US Constitution

[jimnyc]

Been thinking of this for the last few days and not sure how I feel about it.

Normally speaking, who ultimately decides if something is constitutional or not? I think most know that answer. The "Supreme law of the land" is decided by the US Supreme Court. And there are 3 branches in our government for a reason.

Legislative, executive & judicial branches. Then, ever heard of something called "separation of powers"? Or "checks and balances"?

The US SC is there to interpret laws & to decide if a law is constitutional or not. And normally speaking, the legislators are there to create law.

--

But apparently not when it comes to impeachment proceedings. Then the SC is left out & the legislative branch now gets to take over that role and decide themselves if something is constitutional or not. And I don't think I like this myself. It then takes out the impartiality of our judges and interpreting the laws and allows it to be interpreted by political figures with agendas.

What do you all think about this one? And leave out Trump or other feelings, and just law & congress & the SC.

[fj1200]

...
But apparently not when it comes to impeachment proceedings. Then the SC is left out & the legislative branch now gets to take over that role and decide themselves if something is constitutional or not. And I don't think I like this myself. It then takes out the impartiality of our judges and interpreting the laws and allows it to be interpreted by political figures with agendas.

What do you all think about this one? And leave out Trump or other feelings, and just law & congress & the SC.

Are you talking about impeachment in general? I think it's pretty well spelled out and all parties are involved. The "people" impeach via the House, the "states" convict via the Senate, and the courts oversee via the Chief Justice.

Or impeachment today? The Constitution could be construed as silent on this particular type of situation where the POTUS has been impeached but is no longer in office from which to be removed. There could be credible arguments whether a non-sitting POTUS could be convicted or not on both sides but IMO the Constitution has zero to say; given that the Chief Justice declined his role in role it seems like the "Constitution" has spoken with Roberts refusal to preside.

All that aside I think a former POTUS could be convicted even if no longer in office provided the people and the states were in agreement and the judicary were involved.

[jimnyc]

Are you talking about impeachment in general? I think it's pretty well spelled out and all parties are involved. The "people" impeach via the House, the "states" convict via the Senate, and the courts oversee via the Chief Justice.

Or impeachment today? The Constitution could be construed as silent on this particular type of situation where the POTUS has been impeached but is no longer in office from which to be removed. There could be credible arguments whether a non-sitting POTUS could be convicted or not on both sides but IMO the Constitution has zero to say; given that the Chief Justice declined his role in role it seems like the "Constitution" has spoken with Roberts refusal to preside.

All that aside I think a former POTUS could be convicted even if no longer in office provided the people and the states were in agreement and the judicary were involved.

In general mostly. And while I understand how it's written and how we got here - that's the part I disagree with. I don't think there should be that ability to go 'over the heads' of the SC if you will & pass that determinations over to congress - where one party is calling for impeachment of someone in the other party. So we kind of know where they stand to begin with. I think, IMO, that was a mistake.

While I understand in theory - the representatives of the people will decide to impeach in the House or not. Then the same more or less with the representatives of our states in senate.

And that's where the problem lies and where things have only gotten exponentially worse IMO. I've been saying since I can remember - that this rarely happens anymore. These shitwits run around their respective states in the beginning or every few years in order to get elected. All kinds of promises and pandering to the people in how they will represent them. But then they ALL seem to get to Washington and completely forget about their constituents. Gone, out the window. So you will reply and say that that's when we vote them out and get someone new in there. Couldn't agree more. And then yet the lifers in congress are there every cycle anyway and they now run the nation and the people are taken out of the loop. So it's our fault ultimately for not voting them out. But hell, I always vote folks out and makes no difference. Wish it would, but here we are. So again, I agree, it's quite clearly spelled out how the impeachment process works. And IF that happened it may be nice, but just seems like the intent is gone & overtaken by greedy lifer politicians. I doubt the goal was for them to shit on the constitutionality of things, but it happens. And regardless of their decisions this week - I just disagree that it's their jobs to decide constitutionality.

A shame that no backups in place for instances when the chief justice backs out like Roberts did. Perhaps an alternate from the court? Someone instead of a 54 year long Democrat presiding?

