What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Link between the Constitution and "Constitutional Law"

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
11,176
Reaction score
6,167
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
During the period from the FDR Administration through the present, the Federal courts and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded and distorted the U.S. Constitution in many areas, to the point where "Constitutional Law" has become completely unmoored from the clear words of the Constitution - and with that expression I include words that are manifestly NOT in the Constitution, but are treated as though they were.

The danger of this situation is that neither the Congress, the President, the States, nor the People can revise the Constitution appropriately, because all that is necessary is to take the words of the actual document seriously.

A few examples:

"...Commerce...among the several States..." These words are usually stated as "interstate commerce," which is good enough. The Supreme Court has interpreted these five words to include commerce of any kind within the entire United States. The words "among the states" have been completely written out of the Constitution, to the extent that there is no commerce anywhere in the country that does not come under the control of Federal regulators and Federal law. So how would the American people achieve a CHANGE to get the Supreme Court to start taking the words of the Constitution seriously.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." These words - not all that complicated - have been expanded - to void all anti-sodomy laws, and to void anti-abortion laws. And given the right case, they will surely be used to void anti-incest laws and anti-polygamy laws. (I would include marriage laws, w/r/t gay marriage, but those adventures were mainly based on equal protection nonsense). So we have WORDS that guard us against "unreasonable searches and seizures," but the Supreme Court has used them to create a whole new, undefinable "Constitutional right." The Right of Privacy.

Of course the biggest fiasco is the complete nullification of the Tenth Amendment, which limits the Federal Government (in effect, Congress) to the powers specifically spelled out in Article I, reserving everything else to the states and to the people (i.e., the private sector). "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The result of this bit of outlandish usurping is that at least half of the spending of the United States is unconstitutional.

Isn't it amazing that at the turn of the last century it was universally known that the Feds could not provide drought relief to farmers - prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But now, the Tenth Amendment has never been amended, but "we" provide relief to farmers for everything but kidney stones - and pretend that it's all completely Constitutional.

Where do we go to get our Constitution back?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,415
Reaction score
48,354
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
The Constitution has been a dead letter for over a century.

Getting it back will likely involve "refresh(ing) the tree".
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,396
Reaction score
21,211
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
During the period from the FDR Administration through the present, the Federal courts and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded and distorted the U.S. Constitution in many areas, to the point where "Constitutional Law" has become completely unmoored from the clear words of the Constitution - and with that expression I include words that are manifestly NOT in the Constitution, but are treated as though they were.

The danger of this situation is that neither the Congress, the President, the States, nor the People can revise the Constitution appropriately, because all that is necessary is to take the words of the actual document seriously.

A few examples:

"...Commerce...among the several States..." These words are usually stated as "interstate commerce," which is good enough. The Supreme Court has interpreted these five words to include commerce of any kind within the entire United States. The words "among the states" have been completely written out of the Constitution, to the extent that there is no commerce anywhere in the country that does not come under the control of Federal regulators and Federal law. So how would the American people achieve a CHANGE to get the Supreme Court to start taking the words of the Constitution seriously.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." These words - not all that complicated - have been expanded - to void all anti-sodomy laws, and to void anti-abortion laws. And given the right case, they will surely be used to void anti-incest laws and anti-polygamy laws. (I would include marriage laws, w/r/t gay marriage, but those adventures were mainly based on equal protection nonsense). So we have WORDS that guard us against "unreasonable searches and seizures," but the Supreme Court has used them to create a whole new, undefinable "Constitutional right." The Right of Privacy.

Of course the biggest fiasco is the complete nullification of the Tenth Amendment, which limits the Federal Government (in effect, Congress) to the powers specifically spelled out in Article I, reserving everything else to the states and to the people (i.e., the private sector). "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The result of this bit of outlandish usurping is that at least half of the spending of the United States is unconstitutional.

Isn't it amazing that at the turn of the last century it was universally known that the Feds could not provide drought relief to farmers - prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But now, the Tenth Amendment has never been amended, but "we" provide relief to farmers for everything but kidney stones - and pretend that it's all completely Constitutional.

Where do we go to get our Constitution back?
It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court – interpret the Constitution and determine its meaning.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Commerce Clause jurisprudence is perfectly consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court acknowledged the complexities of the markets and the interrelated nature of the markets; because of those complexities and the importance of the markets, necessary, proper regulatory measures are authorized by the Constitution.

Privacy rights jurisprudence is perfectly consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that the Framers sought to limit the authority of the state with regard to both criminal due process and substantive due process; that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from interfering in personal, private matters – such as whether to have a child or not. Measures intended to compel a woman to give birth against her will violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that the Framers sought to limit the authority of the state with regard personal, private decisions as to intimate relationships:

“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

Seeking to subject gay Americans to criminal prosecution violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Anti-sodomy laws and anti-abortion laws are repugnant to the Constitution; their intent is solely to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty and have been appropriately invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Jurisprudence concerning the authority of Congress is perfectly consistent with the original intent of the Framers concerning the 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment has not been ‘nullified.’

In US v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause authorized Congress to regulate employment conditions:

“Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which provides: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”

Clearly the thread premise is wrong and is completely devoid of merit.

The Supreme Court has neither expanded nor distorted the U.S. Constitution; the Court’s rulings comport with the original intent and understanding of the Framers.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

“But the Supreme Court is wrong, the Supreme Court is not taking the words of the Constitution seriously” are likewise failed and ignorant ‘arguments.’

As Justice Kennedy explained 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.”
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
1,708
Points
938
Location
Transient
During the period from the FDR Administration through the present, the Federal courts and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded and distorted the U.S. Constitution in many areas, to the point where "Constitutional Law" has become completely unmoored from the clear words of the Constitution - and with that expression I include words that are manifestly NOT in the Constitution, but are treated as though they were.

The danger of this situation is that neither the Congress, the President, the States, nor the People can revise the Constitution appropriately, because all that is necessary is to take the words of the actual document seriously.

Where do we go to get our Constitution back?
You need to face the reality that we need to have a sophisticated three level constitutional convention to review and amend/supplement the terminologies that are used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We can begin with making sure everyone knows what a peaceful assembly is. It appears that you left that out in your opening argument. I am confident that you encountered a lot of discrepancies in the use of the term over the past 9 months, or so.

The Constitution is a form of a peace treaty, you know???

And obviously, much like how our English teachers told us that the language is being corrupted, so has the agreement of the peace treaty.

Do not be afraid. The uncertainty of trying to enforce your interpretation of the Constitution is a fools errand.
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
11,176
Reaction score
6,167
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
MY point is that it is impossible to AMEND something in order to get the Courts simply to take it seriously.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top