Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That’s not correct. Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as law, until overturned by the court or by constitutional amendment. Indeed, it would not be possible for the court to exercise that grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution without interpreting its provisions.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but to be accurate, the Court itself determined that the Court could interpret the Constitution, not the Constitution.
The Courts themselves are guilty of manipulating the Constitution. In some cases, they have created so many exceptions to its plain language that they have effectively interpreted its meaning away. In other instances they have drawn doctrines out of loosely accepted Constitutional principles and used backwards logic to justify their decisions. And, in other cases, the Courts have not provided remedies for violations of Constitutional amendments, effectively making those amendments meaningless as a practical matter.
I have been labeled as part of a cult, for supporting the US Constitution.
I have no clue if those that label me this, were born & raised here in the States, or if they are foreign transplants that don't understand our unique values of freedom & liberty, on an individual basis.
If you support the US Constitution, whether it hurts or helps you, were you born here & raised here in the USA?
USAF brat, born in Sherman, Okla. I support the US Constitution 100%. I am part of the Constitutional Cult
Wow, so they are labeling us as potential terrorists and NOW, as cult members?! This makes sense from their wicked roles in this Republic.
It's the time that grandma's bible spoke of. We are nearing the "end of the Age" not of the world, of course. This is it, the time where good is called evil and evil called good.
My favorite preacher found at www.fhu.com has said for over 40yrs. that the day was coming when good, sane and moral folks would be living in caves. We're dang near that, so it sounds.
So, we have a Communist government, now. They are slowly and methodically labeling we True Americans all of these things and pretending that they are the just and true, American Govt. when in-fact they are infiltrated with the radical, subversives of the sixties' mentality.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but to be accurate, the Court itself determined that the Court could interpret the Constitution, not the Constitution.
Indeed. Modern history has shown the courts to be used as a political tool/weapon and appointments to federal benches as a means whereby POTUSs attempt not to have the US Constitution upheld and defended to protect the liberty of the individual and private property rights but rather their agendas codified into "settled law".
If the Founding Fathers' intentions had diverged widely, as you attempt to assert, the Constitution never would have been ratified. ..
Then perhaps you can explain the vast different opinions expressed by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison regarding the powers of the Federal government
And how does one glean the intentions of delegates like Franklin who said;
"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them:"
Modern history has shown the courts to be used as a political tool/weapon and appointments to federal benches as a means whereby POTUSs attempt not to have the US Constitution upheld and defended to protect the liberty of the individual and private property rights but rather their agendas codified into "settled law".
Perchance you can explain the non-partisan(sic) issue before the Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)?
Then perhaps you can explain the vast different opinions expressed by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison regarding the powers of the Federal government
They compromised on the Constitution. Their differing opinions were fused into the delegation of specific enumerated powers to the national government while reserving other powers to the states. Both supported ratification of the Constitution as such.
Quote:
And how does one glean the intentions of delegates like Franklin who said;
"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them"
...and the rest of that quote:
Quote:
"Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does"
Franklin actually gave the Constitution his wholehearted support, calling it specifically "near to perfection."
See that pesky first comma? Does it imply that citizens have to right to bear arms as part of a militia; or does it mean there are two separate clauses: one creating a militia, the second the people have the right to independently bear arms? This would make my old English Teacher cringe.
It's a ridiculous argument. In the case of the constitution, it was not uncommon to include an introductory type statement, such as the case with the preamble to the Constitution ... "We The People, in order to form a more perfect union (introduction-reason-purpose) ...."
In the case of the 2nd amendment, the drafters followed the same basic structure ... "The Militia (We the People), being necessary to the security of a free state (in order to form a more perfect union) ....". So, to argue that "The Militia (coma) intended to create a militia, you'd have to come to the same inane conclusion that "We The People (coma)" intended to "create" We The People ... which would be quite silly, don't you think?
This was just one of the many attempts by the intellectually dishonest to circumvent the right established by the amendment by claiming up is really down. A similar fraud included the twisting of "well regulated" to suggest it allowed for the restrictions and regulation of firearms, when to do so would directly circumvent the sole purpose of the amendment itself ... to guarantee "..... the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (openly carry) arms ... " the "pesky" part is the "shall not be infringed" part which directly prohibits the actions - regulated, restricted, licensing, etc., all being forms of infringement. To require a license is to require a person to ask permission, which converts a right into a privilege. Asking for permission accepts the possibility of denial. Since rights are guaranteed and cannot be denied, one need not ask permission to exercise a right, because no one has the authority to deny that right.
No ... the Constitution, in substantial volume incorporates very clear language that anyone of reasonable faculties should have no problem understanding. Of course the style and certain phrases are particular to the times in which it was written, with some terms being used differently today, but that's what the dictionary is for. Did you know that Noah Webster created the dictionary in part to safeguard the original intent of the constitution by defining the meaning of words so that they couldn't be changed or altered purposely later?
Only those who wish to bypass the constitution find all of this "wiggle room" in the language. Those more honest see such fraud for what it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
