The Semantics of Constitutionality

[Rigby5]

Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.

The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.

The Separation of Church and State: Everson v. Board of Education - FindLaw

In 1947, the Supreme Court was asked to decide just how separate our federal government needed to be from religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education, a closely divided Supreme Court decided a New Jersey program that helped children in Catholic schools did not violate the First...

supreme.findlaw.com

You object to the Supreme Court making law and creating rights out of thin air. You want the originality Constitution. So let’s go for it. No problem with a State establishing a religion. It isn’t Congress.

There originally were state religions, line Penn's Sylvania.
But clearly that infringes on the inherent rights of those of other religions, so is not legal after the 14th amendment.
The original constitution was wrong because the states originally considered themselves endowed with Divine Right. We rebelled from England because we do not believe in Divine Right. So then states can't be allowed to violate individual rights any more than the feds.

 

[pegwinn]

What is wrong is your idea that the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the source of legal authority.
It isn't.
It is an attempt to try to figure out what our inherent rights might be, and what jurisdiction levels of government might best have.
It is a work in progress so has many mistakes, and never remotely pretended to be the source of any rights. Rights have to already exist before they could even remotely be put into something like the Constitution. If the constitution created rights, then they would be arbitrary and could just as easily be eliminated.

It literally is the source. And the Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution. Not separate as you seem to think. And, it is a completed work that happens to have a built in lawful process to change it. Finally, considering the abject failure of government to conform to the text those rights you believe already existed are arbitrary and can be easily eliminated.

 

[Rigby5]

This is the fruit of slave civilization. The matriarchy and priests benefited from high reproduction, because it provided more low-skilled labor and combat infantry for expansion. But this is not a property of all mankind.
There was no sexual licentiousness in patriarchal traditions.

There is no such thing as patriarchal traditions that were not for war, slavery, and religion.
You have it wrong and mixed up matriarchy and patriarchy.
The original hunter/gatherer human society was a matriarchy because the men would be off hunting while the women had to stay to raise the children, so then did the gathering and governing.
Then there was no war or slavery.
It was when we invented agriculture, currency, property, and the Mideast also started to desertify, that we switched to a patriarchy that was continually at war and followed warlike religions.

This statue from before 10,000 BC is likely from a peaceful, matriachical, hunter/gatherer society.

 

[Rigby5]

It literally is the source. And the Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution. Not separate as you seem to think. And, it is a completed work that happens to have a built in lawful process to change it. Finally, considering the abject failure of government to conform to the text those rights you believe already existed are arbitrary and can be easily eliminated.

No, the Constitution can NOT be the source of rights, because that would leave a conundrum, of where did the authority to create the Constitution come from?
The Constitution can not be self authorizing.
And clearly Jefferson said it was not in the Declaration of Independence.
He said that the inherent rights of all individuals already always exist, and that is what is the source of all authority.

Whether one considers the amendments, like the Bill of Rights, to be part of the constitution or not, I do not care.
It is still a work in progress and needs more amendments yet.

 

[rupol2000]

There is no such thing as patriarchal traditions that were not for war, slavery, and religion.
You have it wrong and mixed up matriarchy and patriarchy.
The original hunter/gatherer human society was a matriarchy because the men would be off hunting while the women had to stay to raise the children, so then did the gathering and governing.
Then there was no war or slavery.
It was when we invented agriculture, currency, property, and the Mideast also started to desertify, that we switched to a patriarchy that was continually at war and followed warlike religions.

This statue from before 10,000 BC is likely from a peaceful, matriachical, hunter/gatherer society.

I did not confuse anything, your story concerns only Old Europe and the Middle East, these are their Venera.

The Aryans were free and patriarchal shepherds.

 

[rupol2000]

The original hunter/gatherer human society was a matriarchy because the men would be off hunting while the women had to stay to raise the children, so then did the gathering and governing.
Then there was no war or slavery.

It was much worse. There was cannibalism and extreme slavery. They kept people together with pigs and treated them like pigs.

There are a huge number of traces of fractures, trepanations and impressions of teeth on the bones.

To prevent the slaves run away, they simply broke the bones in their legs and so on.

In addition, there were bloody orgies where castration took place
Matriarchy is not just savagery

 

[pegwinn]

No, the Constitution can NOT be the source of rights, because that would leave a conundrum, of where did the authority to create the Constitution come from?
The Constitution can not be self authorizing.
And clearly Jefferson said it was not in the Declaration of Independence.
He said that the inherent rights of all individuals already always exist, and that is what is the source of all authority.

Whether one considers the amendments, like the Bill of Rights, to be part of the constitution or not, I do not care.
It is still a work in progress and needs more amendments yet.

Dude, take a breath, the lack of oxygen is having an effect on your ability to have a rational discussion. You said "What is wrong is your idea that the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the source of legal authority." To which I cheerfully shot it down by telling you that it is. Why? Because it literally is. Do the words "Supremacy Clause" mean anything at all to you. Allow me to help you out:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And, because you are gonna tell me I'm misquoting it ... Article VI will get you the goods.

