Where are the people that understand the Constitution?

" More Left Wing Quackery "

* Necessary Acts Without Knowing The Future *
You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.
An interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel .

To second guess a military strategy that implemented imminent domain to secure an area of operations on the us pacific coast was more realistic than the contemporary reverse racist racist propaganda to vilify the history of us peoples and its administrators as contemptuous and morally bereft .

Should one surmise a further contempt of armchair absurdity that us should have sacrificed an estimated 500,000 fighting men above and beyond the nearly 400,000 who were to die altogether , to invade japan and force a capitulation of its emperor , rather than issuing the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia .

Alternatively , us could have ignored a persistent of japanese imperialism , except that it came to pass that they provoked a declaration of war through a clear infraction against us military and that was something germany was not so gawd awful stupid to do .

* Complaining About The Opportunity To Participate *

The relocated japanese were not deprived of first amendment for a redress of grievances and it certainly make strategic sense to blanket remove potential spies or conspirators and even to intern them for their own protection .

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
On August 10, 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been sponsored by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson, who had met while Mineta was interned at Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Wyoming. It provided financial redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion. The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate within the Japanese American community and Congress.[205]

On September 27, 1992, the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional $400 million to ensure all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. He issued another formal apology from the U.S. government on December 7, 1991, on the 50th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, saying:

* No Evidence Needed *
You also forgot that SCOTUS made a decision, which if they had agreed with Fred, would have overturned the vile Executive order, why didn't you think of that possibility, that SCOTUS could have shot down the illegal Executive order since he had NO evidence of sabotage to fall on.
How come he didn't round up the Germans and the Italians into camps, as they also enemies at the time?
:45:
Meanwhile read about the finding of Congress in December 1982:
Justice Denied
Summary
Germans and German Americans
Executive Order 9066 was illegal.
The german conflict with other european countries was perceived to be isolated to europe and to those territories sought by germans for germany .

At the time , us posture in WWII was formally neutral and it was japan which attacked the us directly , and not germany which had more sense than to provoke the us directly into the war .

Yet , armchair reverse racist racist , with 10/10 revisionism , exercise skewed perceptions to character assassinate those responsible for the gravity of potential future outcomes .

Military history of the United States during World War II - Wikipedia
Highest priority went to the defeat of Germany in Europe, but first the war against Japan in the Pacific was more urgent after the sinking of the main battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor.

The military history of the United States in World War II covers the war against Germany, Italy, Japan and starting with the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. During the first two years of World War II, the United States had maintained formal neutrality as made officially in the Quarantine Speech delivered by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union, and China with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act which was signed into law on 11 March 1941, as well as deploying the U.S. military to replace the British invasion forces in Iceland. In the Pacific Theater, there was unofficial early U.S. combat activity such as the Flying Tigers.

Executive Order 9066 - Wikipedia
Executive Order 9066 was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. This order authorized the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the incarceration of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans in U.S. concentration camps.

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
The internment of Japanese Americans in the United States during World War II was the forced relocation and incarceration in concentration camps in the western interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[5] people of Japanese ancestry, most of whom lived on the Pacific coast. Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.[6][7] These actions were ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[8]

Post 59 showed that the Roosevelt Administration realized they had no credible basis to continue the internment camps just before the Supreme Court Decision was posted in public.

Their actions showed they KNEW they were wrong as the quickly changed their minds BEFORE the 9-0 SCOTUS decision was made public, along with several reports showing there were no evidence that the Japanese Americans were a risk to America.:

Your statement here is dumb as hell:

"an interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel ."

Ooops.
No, you second guessing the history of this nation concerning the things that you haven't a clue about is what is wrong here.

Of course this is the game being played today by the left in which is actually posing a serious threat towards the security of this nation from within. It is proven daily now, but the civility of those holding power tend to want to give the benefit of a doubt in regards to it all because this is America after all. One wonders though, about when the re-awakening will come, and when the tolerence of all the wacko crap will end.
 
" Pressing Issue Priorities "

* Imminent Domain *

It gets worse when this was decided the same year:

Post 59 showed that the Roosevelt Administration realized they had no credible basis to continue the internment camps just before the Supreme Court Decision was posted in public.

Their actions showed they KNEW they were wrong as the quickly changed their minds BEFORE the 9-0 SCOTUS decision was made public, along with several reports showing there were no evidence that the Japanese Americans were a risk to America.:

Your statement here is dumb as hell:

"an interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel ."

Ooops.
Where in the revisionist history are the criminal convictions to which you allude ?

Apparently you do not know the difference between a civil infraction and a criminal infraction , because one is not found guilty of a civil infraction - ever , and stating that one is guilty of a crime in reference to a civil infraction is libel .

The internment was found to be unconstitutional , but not the relocation , and the internment was unconstitutional because a valid vetting process was not exercised , but of course when would one suppose that to have occurred : before , during , or after assessing wartime threats ?

"Ex parte Endo
, or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944),[1] was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II."

* Cooperative Volunteers Versus Obstruction During War *

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
Approximately 5,000 Japanese Americans relocated outside the exclusion zone before March 1942,[16] while some 5,500 community leaders had been arrested immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack and thus were already in custody.[17] The majority of nearly 130,000 Japanese Americans living in the U.S. mainland were forcibly relocated from their West Coast homes during the spring of 1942.
 
