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.
I'm sure you will figure it out one day, if it is hard for you to understand today.
I don't think that I am the one with the comprehension problem...
Quote:
Subjected to rules, is much different in definition in law to what it says in the form of, subjects of the State.
First let's try and clean up that sentence:
Being subjected to rules is much different by definition... cleaning up that sentence is beyond me.
"Definition in law to what it says in the form of, subjects of state" ?!?!?
Where did you learn to write like that, the Sarah Palin School of English As A Second Language?
So let's try this.
American citizens are not Subjects of the state.
They are citizens from whom all power of the state emanates.
All citizens are subject to the laws enacted by the citizens through their delegated powers.
In the first reference the word subject is used as a noun, in the second reference the word subject is used as an adverb.
Now I know Miss Sarah isn't big on these kind of left wing semantics, but in the english speaking world, the difference between using a word as a noun or an adverb holds a lot of weight.
Every time I the title rises back up to the first page where I have to see it, I throw up in my mouth a little at the idea of 19-year-olds with a fifth-grade education calling everybody else "dummies."
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.
Dude, we've had the "construction" and "interpreted" argument since day one of this constitution that we've had.
Interpreted won the argument. Its been that way since Washington was President.
It is the history of our nation, to interpret powers granted, and restricted from the federal government by the federal constitution. People sometimes don't like the interpretation, and they post things like what I quoted above.
It is really a simple concept, but one that few people really understand.
The Constitution puts the limits on what the government can do.. period.
The second amendment says it can not abridge the right to own arms... period.
The ninth and tenth amendments say if the government is not specifically given power in the Constitution, it does not have that power and that power remains with the people from whom it originated.
There are only two ways a man may live....free, or under tyranny. Today because the majority do not understand the Constitution and our own history, we live under tyranny.
Actually, it says those things remain with the states. The thing about the people almost seems like an after thought to me. I know I am wrong, but the founding fathers were concerned with a central government that usurped the power of the states.
For a very long time, the Bill of Rights was seen to apply only to issues between people and the federal government, and that the BoR did not apply to state law. That changed specifically with the 14th amendment, and eventually, as a result of decisions in the 60's, has come to apply universally.
I adhere to the Supreme Court's interpretation of what the constitution means and how it's applied by law, rather than a bunch of kitchen table constitutionalists who run around ranting "Liberty or Death!" and "Water the Tree of Liberty!". Anybody without an advanced degree in constitutional law who tells you what the constitution means is a fool and anybody who takes them seriously is a damn fool.
I adhere to the Supreme Court's interpretation of what the constitution means and how it's applied by law, rather than a bunch of kitchen table constitutionalists who run around ranting "Liberty or Death!" and "Water the Tree of Liberty!". Anybody without an advanced degree in constitutional law who tells you what the constitution means is a fool and anybody who takes them seriously is a damn fool.
Dead spot on.
Only 9 folks on a bench in Washington can interpret the constitution by law. I don't always agree with them, Presidents haven't listened in years past (Lincoln), but that is the government and the country we have, and how it was set up.
I adhere to the Supreme Court's interpretation of what the constitution means and how it's applied by law, rather than a bunch of kitchen table constitutionalists who run around ranting "Liberty or Death!" and "Water the Tree of Liberty!". Anybody without an advanced degree in constitutional law who tells you what the constitution means is a fool and anybody who takes them seriously is a damn fool.
I would disagree with the last sentence, but otherwise agree, there are some things that the courts have laid out that are pretty clear. Now I agree that they could be overturned and that each case is different, but their are trends, and you can get at least an idea of what the Constitution means by reading case law and using precedent. To suss out what are the more likely alternatives at least some of the time.
With that said novel questions can be hard to predict, but it isn't a total mystery box all the time.
I would disagree with the last sentence, but otherwise agree, there are some things that the courts have laid out that are pretty clear. Now I agree that they could be overturned and that each case is different, but their are trends, and you can get at least an idea of what the Constitution means by reading case law and using precedent. To suss out what are the more likely alternatives at least some of the time.
With that said novel questions can be hard to predict, but it isn't a total mystery box all the time.
I know I am wrong, but the founding fathers were concerned with a central government that usurped the power of the states.
Yep, you are wrong. The last thing that Framers were concerned about was the national government usurping the power of the states because the whole purpose of the constitutional convention was in fact the how to draft a document that would in fact "usurp" as much power from the states as was possible. In Madison's initial proposal, he called for the national government to have veto power over any and all legislation passed on the state level. Of course that went to far and failed to be accepted by the respective state delegates who instead developed a complex matrix of power sharing between the national government, the three branches of the national government, the states and the people while still husbanding the superior powers within the national government.
As for the Bill of Rights being an after thought... you got that one right. The Framers by enlarge opposed the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, it was only during the ratification debates that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights gained support. Its inclusion became a political necessity.
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.
