The Living Constitution

The Living Constitution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 8:32:46 AM)
Over the past few months, many have commented on how we need to get back to the original constitution. From what i can discover, that included the 7 Articles, a few having to deal with amending the Constitution. My question is rather simple... but maybe im seeing it too simplistically. If the founders felt what they had developed was all inclusive, why add the articles that outline the steps and methods to amend the original body? ~edited due to a sticking "t" key

popeye1250 -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 8:44:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Over the past few months, many have commented on how we need to get back to the original constitution. From what i can discover, that included the 7 Articles, a few having to deal with amending the Constitution. My question is rather simple... but maybe im seeing it too simplistically. If the founders felt what they had developed was all inclusive, why add the articles that outline the steps and methods to amend the original body? ~edited due to a sticking "t" key Perhaps they knew it could never be all-inclusive?

tazzygirl -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 11:51:30 AM)
Exactly. So why preach that we need to get "back to the basics" of what our founders originally intended?

luckydawg -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 12:03:41 PM)
Tazzy, you are hearing it incorrectly. Conservatives generally want changes only made by the process outlined in the Constitution. Not by Judges or politicians decreeing. I know you are smart enough to see the difference. Following the Constitutional process or extra constitutional decrees.

Moonhead -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 12:06:37 PM)
Can I just ask if the conservative respect for the constitution applied when Cheney and his pet monkey were ignoring it? If so, why did nobody who's spent the last eighteen months or so whining like a schoolgirl about the evil Dems wanting to change the constitution complain about that for the six or seven years it was going on?

luckydawg -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 1:26:24 PM)
Boy your out there moon. Pretty much all of your questions were based on nonsense. Specifically how did Cheney "ignore the constitution'? The bush administration got spanked by the Courts several Times. and where do you see Democratics trying to Change the Constitution? Its hard to answer such nonsense questions. This is part of it though Tazzy. Conservatives (generally, there are some whack a doodles on all sides) use the actuall Constitution and history, not the made up one used by the likes of Moon and other lefties. They have a crazy made up UN they support also.

DomKen -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 2:56:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Boy your out there moon. Pretty much all of your questions were based on nonsense. Specifically how did Cheney "ignore the constitution'? The bush administration got spanked by the Courts several Times. You cite several examples yourself. Administrations only get "spanked" by the courts when they ignore laws or the Constitution.

DomImus -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 4:03:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If the founders felt what they had developed was all inclusive, why add the articles that outline the steps and methods to amend the original body? The drafters of the Constitution never felt that way, in my opinion. The Bill Of Rights came about very shortly after the original Constitution itself was written. I think we should follow the Constitution as written or make amendments as we feel necessary. I think the founding fathers would cringe at the amount of law that is "written" at the judicial level including by the SCOTUS.

KenDckey -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 4:07:44 PM)
Am I reading this wrong or what? What I am reading is basically cyclic and getting no where without end. And everyone is basicallyjust flip flopping back and forth saying the same thing. LOL

pahunkboy -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 4:08:34 PM)
A con con could be a total nightmare. I am always leary when lawyers want to fix something. Constitutional convention (political meeting) - Wikipedia, the ...A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new ... en.wikipedia.org/.../Constitutional_convention_(political_meeting) - Cached - Similar Show more results from wikipedia.org

KenDckey -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 4:10:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy A con con could be a total nightmare. I am always leary when lawyers want to fix something. A true understatement

AnimusRex -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 6:44:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Conservatives generally want changes only made by the process outlined in the Constitution. Not by Judges or politicians decreeing. Following the Constitutional process or extra constitutional decrees. OK, fair enough. Give us an example of "politicians decreeing" changes that are extra-Constitutional. Oh, wait, I got one- how about the President asserting that he has the right to imprison American citizens without trial? Or wiretapping our phones? Or reading our email? But what about those Judges? They aren't in the Constitution! Oh, wait. Yeah they are. So what un-Constitutional judicial actions are you referring to?

rulemylife -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 7:08:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus I think the founding fathers would cringe at the amount of law that is "written" at the judicial level including by the SCOTUS. Then why did they establish the Supreme Court in the Constitution? What exactly do you think their intention was if not to have the Court rule on laws, including the Constitution?

pogo4pres -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 7:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus I think the founding fathers would cringe at the amount of law that is "written" at the judicial level including by the SCOTUS. Then why did they establish the Supreme Court in the Constitution? What exactly do you think their intention was if not to have the Court rule on laws, including the Constitution? See Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional", and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government. The concept was also laid out by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78: “If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” Deliberately emphasized in two colors by me. Legislatively, Some Knucklehead in NJ

