One of the main objectives of our Constitution

[BackAgain]

If one studies the Constitution and comprehends it, then the above meme is self-evidently correct.

To whatever extent any of our liberals wish to contest the truth of what that meme says, the only thing your argument demonstrates is that you don’t grasp the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Not really
If you ever read it, most of the document is dedicated to defining the structure and responsibilities of the branches of government.

It was the Bill of Rights which defines the protections of citizens from the Government

 

[BackAgain]

Not really
If you ever read it, most of the document is dedicated to defining the structure and responsibilities of the branches of government.

It was the Bill of Rights which defines the protections of citizens from the Government

Yes. Really.

And the bill of rights were promised as an inducement to ratify the Constitution. They are now PART OF the Constitution.

And the Constitution tells the government where it has authority and enumerates the powers given to government. The rest it reserves to the States and the People.

It tells government what it may not do. It doesn’t tell citizens what we may not do.

 

[Donald H]

Yes. Really.

And the bill of rights were promised as an inducement to ratify the Constitution. They are now PART OF the Constitution.

And the Constitution tells the government where it has authority and enumerates the powers given to government. The rest it reserves to the States and the People.

It tells government what it may not do. It doesn’t tell citizens what we may not do.

When you get it wrong, you got it wrong! Your dance routine isn't fixing it for you.

Isn't it you who's the Christian that believes the bibles are literally correct too?

 

[bendog]

View attachment 1050446

If one studies the Constitution and comprehends it, then the above meme is self-evidently correct.

To whatever extent any of our liberals wish to contest the truth of what that meme says, the only thing your argument demonstrates is that you don’t grasp the Constitution.

JFC

 

[boedicca]

Not really
If you ever read it, most of the document is dedicated to defining the structure and responsibilities of the branches of government.

It was the Bill of Rights which defines the protections of citizens from the Government

As the Bill of Rights are amendments to The Constitution, they are part of it.

 

[rightwinger]

As the Bill of Rights are amendments to The Constitution, they are part of it.

Yup

But the purpose of the document is to define the government

 

[boedicca]

Yup

But the purpose of the document is to define the government

And it's relationship to citizens. The Founders started with the Enlightment principles regarding individuals.

 

[Votto]

View attachment 1050446

If one studies the Constitution and comprehends it, then the above meme is self-evidently correct.

To whatever extent any of our liberals wish to contest the truth of what that meme says, the only thing your argument demonstrates is that you don’t grasp the Constitution.

Woopsie!!

Now is a fine time to be getting this sort of feedback.

 

[bendog]

As the Bill of Rights are amendments to The Constitution, they are part of it.

Well yes, but they didn't exist at the time the const was drafted, and the OP is clueless. RW is correct. The "constitution" set out the framework of our republic, but the constitution does NOT contain limitations on what govt can do.

The SC may, and has, ruled that various laws are NOT authorized under the various powers conveyed to the govt under the const.

It's quite a different animal for the Sup Ct to rule that a RIGHT given to individuals under the BoR, and later adopted amendments such as the 14th, "trumps" (-: a law.

 

[boedicca]

Well yes, but they didn't exist at the time the const was drafted, and the OP is clueless. RW is correct. The "constitution" set out the framework of our republic, but the constitution does NOT contain limitations on what govt can do.

The SC may, and has, ruled that various laws are NOT authorized under the various powers conveyed to the govt under the const.

It's quite a different animal for the Sup Ct to rule that a RIGHT given to individuals under the BoR, and later adopted amendments such as the 14th, "trumps" (-: a law.

Drafting the documents for our republic was an interactive process. The Constitution cannot be properly interpreted absent the Bill of Rights.

 

[Dante]

Not really
If you ever read it, most of the document is dedicated to defining the structure and responsibilities of the branches of government.

It was the Bill of Rights which defines the protections of citizens from the Government

To engage in a serious discussion - You'd have to ask the OP who exactly has claimed:

"The US Constitution is Meant to Restrain Citizens." and "Who claims the US Constitution tells Citizens what they may not do.?"

