Constitution: Missing in Action

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,863
60,200
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. ‘Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

a. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.

b. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

c. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist No.78, it is the duty of judges “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”





2. “ Charles Evans Hughes, who would later become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, famously said about a century ago that the Constitution is “what the judges say it is.” Since judges cannot change the words of the Constitution, Hughes was really saying what today seems to be widely accepted, that the Constitution means whatever judges say it means. But if Hughes was right, then judges in effect become the Constitution and judicial review means that statutes must yield to judges.” What Is the Constitution? - By Orrin Hatch - The Corner - National Review Online

a. “A century before Hughes, Chief Justice John Marshall offered the opposite view in Marbury v. Madison, the case often credited with establishing judicial review. Marshall wrote that we have a written Constitution so that the limits on government power “may not be mistaken, or forgotten” and that the Constitution is “a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Ibid.




3. So….what has happened?
Contemptible reprobates have lied about jurists who would support the Constitution, and, instead, installed lap-dogs of the Left who ravaged our heritage. An example by a murdering, treasonous scum:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Kennedy, Bork and the Politics of Judicial Destruction - NYTimes.com



4. When the American public was unable to see through this calumny, and slander, …the end of the Constitution, and of the American republic was writ large.
 
[Chief Justice John] Marshall wrote that the Constitution represents “the intention of the people.” Intention is expressed through the meaning, not merely the form, of words. The Constitution cannot be the intention of the people if all the people did was choose some words without meaning. The Constitution could not continue to be the intention of the people if its meaning could be changed by anyone but the people. Op.Cit.
 
Article 5 provides for formal changes to the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

A formal change to the Consitution involves actually changing the wording of the document itself and can only be accomplished through the process of Constitutional Amendment as set forth in Article 5, above.

The meaning of specific Constitutional phrases (as opposed to the actual wording of the document) can be changed informally by way of judicial interpretation.

When the Judicial Branch makes a decision in a court case, it explains what the words in the Constitution mean. This method of changing the Constitution informally is judicial interpretation. If the Judicial Branch makes a decision on whether the actions of the President are legal or if the laws passed by Congress are constitutional, it is judicial review. The concept of judicial review is an example of judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court established the concept of judicial review for itself in the case of Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution does not specifically give this power to the Supreme Court but the decision established that authority and it is the major check the Supreme Court has on the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch.

There are other ways of changing the meaning of the Constitution informally. It can also be changed by presidential practice or custom and usage.

Quoted portions from:

The Constitution
 
Last edited:
Article 5 provides for formal changes to the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

A formal change to the Consitution involves actually changing the wording of the document itself and can only be accomplished through the process of Constitutional Amendment as set forth in Article 5, above.

The meaning of specific Constitutional phrases (as opposed to the actual wording of the document) can be changed informally by way of judicial interpretation.

When the Judicial Branch makes a decision in a court case, it explains what the words in the Constitution mean. This method of changing the Constitution informally is judicial interpretation. If the Judicial Branch makes a decision on whether the actions of the President are legal or if the laws passed by Congress are constitutional, it is judicial review. The concept of judicial review is an example of judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court established the concept of judicial review for itself in the case of Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution does not specifically give this power to the Supreme Court but the decision established that authority and it is the major check the Supreme Court has on the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch.

There are other ways of changing the meaning of the Constitution informally. It can also be changed by presidential practice or custom and usage.

Quoted portions from:

The Constitution



1. Georgie....to what do you believe you are responding?


Certainly you understand that my point is that the amendment process is the only basis for either changing the Constitution....

...and not finding imaginary 'penumbras'?




2. "There are other ways of changing the meaning of the Constitution informally. It can also be changed by presidential practice or custom and usage."

No it cannot.
Each of your prescriptions is illegal.



3. "When the Judicial Branch makes a decision in a court case, it explains what the words in the Constitution mean. This method of changing the Constitution informally is judicial interpretation."

Totally false...but consistent with the teaching of progressive ideology.



