Political question for Leftists. What do you not like about the Constitution?

[progressive hunter]

Show me the section of the constitution that takes away rights from other parts of the constitution.

the constitution doesnt have rights,,

Then the "bill of rights" is not not simple enlgish.

The Bill of Rights is simple English.
But states already existed, and these existing states can't be expected to become subordinated to some new federal government, right after the colonists had been forced to fight a rebellion against the last corrupt central government.
So the meaning and intent of the Bill of Right was ONLY to limit federal jurisdiction.
Nothing else.
It was only after the Civil War, and the 14th amendment, when the SCOTUS started trying to define what rights all individuals should have.
That was not the intent in 1789.

are you saying that states can change the 5th and jail or execute people without trial???

and thats just one of the flaws in your comment,,,

 

[meaner gene]

The Bill of Rights is simple English.
But states already existed, and these existing states can't be expected to become subordinated to some new federal government, right after the colonists had been forced to fight a rebellion against the last corrupt central government.
So the meaning and intent of the Bill of Right was ONLY to limit federal jurisdiction.
Nothing else.
It was only after the Civil War, and the 14th amendment, when the SCOTUS started trying to define what rights all individuals should have.
That was not the intent in 1789.

The intent in 1789 was that "the people" didn't include those who were only 3/5's of a person.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Bill of Rights is simple English.
But states already existed, and these existing states can't be expected to become subordinated to some new federal government, right after the colonists had been forced to fight a rebellion against the last corrupt central government.
So the meaning and intent of the Bill of Right was ONLY to limit federal jurisdiction.
Nothing else.
It was only after the Civil War, and the 14th amendment, when the SCOTUS started trying to define what rights all individuals should have.
That was not the intent in 1789.

The intent in 1789 was that "the people" didn't include those who were only 3/5's of a person.

and later we corrected that democrat induced mistake,,,

 

[Rigby5]

remember when I said context and intent is important??

Oh.... we have another paradox. You said you have to have knowledge outside of the words of the constitution in order to understand it.

That's not simple english.

DUDE!!!

you tried to make it apply to people outside the country,,,

It does apply to people outside the country.
The rights endowed to individuals by US law are supposed to apply anywhere US has authority.
That is not just inside US states and territories, but embassies, countries under US military occupation, bases like Guantanamo, etc.
Which is why holding POWs at Guantanamo without giving them rights, violates US law as well international law.

 

[progressive hunter]

remember when I said context and intent is important??

Oh.... we have another paradox. You said you have to have knowledge outside of the words of the constitution in order to understand it.

That's not simple english.

DUDE!!!

you tried to make it apply to people outside the country,,,

It does apply to people outside the country.
The rights endowed to individuals by US law are supposed to apply anywhere US has authority.
That is not just inside US states and territories, but embassies, countries under US military occupation, bases like Guantanamo, etc.
Which is why holding POWs at Guantanamo without giving them rights, violates US law as well international law.

I never said it did and it also doesnt answer my question to you,,,

 

[meaner gene]

are you saying that states can change the 5th and jail or execute people without trial???

and thats just one of the flaws in your comment,,,

No, he's saying in 1789 they could, and they could continue until 1868

 

[Rigby5]

The Bill of Rights is simple English.
But states already existed, and these existing states can't be expected to become subordinated to some new federal government, right after the colonists had been forced to fight a rebellion against the last corrupt central government.
So the meaning and intent of the Bill of Right was ONLY to limit federal jurisdiction.
Nothing else.
It was only after the Civil War, and the 14th amendment, when the SCOTUS started trying to define what rights all individuals should have.
That was not the intent in 1789.

The intent in 1789 was that "the people" didn't include those who were only 3/5's of a person.

The desire of most of the Founders likely was to include everyone.
But they had no legal means by which they could impose that desire on other states that already had slavery.
How do you get states to join a union if in doing so they would have to give up property they paid hundreds of thousands for?

 

[progressive hunter]

are you saying that states can change the 5th and jail or execute people without trial???

and thats just one of the flaws in your comment,,,

No, he's saying in 1789 they could, and they could continue until 1868

not seeing your point,,, or what it has to do with my question to him,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The Bill of Rights is simple English.
But states already existed, and these existing states can't be expected to become subordinated to some new federal government, right after the colonists had been forced to fight a rebellion against the last corrupt central government.
So the meaning and intent of the Bill of Right was ONLY to limit federal jurisdiction.
Nothing else.
It was only after the Civil War, and the 14th amendment, when the SCOTUS started trying to define what rights all individuals should have.
That was not the intent in 1789.

The intent in 1789 was that "the people" didn't include those who were only 3/5's of a person.

The desire of most of the Founders likely was to include everyone.
But they had no legal means by which they could impose that desire on other states that already had slavery.
How do you get states to join a union if in doing so they would have to give up property they paid hundreds of thousands for?

are you going to answer my question or just troll the thread??

 

[BlackSand]

As the president is commander in chief of the "well regulated militia" of the several states.

The militia is irrelevant. "Shall not be infringed" couldn't be any clearer.

Have you ever studied contracts? The rule of contractual interpretation is that all language within a contract has operative meaning. You aren't allowed to just ignore sections you don't like.

I would go so far as to say you've managed to dowdify the 2nd amendment.

.

You can fulfil both of the statutory requirements without violating either of them.
One statutory requirement does not validate the infringing upon the other.

If the Federal government wrote a law that required all American Citizens to own a firearm, a reasonable amount of ammunition, and complete and training course ...
That would not violate the US Constitution.

