Where are the people that understand the Constitution?

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by capego, Jul 8, 2018.

  1. beagle9
    Offline

    beagle9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    17,347
    Thanks Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,107
    No, you second guessing the history of this nation concerning the things that you haven't a clue about is what is wrong here.

    Of course this is the game being played today by the left in which is actually posing a serious threat towards the security of this nation from within. It is proven daily now, but the civility of those holding power tend to want to give the benefit of a doubt in regards to it all because this is America after all. One wonders though, about when the re-awakening will come, and when the tolerence of all the wacko crap will end.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Monk-Eye
    Online

    Monk-Eye Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    247
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Ratings:
    +53
    " Pressing Issue Priorities "

    * Imminent Domain *

    Where in the revisionist history are the criminal convictions to which you allude ?

    Apparently you do not know the difference between a civil infraction and a criminal infraction , because one is not found guilty of a civil infraction - ever , and stating that one is guilty of a crime in reference to a civil infraction is libel .

    The internment was found to be unconstitutional , but not the relocation , and the internment was unconstitutional because a valid vetting process was not exercised , but of course when would one suppose that to have occurred : before , during , or after assessing wartime threats ?

    "Ex parte Endo
    , or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944),[1] was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II."

    * Cooperative Volunteers Versus Obstruction During War *

    Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
    Approximately 5,000 Japanese Americans relocated outside the exclusion zone before March 1942,[16] while some 5,500 community leaders had been arrested immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack and thus were already in custody.[17] The majority of nearly 130,000 Japanese Americans living in the U.S. mainland were forcibly relocated from their West Coast homes during the spring of 1942.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2018
  3. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    32,188
    Thanks Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,790
    They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

    The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

    The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

    If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. danielpalos
    Online

    danielpalos Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    35,030
    Thanks Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +4,829
    Providing for the general welfare is a general power, not a major or specific or common power.
     
  5. beagle9
    Offline

    beagle9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    17,347
    Thanks Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,107
    Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.
     
  6. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    32,188
    Thanks Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,790
    Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.

    But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
     
  7. regent
    Offline

    regent Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    9,670
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,412
    So of what need is there for a Supreme Court?
     
  8. Flopper
    Offline

    Flopper Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    19,330
    Thanks Received:
    3,408
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Washington
    Ratings:
    +7,865
    The constitution is pretty clear. I don't see any problem understanding it in the context it was written. The problem comes trying to apply it to everyday life today. For example, is the issue of Net neutrality a 1st amendment issue? To answer questions like this, you have to understand what the founders meant by what they wrote since there was no Internet and nothing even similar. This is where courts and constitutional scholars come into the picture.
     
  9. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    32,188
    Thanks Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,790
    Several things. The interpretation of the laws is the proper province of the judiciary (with the Supreme Court at its head). With the constitution regarded as a fundamental law. It belongs to judiciary to ascertain the constitution's meaning, as well as the meaning of any law that comes from the legislature. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between the the constitution and a piece of legislation, to put the Constitution first.

    The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order to keep the legislature within the limits of its authority.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    47,040
    Thanks Received:
    10,077
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +30,573
    Correct.

    And that these fundamental facts of the law – facts settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – must be explained at all is both sad and troubling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

azs

,

news