Where are the people that understand the Constitution?

[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.

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.

It was the opinion of the court.

 

[Skylar]

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.

It was the opinion of the court.

The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.

You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should no security problems in our free States.

only the Right Wing, complains about that work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

[Vastator]

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.

It was the opinion of the court.

The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.

You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.

I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...

 

[Skylar]

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.

It was the opinion of the court.

The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.

You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.

I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...

Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

The power to provide for the general welfare, is General; not common, specific, or major.

 

[Valerie]

So they invented a phony "right of privacy," which sounded good but was not supported anywhere in the Constitution.

SO... it is actually your contention, as a supposed "conservative", that you do not believe our constitution gives citizens a right to privacy from unwarranted government intrusion??






...a broad right of privacy has been found by the court to exist within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments, as well as the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.

Privacy

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Fourth Amendment

 

[danielpalos]

works, for me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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).

It's ALL important, given that it's all the founding laws of our country.

 

[DGS49]

Valerie, sweetie, nobody disputes the Constitutional right to be free from police searches, siezures, and oppression.

But the "Constitutional" right of privacy has been used to justify KILLING BABIES IN THE WOMB, outlawing sodomy laws, and marrying a person of the same gender. What does this have to do with freedom from unreasonable searches?

NOTHING!

This is the imaginary right of privacy.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

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 militias. The swamp hates them and have turned most citizens against them.

 

[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 ?

The militias. The swamp hates them and have turned most citizens against them.

The 'swamp' being your imaginary boogeyman. Kinda like the 'deep state'?

 

[danielpalos]

...not on the right wing, that is for sure.

 

[Oddball]

Constitutional case law is comprehensively important.

Case law is a popcorn fart.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had judicial oligarchy.

 

[Skylar]

Constitutional case law is comprehensively important.

Case law is a popcorn fart.

Not in our legal system. It establishes precedent and is the embodiment of the entire concept of stare decisis.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had judicial oligarchy.

The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.

Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.

And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.

 

[Oddball]

The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.

Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.

And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Irrelevant to the point made...In in NO Federalist Paper is it delineated that USSC should be the final word on anything.

And if the constant stream of prog moonbats running to the courts every time someone they don't like does something they don't like doesn't show that we're operating under judicial oligarchy, what would?

 

[Oddball]

Constitutional case law is comprehensively important.

Case law is a popcorn fart.

Not in our legal system. It establishes precedent and is the embodiment of the entire concept of stare decisis.

And it can be capriciously overturned the next time around....A popcorn fart.

 

[Skylar]

The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.

Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.

And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Irrelevant to the point made...In in NO Federalist Paper is it delineated that USSC should be the final word on anything.

In the Federalist papers it states that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution and interpret the meaning of any given law. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between a law and the constitution, that the judiciary should put the constitution above the law.

It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution.

Just because you don't know what the Federalist papers say on the matter doesn't mean the Federalist papers change. Or the the judicial power doesn't include the authority to interpret the constitution.