The desire to Infringe Upon the Rights of US Citizens to Bear Arms is not acceptable if you intend to do so in order to Provide for a Regulated Militia.
Attempts to interpret otherwise, would be an attempt to Legislate from the Bench.

Of course I am in no way suggesting that it hasn't already occurred.

.​

 

[meaner gene]

are you saying that states can change the 5th and jail or execute people without trial???

and thats just one of the flaws in your comment,,,

No, he's saying in 1789 they could, [ignore the 5th amendment] and they could continue [to do so] until 1868

not seeing your point,,, or what it has to do with my question to him,,

Didn't you ask if the states could ignore the 5th, or as you said "change the 5th"

 

[progressive hunter]

are you saying that states can change the 5th and jail or execute people without trial???

and thats just one of the flaws in your comment,,,

No, he's saying in 1789 they could, [ignore the 5th amendment] and they could continue [to do so] until 1868

not seeing your point,,, or what it has to do with my question to him,,

Didn't you ask if the states could ignore the 5th, or as you said "change the 5th"

he can answer on his own,,,

 

[emilynghiem]

t political beliefs come from taking principles out of context:

2. Promoting the general welfare in the preamble as more important than the rights of people to check govt against abuse or overreach of power to violate individual rights liberties and protections

Actually those protections are contained in the guarantee of a republican form of government. That free a fair elections are the bedrock of a democracy, in how it picks it's legislators and executives.

In short, you get what you pay for. You get the government you elect.

Yes and No.

When people don"t believe in enforcing restrictions barring govt from imposing biases in beliefs on taxpayers involving social programs and policies, you can end up with govt where other people elect the terms which you are forced to pay for.

If we don't agree to write better laws to avoid imposing one group's political belief on another, we end up with govt policies NOBODY wants.

 

[Rigby5]

why are you avoiding my comment?? are you saying those others dont apply to all persons??

All persons would refer to everybody on earth.

"All persons" does refer to everybody on earth.
But those who are not under our jurisdiction, are not our responsibility.
We have to defend the rights of everyone, but only against our infringement of their rights.
We don't have to defend Russians against infringement against the infringement of their rights by Russia.
But where the US is exerting authority, like in a US territory, embassy, military base, or area we invaded, then we have to prevent infringement of the same rights we protect in the US.

 

[meaner gene]

The desire to Infringe Upon the Rights of US Citizens to Bear Arms is not acceptable if you intend to do so in order to Provide for a Regulated Militia.
Attempts to interpret otherwise, would be an attempt to Legislate from the Bench.

Of course I am in no way suggesting that it hasn't already occurred.

.[/CENTER]

The problem as I have pointed out to progressive hunter, is that the Constitution isn't written in simple english. As progressive hunter said, it requires knowing the "intent" of those writing it. So your "legislating from the bench" is no more than applying intent to interpret the text.

 

[Rigby5]

remember when I said context and intent is important??

Oh.... we have another paradox. You said you have to have knowledge outside of the words of the constitution in order to understand it.

That's not simple english.

DUDE!!!

you tried to make it apply to people outside the country,,,

It does apply to people outside the country.
The rights endowed to individuals by US law are supposed to apply anywhere US has authority.
That is not just inside US states and territories, but embassies, countries under US military occupation, bases like Guantanamo, etc.
Which is why holding POWs at Guantanamo without giving them rights, violates US law as well international law.

I never said it did and it also doesn't answer my question to you,,,

I did not say you did.
And I don't know what question you had for me?

 

[progressive hunter]

why are you avoiding my comment?? are you saying those others dont apply to all persons??

All persons would refer to everybody on earth.

"All persons" does refer to everybody on earth.
But those who are not under our jurisdiction, are not our responsibility.
We have to defend the rights of everyone, but only against our infringement of their rights.
We don't have to defend Russians against infringement against the infringement of their rights by Russia.
But where the US is exerting authority, like in a US territory, embassy, military base, or area we invaded, then we have to prevent infringement of the same rights we protect in the US.

when are you going to answer my question about the states being able to jail or execute people without trial??

 

[progressive hunter]

remember when I said context and intent is important??

Oh.... we have another paradox. You said you have to have knowledge outside of the words of the constitution in order to understand it.

That's not simple english.

DUDE!!!

you tried to make it apply to people outside the country,,,

It does apply to people outside the country.
The rights endowed to individuals by US law are supposed to apply anywhere US has authority.
That is not just inside US states and territories, but embassies, countries under US military occupation, bases like Guantanamo, etc.
Which is why holding POWs at Guantanamo without giving them rights, violates US law as well international law.

I never said it did and it also doesn't answer my question to you,,,

I did not say you did.
And I don't know what question you had for me?

you said the bill of rights only applied to the feds,, and I asked can the states change the 5th A and jail or execute people without trial??

 

[$ecular#eckler]

There is no restriction, it was meant to refer to all people through out the world.

That would be extraconstitutional. As it's restricted to people under it's jurisdiction.

No, it is not restricted. During the war on terror, the US Forces had to abide by the Bill of Rights for all the people they encountered.

 

[meaner gene]

When people don"t believe in enforcing restrictions barring govt from imposing biases in beliefs on taxpayers involving social programs and policies, you can end up with govt where other people elect the terms which you are forced to pay for.

If we don't agree to write better laws to avoid imposing one group's political belief on another, we end up with govt policies NOBODY wants.

The constitution grants rights meant to protect the minority. A democracy suffers from having to govern by the will of the people, which means the majority can prescribe things abhorrent to the minority.

But as they say, winner take all.