What is the fear progressives have of actually using the amendment process?
I know....do you?

It is fear of the will of the people.
This is the case with every Leftist regime.....communist, socialist, nazi, liberal, progressive...whatever the nom de jure.



I hope you have time to take a look at this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-why-lawyers-don-t-understand-law-part-i.html
 
Last edited:
Certainly you understand that my point is that the amendment process is the only basis for either changing the Constitution....

...and not finding imaginary 'penumbras'?

Why are penumbras any less valid than an imaginary "originalism"? The theory presumes that all the Founders originally thought the same thing, an argument the borders on statistical impossibility.
 
Certainly you understand that my point is that the amendment process is the only basis for either changing the Constitution....

...and not finding imaginary 'penumbras'?

Why are penumbras any less valid than an imaginary "originalism"? The theory presumes that all the Founders originally thought the same thing, an argument the borders on statistical impossibility.

See, here's the prob, konny......

...this tread is really meant for folks who understand the concepts involved.

Originalism isn't imaginary: penumbras within the Constitution are.


OK?


Now, you go on back out to play, and I 'll let you know when it's dinner time.
 
Certainly you understand that my point is that the amendment process is the only basis for either changing the Constitution....

...and not finding imaginary 'penumbras'?

Why are penumbras any less valid than an imaginary "originalism"? The theory presumes that all the Founders originally thought the same thing, an argument the borders on statistical impossibility.

See, here's the prob, konny......

...this tread is really meant for folks who understand the concepts involved.

Originalism isn't imaginary: penumbras within the Constitution are.

You started a thread in which you purportedly excluded yourself? With which alternate personality am I corresponding? :cool:
 
Why are penumbras any less valid than an imaginary "originalism"? The theory presumes that all the Founders originally thought the same thing, an argument the borders on statistical impossibility.

See, here's the prob, konny......

...this tread is really meant for folks who understand the concepts involved.

Originalism isn't imaginary: penumbras within the Constitution are.

You started a thread in which you purportedly excluded yourself? With which alternate personality am I corresponding? :cool:



That's kinda like '...so are you....'


Sort of proves my point.
 
1. ‘Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

a. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.

b. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

c. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist No.78, it is the duty of judges “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”





2. “ Charles Evans Hughes, who would later become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, famously said about a century ago that the Constitution is “what the judges say it is.” Since judges cannot change the words of the Constitution, Hughes was really saying what today seems to be widely accepted, that the Constitution means whatever judges say it means. But if Hughes was right, then judges in effect become the Constitution and judicial review means that statutes must yield to judges.” What Is the Constitution? - By Orrin Hatch - The Corner - National Review Online

a. “A century before Hughes, Chief Justice John Marshall offered the opposite view in Marbury v. Madison, the case often credited with establishing judicial review. Marshall wrote that we have a written Constitution so that the limits on government power “may not be mistaken, or forgotten” and that the Constitution is “a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Ibid.




3. So….what has happened?
Contemptible reprobates have lied about jurists who would support the Constitution, and, instead, installed lap-dogs of the Left who ravaged our heritage. An example by a murdering, treasonous scum:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Kennedy, Bork and the Politics of Judicial Destruction - NYTimes.com



4. When the American public was unable to see through this calumny, and slander, …the end of the Constitution, and of the American republic was writ large.

"Philosophy of law (or legal philosophy) is concerned with providing a general philosophical analysis of law and legal institutions. Issues in the field range from abstract conceptual questions about the nature of law and legal systems to normative questions about the relationship between law and morality and the justification for various legal institutions.

"Topics in legal philosophy tend to be more abstract than related topics in political philosophy and applied ethics. For example, whereas the question of how properly to interpret the U.S. Constitution belongs to democratic theory (and hence falls under the heading of political philosophy), the analysis of legal interpretation falls under the heading of legal philosophy. Likewise, whereas the question of whether capital punishment is morally permissible falls under the heading of applied ethics, the question of whether the institution of punishment can be justified falls under the heading of legal philosophy."

