The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[Darkwind]

At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind

The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​

Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Wow. This is your reply?

Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?

I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.

 

[Dante]

At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind

The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​

Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Wow. This is your reply?

Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?

I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.

reading and comprehension not your strong suit or worse...did you get spoon fed that bs on a blog or even worse -- a classroom run by a frustrated academic inebriate?

 

[Darkwind]

At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind

The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​

Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Wow. This is your reply?

Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?

I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.

reading and comprehension not your strong suit or worse...did you get spoon fed that bs on a blog or even worse -- a classroom run by a frustrated academic inebriate?

Unlike you, I tend to think about the things I read, and apply them to a more modern context.

I'd be curious as to what you think about it, but the fact that you cannot even grasp the notion that a mission statement is a declaration of intent, and that the DOI lists a score or more of grievances against the crown, which amount to a declaration of intent, then you'd likely also miss the fact that from such intents flow a purpose.

Much like a business, there is an intent for going into business (starting a country from whole cloth) and that intent is outlined by a list of things that will be done in order to achieve the goals set forth.

I'm sorry that no one has provided you with talking points to refute this notion, but rest assured that even if they do, it won't matter since you've already proven yourself unable to deal with concepts that you have never run across.

Either way, your denial or beliefs won't alter what I believe, and I'll continue to advocate for what I believe to people who are open-minded enough to consider it.

No one should even try to change a closed mind like yours.

 

[Dante]

At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind

The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​

Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Wow. This is your reply?

Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?

I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.

reading and comprehension not your strong suit or worse...did you get spoon fed that bs on a blog or even worse -- a classroom run by a frustrated academic inebriate?

Unlike you, I tend to think about the things I read, and apply them to a more modern context.

I'd be curious as to what you think about it, but the fact that you cannot even grasp the notion that a mission statement is a declaration of intent, and that the DOI lists a score or more of grievances against the crown, which amount to a declaration of intent, then you'd likely also miss the fact that from such intents flow a purpose.

Much like a business, there is an intent for going into business (starting a country from whole cloth) and that intent is outlined by a list of things that will be done in order to achieve the goals set forth.

I'm sorry that no one has provided you with talking points to refute this notion, but rest assured that even if they do, it won't matter since you've already proven yourself unable to deal with concepts that you have never run across.

Either way, your denial or beliefs won't alter what I believe, and I'll continue to advocate for what I believe to people who are open-minded enough to consider it.

No one should even try to change a closed mind like yours.

The Declaration of Independence as a Mission Statement?

How very simplistic and lazy a mind you posses

 

[Darkwind]

At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind

The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​

Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Wow. This is your reply?

Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?

I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.

reading and comprehension not your strong suit or worse...did you get spoon fed that bs on a blog or even worse -- a classroom run by a frustrated academic inebriate?

Unlike you, I tend to think about the things I read, and apply them to a more modern context.

I'd be curious as to what you think about it, but the fact that you cannot even grasp the notion that a mission statement is a declaration of intent, and that the DOI lists a score or more of grievances against the crown, which amount to a declaration of intent, then you'd likely also miss the fact that from such intents flow a purpose.

Much like a business, there is an intent for going into business (starting a country from whole cloth) and that intent is outlined by a list of things that will be done in order to achieve the goals set forth.

I'm sorry that no one has provided you with talking points to refute this notion, but rest assured that even if they do, it won't matter since you've already proven yourself unable to deal with concepts that you have never run across.

Either way, your denial or beliefs won't alter what I believe, and I'll continue to advocate for what I believe to people who are open-minded enough to consider it.

No one should even try to change a closed mind like yours.

The Declaration of Independence as a Mission Statement?

How very simplistic and lazy a mind you posses

Since I've reduced you to school yard insults that don't affect Me, I'll bid you a pleasant evening.

 

[Dante]

Wow, Darkwind reads and applies what she's read to a more modern context.

wtf is that supposed to mean in the context of the thread?

sounds like the Darkwind likes to hear herself sound smart -- in 7th grade

 

[DGS49]

Consider the following: When Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, he dated the founding of the country at 1776 (87 years before 1863) - NOT 1789, the date when the Constitution was ratified. September, 1789 is when the Federal Government was founded, but the birth of the nation (as opposed to the Government) was 1776.

