Studying the Constitution -- activating the brain before the mouth

[georgephillip]

Why bother studying the Constitution when the power elite have rendered it meaningless?

Possibly, because radical changes will have to be made to reform an 18th Century US Constitution?

"The Second Constitutional Convention of the United States is a proposal made by some scholars and activists[1] from both left and right[2] for a substantive effort to reform politics in the United States by means of overhauling the current United States Constitution.

"The current Constitution in Article V describes several ways in which the current constitution could be altered, but that in any event, three-fourths or 38 of the 50 states would be needed to ratify any changes."

Second Constitutional Convention of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[DGS49]

Here's some Social Security history for ya: The first generation to collect SS (my father's generation), and who lived long enough to collect it, made out like bandits. As always, the politicians sold it by collecting only a few shekels from people initially, with the promise that they wouldn't have to worry about it when the real bills came due. Sound familiar?

In any event, I was born in 1949, and have had roughly 14% of my gross income taken from me for my entire working life - half paid by me and the other half by my employer. I would GLADLY accept a refund of my contributions - along with interest and the growth that would have occurred with a DOW-indexed mutual fund, in exchange for the very speculative right to collect my monthly stipend from the day when I retire until I collect My Reward in Heaven.

By the by, Hamilton lost that argument, which is why Justice Roberts could not rely on the "general welfare" wording to justify what he did. Indeed, as I said above, had Hamilton won the argument, the case would never have come up.

 

[georgephillip]

Here's some Social Security history for ya: The first generation to collect SS (my father's generation), and who lived long enough to collect it, made out like bandits. As always, the politicians sold it by collecting only a few shekels from people initially, with the promise that they wouldn't have to worry about it when the real bills came due. Sound familiar?

In any event, I was born in 1949, and have had roughly 14% of my gross income taken from me for my entire working life - half paid by me and the other half by my employer. I would GLADLY accept a refund of my contributions - along with interest and the growth that would have occurred with a DOW-indexed mutual fund, in exchange for the very speculative right to collect my monthly stipend from the day when I retire until I collect My Reward in Heaven.

By the by, Hamilton lost that argument, which is why Justice Roberts could not rely on the "general welfare" wording to justify what he did. Indeed, as I said above, had Hamilton won the argument, the case would never have come up.

Some additional Social Security history for you...my grandmother was working when FDR initiated the program and refused to sign up due to her conservative values. When she stopped working, she also died penniless shortly thereafter. FWIW, I suspect Roberts and Obama are corporate tools in service to private insurance gangsters.

 

[whitehall]

Why accept the opinions of legal scholars? A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that turned freedom of religion on it's ear and created the modern version of "separation of church and state" that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Another legal genius found a right to privacy that didn't exist in the Constitution and opened the door to the "legal" murder of millions of full term infants who "legally" were not living humans because about four inches of their heads still remained in the birth canal while they were stabbed in the back of the head and a frankenstein machine sucked out their brains.

 

[Rotagilla]

The passage of the 14th Amendment, at bayonet point, was the end of the Constitution.

Precisely correct.

Not many people know about it and the ones who do usually don't want to discuss it.

 

[Rotagilla]

Exploring Constitutional Law

Excellent layman site for learning about the Constitution, its history, and major supreme court decisions interpreting it.

A more scholarly site is Constitutional Society [www.constitution.org].

It is a good idea to learn something about a topic before mouthing off about it.

I take it you're a Constitutional lawyer so I may have some questions later you can answer in layman"s terms.

I've dealt with him before...he sounds like a freshman poli sci student all full of himself.

 

[georgephillip]

Why accept the opinions of legal scholars? A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that turned freedom of religion on it's ear and created the modern version of "separation of church and state" that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Another legal genius found a right to privacy that didn't exist in the Constitution and opened the door to the "legal" murder of millions of full term infants who "legally" were not living humans because about four inches of their heads still remained in the birth canal while they were stabbed in the back of the head and a frankenstein machine sucked out their brains.

How do you see "the modern version of 'separation of church and state'" as being different from Jefferson's?

"'Separation of church and state' (sometimes 'wall of separation between church and state') is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...' and Article VI specifies that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'

"The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase 'separation of church and state' in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper."

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[whitehall]

Why accept the opinions of legal scholars? A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that turned freedom of religion on it's ear and created the modern version of "separation of church and state" that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Another legal genius found a right to privacy that didn't exist in the Constitution and opened the door to the "legal" murder of millions of full term infants who "legally" were not living humans because about four inches of their heads still remained in the birth canal while they were stabbed in the back of the head and a frankenstein machine sucked out their brains.

