The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide,

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

why is it a duty??

 

[Sonny Clark]

But, I already knew that the Bill of Rights were in the Constitution. I was asking you if you knew it.?

on what basis if not your pure and total ignorance? How stupid does one have to be to waste time asking that question?

You encouraged the questions by your comments. I was trying to get you to explain your side in logical and rational terms. But, instead, you resorted to name calling, personal attacks, and playing dodge with the questions I asked of you. Now, who's dime is that on?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I was trying to get you to explain your side in logical and rational terms.

what side you idiot? I did not raise the question about whether the Bill was part of Constitution

 

[Sonny Clark]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide,

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

Yes, it's merely a guide it seems, the Constitution does not stand on its own, apparently, according to the government. Remember, politics is self-governed. In most cases, especially as of late, they make the rules as they go.

 

[gipper]

The constitution was meaningless before BO....now it has disappeared.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide,

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

why is it a duty??

It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[ In most cases, especially as of late, they make the rules as they go.

liberals want a loose reading of the Constitution so it can mean anything they want. While Republicans want a strict reading since they share the basic principles of our Founders about govt being the source of evil in human history.

Now even you can understand why our liberals spied for Stalin and Hitler and elected Obama?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The constitution was meaningless before BO....now it has disappeared.

disappeared?? democracy, 3 branches, enumerated powers, federalism, Bill of Rights, civilian control of military, etc etc.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide,

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

why is it a duty??

It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.

care to tell what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I was trying to get you to explain your side in logical and rational terms.

what side you idiot? I did not raise the question about whether the Bill was part of Constitution

I'm talking about your side of the subject concerning foreign trade. Go back and see what started this conversation between us. The conversation drifted to the Constitution, which I also questioned you on. Go back and read the entire conversation, please.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide,

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

why is it a duty??

It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.

care to tell what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever.

What do you think the duty of an elected official is? Please tell me that you know and are just kidding.

 

[Sonny Clark]

The constitution was meaningless before BO....now it has disappeared.

Thank you. CORRECT !!!!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”

No.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.

As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

 

[emilynghiem]

“Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”

No.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.

As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution as limited only to case law precedents
reminds me of people who teach the Bible by looking only at Jesus as a moral example of right and wrong actions and teachings.

There is also a whole OTHER level to both the Bible laws and Constitutional laws
as representing Laws given by God which humans are going through a process of
learning to follow and to fulfill.

This goes BEYOND just the written word and literal history.

You are missing the SPIRIT of the laws yet you expect to represent
what the Constitution means to people?

I think not.

This does not work with the Bible to teach it that way and think you are teaching what Christianity means in full.
And for the same reason does not work with Constitutional laws that bear more weight and authority than
what you can spell out with legal precedence. Sorry but this explains why different audiences are talking past each other.

We are barely talking about the same things.
We might intersect and agree on some points
but you are leaving out so much that are the real issue for other people.

You might as well be an atheist trying to interpret the Bible for a Christian who talks to God every day about
what it means to that person.

That is not even the same conversation, sorry!

Thank you CCJones I am beginning to understand you and Dante more and more
and hope you are getting what I am saying, too, that we are coming from two
totally different traditions and belief systems.

Even more reason we should "separate church and state" and not impose
one group on the other, but stick to where we agree to make public laws based on that,
and keep the places we disagree in private and don't try to make laws based on that.
We'd be doing each other a great disservice if we keep imposing our own
interpretations on each other because of our different belief systems.
That is unconstitutional to use law or govt to do that.

We surely need to separate these schools of thoughts
as separate political religions or beliefs and prevent further imposition,
exclusion or discrimination through govt in violation of First and Fourteenth protections of the law.

 

[Sonny Clark]

“Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”

No.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.

As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

And, it's happening as we speak. Thanks for your response.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide,

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

why is it a duty??

It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.

care to tell what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever.

What do you think the duty of an elected official is? Please tell me that you know and are just kidding.

care to tell us what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever. See why we say slow?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”

Incorrect.

It is not 'my assessment.'

It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.

 

[Sonny Clark]

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

why is it a duty??

It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.

care to tell what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever.

