The Constitution is a Con Game

[Buck111]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government.

Only if the citizenry permits.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Comparing the long train of abuses listed in the Declaration of Independence to the current political conditions, it's easy to recognize that the Constitution has been entirely ineffective at constraining government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One of the quickest Ignore I have ever done.

We are dealing with innumerable trolls and buck111 comes out trolling a la prisonmike or grizz. The difference is that the latter two are fun to mess with. buck111 would just be a bore.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government.

Only if the citizenry permits.

And they always have. Still do.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government.

Only if the citizenry permits.

And they always have. Still do.

That's how the game works.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government.

Only if the citizenry permits.

And they always have. Still do.

That's how the game works.

Hence the op.

 

[Spare_change]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

This is popularly known as a WBW thread ((Wasted BandWidth)

 

[BULLDOG]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

Forgot to take your meds again today?

 

[Buck111]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

Forgot to take your meds again today?

Apparently you disagree with me. If so, why?

 

[saveliberty]

I'd ignore you, but you'll eliminate yourself soon enough.

Violate the Constitution, become more intimate with due process.

 

[BULLDOG]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

Forgot to take your meds again today?

Apparently you disagree with me. If so, why?

The ability to use the basic principles of the constitution to address issues that the founding fathers never thought about, and could never foresee is the only reason our constitution is as strong and resilient as it is, and the reason it has lasted as long as it has. Only an idiot would think our defining document could be just as relevant now as it was a couple hundred years ago without some adaptation to match the times.

 

[Yarddog]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

Which is exactly why the founders also tried to create separation of power within the government. They knew that all governments eventually serve themselves, especially if unchecked.

 

[emilynghiem]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

Dear Buck111 yes and no.
If people take away rights of others, they also lose those rights.
There is a natural law in place, of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.
Since everyone wants their rights, they end up having to respect the same for others.

Look at free speech, the minute one person starts denouncing or censoring the free speech of others,
ten more jump up and denounce that person and cut off their free speech.

If one person goes too far with free will and step on the free will and consent of others,
there is a protest or petition, and either that person gets blocked or people take action to solve the conflict.
But it doesn't go without invoking some due process or grievance process to address the imbalance,
injustice or disruption of the peace.

The laws check themselves. Why?
Because all people have
* judicial freedom to speak our opinions and interpret laws and right and wrong by freedom of speech
* legislative freedom to write our own contract and policies and establish agreements among ourselves
by freedom of the press and written information and education
* executive freedom to exercise our beliefs and interests equally as long as we don't interfere
or impose unfairly on the same of others

And where we agree to work together we can respect each other's
* right to assemble and petition EACH OTHER (as the people are the Govt)
for redress of grievances, ie due process of laws.

So we can have equal protections of the laws where people AGREE it is mutual responsibility and contract.

Yes, people abuse the contract, and you can see, other people rise up and police that abuse.
We just have to agree to enforce it consistently, save our resources for good, and quit wasting it policing
abuses that we can prevent and correct together.

Why? Because we all want our rights, and don't want other people violating them.
We all want the same things, but just don't trust each other's groups.

So why don't we agree to let all groups operate independently,
support each other in managing our own beliefs and programs,
and we can all get what we want without imposing on what others want!

www.ethics-commission.net

 

[Buck111]

I think some of you are missing my points.

The CONstitution affords no protections for the rights of the people. Why? Because it can be suspended by government. If a right can be suspended, it is not a "right", it is a privilege. The Bill of Rights, nor any other part of the CONstitution is immune from suspension.

In 1871, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Eight times! This allowed the imprisonment, without charge or due process, to be arrested and jailed. He also approved warrantless searches by his military where they were free to kick in doors. Not only did he do these two things, he also censored the press, effectively closing down several newspapers. Let suspended at least three of the first ten amendments to the CONstituion.

During WWII, habeas corpus was again suspended and Japanese, German and Italian Americans were placed in prison camps. Men, women and children.

During the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, National Guardsmen went door-to-door confiscating peoples firearms.

These are not the only times government has suspended parts of the CONstitution, nor will they be the last.

As long as government has the power to take your "rights" for it's reasons, you have no "rights", you have privileges. The big con is you think it doesn't or cant happen.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think some of you are missing my points.

