The truth about the Constitution

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The interesting aspect of this is the fixation on the Federal government and its potential for abuse where no regard is given whatsoever as to state and local governments’ propensity to violate individual liberties. This is the great advantage of the Constitution – the 14th Amendment in particular – that one does not forfeit his rights by virtue of his state of residence.

The Constitution also codifies the doctrine of the rule of law, where one’s rights are not subject to majority rule or legislative dictate. It affords the citizen a process by which he may challenge preemption in Federal court. And it creates a body of case law and precedent to ensure a consistent application of the law.

The Constitution was in essence inevitable, the culmination of centuries of legal tradition dating back to 1215 when the doctrine of the rule of law was first codified.

The issue, therefore, comes down to one of perception: on the one hand we have a faction that sees the Constitution as a great success, protecting individuals’ 4th Amendment privacy and search and seizure rights, 5th and 6th Amendments due process rights, and 14th Amendment equal protection rights.

On the other hand we have a faction which is very disappointed with almost three-quarters of a century’s worth of Supreme Court rulings addressing Congress’ role in the context of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause, where interpretation of property and individual owners’ rights have deviated severely from what they believe to be the Framers’ original intent.

For this faction Congressional regulation of markets, business practices, and interstate commerce represents ever expanding Federal control with seemingly no recourse in court given the body of case law.

 

[hortysir]

I feel so educated.

Thank you.

What of what Obama had to say this evening?



vvvvvvvv check MY sig vvvvvvvvvvvv

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The interesting aspect of this is the fixation on the Federal government and its potential for abuse where no regard is given whatsoever as to state and local governments’ propensity to violate individual liberties. This is the great advantage of the Constitution – the 14th Amendment in particular – that one does not forfeit his rights by virtue of his state of residence.

No one is denying anything. What we are pointing out that part of the checks and balances system of the federalist government is the federalist system of government. The states serve as a check on federal excess and abuse, and the federal government helps to limit the states.

Would you like another list of all the federal level civil rights abuses? Can you explain how your belief in the federal government exclusively protecting individual rights stack up against the PATRIOT ACT?

The Constitution also codifies the doctrine of the rule of law, where one’s rights are not subject to majority rule or legislative dictate. It affords the citizen a process by which he may challenge preemption in Federal court. And it creates a body of case law and precedent to ensure a consistent application of the law.

It does not codify any such thing.

What it codifies is the principles of Locke and Jefferson, and that people have rights that are beyond the control of the government.

Can you explain to me how anyone can believe that the Constitution creates case law? Is the Constitution some sort of living creature that is capable of controlling the decisions of humans? If so, why does it sometimes get things wrong? Why can't it create unanamous decisions from every judge? Are some people immune to this control?

The Constitution was in essence inevitable, the culmination of centuries of legal tradition dating back to 1215 when the doctrine of the rule of law was first codified.

Wow.

Even if the Constitution actually codified this mythical rule of law, this is complete drivel.

The issue, therefore, comes down to one of perception: on the one hand we have a faction that sees the Constitution as a great success, protecting individuals’ 4th Amendment privacy and search and seizure rights, 5th and 6th Amendments due process rights, and 14th Amendment equal protection rights.

Can you show me the group that thinks the Constitution, as applied to current interpretations of the 4th Amendment that actually think it is successful at protecting them? I would love to see how anyone can argue that a document that allows police to break into any home in this country without immediate recourse protects anyone's rights.

On the other hand we have a faction which is very disappointed with almost three-quarters of a century’s worth of Supreme Court rulings addressing Congress’ role in the context of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause, where interpretation of property and individual owners’ rights have deviated severely from what they believe to be the Framers’ original intent.

Do you even understand that the necessary and proper clause does not apply to anything but the enumerated powers? That commerce can only be regulated if it actually occurs between states? That the supremacy clause does not prohibit states from making their own laws? That you are actually a complete idiot?