For anyone wanting to understand the Constitution, it must be considered alongside the principles articulated in the DoI. Most poignantly, the Second Amendment is a curious provision until you consider the words of the DoI, to wit, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government..." Clearly, the right to keep and bear arms flows out of the right of citizens to abolish a government that forgets its rightful purpose and authority.

The right of the USSC to interpret laws and to determine finally their "constitutionality" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but is a logical construct that has been accepted for a couple hundred years. But it was not until relatively recently that the Court had the temerity to begin reading nonsense into the interstices of the words themselves, and to create new "constitutional rights" that would have outraged the very people who crafted the words that the USSC cites.

The "freedom of speech" that was intended to prevent government from punishing people who criticized government and office holders, was used to void local censorship laws that had been around since the beginning of the nation.

Regulating "...commerce...among the several states..." became an umbrella that now permits the Federal government to force coal-fired power plants into premature obsolescence.

The right of the Federal Government to impose compulsory retirement and elderly health insurance programs was created out of thin air - in the process of "interpreting" the Constitution.

The expression, "settled law" is often used by Prog's to indicate that some legal and constitutional subjects are now beyond discussion and/or debate. But when the USSC makes up shit it can never be "settled law," and those of us who respect the Constitution as the founding document of a potentially great central government will continue, if you please, to hope that some future President will have the balls (or ovaries if you must) to appoint USSC justices who can READ and WRITE, and who are not so totally compromised as to buy into this mountain of "constitutional" bullshit which we are all suffering with at present.

 

[regent]

One does not have to read and write or even to have a law degree to be a supreme court judge. Supreme Court Judges are political appointees based on their politics, and the whole procedure is political. On occasion, after appointment, a judge will drop the politics and decide in favor of what he believes to be a better America. They are rare but we have had them and, of course, they are labeled as "traitors to their class."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

case law is settled law.

until someone like Clarence Thomas decides the case law is too liberal and thus no longer consistent with Constitution. Then he throws it all out in favor of a more literal reading of the Constitution.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. On occasion, after appointment, a judge will drop the politics and decide in favor of what he believes to be a better America.

100% stupid and liberal. A judges job is to uphold the Constitution and interpret laws as intended by the legislatures who wrote them, not to do what he believes what is best for America you total idiot liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The right of the USSC to interpret laws and to determine finally their "constitutionality" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but is a logical construct that has been accepted for a couple hundred years..

Actually Marbury v Madison established judicial review in 1803 or so. According to Judge Reinquist it sat around unused for 100 years before liberals thought to twist it and use it as an excuse for SCOTUS to intercede where they had no business. So, it is by no means a forgone conclusion that we should continue to grant the court the huge powers it assumed in what is supposed to be a govt with very very limited powers.

The whole liberal enterprise is predicated on the idea of subverting our govt until finally it is liberal communistic.


Thomas Jefferson:
the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-16)governance and the vigilance of the producer class."


A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned, this is the sum of good government.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

 

[regent]

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur

total idiot liberal as always. He was a classical liberal like Milton Friedman. ie,, for very limited govt.
Well he did argue with President Truman a lot, and was consequently fired, so I would guess he was Conservative. He was also expected to run as a Republican in the 1952 presidential election, but then endorsed Robert Taft to be the Republican candidate (Eisenhower ended up winning the primaries, though). He also was a major speaker at the Republican National Convention in 1952.

 

[regent]

I would suspect that MacArthur was talking of the framers of the Constitution and their liberalism, so where did Friedman, Truman, Ike and Taft come from, still I guess that's better than changing my post to fit your response.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would suspect that MacArthur was talking of the framers of the Constitution and their liberalism,.

framers where classical liberals like Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson, ie,. for very very tiny govt. McArthur was darling of conservative Right Wing Republicans and supported Taft when he decided not to run for president as a conservative right winger.

See why we say a liberal will be stupid?

 

[regent]

I would suspect that MacArthur was talking of the framers of the Constitution and their liberalism,.

framers where classical liberals like Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson, ie,. for very very tiny govt. McArthur was darling of conservative Right Wing Republicans and supported Taft when he decided not to run for president as a conservative right winger.