But I gotta say it is really hard to consider you a worthy person to discuss things with when you say "...considers the amendments, like the Bill of Rights, to be part of the constitution or not, I do not care." Your original comment said "...the Constitution or Bill of Rights ...". The word OR means you are talking about two distinct and separate documents. Lemme 'splain it to you. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution just as the quoted portion of Article IV above is. There is no AND or OR involved.

Please respond back and tell me you got it that time. If you didn't I'll type slower.

 

[Stryder50]

I am all on board with unenumerated rights.

But that ignores the personhood of the fetus. Which is not addressed in the Constitution.

Judge-made law. Not "Constitutional."

One question still to be answered, and agreed upon, is when does the fetus attain personhood?
Another issue is what about the rights of the father in this matter?
If she keeps the fetus and gives birth, he can be on the hook for child support payments.
If she aborts he may be losing his right to have a child and/or an heir

 

[beautress]

I am all on board with unenumerated rights.

But that ignores the personhood of the fetus. Which is not addressed in the Constitution.

Judge-made law. Not "Constitutional."

The fetus is a being. A human being, to be exact. And yes, our country is about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ending the life of a human being in its multiple growth stages of human dna organizing itself for its post birth stage is ending the life, liberty and happiness of the sweetest of sweet sweeties, a baby that used to be celebrated by people because they believe that a good God Almighty gives life from the time it is conceived, until years later when it dies of old age, having been through all the stages of a reasonably good life.

Congress has been remiss about the scientific fact that life starts at conception. Inhaling air is an advanced stage of post birth learning, because the little guy first had to grow lungs to the point of breathability among a million other processes that took place in its dear mother's body that was designed for that specific job and is the reason human beings are able to be the stewards of the planet, with both blessings and responsibilities.

 

[Clyde 154]

The fetus is a being. A human being, to be exact. And yes, our country is about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ending the life of a human being in its multiple growth stages of human dna organizing itself for its post birth stage is ending the life, liberty and happiness of the sweetest of sweet sweeties, a baby that used to be celebrated by people because they believe that a good God Almighty gives life from the time it is conceived, until years later when it dies of old age, having been through all the stages of a reasonably good life.

Congress has been remiss about the scientific fact that life starts at conception. Inhaling air is an advanced stage of post birth learning, because the little guy first had to grow lungs to the point of breathability among a million other processes that took place in its dear mother's body that was designed for that specific job and is the reason human beings are able to be the stewards of the planet, with both blessings and responsibilities.

The point missed? The constitution does not have to contain or address a topic to make it illegal or immoral. The US CONSITUTION is a negative document drafted and ratified by the people/states to place limits upon the power and scope of a centralized government.....not the inverse, the constitution is not a tool to be used to hit the PEOPLE/STATES over the head when something is not addressed therein. The courts have no authority or legal right to "interpret" or change one dot or title in the wording of the constitution.........the courts only duty is to enforce the law that is clear and present and compare any new laws suggested by the states or the feds with the words that actually exist in the constitution as that constitution that is nothing more than a legal and binding contract among the states that is not subject to change, add or take away any wording void of a 75% majority ratification vote by the states representatives. The court possesses no such right..its self professed and made up.

If the right to "self interpret" the constitution by an agent of the Federal Government exists..........show us this right that exists within the words of the U.S Constitution. The federal court system is a part of the very government entity that is limited by the words of the Constitution no where is there a legal precedent that declares one party can change the words of a binding contract without the consent of the other party to amend that contract. Its ridiculous the way the liberals claim to have the right to change the constitution via court decree.

If there is no specific language in the constitution the right to make law as requested by the constituents of each state have the constitutional right to make law where the constitution is silent...........thus, the 10th amendment to the constitution. When something is not addressed in the constitution it belongs to the people/states, not the court system in a self professed authority to legislate law from the bench. Abortion is not addressed in our founding documents......but the right to life after CREATION is indeed addressed as being "unalienable".....i.e., non transferable to the state, court or either parent. Marriage is not addressed, as are many different topics the PEOPLE/STATES have acted upon to make law as their citizens ratified through the process of republican "representation".

ANYONE? Show us the language in the Constitution that gives the right to the federal court system (unelected civil servants) to interpret and change the literal meaning of the constitution void of representation from THE PEOPLE. Again..............ANYONE? Do not attempt show me........."wink, wink" precedent, precedent established by the same LIBERAL JUDGES and declare the constitution says this or says that. Show me the "original" authority that grants SCOTUS the right to change the wording of the constitution by introducing language that did not exist previously in that "BINDING CONTRACT".

This "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" is self governing by THE STATES/PEOPLE......it does not belong to an elite oligarchy of bought and paid for CIVIL SERVANTS. The right to make law is reserved expressly to the PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES.

If Roe V. Wade can come into existence with the sound of a judges gavel.........it can be rescinded just as easy in the same manner. If not........why not? Slavery was once Settled Law.......until it was not, Denying the right to vote to women and minorities was once SETTLED LAW......until it was not. The difference? THE PEOPLE made both ILLEGAL through amending the constitution in a legal fashion. When the right to abort on demand becomes law through a 75% majority ratification process............it is SETTLED LAW.