The CONstitution affords no protections for the rights of the people. Why? Because it can be suspended by government. If a right can be suspended, it is not a "right", it is a privilege. The Bill of Rights, nor any other part of the CONstitution is immune from suspension.

In 1871, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Eight times! This allowed the imprisonment, without charge or due process, to be arrested and jailed. He also approved warrantless searches by his military where they were free to kick in doors. Not only did he do these two things, he also censored the press, effectively closing down several newspapers. Let suspended at least three of the first ten amendments to the CONstituion.

During WWII, habeas corpus was again suspended and Japanese, German and Italian Americans were placed in prison camps. Men, women and children.

During the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, National Guardsmen went door-to-door confiscating peoples firearms.

These are not the only times government has suspended parts of the CONstitution, nor will they be the last.

As long as government has the power to take your "rights" for it's reasons, you have no "rights", you have privileges. The big con is you think it doesn't or cant happen.

Nobody is missing the point you are trying to make. You're just wrong.

 

[Buck111]

I think some of you are missing my points.

The CONstitution affords no protections for the rights of the people. Why? Because it can be suspended by government. If a right can be suspended, it is not a "right", it is a privilege. The Bill of Rights, nor any other part of the CONstitution is immune from suspension.

In 1871, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Eight times! This allowed the imprisonment, without charge or due process, to be arrested and jailed. He also approved warrantless searches by his military where they were free to kick in doors. Not only did he do these two things, he also censored the press, effectively closing down several newspapers. Let suspended at least three of the first ten amendments to the CONstituion.

During WWII, habeas corpus was again suspended and Japanese, German and Italian Americans were placed in prison camps. Men, women and children.

During the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, National Guardsmen went door-to-door confiscating peoples firearms.

These are not the only times government has suspended parts of the CONstitution, nor will they be the last.

As long as government has the power to take your "rights" for it's reasons, you have no "rights", you have privileges. The big con is you think it doesn't or cant happen.

Nobody is missing the point you are trying to make. You're just wrong.

I am wrong how?

 

[Unkotare]

The OP is juvenile nonsense.

 

[Buck111]

The OP is juvenile nonsense.

What evidence do you have to support your accusation?

 

[ibc]

The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we've had, or has been powerless to prevent it. -Lysander Spooner.

Conclusively it is the former, i.e. ...it was "Authorized". The Preamble explains it unequivocally. It was not about the "common" man. The Constitution is a contract and your not a party to it.

This is a document drafted by the PEOPLE" of the "UNITED STATES" for, the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" The "PEOPLE" guaranteed that the debt payments of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
would be made to the King. -Article 6, clause 1

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation".

The United States of America founded under the Confederation of states went into debt to fight the war against the King. The king tired of the war and had other issues in Europe agreed to conclude the war with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. This agreement was the repayment of the loans authored by the said countries in that treaty. Article 4 of this treaty puts their (The Kings) claws in our buttocks.

The United States of America, the 13 colonies, became disunited, fought amongst themselves, refused to pay their share of the debts, and was gaining the attention of the king for failure to pay. Because of this disunity, 55 PEOPLE gathered together and attended meetings to reorganize and centralize the power of government and to agree to form a new entity called the "UNITED STATES" in 1787. Only 39 of those attendee's signed the constitution forming our present style of government.

The Preamble of the Constitution paraphrases to the King what these 39 individuals intend to do with the original agreement and how they are going to run the country.

We the People [capitol "P" changes legal meaning in contract law, and applies to the signatories only] (which formed the entity) of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect "Union", establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our "P"osterity. See Black's 6th ed. "All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation", do ordain and establish this Constitution [for] the United States of America.

One entity did FOR another entity. See Art.1, sect 2, para. 3; "...the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States". Not the United States of America.

This contract, Constitution is founded, abides and is subservient to international law, based on a compilation of rules, maxims, and guidelines formed over 4000 years of governance compiled in the form of a book referenced in the US Constitution. See, Art.1 sect. 8 para. 10; "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the "LAW OF NATIONS".

The Law of Nations is a Book!

Most of you went to centralized centers of education... think you were missled? facts misrepresented?