One of the main objectives of our Constitution

[struth]

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

um, why did you say not really...then go on to say, what the meme said?

Yes, it defines the structe and respsonbilities of Govt...ie...restrains the power of the Federal Govt and what it can do....specifically in Art 1 Sect 8.

Then of course the Bill of Rights and later Amendments restrain it further. For example, not allowing the Govt to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, or requiring Due Process, including providing a lawyer etc

 

[BackAgain]

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

Pretty easy to see that you are talking out of your ass again.

I’m correct. Period.

 

[BackAgain]

JFC

Your brainless retort is duly noted.

 

[Dante]

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.

Baaaaad...
Mixing up the Declaration of Independence with the Articles of Confederation, and the (should we say extra-legal?), US Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln was the first to go around the Constitution ...

Some people who lived back during the founding era would suggest it Was Thomas Jefferson, others that it was John Adams.

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.

The rest is opinions from the outer limits posing as facts

 

[Dante]

Pretty easy to see that you are talking out of your ass again.

I’m correct. Period.

He's in good company with you here

 

[struth]

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.

Sure, they were added after the first draft was made, but were in the final draft that the States ratified.

Of course it has limits on what it can do, see Art 1 Sect 8...there are specific enumerated powers that limit what Congress can do. The President is limited to enforcing that federal law. The Courts even have limited jurisdiction.

 

[BackAgain]

Yup

But the purpose of the document is to define the government

Nope. It’s to lay out the structure of government and its powers and the limits on those powers.

I’m sure you’ve heard of “enumerated powers.”

Puzzle it out. Get an attendant to help you.

 

[BackAgain]

He's in good company with you here

Yep. You’re here. Well. Company. “Good” company is another matter.

 

[Dante]

um, why did you say not really...then go on to say, what the meme said?

Yes, it defines the structe and respsonbilities of Govt...ie...restrains the power of the Federal Govt and what it can do....specifically in Art 1 Sect 8.

Yes


but then you go on and add the Bill of Rights which the meme is not speaking to

Then of course the Bill of Rights and later Amendments restrain it further. For example, not allowing the Govt to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, or requiring Due Process, including providing a lawyer etc

 

[Dante]

Yep. You’re here. Well. Company. “Good” company is another matter.

please...

 

[struth]

Yes


but then you go on and add the Bill of Rights which the meme is not speaking to

the bill of rights is part of the Constitution...where did the meme say anything about not including the bill of rights or any of the other amendments?

 

[BackAgain]

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.

The dainty (who clearly can never be taken seriously) has to be even more tragically retarded than previously noted if he thinks it’s a challenge to find libtards who claim that the Constitution limits the rights of the people.

The meme reflects reality.

This is what confounds dipshits like the dainty.

 

[BackAgain]

please...

No thanks.

 

[bendog]

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?

Well, sorta. The const sets out the powers of the federal govt. Any law passed has to be based on one of those powers. The clearest example I can think of is the commerce clause that at one time seemed to support any law. That worm turned back in the 80s and 90s. The SC is no longer so accommodating congress, on that issue.

I absolutely refuse to join in any argument as to "what is right." HOWEVER, decisions on govt power to mandate individuals do something (or not do) generally are determined on the BoR. For example, during oral argument on (I think it was in Obergefell v. Hodges) one of the conservative judges asked and "when did the 14th abolish laws against miscegenation," and the response was "when the Court said it did."

LOL. The answer may have not been pleasing, but it carried the day.

Justice Ginsberg would have found a right to abortion in equal protection. But that's just another example of finding a right. And Dobbs simply decided Alitos right to be unburdened by women seeking abortions outweighed the women's rights of autonomy

 

[boedicca]

At best, the above is nonsensical.



The US Constitution supplanted the Article of Confederation - yes.



Using "proper" in this context is weirdly bizarre.



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

Sod of swampy. The OP is about the limits of power in the Constitution - which means as amended by the Bill of Rights. If you want to separate the two, have at it. Such an exercise in meaningly futility seems to be your strong suit.

 

[Dante]

the bill of rights is part of the Constitution...where did the meme say anything about not including the bill of rights or any of the other amendments?

Inferences are important here: I see where your failure with critical thinking skills is at.

The meme. It states "was" not "is" -- follow me? The US Constitution "was" meaning the past. Ask yourself in what context. I suggest the context is at -- wait for it -- at what we call "The Founding."

The Founding - the beginning. When it was ratified. Follow me?

"Was" not "Is"

The meme. It is what people were and are responding to. That and the inanities of the OP himself.

 

[Dante]

The dainty (who clearly can never be taken seriously) has to be even more tragically retarded than previously noted if he thinks it’s a challenge to find libtards who claim that the Constitution limits the rights of the people.

The meme reflects reality.

This is what confounds dipshits like the dainty.

"Libtards?"

Back to the conversation: You fail to list people who you claim to say things.

 

[Dante]

Sod of swampy. The OP is about the limits of power in the Constitution - which means as amended by the Bill of Rights. If you want to separate the two, have at it. Such an exercise in meaningly futility seems to be your strong suit.

again: you too? "The OP is about the limits of power in the Constitution." The OP is a meme about what "was" meant, not what is meant


Inferences are important here: I see where your failure with critical thinking skills is at.

The meme. It states "was" not "is" -- follow me? The US Constitution "was" meaning the past. Ask yourself in what context. I suggest the context is at -- wait for it -- at what we call "The Founding."

The Founding - the beginning. When it was ratified. Follow me?

"Was" not "Is"

The meme. It is what people were and are responding to. That and the inanities of the OP himself.

 

[BackAgain]

"Libtards?"

Back to the conversation: You fail to list people who you claim to say things.

Schumer

Should the Government Restrict ‘Harmful’ Speech Online? - FEE

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from suppressing speech, including speech it deems “harmful,” yet lawmakers keep trying to regulate

fee.org

and Walz

VP Candidate Tim Walz on "There's No Guarantee to Free Speech on Misinformation or Hate Speech, and Especially Around Our Democracy"

Robby Soave at Reason writes about this 2022 quote from Walz (MSNBC): [MARIA TERESA KUMAR, MNSBC HOST]: … I want...

reason.com

come to mind.

 

[BackAgain]

again: you too? "The OP is about the limits of power in the Constitution." The OP is a meme about what "was" meant, not what is meant


Inferences are important here: I see where your failure with critical thinking skills is at.

The meme. It states "was" not "is" -- follow me? The US Constitution "was" meaning the past. Ask yourself in what context. I suggest the context is at -- wait for it -- at what we call "The Founding."

The Founding - the beginning. When it was ratified. Follow me?

"Was" not "Is"

The meme. It is what people were and are responding to. That and the inanities of the OP himself.

What the Constitution meant is what it means.

Poor befuddled the dainty.