How do you see "the modern version of 'separation of church and state'" as being different from Jefferson's?

"'Separation of church and state' (sometimes 'wall of separation between church and state') is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...' and Article VI specifies that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'

"The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase 'separation of church and state' in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper."

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

We don't accept phrases and out of context alleged quotes or even personal writings as the law of the land. It doesn't matter what Jefferson thought. What matters is the ratification of the Law of the Land, the US Constitution, and it speaks clearly that government will not prevent the free expression of religion. Justice Black who wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation church/state" was an anti-"Papist" KKK member who wanted to restrict the rights of hated Catholics to practice their brand of religion. It didn't take long for democrat administrations to expand the alleged separation until today we are taught to accept rulings that order the demolition of hundred year old monuments and jack booted thugs with badges and sledghammers smashing the Ten Commandments off courthouse walls.

 

[georgephillip]

Why accept the opinions of legal scholars? A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that turned freedom of religion on it's ear and created the modern version of "separation of church and state" that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Another legal genius found a right to privacy that didn't exist in the Constitution and opened the door to the "legal" murder of millions of full term infants who "legally" were not living humans because about four inches of their heads still remained in the birth canal while they were stabbed in the back of the head and a frankenstein machine sucked out their brains.

How do you see "the modern version of 'separation of church and state'" as being different from Jefferson's?

"'Separation of church and state' (sometimes 'wall of separation between church and state') is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...' and Article VI specifies that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'

"The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase 'separation of church and state' in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper."

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

We don't accept phrases and out of context alleged quotes or even personal writings as the law of the land. It doesn't matter what Jefferson thought. What matters is the ratification of the Law of the Land, the US Constitution, and it speaks clearly that government will not prevent the free expression of religion. Justice Black who wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation church/state" was an anti-"Papist" KKK member who wanted to restrict the rights of hated Catholics to practice their brand of religion. It didn't take long for democrat administrations to expand the alleged separation until today we are taught to accept rulings that order the demolition of hundred year old monuments and jack booted thugs with badges and sledghammers smashing the Ten Commandments off courthouse walls.

What do you mean by "the modern version of 'separation of church/state?'"
"Article 6[edit]
"Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States'. Prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religion in the Constitution.

"The First Amendment[edit]
"The first amendment to the US Constitution states 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' The two parts, known as the 'establishment clause' and the 'free exercise clause' respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the 'separation of church and state' doctrine.[35]
Black admits to making a huge mistake by joining the Klan, but I don't see how you tar him for crucifying Catholics. Separation of church and state was around long before his was.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[whitehall]

What do you know, here we are having an educated discussion about the Constitution in spite of pompous ass pseudo-intellectuals who think that only "scholars" are mentally equipped an justified to handle it.

 

[regent]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

 

[georgephillip]

What do you know, here we are having an educated discussion about the Constitution in spite of pompous ass pseudo-intellectuals who think that only "scholars" are mentally equipped an justified to handle it.

Must be the New (USMB) World Order?

 

[DGS49]

A baseball umpire can decide whether a pitch is a ball or a strike, and even if he gets it wrong, the call still stands. But he can't change the rules of the game.

The Constitution is what the Court says it is in each case on which it finally decides, but the Court cannot change the Constitution. If the USSC gets it wrong, then later courts are justified in correcting the error. This is not "judicial activism."

The reason why it takes sophistication to understand "Constitutional Law" is because much of the logic that applies the Constitution to individual cases is twisted incredibly (which is why it takes so much text to explain it), and following the arguments takes some sophistication and patience.

 

[Rotagilla]

A baseball umpire can decide whether a pitch is a ball or a strike, and even if he gets it wrong, the call still stands. But he can't change the rules of the game.

The Constitution is what the Court says it is in each case on which it finally decides, but the Court cannot change the Constitution. If the USSC gets it wrong, then later courts are justified in correcting the error. This is not "judicial activism."

The reason why it takes sophistication to understand "Constitutional Law" is because much of the logic that applies the Constitution to individual cases is twisted incredibly (which is why it takes so much text to explain it), and following the arguments takes some sophistication and patience.

..and that's what you get after 240 years of lying, scheming, malignant, partisan politicians and lawyers working to undermine and distort...a document that has been rendered meaningless as they quibble and parse words over every dot and comma.

This experiment has about run its course. Let it go.
We'll rebuild.