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.
Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
Constitutional USA (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.
Would make a good "debate" question for the upcoming elections wouldn't it?
I doubt that anyone here has read the Constitution, much less have any understanding of it. The so-called "Tea Party" activists are the worst of all - they are simpletons: they are always bringing up the "founding fathers" and the Constitution. "We want our country back!" they cry. It’s laughable. They are like the evangelical Christians that misquote the gospels and ask, insipidly: "What would Jesus do?" They are stooges and shills for those who would use them to their own cross-purposes - those who would subvert the very foundations of our democratic institutions.
It certainly sounds as if your issue with the tea party is based on a hatred toward religion more so than their belief or support of the constitution. Your lashing out more at religion and the founding fathers than statimg a case for lack of understanding the constitution on the part of the tea party. I am going to guess you struggle with authority and most likely have never read or studied the constitution to the degree that you can even grasp the basic concept let alone it's meaning.
Prove me wrong and give me some examples of how the tea party is distorting the constitutions intent.
As a side note, not a tea party person so I have no dog in the fight
The constitution was written from a reality of 13 sparsely populated, mostly agrarian colonies. 240 years later, as a superpower, with a diverse population of 300m in the post industrial age, we still hold on to the same document. Thats remarkable. However the secret is in allowing it to change and adapt.The main mechanism is the ever changing interpretation. Every era posed different realities and will continue doing so into the future.
What an Orwellian nightmare you are!!! No, the ONLY mechanism for change is clearly outlined in the Constitution. There is no "secret" to allowing plain language to be twisted at will, for the convenience and benefit of criminals and charlatans. The act of agreeing that UP is now DOWN is not a secret to success, it's a sickness. Regardless of what you or anyone else claims, a rose is still a rose ... and despotism is still despotism, and the principles of liberty remain the same, whether it's 2012, or 1776.
A group of men wearing black robes can no more change that rose into a tulip than they can change a dog into a cat. The only thing they can do is claim that cats now bark and dogs meow, and hope there are enough mental deficients among the populace that will believe such nonsense! The only real difference between 1776 and 2012 it seems, is the disturbing number of such deficients we have today.
The Constitution established clear procedure for change. And that procedure requires 3/4ths of the State legislatures to agree to such a change, rather than allowing a half dozen pompous pontificators wearing black robes to do as they please. I think the founders realized that it would be unlikely that three quarters of the States would ever agree that dogs meow and cats bark. But I doubt they could have anticipated the level of ignorance that would infect the citizenry. That's the big change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
If the process of adaptive interpretation wasn't in place, the US constitution would had been dumped centuries ago. The principles are preserved, but the shape of things change. It can be said with certainty, that 100 years into the future (if still in place) the constitution will need even more adaptation (aka "butchering"...). Today we can only dream what will the reality of 2112 be.
"Adaptive Interpretation" ? Where do you come up with such nonsense? You're at a card table in Vegas playing blackjack .... the dealer has 18, and you have 20 .... he takes your chips and says you lose. You say wait a minute ... I won ... I had 20 !! The dealer says no .... if you take 20, and break it apart and add the two numbers 2+0=2 ... my 18 is 1+8=9. I win ...it's a new rule called "Adaptive Interpretation".
This is called fixing the game ... or changing the rules to guarantee you win and the others lose. And that's what you claim is legitimate behavior regarding the constitution? "Ever Changing Interpretations" ? What an idiotic, insane, absurd notion.
Nah ... the constitution doesn't mean that! That was yesterday's interpretation. Today is another day, and another interpretation. But don't worry ... it's an ever changing interpretation ... so come back next week and check with me again? People like you really seem to be beyond hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
For example: the founding fathers (some of them slave owners) didn't address the issue of slavery. Today we got rid of this "institution" and agree that slavery is wrong. If we held on to the founding fathers "spirit" we would still own a few...
And that situation was corrected through the legal process of Constitutional Amendment.
But, your claim is a bit of a fraud ... the issue of slavery was a contentious matter, with a number of the drafters wanting to do away with slavery ... being so freedom and liberty minded dontcha know .... but those within the agricultural States (the predominant industry of the times for the entire nation) objected, and would never have ratified the Constitution under such circumstances. That's the reason why it was left out in the beginning.
Given that slavery was thousands of years old before the drafters of the Constitution were even born, it's a total fraud to attach the issue of slavery to them as you have done. This was a world paradigm dating back countless centuries.
Nevertheless, it was the unwavering adherence to the principles (read: not ever changing interpretations) set forth in the constitution regarding liberty that made the abolishment of slavery possible. And it all started right here, in a young nation with it's new Constitution that literally changed a global paradigm, declaring that all men are created equal, and deserve to live free. What the world was unable to accomplish over thousands of years, was accomplished by the Constitution, and by honest men willing to adhere to it's unchanging principles, in less than 100 years.
From that more honest perspective, the Constitution and those wise men that wrote it apparently knew more than the rest of the world. Rather than denounce them for failing to instantaneously reverse thousands of years of accepted practices, let's give credit for accomplishing what no one else could or was willing to do.