[fj1200]

In general mostly. And while I understand how it's written and how we got here - that's the part I disagree with. I don't think there should be that ability to go 'over the heads' of the SC if you will & pass that determinations over to congress - where one party is calling for impeachment of someone in the other party. So we kind of know where they stand to begin with. I think, IMO, that was a mistake.

While I understand in theory - the representatives of the people will decide to impeach in the House or not. Then the same more or less with the representatives of our states in senate.

And that's where the problem lies and where things have only gotten exponentially worse IMO. I've been saying since I can remember - that this rarely happens anymore. These shitwits run around their respective states in the beginning or every few years in order to get elected. All kinds of promises and pandering to the people in how they will represent them. But then they ALL seem to get to Washington and completely forget about their constituents. Gone, out the window. So you will reply and say that that's when we vote them out and get someone new in there. Couldn't agree more. And then yet the lifers in congress are there every cycle anyway and they now run the nation and the people are taken out of the loop. So it's our fault ultimately for not voting them out. But hell, I always vote folks out and makes no difference. Wish it would, but here we are. So again, I agree, it's quite clearly spelled out how the impeachment process works. And IF that happened it may be nice, but just seems like the intent is gone & overtaken by greedy lifer politicians. I doubt the goal was for them to shit on the constitutionality of things, but it happens. And regardless of their decisions this week - I just disagree that it's their jobs to decide constitutionality.

A shame that no backups in place for instances when the chief justice backs out like Roberts did. Perhaps an alternate from the court? Someone instead of a 54 year long Democrat presiding?

Part of the issue is the original point of the Senate which was to represent the states legislatures but that hasn't been true in over a 100 years (damn 17th amendment) but there needs to be a process for removal and impeachment seems like an acceptable method. But overall I don't think what we have is troubling. If this process becomes troubling then I think we have bigger problems than an overactive House.

[jimnyc]

Part of the issue is the original point of the Senate which was to represent the states legislatures but that hasn't been true in over a 100 years (damn 17th amendment) but there needs to be a process for removal and impeachment seems like an acceptable method. But overall I don't think what we have is troubling. If this process becomes troubling then I think we have bigger problems than an overactive House.

The only reason I agree that it's not troubling, as of right now, is that it's a rarity. IF it were something we were going to see every 4-8 years, seeing politicians deciding whether something is constitutional or not, I would find troubling. Understood that we ain't gonna be seeing impeachments that often AND each case deciding constitutional questions that often.

Let me rephrase my stance - I disagree with legislature deciding the constitutionality of anything. And especially so when it's something that can't even be appealed to the SC. The SC will often decide the constitutionality of legal concerns in question - at least until it comes to one of the nations most important ever decisions. :rolleyes:

I agree there needs to be a process for removal. Also agree that impeachment is the right way to go. But seems a few things are broken. As I said, being broken with this one particular issue, is a rarity and in fact may never even come up again. But I still don't think these critters should be the ultimate say about our COTUS. The intent on paper, seeing congress oversee things, with a due process trial, and overseen by the chief justice - sounds great. But then 245 years go by and the congress in session should never decide such issues. Congress has slowly but surely moved away from who they are. Congress critters got ZERO salary in the beginning. Some monies were paid by individual states from what I recall? And the states were able to suspend their $$ if they did shitty jobs.

Overall I agree, not really troubling perhaps when looking at such a rare rarity that perhaps we may never see again. But I still disagree with giving the vermin more power or ability to maybe ever create precedent.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In general mostly. And while I understand how it's written and how we got here - that's the part I disagree with. I don't think there should be that ability to go 'over the heads' of the SC if you will & pass that determinations over to congress - where one party is calling for impeachment of someone in the other party. So we kind of know where they stand to begin with. I think, IMO, that was a mistake.

While I understand in theory - the representatives of the people will decide to impeach in the House or not. Then the same more or less with the representatives of our states in senate.