Last edited:
All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
 
All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.
 
All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.

Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.

But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
 
All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.

Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.

But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
So of what need is there for a Supreme Court?
 
What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?

Only the important parts.

I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).
The constitution is pretty clear. I don't see any problem understanding it in the context it was written. The problem comes trying to apply it to everyday life today. For example, is the issue of Net neutrality a 1st amendment issue? To answer questions like this, you have to understand what the founders meant by what they wrote since there was no Internet and nothing even similar. This is where courts and constitutional scholars come into the picture.
 
All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.

Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.

But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
So of what need is there for a Supreme Court?

Several things. The interpretation of the laws is the proper province of the judiciary (with the Supreme Court at its head). With the constitution regarded as a fundamental law. It belongs to judiciary to ascertain the constitution's meaning, as well as the meaning of any law that comes from the legislature. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between the the constitution and a piece of legislation, to put the Constitution first.

The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order to keep the legislature within the limits of its authority.
 
All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.

Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.

But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
So of what need is there for a Supreme Court?

Several things. The interpretation of the laws is the proper province of the judiciary (with the Supreme Court at its head). With the constitution regarded as a fundamental law. It belongs to judiciary to ascertain the constitution's meaning, as well as the meaning of any law that comes from the legislature. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between the the constitution and a piece of legislation, to put the Constitution first.

The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order to keep the legislature within the limits of its authority.
Correct.

And that these fundamental facts of the law – facts settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – must be explained at all is both sad and troubling.
 
All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.

Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.

But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.

The non-property owners would, because they'd wonder what the fuck was wrong with us, letting people with no stake in the system take part in the decision-making. I wonder that myself.

But since women and black people both voted back then, despite what your leftist masters want you to believe, I doubt that would shock them at all.
 
All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.

Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.

But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.

The non-property owners would, because they'd wonder what the fuck was wrong with us, letting people with no stake in the system take part in the decision-making. I wonder that myself.

But since women and black people both voted back then, despite what your leftist masters want you to believe, I doubt that would shock them at all.

If property taxes were the only method one could pay taxes, then you might have a point. But income and sales tax alone demonstrate the absurdity that those tax payers 'don't have a stake in the system'.

As it stands, your argument is laughably false. As every tax payer has a 'stake in the system'.

Yeah, that's why we had a 19th amendment. Because women already had the vote. That's why we had the 13th amendment. Because black people were already free to do things like vote. Unless you think that slaves were voting.

As I said.....I don't hold the Founders as paragons of morality or society. The executed gays. They wallowed in and benefited from slavery. They created a racist, sexist society that was typical of their age. We've done better on all those counts.

But if you're looking for the intent of the constitution then the writings of the founders can inform you. With the Federalist Papers being the most relevant, most detailed and most helpful in that endeavor.
 
And again…

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

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

To understand the Constitution is to understand that case law.

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.

As a consequence of their wisdom and humility, the Framers knew it would be impossible to have a comprehensive understanding of what manifests as liberty and freedom, and to codify that in to a governing document.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the courts would determine the limits of government authority with regard to the regulation of citizens’ rights and protected liberties through the judicial process, when the political process has failed, the result of the ignorance, fear, or hate of the people and their elected representatives.
Ultimately the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.

At this point of the discussion most conservatives will start whining: “But Dred Scott! But Plessy v. Ferguson! But the Supreme Court is sometimes ‘wrong’!”

In addition to failing as red herring fallacies, references to when the Supreme Court was ‘wrong’ exhibit an ignorance of the law and the judicial process; as the notion of the Court being ‘wrong’ in no manner mitigates its authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, and that the Court’s rulings are in fact the indisputable the law of the land.

Indeed, in Lawrence the Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling what was clearly wrong, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had incorrectly upheld laws that criminalized being gay.
 
The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
When it comes to violating U.S. Constitutional law at thinking he is above it and federal law, it appears tRump has no understanding of the Constitution nor cares at being a dictator wannabe. This comes to being out of compliance with U.S. Constitutional law and federal law, and based on numerous impeachable violations thus far.
 
The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.

Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.
Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution" Well this so-called president 45 certainly meets that deplorable criteria which is also a clear violation of that squalid oath he took.
 
The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
When it comes to violating U.S. Constitutional law at thinking he is above it and federal law, it appears tRump has no understanding of the Constitution nor cares at being a dictator wannabe. This comes to being out of compliance with U.S. Constitutional law and federal law, and based on numerous impeachable violations thus far.

Instead of spouting off - PROVE IT!
 
What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?

Only the important parts.

I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).
LOL

You just disqualified yourself.

ALL of the Constitution is important. Not some parts of it.
 
The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.

Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.
Wow, you are still trying to pass that nonsense.
 
The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.

Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.
Wow, you are still trying to pass that nonsense.

And by 'nonsense', you mean the practical basis of virtually every court ruling on constitutional issues for the last couple centuries?
 
The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

There are different ways or aspects to understand. Historical origins, natural law, economic aspects, aspects for the peoples interests, aspects for the structure of government under the constitution, the relationship of military authority to the constitution, etc. There is a lot.

The best thing for the people to do is focus on the peoples interests because that is what the constitution is supposed to serve.

The most least understood is the 9th Amendment and how it should be used. I specialize in that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top