What do you think the duty of an elected official is? Please tell me that you know and are just kidding.

care to tell us what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever. See why we say slow?

Pleeeeease. Look up the duties of members of Congress and the duties of the president. They are readily available online. They are not hard to find. And, again, please refrain from your "slow" BS. It doesn't impress anyone and makes you look so silly and immature. Please try to act adult and civil on here. People will enjoy having conversations with you and respect you and what you say a lot more also. Name calling and personal attacks are for kids, school yard kids. It's totally uncalled for on these forums where people try to discuss important issues that affect all of us. Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[Sonny Clark]

“Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”

No.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.

As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution as limited only to case law precedents
reminds me of people who teach the Bible by looking only at Jesus as a moral example of right and wrong actions and teachings.

There is also a whole OTHER level to both the Bible laws and Constitutional laws
as representing Laws given by God which humans are going through a process of
learning to follow and to fulfill.

This goes BEYOND just the written word and literal history.

You are missing the SPIRIT of the laws yet you expect to represent
what the Constitution means to people?

I think not.

This does not work with the Bible to teach it that way and think you are teaching what Christianity means in full.
And for the same reason does not work with Constitutional laws that bear more weight and authority than
what you can spell out with legal precedence. Sorry but this explains why different audiences are talking past each other.

We are barely talking about the same things.
We might intersect and agree on some points
but you are leaving out so much that are the real issue for other people.

You might as well be an atheist trying to interpret the Bible for a Christian who talks to God every day about
what it means to that person.

That is not even the same conversation, sorry!

Thank you CCJones I am beginning to understand you and Dante more and more
and hope you are getting what I am saying, too, that we are coming from two
totally different traditions and belief systems.

Even more reason we should "separate church and state" and not impose
one group on the other, but stick to where we agree to make public laws based on that,
and keep the places we disagree in private and don't try to make laws based on that.
We'd be doing each other a great disservice if we keep imposing our own
interpretations on each other because of our different belief systems.
That is unconstitutional to use law or govt to do that.

We surely need to separate these schools of thoughts
as separate political religions or beliefs and prevent further imposition,
exclusion or discrimination through govt in violation of First and Fourteenth protections of the law.

Thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

“Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”

Incorrect.

It is not 'my assessment.'

It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.

Sure, so you and these other people agree to that.

Just like the people, not just atheists but also Muslims and some Jehovah Witnesses,
who only see Jesus as a man setting good examples to follow.

You and these jurists who only follow the letter of the law
are of one belief system.

And people who believe the spirit of the law comes from God and Nature
and we are attempting to document and follow the laws in that spirit
are another branch. Those who put the SPIRIT of the Constitution first
and then the letter has to follow.

Versus those who will follow the letter as long as Courts and
legislatures pass it, that's what makes it law.

You and your whole ilk constitute one denomination
probably the secularists who take things literally,
and the others who go by the spirit of the laws
will not accept things as Constitutional just because Congress or Courts approve it.

The process must be finished by consensus, and where
they AGREE it is lawful, then that will clearly be established
as Constitutional. If they DON'T agree there is the risk of
imposing one party's political beliefs over another which
is unconstitutional on another level. I UNDERSTAND that
you and others like you DON'T accept this interpretation
until it is established, so that is ANOTHER area that
discriminates and puts YOUR beliefs above mine.
Until I establish my interpretation as equally my right to
exercise (this silly notion of actually RESPECTING and INCLUDING
people's political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, what a crazy idea, right?),
of course, the other way dominates and is enforced.

[I'm not just picking on you BTW.
I caught other people saying that as long as States
voted on banning gay marriage then it is lawful? No!
That is unconstitutional for the same reasons imposing
gay marriage establishes a biased belief through govt.
The law must be neutral, and banning is exclusive and discriminatory.

And I also nixed that, citing that slavery laws were passed
and enforced but those violated natural laws of equality
and were oppressive practices by putting one person's beliefs and values
over another's right to defend their own personhood and own their own body.

To be fully Constitutional it must meet the spirit and the letter of the law.
And i find it dangerous just to depend on the letter
because anyone can pass anything by majority rule and make errors
in judgment by imposing a bias that is Unconstitutional.]