Papers.