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.
From reading the thread, I've come to the conclusion that instead of the Constitution for Dummies its time for some folks to up their game... in short, read something above a 5th grade civics class.
So might I suggest:
Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787 - 1788 by Pauline Maier.
The Ideological Origins of American Federalism by Alison L. LaCroix
Are you serious. The Constitution is absolutely radically different then it was pre-civil war. I know a lot of folks on the right have a fantasy land view of how the 14th amendment in particular impacts our understanding of the Constitution, but they are wrong.
Quite simple the 14th amendment along with the 13th amendment radically changed the constitution. The 13th amendment made irrelevant all of the numerous slavery related framework of the Constitution and the 14th amendment drastically changed the role of the federal government in protecting the rights of citizens and the nature of the relationship between citizens states and the federal government.
I can understand Conservatives not wanting to accept the 14th amendment based on their ideology, but it absolutely did radically change the constitution.
WTF?
It's common sense, not ideology.
AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
A "portion"....is not a radical change, even less so since slavery was economically and socially dying anway.
Did your idiotic hate spewing revisionist left-wing college history professor tell you about the Tanzimat Reforms?
No, probably not.....most likely s/he didn't know they existed and wouldn't understand them.
When the Ottoman Empire outlaws slavery, it's pretty much over.
When you stop foaming at the mouth, you might want to consider that the Tyrant Lincoln actually caused more harm than good.
AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
No radical changes their either.
Section 1 is a clarification of citizenship status and a restatement of the 5th Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport
Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently, but the fact is that the U.S. Constitution quickly became enshrined by the public and is the oldest constitution in the world,” said Zachary Elkins, a professor of political science at Illinois.
That makes Jefferson a hypocrite since the US is a Platonian Republic, based on Plato's Republic.
If Jefferson thinks Plato or John Locke or any others were alive in 1786, you have a bigger problem than you realize.
Seriously...
From reading the thread, I've come to the conclusion that instead of the Constitution for Dummies its time for some folks to up their game... in short, read something above a 5th grade civics class.
So might I suggest:
Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787 - 1788 by Pauline Maier.
The Ideological Origins of American Federalism by Alison L. LaCroix
and
Plain and Honest Men by Richard Beeman.
I would suggest reading the Federalist Papers. #41 is my favorite.
Well if you ascribe to the idea that the Constitution does not grant rights only limits the governments powers,....
This is from the Preamble to the Bill of Rights... THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
[emphasis mine except for "THE" in original]
....questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
...then who protects your rights against the whim of public opinion?
Militias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
A public that grants through its elected representatives, the power to inflict cruel and or unusual punishment upon you?
After months of therapy when your fears have subsided, maybe you'll have the courage to read the committee notes, letters and private diaries of those who drafted the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Does insurance cross state lines? How about water, air and pollution?
Interstate Commerce has nothing to do with "crossing State lines."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Who decides what who is or who isn't a reasonable man, in short, reasonable isn't an objective truth it is subjective and being subjective it requires someone or something to interpret reasonableness.
It was intended to be adjudicated based on circumstances.
Now, I can wait at the front door with my partner for a warrant --- while you are hideously tortured and maimed with a chainsaw--- or I can reasonably infer from your screams of agony that any sane judge would grant the warrant, and so beat down the door and enter the premises without a warrant to save your life.
Which would you prefer?
Let's talk about the Plain Sight Doctrine.
Your hideous screams of agony has awoken your neighbor from an unquiet slumber. They call the police; I arrive on the scene to investigate; I am therefore lawfully situated; and through the window, I see you being tortured and maimed by a maniac with a chainsaw. What should I do?
1] Wait for a judge to determine if a search of the premises is reasonable; or
2] Pull out my cell-phone and take video to put on Useless Tube; or
3] Act reasonably and enter the premises without a warrant...to save your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Since you couldn't objectively define simple terms like "reasonable" or "speedy" I kind of disagree with you.