And that's where the problem lies and where things have only gotten exponentially worse IMO. I've been saying since I can remember - that this rarely happens anymore. These shitwits run around their respective states in the beginning or every few years in order to get elected. All kinds of promises and pandering to the people in how they will represent them. But then they ALL seem to get to Washington and completely forget about their constituents. Gone, out the window. So you will reply and say that that's when we vote them out and get someone new in there. Couldn't agree more. And then yet the lifers in congress are there every cycle anyway and they now run the nation and the people are taken out of the loop. So it's our fault ultimately for not voting them out. But hell, I always vote folks out and makes no difference. Wish it would, but here we are. So again, I agree, it's quite clearly spelled out how the impeachment process works. And IF that happened it may be nice, but just seems like the intent is gone & overtaken by greedy lifer politicians. I doubt the goal was for them to shit on the constitutionality of things, but it happens. And regardless of their decisions this week - I just disagree that it's their jobs to decide constitutionality.

A shame that no backups in place for instances when the chief justice backs out like Roberts did. Perhaps an alternate from the court? Someone instead of a 54 year long Democrat presiding?

It is all quite simple.
Congress (the idiot corrupted dems)is acting on a political agenda and doing so unconstitutionally.
With an impeachment trial founded on false charges and -to top that off --without the required chief justice overseeing the farce.
Only a damn fool thinks this stunt -this ffing farce is anything but a damn show ran by ffking demcrap morons.
Yet we will see what these vermin eventually get out of this..
As in this modern world, this world of bullshit and lies -- who the hell knows.
These ffing vermin are the true enemies of this nation. A damn fact..-Tyr

[Gunny]

It is all quite simple.
Congress (the idiot corrupted dems)is acting on a political agenda and doing so unconstitutionally.
With an impeachment trial founded on false charges and -to top that off --without the required chief justice overseeing the farce.
Only a damn fool thinks this stunt -this ffing farce is anything but a damn show ran by ffking demcrap morons.
Yet we will see what these vermin eventually get out of this..
As in this modern world, this world of bullshit and lies -- who the hell knows.
These ffing vermin are the true enemies of this nation. A damn fact..-TyrAgreed. It's a farce. I may have missed something, but how is it the Chief Justice even can recuse himself without able replacement? And, how can the trial even be held if the dipstick is missing?

Surface? They just cheated to win an election disenfranchising the American people of their Right to be represented by who they choose. What's an illegal impeachment conviction on top of that?

[icansayit]

The Chief Justice (Roberts) didn't recuse himself. He wanted NO Part of the Unconsitutional GAME the House, and Senate was trying to play.

His decision was: He would only oversee an Impeachment Trial in the Senate IF.....IF....

IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. Though most of us do not like Roberts. At least he read the Constitution, and Follows it.

[KarlMarx]

Article III of the USC, the article that covers SCOTUS, does not grant SCOTUS the power to decide the constitutionality of a law. Although, I suppose, judicial review may be implied. However, SCOTUS has had this power since the early 19th century and so it’s likely to stay.

Regarding where the Legislature has the power to decide what is constitutional or not. That is not among its enumerated powers. So, the Senate’s vote amounted to a power grab and it needs to be challenged.

That said, Congress establishes the inferior courts to SCOTUS and, thus, can tell those courts which cases they can hear, although I don’t think it has been done recently. (If ever)

[icansayit]

Article III of the USC, the article that covers SCOTUS, does not grant SCOTUS the power to decide the constitutionality of a law. Although, I suppose, judicial review may be implied. However, SCOTUS has had this power since the early 19th century and so it’s likely to stay.

Regarding where the Legislature has the power to decide what is constitutional or not. That is not among its enumerated powers. So, the Senate’s vote amounted to a power grab and it needs to be challenged.

That said, Congress establishes the inferior courts to SCOTUS and, thus, can tell those courts which cases they can hear, although I don’t think it has been done recently. (If ever)


SCOTUS' job is to INTERPRET the Constitution the way they Read it. This has nothing to do with "ANY LAW". The LEGISLATURE makes the laws, and the JUDICIAL only Interprets them...according to the Written Constitution.
There is NO LAW in question. So the SENATE has no grounds to Impeach.

[fj1200]

Regarding where the Legislature has the power to decide what is constitutional or not. That is not among its enumerated powers. So, the Senate’s vote amounted to a power grab and it needs to be challenged.

I would argue that any branch has the power to decide what is Constitutional. Any branch should base decisions on constitutionality. Their oath is to defend it correct?

And I'm not sure which Senate vote your referencing, there have been two IIRC, with at least the first one deciding whether they had the power to even proceed. Unfortunately at some point here the Constitution is silent and there is not much recourse.

