Happy Constitution day America

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
On Semptember 17, 1787 the U.S. Constitution was signed by thirty-nine brave men who changed the course of history

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTzNAfZL-dA]Constitution Day 2011; Federal Observance Marks Signing of U.S. Constitution in 1787 (VIDEO) - YouTube[/ame]
 
OP
bigrebnc1775

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc5SxET1-Kk]"A Visitor From The Past" - YouTube[/ame]
 

Mr.Nick

VIP Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
9,604
Reaction score
714
Points
83
As a libertarian I am proud to share my B-day with the constitution...
 
OP
bigrebnc1775

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
I was a little disappoint to see no replies to this thread until I saw it was placed where I didn't place it. Maybe I should have placed it in the flame zone, It is a political subject and should have stayed where I first placed it.
 
OP
bigrebnc1775

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
My God I just struck gold. In the words of a liberal "Constitutional law" professor

University of Chicago law school. Was obama an associate professor there?
This problem is the subject of a new ACS Issue Brief by Stone and University of North Carolina law professor Bill Marshall, The Framers' Constitution: Toward a Theory of Principled Constitutionalism, which discusses how progressives can reframe the discussion about the Constitution and the courts.

Video Interview: How Originalists Have Hijacked the Debate | ACS
 
Last edited:

JWBooth

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
10,344
Reaction score
2,483
Points
255
Location
Texas Republic
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only." -Thomas Jefferson
 
OP
bigrebnc1775

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
"every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only." -thomas jefferson
a quote I don't recongnize
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,580
Reaction score
14,263
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Among the best expressions of the meaning of the Constitution by a conservative jurist:

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.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition:

When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.

This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.

Featured Document: The Magna Carta
The Constitution, therefore, exists in the context of the law, a legal touchstone designed to ensure adherence to the rule of law and the guarantee of individual liberty.

As Justice O’Connor, yet another conservative jurist, noted in her majority opinion:

Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us and then to future generations. It is a coherent succession. Each generation must learn anew that the Constitution's written terms embody ideas and aspirations that must survive more ages than one. We accept our responsibility not to retreat from interpreting the full meaning of the covenant in light of all of our precedents. We invoke it once again to define the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution's own promise, the promise of liberty.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Justice O’Connor spoke of the Constitution as a covenant in the context of legal precedent, that the Constitution – as a legal document – is empowered by the law and its meaning and tradition. Consequently, the Constitution is not merely a ‘blueprint of government,’ as some would have us believe; rather, it’s a ‘coherent succession’ of doctrine and legal precedent which serves the needs of the American people while protecting their inalienable rights.

As a document of law the Constitution is subject to interpretation and the courts authorized to subject acts of Congress to judicial review, as intended by the Framers:

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
The notion, then, that the Constitution exists as some static, immutable document is clearly ignorant, both with regard to the original intent of the Framers and the basic nature of the Constitution in the context of the law. To focus only on the ‘Constitution proper’ or Foundation Era documents to the exclusion of the Constitution’s subsequent case law is equally ignorant – the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution today is just as relevant as the understanding of the Founding Document when ratified.
 
OP
bigrebnc1775

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Among the best expressions of the meaning of the Constitution by a conservative jurist:

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.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition:

When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.

This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.

Featured Document: The Magna Carta
The Constitution, therefore, exists in the context of the law, a legal touchstone designed to ensure adherence to the rule of law and the guarantee of individual liberty.

As Justice O’Connor, yet another conservative jurist, noted in her majority opinion:

Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us and then to future generations. It is a coherent succession. Each generation must learn anew that the Constitution's written terms embody ideas and aspirations that must survive more ages than one. We accept our responsibility not to retreat from interpreting the full meaning of the covenant in light of all of our precedents. We invoke it once again to define the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution's own promise, the promise of liberty.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Justice O’Connor spoke of the Constitution as a covenant in the context of legal precedent, that the Constitution – as a legal document – is empowered by the law and its meaning and tradition. Consequently, the Constitution is not merely a ‘blueprint of government,’ as some would have us believe; rather, it’s a ‘coherent succession’ of doctrine and legal precedent which serves the needs of the American people while protecting their inalienable rights.

As a document of law the Constitution is subject to interpretation and the courts authorized to subject acts of Congress to judicial review, as intended by the Framers:

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
The notion, then, that the Constitution exists as some static, immutable document is clearly ignorant, both with regard to the original intent of the Framers and the basic nature of the Constitution in the context of the law. To focus only on the ‘Constitution proper’ or Foundation Era documents to the exclusion of the Constitution’s subsequent case law is equally ignorant – the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution today is just as relevant as the understanding of the Founding Document when ratified.
planned parenthood? that quote was contridicting within itself noting what planned parenthood stands for

Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us and then to future generations. It is a coherent succession. Each generation must learn anew that the Constitution's written terms embody ideas and aspirations that must survive more ages than one.
How can you pass something from one generation to the next when the one who is passing has no problem with killing the next generation?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top