Oh, that's freaking rich.....you refuse to objectively define "basic income" or "living wage" in no uncertain terms, but then demand reasonable and speedy be objectively defined.
Actually, the Supreme Court has defined reasonable objectively in numerous decisions, most recently here....
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989)
I guess the point is that just because someone didn't answer the question, it doesn't mean it hasn't already been answered (and by a more authoritative source).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
You know it is interesting that as soon as ink hit paper there have been all sorts of debates, and disagreements by US'n people about what the Constitution means and that includes individuals who were in the room when it was drafted. So your argument about the clarity and comprehendible nature of the document a bit suspect given the historical conflicts that have arisen from the various opinions about the Constitution.
But thanks for the non-answers, deflections and all around sophisms.
Then by your own admission, you are being disingenuous or you do not understand your own history.
Yes, there were conflicts.
A Critical Thinker will now ask, "What was the Conflict?"
Simple: some -- like Alexander Hamilton -- wished to establish a monarchy or other non-republican form of government, while others fought to establish a republic.
Complicated: some wanted a unitary State, others a confederation and still others a federation.
In the end, a small group that was pro-confederation but also pro-republic ended up siding with those who were pro-federation (and inherently pro-republic).
Hamilton then was just like Liberals today: remove the People from the Constitution, get rid of the States and have one giant all-powerful central national government to reign supreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Time for a pop quiz.
1. What are the limits on the Federal government "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes?"
Those are three distinct entities.
Congress may regulate commerce with foreign States, since the several States have no authority.
Congress is not allowed to regulate commerce among the several States, unless a conflict arises between States that cannot be adjudicated in the federal courts.
The Indian Tribes varies depending on the specific tribe and the treaty that is in force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
2. How does a semi-colon effect the following sentence: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout; to borrow money...?
This.....
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
...is parsed as this...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
The Congress shall have Power To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.
The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
The Congress shall have Power To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.
The Congress shall have Power To establish Post Offices and post Roads.
The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The Congress shall have Power To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.
Ad nauseum.
It's not Italian opera, it's 9th Grade English Grammar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
3. What are the limits imposed within the the Constitution regarding the promotion of the "General Welfare?" considering the following phrase "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,?"
A fallacy of reasoning that depends on intentionally saying something that is known to be false. If the lying occurs in an argument’s premise, then it is an example of the fallacy of questionable premise.
If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy.
The clause is stated twice as "general Welfare."
The clause refers to the United States government, and not to the People or the States.
If you remember your history....
1] Global Warming/Climate Change caused a 9 year drought that trashed colonial farmers.
2] the Crown taxed the snot out of the colonial farmers during the drought which happened to occur just prior to a major global credit crunch when the East India Trading Company did an Enron.
3] When the farmers got their crops growing again, they gladly sold them to the Continental Congress on credit.
4] The Continental Congress defaulted on the debts.
5] The farmers were PO'd.
6] Under the Articles, the farmers got raped again by taxes.
7] The Farmers rebel.
The end.
Not the end.
Everyone knows of Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, but there were dozens and dozens of other smaller scale rebellions.
Anyway this.....
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;....
....has to do with paying debts incurred during times of war and the government spending to keep itself alive and in operation.
If you do doubt.....then read Sherman. Roger Sherman wrote it. Sherman explains its purpose and meaning and it doesn't mean giving out condoms or needles or food stamps or housing or healthcare or anything else.
Oh....what's this....
Art. VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses which shall be incurred for the common defense and general welfare ... shall be defrayed out of a common treasury…
Look familiar? That's from the Articles of Confederation.
The power to tax was for the government to sustain itself. It was never intended to be defincit spending to steal money from one to give to another in order to buy votes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
5. Based upon a sentence of phrase in the Constitution, define the time period that would constitute a "speedy trial" as in; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial?"
It isn't required to be defined.
You fail to understand the purpose of the 6th Amendment.
Governments had a history of imprisoning people indefinitely with no charges, no evidence, no nothing.
For example, your government taught and funded the Iranian SAVAK to arrest Iranians in the middle of the night, imprison them for no crime, hold them indefinitely and torture them.