[jimnyc]

The Chief Justice (Roberts) didn't recuse himself. He wanted NO Part of the Unconsitutional GAME the House, and Senate was trying to play.

His decision was: He would only oversee an Impeachment Trial in the Senate IF.....IF....

IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. Though most of us do not like Roberts. At least he read the Constitution, and Follows it.

I also understand that since Roberts bailed, that it may very well give Trump an actual appeal as a result. I don't think it would be needed anyway but a possibility.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I also understand that since Roberts bailed, that it may very well give Trump an actual appeal as a result. I don't think it would be needed anyway but a possibility.

Actually the fact that Roberts refused--made the entire thing going forward to be --TOTALLY--- an illegal exercise in Democrat umbrage, hatred, stupidity, bias and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
An obvious case of these vermin assuming powers they do not have..
Which is a recurring action with these insane pieces of power-mad shit.
A pattern that points to why these people should themselves be removed from holding public office.
One could easily and quite correctly surmise that this was a case of engaging in "political terrorism" due to irrational hatred that these idiots have for Trump.--Tyr

[KarlMarx]

OK, so this is what happened. Marbury vs Madison was a landmark case (decided in 1803) in which the Supreme Court gave itself the power of judicial review. So, as I said, Article III does not enumerate judicial review (aka deciding if a law was unconstitutional) as a power delegated to SCOTUS, or any, branch of government.



Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_Sta tes) U.S. Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Supreme_Court) case that established the principle of judicial review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review) in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States). Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChemerinsky2019%C2%A7_2.2.1,_p._39-1) The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution) is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) executive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)) and judicial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary) branches of the federal government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government).....

rest of article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

[Flavius]

Been thinking of this for the last few days and not sure how I feel about it.

Normally speaking, who ultimately decides if something is constitutional or not? I think most know that answer. The "Supreme law of the land" is decided by the US Supreme Court. And there are 3 branches in our government for a reason.

Legislative, executive & judicial branches. Then, ever heard of something called "separation of powers"? Or "checks and balances"?

The US SC is there to interpret laws & to decide if a law is constitutional or not. And normally speaking, the legislators are there to create law.

--

But apparently not when it comes to impeachment proceedings. Then the SC is left out & the legislative branch now gets to take over that role and decide themselves if something is constitutional or not. And I don't think I like this myself. It then takes out the impartiality of our judges and interpreting the laws and allows it to be interpreted by political figures with agendas.

What do you all think about this one? And leave out Trump or other feelings, and just law & congress & the SC.

Who decides if something is "constitutional or not"? Common Sense....which is not so common today. The United States of America has been governed by a simple 8 page document for more than 200 years now, drafted and comprehensible at a middle school level.

Something is constitutional when its not directly prohibited by the language in the US CONSTITUTION, as clearly defined in Article 10 of the States Bill of Rights, "anything not addressed in the Constitution (nothing but a simple contract among the states that defines certain things that a FEDERAL/CENTRAL government can and cannot do).....belongs to the citizens of each state to decide and make law as they will.

Anyone........show us the language in the Constitution, Article, Section, and Clause, that grants SCOTUS the right to add or take away words in the constitution in order to "define" what is constitutional or unconstitutional. ANYONE. A judges' duty is to arbitrate law, not draft law from the bench.

Arbitrate: to point out differences, not correct differences.

There is no authority found in the constitution for a JUDGE, at any level to add onto or take away language in the Constitution....or to legislate law from the bench via the sound of a judges gavel. The duty of the SCOTUS is a simple duty, that duty is for the court to compare any law with existing language in that contract among the states called the US constitution, if there is no conflict with the existing language, then the subject matter is deemed constitutional.....if the constitution prohibits the action, its unconstitutional.

No where in the constitution....is marriage mentioned (that is a topic reserved to the STATES)...........no where in the constitution is sexual preference mentioned (that is a topic reserved for the States)....in fact the majority of the constitutional language deals with only 3 subjects. Interstate Trade commerce...Interstate infrastructure and the maintenance thereof via levies/taxes, and lastly but not least.....the first bird to dip its peak into the federal bank coffers.........the US military and its duty to protect WE THE PEOPLE...et.al, (all 50 states now) from any attack both foreign and domestic.

