So...what currently is the Constitution in relation to the Federal Government?

[Liberty]

And is that the way it is supposed to be?

Those who pick option 3:
How do you explain American internment camps during the FDR days if that is true?

 

[Oddball]

It's a doormat.

 

[Paulie]

Last I had heard, it was just a god damned piece of paper.

 

[Dragon]

And is that the way it is supposed to be?

Those who pick option 3:
How do you explain American internment camps during the FDR days if that is true?

kind of a silly poll and a silly question.

How do I explain the concentration camps for Japanese-Americans? Simple: the system isn't perfect, especially in wartime, when passions run high. We had a blatant trespass against freedom of speech during World War I, too, and too many violations of the Bill of Rights by both sides during the Civil War to even list (both sides had the same BoR, of course).

It shouldn't have happened, it was surely against the constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans, and we live in an imperfect world. Sorry about that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That you made this a ‘poll’ is telling…

The Constitution authorizes the three branches of the Federal government to execute their respective duties as determined by the Supreme Court and expressed by Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.

The majority of this case law addresses the Legislative Branch, and what Congress may or many not do.

For example, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution (the ‘Commerce Clause&#8217 authorizes Congress to regulate wage and labor conditions for workers in the United States (see: US v. Darby (1941)). It authorizes Congress to regulate both inter- and intrastate commerce (see: Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)). And it authorizes Congress to regulate private business with regard to public accommodations (see: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)).

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence predicated on the doctrines of judicial review, judicial interpretation, and the rule of law.

 

[Liberty]

Clay, where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court has the power to define portions of the constitution? The commerce clause is meant to keep states/counties from putting tariffs on eachother...and you citing the supreme court as some sort of credible entity is ludicrous because the supreme court does not have the power to define portions of the constitution. if it does, cite in the constitution where it explicitly says that it does. please.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

 

[Oddball]

Clay, where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court has the power to define portions of the constitution? The commerce clause is meant to keep states/counties from putting tariffs on eachother...and you citing the supreme court as some sort of credible entity is ludicrous because the supreme court does not have the power to define portions of the constitution. if it does, cite in the constitution where it explicitly says that it does. please.

You'll get no colloquy with that insufferable dickweed.....He's strictly drive-by.

 

[Valox]

And is that the way it is supposed to be?

Those who pick option 3:
How do you explain American internment camps during the FDR days if that is true?

I most identify with option 3, but I am not a Constitutionalist. I like the spirit behind the BoR, but I am more of an Anti-Federalist.

FDR was a power hungry president who sought to expand his own powers numerous times, to the point of instituting violent racism on Americans. Where in the Constitution gave FDR the power to violently round up Americans simply because they had slanted eyes?

This is why I am not a Constitutionalists, since federal powers can bend it at their will. While I believe in the spirit of the BoR, I don't revere the Constitution or the federal government.

However, I strongly believe in the a priori truth of individual sovereignty and FDR clearly violated this principle and the spirit of the BoR.

 

[Liability]

 

[Billo_Really]

Constitution is null and void.

Compliments of the Patriot and Military Commission's Acts.

 

[usmcstinger]

Clay, where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court has the power to define portions of the constitution? The commerce clause is meant to keep states/counties from putting tariffs on eachother...and you citing the supreme court as some sort of credible entity is ludicrous because the supreme court does not have the power to define portions of the constitution. if it does, cite in the constitution where it explicitly says that it does. please.

US Constitution
ARTICLE III.
Section 2.

Spells out the role of the Supreme Court.
If you do not understand it, then you might look for some one who does.
Statements like this show how bad our education system has deteriorated.

 

[Liberty]

Clay, where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court has the power to define portions of the constitution? The commerce clause is meant to keep states/counties from putting tariffs on eachother...and you citing the supreme court as some sort of credible entity is ludicrous because the supreme court does not have the power to define portions of the constitution. if it does, cite in the constitution where it explicitly says that it does. please.

US Constitution
ARTICLE III.
Section 2.

Spells out the role of the Supreme Court.
If you do not understand it, then you might look for some one who does.
Statements like this show how bad our education system has deteriorated.

I understand it perfectly, idiot. But thanks for putting more weight behind my position since it is clear no where in Article III says anything about a power of the judicial branch to define or "interpret" anything in the constitution.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Both the Government and the Constitution come from human nature and people's inherent desire for control.

 

[whitehall]

The Constitution is the greatest document ever established in human history. It establishes rigid limitations on government power. God help us if the poll is typical of the mindset of victims of the sub-standard union based education system in the US.

 

[theunbubba]

And is that the way it is supposed to be?

Those who pick option 3:
How do you explain American internment camps during the FDR days if that is true?

Well, I chose 4 because of other things. But the question has an answer. The suspension of habeus corpus is an old time war powers thing extending back through even the Magna Carta. It's called natural law. The constitution is not a suicide pact.

The clarity of the poll question could be better but I will continue with my interpretation.
The government is a product of the constitution. The way it is right now isn't what was envisioned.
To wit:
The 16th and 17th amendments are anathema to freedom and state sovereignty. They were enacted in a time dominated by propagandists in control of the press rooms of our national news. At that time it was all newspapers.
The very idea that direct election of Senators cured any ills is proposterous. It only created more. The largest of which was granting foreign governments more influence in Washington than our own states.
The power to tax on the basis of income is dangerous in the fact that it creates an avenue in which the government may know your source of income and it's particular workings. Thus allowing cronies of powerful politicians to use the information against their competitors. These powers have created a situation in which foreign competition may bribe politicians against our national manufacturing industries and destroy our competitive ability.
This is what is happening in the oil business. We could have complete energy independence if not for foreign influence on our political process. A tax on imported oil would stop the OPEC nations from being able to hurt domestic production from wells and fields of marginal profitability. This can be a revenue neutral proposition. Tax foreign oil and lower taxes on domestic production and stabilise domestic prices. The less foreign oil WE use will leave more production for the rest of the world. Thus increasing world supply and lowering prices. A cut in the cost of energy will spur economic recovery.
But I'm getting off track.

This government is unduly influenced by foreign and business interests instead of the states themselves. This federal system was CREATED by the states, FOR the States, not for a national government bloated with power and money.

 

[theunbubba]

Clay, where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court has the power to define portions of the constitution? The commerce clause is meant to keep states/counties from putting tariffs on eachother...and you citing the supreme court as some sort of credible entity is ludicrous because the supreme court does not have the power to define portions of the constitution. if it does, cite in the constitution where it explicitly says that it does. please.

I think it's quite plain. First sentence.
Article III section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

What hasn't been happening is the congressional restraint of the Supreme Court that is stated in the last sentence quoted here. They DO have that power.

 

[Listening]

Both the Government and the Constitution come from human nature and people's inherent desire for control.

Sillyness.

The Constitution came about as a result of the desire of a people to band together for protection. However, they understood that the government they created had to be restricted which is what the Constitution was supposed to do.

Obama keeps saying he is a Constitutional Scholar.

I keep thinking he means the Constitution of Egypt...or The Congo....or Norway....

He sure as hell does not understand or know much about ours.