The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[regent]

Are we obeying laws today that in the future may be declared unconstitutional?

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution is a framework for how our government is constituted

The bill of rights places constraints on that government

 

[emilynghiem]

Are we obeying laws today that in the future may be declared unconstitutional?

Id say forcing ppl to pay for executions they dont believe in instead of allowing their taxes to pay for alternatives violates religious freedom. And similar with penalizing other ways to pay for health care and only exempting insurance and religious groups approved by govt whileregulating others more restrictively is discriminating by creed.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Are we obeying laws today that in the future may be declared unconstitutional?

It's very possible, very.

 

[Liminal]

The Constitution is like the Bible. They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.

In government, no one believes in either.

I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.

dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

“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.”

How do you square Justice Kennedy with Justice Black when it comes to privacy?

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.

dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Many of the Framers thought they were self evident and didn't need to be in the Constitution.

 

[Liminal]

dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Many of the Framers thought they were self evident and didn't need to be in the Constitution.

Why? Because the Bill of Rights somehow detracts from the true meaning of the Constitution?

 

[Sonny Clark]

I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.

dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

 

[Sonny Clark]

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Many of the Framers thought they were self evident and didn't need to be in the Constitution.

Why? Because the Bill of Rights somehow detracts from the true meaning of the Constitution?

How so ?? Please explain. Thanks.

 

[Liminal]

dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application. Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid confusion and conflict.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sonny Clark

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

2) What about The Bill of Rights?

3) Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens?

4Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times?

5) Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?

1) Not merely, but it has been used as a guide since it's ratification. So I ask you, what is it you are truly asking?

2) What about it? It was part of a compromise. Many framers and those tasked with ratification thought it unnecessary.

3) We do not make detours around the Constitution. The Constitution exists to serve the people, not the other way around. We ask the Court to decide constitutional issues when we disagree over interpretations. It has been this way since day one.

Stretching the meanings of the text has been a tradition going back to the beginning too. Only strict constructionists would argue we should cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face

4) We have since day one

5) The US Constitution was designed to be altered -- through the amendment process, so you're not making any sense

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Many of the Framers thought they were self evident and didn't need to be in the Constitution.

Why? Because the Bill of Rights somehow detracts from the true meaning of the Constitution?

The Constitution would NEVER have been ratified without the later inclusion of the Bill of Rights. That was the deal. Quid pro quo -- so to speak

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

The self evident rights? Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application. Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid confusion and conflict.

you are so confused it is incredible. You are looking for a black and white strict constructionist view of life that just doesn't exist. The Bill of Rights was not included in the final drafts. Most of the framers thought righst were self evident and that codifying some would be construed by people like you to think those not codified were not or guaranteed or protected . there is more to the story, but Dante didn't sign up to be your private history teacher

 

[norwegen]

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application. Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid confusion and conflict.

The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution. It's an addendum. As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).

The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges. That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.

Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application. Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid confusion and conflict.

The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution. It's an addendum. As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).

The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges. That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.

Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.

agree with one caveat:

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far

 

[norwegen]

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application. Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid confusion and conflict.

The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution. It's an addendum. As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).

The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges. That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.

Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.

agree with one caveat:

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far

Madison underwent a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts). Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (and by everyone, of course, I mean me)).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application. Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid confusion and conflict.

The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution. It's an addendum. As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).

The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges. That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.

Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.

agree with one caveat:

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far

Madison underwent a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts). Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (and by everyone, of course, I mean me)).

in bold: so very Dante!

Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.

What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.

It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison

 

[norwegen]

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application. Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid confusion and conflict.

The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution. It's an addendum. As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).

The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges. That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.

Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.

agree with one caveat:

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far

Madison underwent a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts). Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (and by everyone, of course, I mean me)).

in bold: so very Dante!

Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.

What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.

It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.