[jimnyc]

Flavius

If ya don't mind of course - can you hit this thread and introduce yourself? - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?676-Introductions

Hope ya stick around!

Welcome & please and thank you. :thumb:

[KarlMarx]

Flavius

If ya don't mind of course - can you hit this thread and introduce yourself? - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?676-Introductions

Hope ya stick around!

Welcome & please and thank you. :thumb:

Wasn’t Flavius the surname of a Dynasty under the Roman empire? As in Vespasian?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fj1200]

Who decides if something is "constitutional or not"? Common Sense....which is not so common today. The United States of America has been governed by a simple 8 page document for more than 200 years now, drafted and comprehensible at a middle school level.

Something is constitutional when its not directly prohibited by the language in the US CONSTITUTION, as clearly defined in Article 10 of the States Bill of Rights, "anything not addressed in the Constitution (nothing but a simple contract among the states that defines certain things that a FEDERAL/CENTRAL government can and cannot do).....belongs to the citizens of each state to decide and make law as they will.

Anyone........show us the language in the Constitution, Article, Section, and Clause, that grants SCOTUS the right to add or take away words in the constitution in order to "define" what is constitutional or unconstitutional. ANYONE. A judges' duty is to arbitrate law, not draft law from the bench.

Arbitrate: to point out differences, not correct differences.

There is no authority found in the constitution for a JUDGE, at any level to add onto or take away language in the Constitution....or to legislate law from the bench via the sound of a judges gavel. The duty of the SCOTUS is a simple duty, that duty is for the court to compare any law with existing language in that contract among the states called the US constitution, if there is no conflict with the existing language, then the subject matter is deemed constitutional.....if the constitution prohibits the action, its unconstitutional.

No where in the constitution....is marriage mentioned (that is a topic reserved to the STATES)...........no where in the constitution is sexual preference mentioned (that is a topic reserved for the States)....in fact the majority of the constitutional language deals with only 3 subjects. Interstate Trade commerce...Interstate infrastructure and the maintenance thereof via levies/taxes, and lastly but not least.....the first bird to dip its peak into the federal bank coffers.........the US military and its duty to protect WE THE PEOPLE...et.al, (all 50 states now) from any attack both foreign and domestic.

Because something is, or is not, mentioned in the Constitution does not mean something is, or is not, Constitutional. The world is much changed from our founding and I think its brilliance is that it can still be read consistently for life today. Without it having to be "living" as some people would like it to be.

[icansayit]

Who decides if something is "constitutional or not"? Common Sense....which is not so common today. The United States of America has been governed by a simple 8 page document for more than 200 years now, drafted and comprehensible at a middle school level.

Something is constitutional when its not directly prohibited by the language in the US CONSTITUTION, as clearly defined in Article 10 of the States Bill of Rights, "anything not addressed in the Constitution (nothing but a simple contract among the states that defines certain things that a FEDERAL/CENTRAL government can and cannot do).....belongs to the citizens of each state to decide and make law as they will.

Anyone........show us the language in the Constitution, Article, Section, and Clause, that grants SCOTUS the right to add or take away words in the constitution in order to "define" what is constitutional or unconstitutional. ANYONE. A judges' duty is to arbitrate law, not draft law from the bench.

Arbitrate: to point out differences, not correct differences.

There is no authority found in the constitution for a JUDGE, at any level to add onto or take away language in the Constitution....or to legislate law from the bench via the sound of a judges gavel. The duty of the SCOTUS is a simple duty, that duty is for the court to compare any law with existing language in that contract among the states called the US constitution, if there is no conflict with the existing language, then the subject matter is deemed constitutional.....if the constitution prohibits the action, its unconstitutional.