See why we say a liberal will be stupid?

Where's the rest of my post?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would suspect that MacArthur was talking of the framers of the Constitution and their liberalism,.

framers where classical liberals like Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson, ie,. for very very tiny govt. McArthur was darling of conservative Right Wing Republicans and supported Taft when he decided not to run for president as a conservative right winger.

See why we say a liberal will be stupid?

Where's the rest of my post?

framers where classical liberals like Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson, ie,. for very very tiny govt. McArthur was darling of conservative Right Wing Republicans and supported Taft when he decided not to run for president as a conservative right winger.

See why we say a liberal will be stupid?

 

[emilynghiem]

“Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”

No.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.

As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in Lawrence:

“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.”

RE: As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
I can see where there is a crossing of the line between "separation of church and state"

it is ONE thing to come up with your OWN search for freedom and meaning, and interpretation.
It is ANOTHER thing to ESTABLISH the meaning of law for others AGAINST their beliefs WITHOUT their consent.

Nothing wrong with interpreting laws or religions your own way.
But where we cross the line is imposing our beliefs on others and abusing govt authority to punish them if their beliefs are different.

Different beliefs is NOT the same as disobeying authority with intent to break the law.
We need to distinguish when people are refusing because their BELIEFS are different which are protected
by the very law we also seek to enforce. There cannot be such contradictions, and then BLAME them on others as if to criminalize or penalize them, when the CAUSE of the dissension is not unlawful but from inherent beliefs.

This distinction MUST be made, or it's unfair to treat people of differing beliefs as if these are "criminals trying to break the law or subvert govt authority"

That is criminalizing people for creeds, and a form of discrimination.
We need officials and mediators who can distinguish the difference between conflicts from beliefs,
and truly lawless criminal disrespect for law and order. It is not fair to treat dissension and objection as unlawful
when there is a reason for it that is natural to people by their beliefs and isn't intended at all to be wrongful.

 

[emilynghiem]

“Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”

Incorrect.

It is not 'my assessment.'

It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.

C_Clayton_Jones
where we all agree the law gives govt this authority, such as on issues NOT involving beliefs where the conflict is arbitrary and changeable (such as arguing if a highway should be 5 or 6 lanes, if funding for a project should be 3.4 or 5 million, if the term for a certain office should be 2, 4 or 6 years, or if a certain vote should be 2/3, 51% or 100% consensus. These issues do not involve people's personal beliefs and can be decided by govt process, as we AGREE to use it for)

But where the conflicts are a matter of equal BELIEFS clashing, NO, people do NOT agree to submit this decision to the hands of govt to decide, whether Courts or Congress or whoever.
Such as people disagreeing on the terms of Communion, Baptism, Weddings or Funeral Services ==> NO, govt does NOT have authority to decide or compel matters of personal belief and religious practices.

The problem is people do not equally recognize "political beliefs" as private similar to religion.
C_Clayton_Jones you remind me of the far right who so strongly hold their beliefs as universal default truth for all people, they see NO separation from govt and just BELIEVE all govt, judges and citizens should agree it is the truth. They don't see any free choice in the matter, very similar to how you take the Court's word as absolute, without question, similar to fundamentalists.
This is fine for policies we AGREE to submit to that process; but it is NEVER agreed up to put someone's BELIEFS in the hands of govt to decide for the entire public, like a national religion.

If people's religions are infringing on each other, govt could be used to compel parties to separate or to form an agreement on a contract before it is binding; and quit imposing the conditions of one side on the other.

But to take one side in a dispute between beliefs is govt "establishing a religion" and is against the First Amendment. Liberals call this "separation of church and state" but seem to have trouble distinguishing when Liberal politicians cross the line, and start imposing political beliefs by govt authority, because these beliefs are masked in secular language pushed as "nonreligious' when in fact they constitute personal beliefs not all the public shares.

The day we openly recognize "political beliefs" as requiring separation, the same as "religious beliefs" we might actually make progress in this country working through conflicts instead of bullying each other over them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The day we openly recognize "political beliefs" as requiring separation, the same as "religious beliefs" we might actually make progress in this country working through conflicts instead of bullying each other over them.

gibberish, govts job is to make policy out of different political beliefs, but not to make a new religion out different religions.