The fact that slavery was the antithesis of the principles of liberty was the driving force of change. Had "adaptive interpretation" been utilized then, such hypocrisy could have been easily justified and continued. It is exactly that "adaptive interpretation" which has set the stage for what is being done now, in relegating all Americans as property of the Federal government ... and therefore implementing a universal reinstatement of slavery.
As Confucius say: "Standing on head makes smile from frown, but rest of world is upside down".
I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. (The "Tea Party" activists come to mind.) Our so-called founding fathers, when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the "First American" came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the egalitarian we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, in truth he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820). The "times that try men’s souls" bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his having used cheap paint.
That’s partly right; but not how it is perceived. (What is perceived is freedom and equality.) I think it begs the question of what it means to be an American; and, more fundamentally, what we stand for as Americans. Do we stand for freedom and equality? Freedom and equality are ideals; but, absent a perfect world, no one can live in society and be entirely free or completely equal. For every freedom there is a corresponding obligation to others, and equality is limited to the extent that such obligations are mutual, and others do not demand rights without responsibility for their exercise. In this, the promise of America is not freedom and equality, but rather liberty and equal opportunity and justice under law. But such promise cannot be kept when government instituted by men favors the few in derogation of the many, or serves the special interests at the expense of the public interest, and when the rich and powerful can have more justice than the poor and oppressed.
The Constitution provides a nation of laws and not men. But the law can be both used and abused by men; and so it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to oversee those who make and enforce the laws and administer justice lest our democratic institutions be turned into a tyranny over us.
That’s partly right; but that’s not how it is perceived. (What is perceived is freedom and equality.) I think it begs the question of what it means to be an American; and, more fundamentally, what we stand for as Americans. Do we stand for freedom and equality? Freedom and equality are ideals; but, absent a perfect world, no one can live in society and be entirely free or completely equal. For every freedom there is a corresponding obligation to others, and equality is limited to the extent that such obligations are mutual, and others do not demand rights without responsibility for their exercise. In this, the promise of America is not freedom and equality, but rather liberty and equal opportunity and justice under law. But such promise cannot be kept when government instituted by men favors the few in derogation of the many, or serves the special interests at the expense of the public interest, and when the rich and powerful can have more justice than the poor and oppressed.
The Constitution provides a nation of laws and not men. But the law can be both used and abused by men; and so it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to oversee those who make and enforce the laws and administer justice lest our democratic institutions be turned into a tyranny over us.
Here is the plain and simple truth about the United States.
The people of this country, (last I checked it starts We the people...) want 4 things.
Save social security and medicare. Cut military spending. Raise taxes on the rich for whatever deficit is left.
Simple enough, right?
The problem with most "constitutionalists" is that they say that they oppose social security and medicare, because they are not constitutional.
So you have already ended your own argument because as long as we are a Republic where the people elect that representation to best represent them, then they aren't living in the real world.
Now, there are arguments to be made for sticking to the way the constitution is written today. But people don't care about them as much as they worry about their health, roof, and belly when they get to 68 years old.
So, if you are really concerned about following the constitution, how about changing it to the way Americans want, and then from that day forward not make any "interpreted" laws and precedents, just follow the letter of the law, period?
If Ron Paul cared about the country, he would run on his foreign policy and run on the promise to back a amendment to the constitution to cement social security and medicare as a federal responsibility. Then we can decide the best way to pay for it.
The cuts in military spending, as well as ending some tax loopholes with modest increases in taxes on millionaires is enough to balance the budget, and provide social security and medicare.
Here is the plain and simple truth about the United States.
The people of this country, (last I checked it starts We the people...) want 4 things.
Save social security and medicare. Cut military spending. Raise taxes on the rich for whatever deficit is left.
Simple enough, right?
The problem with most "constitutionalists" is that they say that they oppose social security and medicare, because they are not constitutional.
So you have already ended your own argument because as long as we are a Republic where the people elect that representation to best represent them, then they aren't living in the real world.
The People have been deceived and lied to, and therefore believe a lot of crazy things. The task is not to reshape the "law" to suit their ill conceived notions, but to educate them to at least understand the fundamental nature of their erroneous understanding about what liberty is. And one aspect of liberty would necessarily include Justice ... for you cannot have liberty without it. Secondly, in order for liberty to be realized by the individual, he must enjoy the security against theft of his own personal property and earnings, free to do with them as he sees fit to do, and not what others demand.
One of the predictable flaws in a "democracy" was well understood by the founders ... that the moment the majority realize they can vote themselves a benefit, it won't stop until the nation is bankrupt, and the legislature is filled with panderers rather than honest, responsible representatives. That's why we are not a democracy ... we simply elect our representatives democratically. Those representatives obviously should honor the will of their constituents, but must do so within the confines of the law.
The real problem with all "entitlement" programs like medicare and social security and others is not the idea of taking care of the elderly and the sick ... these are wonderful ideals for which few would disagree ... the issue is "how", not whether or not we "should". The problem here is why should I think that I am "entitled" to steal your money, regardless of why I need it? Do you think I am entitled to steal your money just because I need it? If so, please save me the trouble, and send me some ... I'm a little short this month! If you think it's OK, then you won't mind volunteering.