No where in the constitution....is marriage mentioned (that is a topic reserved to the STATES)...........no where in the constitution is sexual preference mentioned (that is a topic reserved for the States)....in fact the majority of the constitutional language deals with only 3 subjects. Interstate Trade commerce...Interstate infrastructure and the maintenance thereof via levies/taxes, and lastly but not least.....the first bird to dip its peak into the federal bank coffers.........the US military and its duty to protect WE THE PEOPLE...et.al, (all 50 states now) from any attack both foreign and domestic.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution intentionally created the 3 branches for a reason. The Executive...to oversee and protect the American people.
The Legislature to create the Laws and represent the people.
And the Judicial...To oversee, and assist the other TWO branches in ensuring the Constitution is followed...according to the Founders. Which includes the DOJ who enforces ALL CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS created by the Legislature.
Another example for clarity would be (IMO) Since the Founders never dreamed of air, or automobile transportation then...COMMON SENSE prevails with the use of SEATBELTS, and obvious other SAFETY warnings....such as SHOCK HAZARD WARNINGS.

Simple enough for Now, but not way back then.

[Flavius]

Because something is, or is not, mentioned in the Constitution does not mean something is, or is not, Constitutional. The world is much changed from our founding and I think its brilliance is that it can still be read consistently for life today. Without it having to be "living" as some people would like it to be.

The constitution is considered, in a metaphoric...i.e., SYMPOLIC sense, a living breathing document because within its text there remains the stated conditions that can change along with the social more' of its governing society.

The constitution is not magic, it lives only as long as the people it represents lives within the textual terms of the historical document itself. It represents the living Spirit and Soul of WE THE PEOPLE. It lives and changes only via majority consent of the society and its more's........its the standard that calibrates all law at every level with a guarantee that representation must be a Representative (not a democracy) REPUBLIC (Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1)

Take for example the topic of SLAVERY. Slavery existed because the majority of THE PEOPLE wanted the industry of flesh peddling to exist. Slavery was not a North v. South topic....some of the greatest slave holders existed in the the northern states. In other words, the society wanted Slavery to exist via majority consent. Along the course of history there was a change in societies more's, society by majority evolved to the point that it found SLAVERY immoral, thus society changed the laws of the land (society evolves, not truth).

A truth found in the roots of this nation in its very conception.......ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL and endowed by the creator with certain UNALIENABLE (not transferable by any law)rights, among these rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That TRUTH has existed since the foundation of this nation. Truth does not evolve (it remains the same forever or it was never truth to begin with).....Societies evolve.

THE PEOPLE finally evolved to accept this universal truth.........and the CONSTUTITION "breathed" via the voice of the people and reflected that change in social more's as the constitution changed to reflect the idea that slavery was an immoral evil industry that must end. The 13th Amendment changed the WORLD.

The Constitution (in its firewalls) cannot be changed on the whim of a judges gavel.........it can evolve only via the will of a MAJORITY ratification vote by WE THE PEOPLE/STATES.

The idea that the constitution is an "antiquated" useless document in today's society is logically absurd. The founders of this nation were Genius Loci.....their very spirts were poured into the founding principles of the United States and those spirits stand and remain today. Its THE PEOPLE that gives life to the constitution and its founding principles. As long as morality exists in this nation the CONSITUTION WILL STAND in its defense of THE PEOPLE.

[fj1200]

^Nice speech.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The constitution is considered, in a metaphoric...i.e., SYMPOLIC sense, a living breathing document because within its text there remains the stated conditions that can change along with the social more' of its governing society.

The constitution is not magic, it lives only as long as the people it represents lives within the textual terms of the historical document itself. It represents the living Spirit and Soul of WE THE PEOPLE. It lives and changes only via majority consent of the society and its more's........its the standard that calibrates all law at every level with a guarantee that representation must be a Representative (not a democracy) REPUBLIC (Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1)

Take for example the topic of SLAVERY. Slavery existed because the majority of THE PEOPLE wanted the industry of flesh peddling to exist. Slavery was not a North v. South topic....some of the greatest slave holders existed in the the northern states. In other words, the society wanted Slavery to exist via majority consent. Along the course of history there was a change in societies more's, society by majority evolved to the point that it found SLAVERY immoral, thus society changed the laws of the land (society evolves, not truth).

A truth found in the roots of this nation in its very conception.......ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL and endowed by the creator with certain UNALIENABLE (not transferable by any law)rights, among these rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That TRUTH has existed since the foundation of this nation. Truth does not evolve (it remains the same forever or it was never truth to begin with).....Societies evolve.

THE PEOPLE finally evolved to accept this universal truth.........and the CONSTUTITION "breathed" via the voice of the people and reflected that change in social more's as the constitution changed to reflect the idea that slavery was an immoral evil industry that must end. The 13th Amendment changed the WORLD.