Link: Law, Philosophy of [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Your efforts to simplify a complex and controversial issue to support your generally radical world view is 'interesting'.
 
1. Georgie....to what do you believe you are responding?


Certainly you understand that my point is that the amendment process is the only basis for either changing the Constitution....

...and not finding imaginary 'penumbras'?

It depends on what you mean by "changing." While it is true that the only way to change the actual wording of the Constitution is by way of constitutional amendment, it is also true that the meaning of specific phrases in the Constitution can be changed by judicial interpretation.

And changing the meaning of a phrase can have the same effect as changing the actual wording.

2. "There are other ways of changing the meaning of the Constitution informally. It can also be changed by presidential practice or custom and usage."

No it cannot.
Each of your prescriptions is illegal.

Well, you can claim anything you want, I suppose, but the FACT is that the meaning of the Constitution CAN be changed by either presidential practice or custom and usage.

3. "When the Judicial Branch makes a decision in a court case, it explains what the words in the Constitution mean. This method of changing the Constitution informally is judicial interpretation."

Totally false...but consistent with the teaching of progressive ideology.

I understand you don't agree with this, but your not agreeing with it does not mean that it isn't a fact. Once again, you can say the blue wall is painted red all you want, but it's still a blue wall.

What is the fear progressives have of actually using the amendment process?
I know....do you?

It is fear of the will of the people.
This is the case with every Leftist regime.....communist, socialist, nazi, liberal, progressive...whatever the nom de jure.

I don't know what you are talking about here or what you mean by "progressives."
I personally have no objection whatsoever to the formal amendment process. Not sure where you are trying to go here unless it is trying to justify imposing the will of the majority over the minority in matters of fundamental right. I do have objection to that but few intelligent people would not.



I hope so too.
 
Last edited:
There are other ways of changing the meaning of the Constitution informally. It can also be changed by presidential practice or custom and usage.http://socsci.gulfcoast.edu/dreese/constitu.htm
Oh, so if there was a "Presidential Practice" of throwing people in Jail without Due Process you'd be OK with that?

Of course not. In fact, I'm not really sure what the linked article in my original post on this thread means by that. Prior to looking into this issue, I was totally unaware of changing constitutional provisions by way of presidential practice. It doesn't sound too good though, does it?
 
1. Georgie....to what do you believe you are responding?


Certainly you understand that my point is that the amendment process is the only basis for either changing the Constitution....

...and not finding imaginary 'penumbras'?

It depends on what you mean by "changing." While it is true that the only way to change the actual wording of the Constitution is by way of constitutional amendment, it is also true that the meaning of specific phrases in the Constitution can be changed by judicial interpretation.

And changing the meaning of a phrase can have the same effect as changing the actual wording.

2. "There are other ways of changing the meaning of the Constitution informally. It can also be changed by presidential practice or custom and usage."

No it cannot.
Each of your prescriptions is illegal.

Well, you can claim anything you want, I suppose, but the FACT is that the meaning of the Constitution CAN be changed by either presidential practice or custom and usage.



I understand you don't agree with this, but your not agreeing with it does not mean that it isn't a fact. Once again, you can say the blue wall is painted red all you want, but it's still a blue wall.

What is the fear progressives have of actually using the amendment process?
I know....do you?

It is fear of the will of the people.
This is the case with every Leftist regime.....communist, socialist, nazi, liberal, progressive...whatever the nom de jure.

I don't know what you are talking about here or what you mean by "progressives."
I personally have no objection whatsoever to the formal amendment process. Not sure where you are trying to go here unless it is trying to justify imposing the will of the majority over the minority in matters of fundamental right. I do have objection to that but few intelligent people would not.



I hope so too.



"I understand you don't agree with this, but your not agreeing with it does not mean that it isn't a fact. Once again, you can say the blue wall is painted red all you want, but it's still a blue wall."