Real0ne -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 7:25:40 PM)
the courts are established under the um.... 1789 judiciary act and fall under the administrative procedures act, title 50. The problem we have here is that they are legislated courts to take care of internal business of the government and government is the "business" and tax collection arm of the union. Now that sounds innocent enough on the surface. However you first the articles of confederation that the so called citizens never got to vote on, later you got th e constitution that no one got to vote on. There are no records of any of the people at large having any say in any constitution including my state constitution. I have spent days looking for the referendum and the ballots from the people proving the constitution of the state was really voted in by the people and all we have is certifications. We have paper from the 1400's but for some reason we cannot seem to find anything proving this is real. It never happened that is why. Delegates did the voting with no records as to any communication from the constituency. Sad state of affairs. That said we have a government created constitution (corporate business contract) with limited protections since the government was bankrupt so they cant completely bowl over us, and they created the business courts that they drag you and I into. You say what????? Well look at that name on your drivers license, credit card, after 1976 birth certificates they use all capital letters in the NAME. They created a corporate sole for you so their business courts have jurisdiction over you and so you cannot bring them into an ecclesiastical court. (truth). Courts are not about truth they are about form and procedure. Anyway that said we have the fox gaurding the chickens and they got rid of the "justice" courts with the justice of the peace in most states as soon as the states went into effect. oh and btw, King = Sovereign = Estate = State. we have 50 of them LOL

rulemylife -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 7:32:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the courts are established under the um.... 1789 judiciary act and fall under the administrative procedures act, title 50. Um no, they're not. Article III, Section 1, mandates the creation of a Supreme Court and commissioning of Justices: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Article_of_the_Constitution_established_the_US_Supreme Court

Real0ne -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 7:58:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” Deliberately emphasized in two colors by me. Legislatively, Some Knucklehead in NJ The constitution is what is called organic law. Ok you all will love this.... well maybe not you all LOL Last week I had the pleasure of dancing with one of the attorneys who are on the state staff.... We talked about precisely this issue about who judges the law. I have to say it was really fun as these guys that make the law are really edjumacated and I was able to at least hit upon a couple core issues and have an intelligent dialog. After dancing about how their shit legislation forces people to spend their hard earned money to fight for their rights because of unconstitutional crap the legislature passes, these people and their hard earned limited money are up against a state that has an infinitely deep pockets due to taxation keeping the full is an abomination. HE ADMITTED THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PASS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!! ITS WHAT EVER THEY CAN "MAKE STICK" IN COURT!.. Welcome to freedom in America eh? Anyway point is that we bantered over this feeding the court system that monetizes everything and that the court is the last stop and I said no it aint!!!! He listened. I told him, read the 7th amend... he dug it out and read it: quote: U.S. Constitution: Seventh Amendment Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in ANY Court of the United States , than according to the rules of the common law. I reminded him that the states were created under the united states and the courts were created by the judiciary act and ALL of them come under the APA and ALL of them are UNDER the United States regardless of which state they are in....... for newbees to the constitution and government you can prove that to yourselves by reading the articles of confederation, north west ordinance and if that is not enough proof you all know that the lower courts all follow and are subordinate to the supreme court. REALLY Small world in the land of sovereignty aint it? LMAO Anyway point being that I told him that the people have the final say in both the fact and the law, well that was the first point of contention that he conceded to the fact but held his ground on the law maintaining that the common law was judge made and I snorted and he immediately corrected himself and said "court" made law.... (there is a hint there folks) then I hit him with and the jury can judge the law too and he claimed not, I retorted that I agree with him ONLY if the jury is strictly in an administrative court and acting in an "advisory" capacity not as the jury because a true jury IS THE COURT!!!. (silence) *is acquiescence LOL Then I went on to inform him that to re-examine according to the common law is to have a 25 man grand jury and the judge or magistrate is completely out of it. The system is designed that the people ultimately control their own law but the people are to busy playing xbox to know shit about shinola about law. Anyway we dropped it and I followed up by sending him an email the next day with 4 or 5 supreme court ruling that made my case. I wish though that I could get in debates like that every day but with maybe a law prof at georgetown, harvard or yale that would be a rush LOL anyway there you have for the courts and the reality that can be if people ever pull their heads out of their asses in this country LOL

TheHeretic -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 8:13:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If the founders felt what they had developed was all inclusive, why add the articles that outline the steps and methods to amend the original body? Since the founders added the articles that outline the steps and methods to amend the original body of the Constitution, Tazzy, why is it ok to push through great social changes, and expansions of gov't power, without using their template? Perhaps that is what is meant by, "getting back to the Constitution?" I don't know they felt what they developed was so inclusive, but they seemed to think it was worth a shot.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 8:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex how about the President asserting that he has the right to imprison American citizens without trial? I hear you. Fucking Roosevelt.

Real0ne -> RE: The Living Constitution (11/30/2010 8:22:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the courts are established under the um.... 1789 judiciary act and fall under the administrative procedures act, title 50. Um no, they're not. Article III, Section 1, mandates the creation of a Supreme Court and commissioning of Justices: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Article_of_the_Constitution_established_the_US_Supreme Court Good catch man thanks! yes the act is the "deed" or the enactment and the constitution established it! 2 points!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125