Where are the people that understand the Constitution?

[capego]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

 

[Disir]

What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?

 

[capego]

What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?

Only the important parts.

I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).

 

[longknife]

What's difficult to understand? It's the most brilliant document in human history and basically outlines what limits are set on government over individual rights.

 

[DGS49]

The extreme political Left (now the Democrat mainstream) realized long ago that there was no chance that they would ever be able to implement their agenda legally, with laws and a Consitutional Amendment or two. So they have attempted to get what they want through compromised judges and justices, who "interpret" the Constitution and laws to achieve their ends.

So they invented a phony "right of privacy," which sounded good but was not supported anywhere in the Constitution. It was used to create a right to abortion, a right to marry someone of the same gender, and voided any laws prohibiting gross sexual conduct.

In order to do this, it was necessary to pretend that our Constitution is too complicated for common people to understand. Their legal opinions run scores of pages, turning words and logic on their figurative heads.

Their biggest fear is that Trump will fill the Federal courts with judges and justices who will interpret the actual Constitution, and not the fantasy document they have been going by for the past 50 years.

Perverse, ain't it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.

Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?

Only the important parts.

I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).

Constitutional case law is comprehensively important.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Must Be On Ignore To Satisfy Intellectual Cowardice Criteria "

* Ignored The Obvious *

The extreme political Left (now the Democrat mainstream) realized long ago that there was no chance that they would ever be able to implement their agenda legally, with laws and a Consitutional Amendment or two. So they have attempted to get what they want through compromised judges and justices, who "interpret" the Constitution and laws to achieve their ends.

So they invented a phony "right of privacy," which sounded good but was not supported anywhere in the Constitution. It was used to create a right to abortion, a right to marry someone of the same gender, and voided any laws prohibiting gross sexual conduct.

In order to do this, it was necessary to pretend that our Constitution is too complicated for common people to understand. Their legal opinions run scores of pages, turning words and logic on their figurative heads.

Their biggest fear is that Trump will fill the Federal courts with judges and justices who will interpret the actual Constitution, and not the fantasy document they have been going by for the past 50 years.

Perverse, ain't it?

US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion

* Did Not Stutter The First Time *

" Repetitive Anti-Choice Statements Of Nonsense "

* Legally Clue Less *

Regardless of one's position on legalized abortion , the Roe v Wade decision was, well...A legal and Constitutional "abortion." It was based on a non-existent right, found nowhere in the Constitution. It was scientifically preposterous, and has been shown ever more so in the years since 1973.

Abortion is based upon wrights of citizens , and to become a citizen , according to the 14th amendment , one must be born , and for equal protection one must be born .

That is the basis of roe v wade , as specified in the blackmun opinion .

But hey , the clown shoes pro-birth camp is going to repeat stupidity because they figure , " Why not lie , as long as we get our way ? " .

 

[Natural Citizen]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

All that is required is a common sense approach.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.

Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.

The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.

Article VI trumps. Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.

See Federalist 83 here.

 

[DGS49]

Think about this for a moment: We have a Constitution that is remarkably short. A fairly literate person could read it from end to end, with time included to look up unfamiliar words (e.g., "emoluments"), in an hour. There is almost nothing in it that is too complex for a legitimate high school grad to understand.

And yet, we have been convinced (see above) that it is not possible to understand this simple document without reading and understanding an entire library of cases, comments, and explanations.

As the late, great, Joseph Sobran wrote very eloquently many years ago, much of "Constitutional" law not only has nothing to do with the Constitution, but it actually contradicts the Constitution in many important areas.

There have been Supreme Court justices who firmly believed (at least they said they believed) that the Death Penalty was "unconstitutional"...even though the Constitution refers TWICE to a person being legitimately deprived of his life (with due process). We have had justices claim that an amendment that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race required discrimination on the basis of race. We have USSC decisions that tell us that what a subsistence farmer does on his own property for his own consumption constitutes "interstate commerce," under the Constitution. An Amendment that starts with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." has been used to impose obligations on, for example, city zoning boards around the country. In the face of an Amendment - never modified - that says Congress has. no powers other than what is expressly articulated in the Constitution, we have a library of cases where the Supreme Court has sanctioned a cornucopia of Federal government programs and expenditures that are not even remotely related to Congress' enumerated powers. Department of Education, anyone?

Can't find anyone who understands the Constitution? Brett Kavanaugh does. We need to make sure he gets a seat on the USSC. Quickly.

 

[Vastator]

There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.

 

[Unkotare]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

But let me guess...YOU understand it completely, unlike everyone else, right?

 

[Skylar]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

And by 'understand the constitution', you mean agree with you?

The constitution has loads of ambiguity. For example, it prohibits 'unreasonable' search and seizure. What's 'unreasonable'? Its standard of warrants is 'probable' cause. What's 'probable'?

I'm sure you can come up with a definition that works......but has elements of arbitrary opinion. And other people can come up with similar working definitions that have different arbitrary elements.

Meaning there is room for rational debate on the meaning of the constitution. And thus principled people can disagree. Eliminating the likelyhood of there being one interpretation to 'understand'.

 

[Skylar]

There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.

There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.

 

[Vastator]

There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.

There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.

What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.

 

[Skylar]

There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.

There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.

What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.

Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.

The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.

 

[Vastator]

There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.

There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.

What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.

Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.

The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.

Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.

 

[Skylar]

There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.

There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.

What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.

Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.

The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.

Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.

No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.

The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.

And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.

 

[danielpalos]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

definitely Not on the Right Wing.