I hope you realize that this statement applies, as well, to your position.


The Constitution is the only contract that the people of the United States conseneted to be governed by.

The Founders gave the method by which it could be changes.

No other.

No judge....no President....no commission nor agency.
 
"I understand you don't agree with this, but your not agreeing with it does not mean that it isn't a fact. Once again, you can say the blue wall is painted red all you want, but it's still a blue wall."


I hope you realize that this statement applies, as well, to your position.

Yes, of course - except my position is verifiable; yours is not. Go back to my post and click on the link I have at the bottom for the source of the quoted portions.


The Constitution is the only contract that the people of the United States consented to be governed by.

The Founders gave the method by which it could be changes.

No judge....no President....no commission nor agency.

No other.

Correct. But read Marbury v. Madison.
 
"I understand you don't agree with this, but your not agreeing with it does not mean that it isn't a fact. Once again, you can say the blue wall is painted red all you want, but it's still a blue wall."


I hope you realize that this statement applies, as well, to your position.

Yes, of course - except my position is verifiable; yours is not. Go back to my post and click on the link I have at the bottom for the source of the quoted portions.


The Constitution is the only contract that the people of the United States consented to be governed by.

The Founders gave the method by which it could be changes.

No judge....no President....no commission nor agency.

No other.

Correct. But read Marbury v. Madison.



" ...my position is verifiable; yours is not."

Nonsense.
Self-serving nonsense.

Here....let's try facts.


"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])"
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


No judge, no President, no agency nor commission may legally change or insert anything in the Constitution.


So...what is this bogus " ...my position is verifiable; yours is not."
I just verified my position.

Now....to explain yours:
Wishing so very hard for the case law system.....in which every judicial decision alters the Constitution in increments...to be honored as true.....

...lawyers shut their eyes really, really tight....and pretend infallibility, pretend that the following is not the case:

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislature of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."
Source(s):
the Constitution

Not 'may'.....shall.
No other way.

Not by consensus...or agreement to change it.....or by sleight of hand.

Your belief provides personal security, reinforcement in the profession....
...just not legality.


In fact, your post proves the OP: lawyers do not understand the law of the land...the United States Constitution....
...or, at least, pretend not to.
 
"I understand you don't agree with this, but your not agreeing with it does not mean that it isn't a fact. Once again, you can say the blue wall is painted red all you want, but it's still a blue wall."


I hope you realize that this statement applies, as well, to your position.

Yes, of course - except my position is verifiable; yours is not. Go back to my post and click on the link I have at the bottom for the source of the quoted portions.


The Constitution is the only contract that the people of the United States consented to be governed by.

The Founders gave the method by which it could be changes.

No judge....no President....no commission nor agency.

No other.

Correct. But read Marbury v. Madison.


"Correct. But read Marbury v. Madison"



“Chief Justice John Marshall offered [this] in Marbury v. Madison, the case often credited with establishing judicial review. Marshall wrote that we have a written Constitution so that the limits on government power “may not be mistaken, or forgotten” and that the Constitution is “a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Judges are part of the government…Marshall wrote that the Constitution represents “the intention of the people.” Intention is expressed through the meaning, not merely the form, of words. …The Constitution could not continue to be the intention of the people if its meaning could be changed by anyone but the people. Quoting George Washington, the Rhode Island Constitution declares that
What Is the Constitution? - By Orrin Hatch - The Corner - National Review Online
What Is the Constitution? - By Orrin Hatch - The Corner - National Review Online



"Marshall wrote that we have a written Constitution so that the limits on government power “may not be mistaken, or forgotten”

Written...so that it would serve as the rule.


“may not be mistaken, or forgotten”

So, which is it Georgie.....have you mistaken the amendment process....or forgotten it?



“the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

That last part..."all"....includes lawyers.
 