Your government taught King Abdullah and King Abdullah II the same thing....arrest people on no charges, torture them, kill them, then dump the bodies in the Jordanian desert.
Ad nauseum.
You ought to be scared ****less that your government gives money to foreign States, plus teaches, trains, educates, and supplies them to engage in activities that are prohibited by the US Constitution.
I'm not the hypocrite that so many on this thread are....if it is prohibited for government in the Constitution, that means it is prohibited all the time....it doesn't mean teach your puppet-dictators to do the things that you can only dream of doing.
"Speedy" is viewed in the context of the rest of the Amendment....
...and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
You also have to view it in the context of the 8th Amendment...
Excessive bail shall not be required...
And I won't even get into filings, such as Motion to Dismiss (with or without prejudice).
Historically....
AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
A "portion"....is not a radical change, even less so since slavery was economically and socially dying anway.
Did your idiotic hate spewing revisionist left-wing college history professor tell you about the Tanzimat Reforms?
No, probably not.....most likely s/he didn't know they existed and wouldn't understand them.
When the Ottoman Empire outlaws slavery, it's pretty much over.
When you stop foaming at the mouth, you might want to consider that the Tyrant Lincoln actually caused more harm than good.
AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
No radical changes their either.
You do realize that the 13th amendment did more then just that, there were numerous references in the constitution such as regarding the importation of persons and the 3/5th apportionment rule which were all contemplations of slavery.
As to the 14th amendment, you do realize that words like "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." have actual serious implications and do in fact mean something. It might be helpful if you bothered to read a sampling of case law from pre- and post amendment. The 14th amendment drastically altered the role of the federal government outlined in the constitution. It was the first thing that really gave citizens protection from the states on a grand scale aside from a few clauses regarding mostly commerce. If you doubt the you can see exactly how it works by reading and number of Constitutional Law books put out by Chemerensky
A fallacy of reasoning that depends on intentionally saying something that is known to be false. If the lying occurs in an argument’s premise, then it is an example of the fallacy of questionable premise.
If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy.
The clause is stated twice as "general Welfare."
The clause refers to the United States government, and not to the People or the States.
[font="]
You do realize that the courts have disagreed with you on this since the lochner era.
The Constitution reads pretty easy and the only thing that gets misinterpreted is the language used then, compared to the words we use today.
Many here in the USA and especially citizens of this nation, think the US Constitution are the rules that govern, We The People.
Far from it. The US Constitution are the rules.... the chains, We The People, placed upon the Federal Government, for it to even exist.
It is very clear in the liberty We The People are to keep, no matter what, to stay a free society.
It is very clear as to what our Freedom & Liberties are, as given to us all by our creator.
It is also very clear if they get so powerful by taking liberties, we the people said were untouchable,is to happen.
Take our liberty and we change it peacefully, or by blood.
Give me liberty, or give me death.
The Constitution deals with many abstractions which can be interpreted in several ways.
Well if you ascribe to the idea that the Constitution does not grant rights only limits the governments powers, then who protects your rights against the whim of public opinion? A public that grants through its elected representatives, the power to inflict cruel and or unusual punishment upon you?
Wow...
Ok. So... Let me use an analogy, since you seem determined to not think.
We have a real gun in a real shooting gallery. This gun is mounted such that the barrel of the gun has limiters on travel. It basically cannot point to anything outside of the gallery. You ask "How can bystanders be protected from bullets?" Easy, if the gun cannot be pointed at them due to it's limits, the bullets can never harm a bystander.
Thus, limited government, if it cannot violate our rights... Can never be used by people to violate our rights. If an INDIVIDUAL violates your rights (such as steals from you), we have a process to punish him and remove his stole gain. Thus, your rights are protected.
In no way does this mean government defines your rights. It simply means it cannot be used to violate them. If government does not violate your rights, then your rights are preserved. It's that simple. The "public" does not grant powers to government. The Constitution does.
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.