As it is based on a silly meme (grandchild of Bumper sticker) it isn't really something 'meant' to be taken seriously.

 

[Dante]

Drafting the documents for our republic was an interactive process. The Constitution cannot be properly interpreted absent the Bill of Rights.

The United States Constitution was ratified before the Bill of Rights was included. Who ratified the US Constitution? US Citizens.

 

[Dante]

As the Bill of Rights are amendments to The Constitution, they are part of it.

As we all know (or should know), Amendments come later.

 

[Dante]

Yup

But the purpose of the document is to define the government

Yes.

 

[boedicca]

The United States Constitution was ratified before the Bill of Rights was included. Who ratified the US Constitution? US Citizens.

And then it was Amended with the Bill of Rights, so that period before is not relevant to interpreting the documents today. We also superseded the original Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. As I said, we had an iterative process until we got the proper documents in place for the powers of the government and the rights of individuals. Looking at the Constitution without the Bill of Rights is futile.

 

[Dante]

Well yes, but they didn't exist at the time the const was drafted, and the OP is clueless. RW is correct. The "constitution" set out the framework of our republic, but the constitution does NOT contain limitations on what govt can do.

The SC may, and has, ruled that various laws are NOT authorized under the various powers conveyed to the govt under the const.

It's quite a different animal for the Sup Ct to rule that a RIGHT given to individuals under the BoR, and later adopted amendments such as the 14th, "trumps" (-: a law.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

Are their any limitations placed on the federal government within the articles I through VII?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. Really.

And the bill of rights were promised as an inducement to ratify the Constitution. They are now PART OF the Constitution.

And the Constitution tells the government where it has authority and enumerates the powers given to government. The rest it reserves to the States and the People.

It tells government what it may not do. It doesn’t tell citizens what we may not do.

That is a fact. The U.S. Constitution was intended to be a document that restricted the federal government to specific tasks/duties/responsibilities and it could not do anything not specifically designated for it to do. It was designed to be a government of, by and for the people and would function via consent of the governed who otherwise would govern themselves within the individual sovereign states. The federal government was designed to protect the unalienable rights of the people and do only NECESSARY THINGS and pass laws/regulations NECESSARY for the various states to function as one nation and prevent the states from doing physical or economic violence to each other.

Abraham Lincoln was the first to go around the Constitution when he freed the slaves in seceding states. Teddy Roosevelt was the one to pretty much stand the Constitution on its head when he declared that the federal government could do anything it wanted unless the Constitution specifically prohibited it. And the government has been spiraling out of control ever since to become the unfathomable and unmanageable monstrosity it now is. It is steadily consuming more and more and more of the people's resources and eroding the people's liberties.

President Trump and his team are the first in more than a hundred years who has the instincts and will to start reversing that. Every honorable American should get behind them and help them do it.

 

[22lcidw]

To engage in a serious discussion - You'd have to ask the OP who exactly has claimed:

"The US Constitution is Meant to Restrain Citizens." and "Who claims the US Constitution tells Citizens what they may not do.?"

As it is based on a silly meme (grandchild of Bumper sticker) it isn't really something 'meant' to be taken seriously.

 

[Dante]

And then it was Amended with the Bill of Rights, so that period before is not relevant to interpreting the documents today.

At best, the above is nonsensical.

We also superseded the original Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

The US Constitution supplanted the Article of Confederation - yes.

As I said, we had an iterative process until we got the proper documents in place for the powers of the government and the rights of individuals.

Using "proper" in this context is weirdly bizarre.

Looking at the Constitution without the Bill of Rights is futile.

I don't believe anybody posits the US Constitution be looked at without the Bill of Rights. The conversation here in this thread started out with what the US Constitution was "meant" or not meant to be about -- in a silly meme. It's about a period of time, a snap shot in time, of the founding (as we call it).

give your brain a rest