1. ‘Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

a. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.

b. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

c. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist No.78, it is the duty of judges “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”





2. “ Charles Evans Hughes, who would later become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, famously said about a century ago that the Constitution is “what the judges say it is.” Since judges cannot change the words of the Constitution, Hughes was really saying what today seems to be widely accepted, that the Constitution means whatever judges say it means. But if Hughes was right, then judges in effect become the Constitution and judicial review means that statutes must yield to judges.” What Is the Constitution? - By Orrin Hatch - The Corner - National Review Online

a. “A century before Hughes, Chief Justice John Marshall offered the opposite view in Marbury v. Madison, the case often credited with establishing judicial review. Marshall wrote that we have a written Constitution so that the limits on government power “may not be mistaken, or forgotten” and that the Constitution is “a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Ibid.




3. So….what has happened?
Contemptible reprobates have lied about jurists who would support the Constitution, and, instead, installed lap-dogs of the Left who ravaged our heritage. An example by a murdering, treasonous scum:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Kennedy, Bork and the Politics of Judicial Destruction - NYTimes.com



4. When the American public was unable to see through this calumny, and slander, …the end of the Constitution, and of the American republic was writ large.

PC, I understand your line of thought here. Are you thinking about anything particular?

I have an urge to say while I love the idea of universal paying for he socialist healthcare system we've had since WWII, it should require.a.Constitutional Convention.

Same with that ability to declare war Presidents have obtained (you hear me Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and Bush II!). Well in effect if not in name.

With current events I am urged to read the 2nd Ammendment more conservatively and give guns just to those in the Nation Guard, or does it mean registered for the draft? WTH, poor diction on the founder's part. So we look at how they treated gun rights for a clue to what they meant?

Perhaps I am trying to make a general topic too specific.
 
1. ‘Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

a. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.

b. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

c. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist No.78, it is the duty of judges “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”





2. “ Charles Evans Hughes, who would later become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, famously said about a century ago that the Constitution is “what the judges say it is.” Since judges cannot change the words of the Constitution, Hughes was really saying what today seems to be widely accepted, that the Constitution means whatever judges say it means. But if Hughes was right, then judges in effect become the Constitution and judicial review means that statutes must yield to judges.” What Is the Constitution? - By Orrin Hatch - The Corner - National Review Online

a. “A century before Hughes, Chief Justice John Marshall offered the opposite view in Marbury v. Madison, the case often credited with establishing judicial review. Marshall wrote that we have a written Constitution so that the limits on government power “may not be mistaken, or forgotten” and that the Constitution is “a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Ibid.




3. So….what has happened?
Contemptible reprobates have lied about jurists who would support the Constitution, and, instead, installed lap-dogs of the Left who ravaged our heritage. An example by a murdering, treasonous scum:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Kennedy, Bork and the Politics of Judicial Destruction - NYTimes.com



4. When the American public was unable to see through this calumny, and slander, …the end of the Constitution, and of the American republic was writ large.

PC, I understand your line of thought here. Are you thinking about anything particular?

I have an urge to say while I love the idea of universal paying for he socialist healthcare system we've had since WWII, it should require.a.Constitutional Convention.

Same with that ability to declare war Presidents have obtained (you hear me Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and Bush II!). Well in effect if not in name.

With current events I am urged to read the 2nd Ammendment more conservatively and give guns just to those in the Nation Guard, or does it mean registered for the draft? WTH, poor diction on the founder's part. So we look at how they treated gun rights for a clue to what they meant?

Perhaps I am trying to make a general topic too specific.

How've you been, Toronado....haven't seen you in a while....

Two points, here.

1. If the Constitution had been treated as the 'law of the land,' the Imperial President, FDR, would not have been able to dabble in housing....clearly not his authority as per Article I, section 8. So...no Fannie or Freddie.....and, ultimately, no mortgage meltdown financial crisis.



2. "... guns just to those in the Nation Guard, ..."
This is an incorrect understanding of 'militia."

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)



You see....we have neither been true to the Constitution...nor have the elites gone to the people to change it in accordance with the law.

They have simply treated as are traffic lights in Rome: merely a suggestion.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top