For this faction Congressional regulation of markets, business practices, and interstate commerce represents ever expanding Federal control with seemingly no recourse in court given the body of case law.

Nothing is irreversible, not even your stupidity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I feel so educated.

Thank you.

What of what Obama had to say this evening?



vvvvvvvv check MY sig vvvvvvvvvvvv

I missed his speech, did Obama actually try to argue people who think the government cannot do some things are rigid?

 

[hortysir]

I feel so educated.

Thank you.

What of what Obama had to say this evening?



vvvvvvvv check MY sig vvvvvvvvvvvv

I missed his speech, did Obama actually try to argue people who think the government cannot do some things are rigid?

He was speaking of when Social Security was originally passed that it needed to be done rather than worrying about what government can and cannot do.
Sort of an extension of his radio interview where he was bemoaning how limiting the constitution is. That it says too much about what the federal government can't do and not enough of what it should do.

 

[jillian]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

honey... there's no such thing as 'strict constructionism unless you're a fundie reading the bible.

 

[Truthmatters]

The scotus already desided this

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The scotus already desided this

When?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The scotus already desided this

The Supreme Court has very little to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

honey... there's no such thing as 'strict constructionism unless you're a fundie reading the bible.

You may not agree with strict constructionists, but they obviously exist.

 

[jillian]

The scotus already desided this

The Supreme Court has very little to do with the topic of this thread.

and yet, anyone who knows about the constitution, knows that they do.

Marbury v. Madison

 

[jillian]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

honey... there's no such thing as 'strict constructionism unless you're a fundie reading the bible.

You may not agree with strict constructionists, but they obviously exist.

so do drug addicts and thieves...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The scotus already desided this

The Supreme Court has very little to do with the topic of this thread.

and yet, anyone who knows about the constitution, knows that they do.

Marbury v. Madison

And yet, anyone who understood the point that I was trying to make knows that they're essentially irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[elvis]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

You wouldn't know any truth if it ripped off your head and shit down your throat.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

honey... there's no such thing as 'strict constructionism unless you're a fundie reading the bible.

You may not agree with strict constructionists, but they obviously exist.

so do drug addicts and thieves...

Okay. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

You wouldn't know any truth if it ripped off your head and shit down your throat.

Because I'd be dead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

Thanks, KevinKennedy, for your well reasoned statement. I happen to agree with your thesis. I believe Washington, Franklin, Madison, and 36 other signers would disagree with you that the Article of Confederation were superior. I imagine Jefferson and some others would agree with you.

Any government, such as that which ruled Poland until 1793, that can't defend itself own existence philosophically as well as forcefully will fall. I believe the Founders who signed the Document believed in that principle also. Madison said that the government would fall because of $$$ corruption, that only Civic Virture of the elecorate can make sure a government work.

We have a non-civic viirtuous electorate Left and Right as well as a government corrupted by Wall Street $$$$. The rich have won, and the average (wo)man is done.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

Thanks, KevinKennedy, for your well reasoned statement. I happen to agree with your thesis. I believe Washington, Franklin, Madison, and 36 other signers would disagree with you that the Article of Confederation were superior. I imagine Jefferson and some others would agree with you.

Any government, such as that which ruled Poland until 1793, that can't defend itself own existence philosophically as well as forcefully will fall. I believe the Founders who signed the Document believed in that principle also. Madison said that the government would fall because of $$$ corruption, that only Civic Virture of the elecorate can make sure a government work.

We have a non-civic viirtuous electorate Left and Right as well as a government corrupted by Wall Street $$$$. The rich have won, and the average (wo)man is done.

Jefferson, unfortunately, supported the adoption of the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your view is exactly why the Constitution keeps getting violated. Because you are willing to simply give up.

The entire PURPOSE of the Document to was to LIMIT Federal Power. We need to be more aggressive on our demands that the Courts and Congress over turn illegal laws and regulations.

You just want to give up.