The Constitution (in its firewalls) cannot be changed on the whim of a judges gavel.........it can evolve only via the will of a MAJORITY ratification vote by WE THE PEOPLE/STATES.

The idea that the constitution is an "antiquated" useless document in today's society is logically absurd. The founders of this nation were Genius Loci.....their very spirts were poured into the founding principles of the United States and those spirits stand and remain today. Its THE PEOPLE that gives life to the constitution and its founding principles. As long as morality exists in this nation the CONSITUTION WILL STAND in its defense of THE PEOPLE.

A top class presentation that represents the truth of it. One that the totally anti-american, socialist dem party hates.
A reality that people see and know when they study to educate themselves with the history of this nation and its founding.
And that leaves out the self-engrossed liberal asshats that already think they are gods above all other peoples.
Those that wear a crown of arrogance and smugness along with their other fruity attire.-Tyr

[Flavius]

A top class presentation that represents the truth of it. One that the totally anti-american, socialist dem party hates.
A reality that people see and know when they study to educate themselves with the history of this nation and its founding.
And that leaves out the self-engrossed liberal asshats that already think they are gods above all other peoples.
Those that wear a crown of arrogance and smugness along with their other fruity attire.-Tyr

A historical truth that to this day is "unacceptable" by the left: Slavery was never a north v south conflict, it was spiritual fight between the pro slavery democrats and the anti-slavery republicans. Even 150 years ago the democrats wanted and demanded CONTROL of people in order to fill their own coffers with wealth, wealth that comes from taking advantage of other human beings in a most immoral fashion (things have not changed within the modern democrat party......its any means to an end, an end that greases the greed palms of those who control that party).

Anyone? Find a historical example of just 1 (one) conservative constitutionalist REPUBLICAN who owned or supported the industry of slavery.....just one example. In fact it is historically documented that the democrat party brought us such noble examples of morality as the KKK (the modern democrat party within its ranks had a former KKK member that held the title of "EXALTED CYCLOPS".....and he held a high office within the democrat party until his death in 2010........Robert KKK Byrd)

Next the democrat party brought JIM CROW laws to the federal level where discrimination based upon skin color forbid many talented and educated individuals from holding down civil servant jobs) thanks to one Woodrow Wilson.

Every major war (conflict) engaged by the United States of America was supervised by a Democrat Leadership save the 2 conflicts with Great Britain. WW1 Woodrow Wilson, WW2 King (court packing) FDR, Korea, Truman, (it was a republican that ended that conflict, IKE) Vietnam, LBJ (it was a republican that ended that conflict....Nixon).

In fact it was a democrat (Mr. limp wrist Peanut), Carter that allowed the War on Terror to takes roots through appeasement as he called the terrorist HOLY MEN OF PEACE and attempted to appease them through weakness.

Sound familiar? What president attempted to purchase peace with the terrorists by leaving billions of US TAX dollars on the tarmac of a certain nation?

And must we forget that it was the democrat party that fought against every civil right act introduced in the 50s and 60s.....a party that once filibustered for months in an attempt to kill that act. Not to mention the fact that the democrat party fought tooth and nail in an attempt to stop women and certain minorities from having the right to vote and own property.

Again...........nothing has changed. Today the members of the democrat party are standing on the shoulders of great men and claiming they are the authors of Civil Rights, Equal Rights to vote and own property.......claiming to be against WAR yet attempting to stop PEACE in the middle east with every breath.

Enough of the ranting. They know who they are and what they represent.....their greatest problem......WE THE PEOPLE KNOW THEM AND THEIR WORKS AS WELL.

[KarlMarx]

The Constitution is the embodiment of the principals set forth in the Declaration of Independence

The difference between Socialism and our form of government

1. In Socialism, the State grants you rights, in our form of government, God does

2. In socialism, the State can take away your rights, in our form of government, they are inalienable

3. In socialism, the State rules by coercion, in our form of government the State rules by Consent of the governed

4. In Socialism, power is in the hands of the few, in our form of government, it is in the hands if the many

5. In our form of government, the State cannot take your life, your liberty, or your property without due process of law. In Socialism, the State takes everything.