See, it all starts with the faulty and dishonest idea that it is legitimate to steal one person's property and give it to another ... the moment you agree to that, you've turned the arbiter of that theft, the government, into a "legal" thief .. leaving yourself, your loved ones, and everyone else vulnerable to their property being stolen too. The error was agreeing to the legitimacy of stealing, and once the idea of theft is legitimized, it's only a matter of time before you too will be so victimized.
One can rationalize anything if given enough time to delude themselves. One could say it's legitimate that the unemployed man with hungry children at home is "justified" in stealing a basket of vegetables from a local farmer, under cover of night. But what of the farmer's children? Should they go hungry, in order to feed the thief's children? You see, it comes full circle, back to the fundamental issue of theft being wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Now, there are arguments to be made for sticking to the way the constitution is written today. But people don't care about them as much as they worry about their health, roof, and belly when they get to 68 years old.
If the theft of their money and property didn't routinely occur throughout their entire lifetime of 40-50 years of work, they'd have plenty of resources to take care of their own expenses for such things at age 68. Furthermore, if the monetary system was constitutional, the massive inflation that has taken place would not have diluted all that they managed to save that was not stolen. As an example, with an honest monetary system in place, if a person stuffed $100 in a coffee can in 1957 .... and did so each month until today, they'd have $66,000 now. Unfortunately, the fiat system we have will have converted that $66,000 to an inflation adjusted amount of $8,494. That is a huge amount of "unseen" theft facilitated by an fiat money scam. So, that, along with all of the other taxes and fees and depreciation through inflation, an individual is robbed over and over and over again, throughout their entire life. Stop that, and they'd have more than enough to attend to their own needs without stealing from others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
So, if you are really concerned about following the constitution, how about changing it to the way Americans want, and then from that day forward not make any "interpreted" laws and precedents, just follow the letter of the law, period?
How about following the law as it is written now, and educating the public about why that must be done for the benefit of everyone? Start with the very simple concept about the unjust nature of theft and stealing. If we can't agree that stealing is wrong ... I'm afraid we have no chance of a just society based on law. We'll just be a large gaggle of thieves jockeying for position and making excuses for our dishonesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
If Ron Paul cared about the country, he would run on his foreign policy and run on the promise to back a amendment to the constitution to cement social security and medicare as a federal responsibility. Then we can decide the best way to pay for it.
The cuts in military spending, as well as ending some tax loopholes with modest increases in taxes on millionaires is enough to balance the budget, and provide social security and medicare.
Ron Paul does care about the country, and recognizes that the vast majority of problems we face today can be directly attributed to the violation of the laws established in the constitution.
Your idea is akin to acquiescing to the demands of a child who wants cake and ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner ... just because that's what they want ... doesn't mean that is what is in their best interests, or anyone else's.
You don't operate based on ignorance and desires and faulty ideas ... you operate based on laws, justice and wisdom.
Here is the plain and simple truth about the United States.
The people of this country, (last I checked it starts We the people...) want 4 things.
Save social security and medicare. Cut military spending. Raise taxes on the rich for whatever deficit is left.
Simple enough, right?
The problem with most "constitutionalists" is that they say that they oppose social security and medicare, because they are not constitutional.
So you have already ended your own argument because as long as we are a Republic where the people elect that representation to best represent them, then they aren't living in the real world.
Now, there are arguments to be made for sticking to the way the constitution is written today. But people don't care about them as much as they worry about their health, roof, and belly when they get to 68 years old.
So, if you are really concerned about following the constitution, how about changing it to the way Americans want, and then from that day forward not make any "interpreted" laws and precedents, just follow the letter of the law, period?
If Ron Paul cared about the country, he would run on his foreign policy and run on the promise to back a amendment to the constitution to cement social security and medicare as a federal responsibility. Then we can decide the best way to pay for it.
The cuts in military spending, as well as ending some tax loopholes with modest increases in taxes on millionaires is enough to balance the budget, and provide social security and medicare.
You have put your finger on the perception problem. We tend to view the Constitution from an egocentric perspective.
I am dismayed by the attitude of Congress on the issue of the national debt in this period of recovery from the longest recession since the great depression. What sense is it to cut spending when that is precisely what is needed to stimulate the economy? And to extend tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting benefits for the needy makes no sense at all. It represents a view that is both selfish and shortsighted - an attitude so prevalent among our policymakers today. To put the blame for our improvident spending on Social Security and Medicare only begs the question of our priorities. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? To cut spending on these seems unworthy of the greatest nation of the world.
Whenever I find myself looking narrowly at some social welfare program, I think of the Preamble to the Constitution, which always puts my views in proper perspective. It is "We the People" - not me, me, me. Need must it be so, for the true greatness of a nation, and its moral progress, is not measured by its wealth or power, but by the manner in which it provides for the welfare of its people.
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.
You're at a card table in Vegas playing blackjack .... the dealer has 18, and you have 20 .... he takes your chips and says you lose. You say wait a minute ... I won ... I had 20 !! The dealer says no .... if you take 20, and break it apart and add the two numbers 2+0=2 ... my 18 is 1+8=9. I win ...it's a new rule called "Adaptive Interpretation".
