|
Author
|
Topic: US Constitution: living or dead?
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 17 (601697)
01-23-2011 9:08 AM
|
|
|
The Nation article
Interesting article from The Nation: Stealing the Constitution | The Nation
quote:
Stealing the Constitution In October I spent a crisp Saturday in the windowless basement of a suburban Virginia church attending a seminar on "The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution." I was told the secrets the "elite" have concealed from the people: the Constitution is based on the Law of Moses; Mosaic law was brought to the West by the ancient Anglo-Saxons, who were probably the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel; the Constitution restores the fifth-century kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons. There's more: virtually all of modern American life and government is unconstitutional. Social Security, the Federal Reserve, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, hate crime lawsall flatly violate God's law. State governments are not required to observe the Bill of Rights; the First Amendment establishes "The Religion of America," which is "nondenominational" Christianity. ... Conservative lawmakers increasingly claim that the "original intent" of the Constitution's framers and the views of the right wing of the Republican Party are one and the same. Newly elected Senator Mike Lee of Utah has endorsed state "nullification" of the healthcare law. And far-right Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has set up a "Constitution school" for new members of Congress; Justice Antonin Scalia (in other contexts a stickler for the separation of powers) has agreed to join Bachmann's faculty. Scalia's injudicious involvement with House Republicans underscores the new boldness of conservative federal judges in adopting the rhetoric and ideas of the hard right. Scalia has repeatedly said that direct election of senators is "a bad idea." He recently said that the Equal Protection Clause provides no protection for women against discrimination because when it was adopted "nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination." Federal District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida, who is hearing a challenge to the new healthcare program, recently cast doubt on its constitutionality in an opinion that cited, among other things, a Wall Street Journal op-ed as its "authority." ... Enough of that. The Constitution belongs to all of us. It's time to take it back from those who are trying to steal it in plain sight. Our Constitution wasn't written to rig the political game but to allow us to play it without killing one another. It created a government and gave that government the power it needed to function.
If the constitution was written as an absolute truth document to be followed only according to the beliefs and opinions of the original framers (who, btw, were not all of one mind?) then why is there any provision for amendment? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added subtitle
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 9:19 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 3 by bluescat48, posted 01-23-2011 11:54 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 4 by Jon, posted 01-23-2011 1:04 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-23-2011 1:27 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 2 of 17 (601698)
01-23-2011 9:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-23-2011 9:08 AM
|
|
The US Constitution document & The Bill of Rights
And yes, for the record, I have read the US Constitution: America's Founding Documents | National Archives In fact, I have it bookmarked on my browser, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the constitution, that were passed shortly after the constitution was ratified). America's Founding Documents | National ArchivesAmerica's Founding Documents | National Archives That there was dissent about the original constitution, that resulted in the Bill of Rights, is evidence that there were differences of opinion, even in 1776. It also shows that there was consensus that the constitution could and would be changed by amendment. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added subtitle
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 9:08 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 3 of 17 (601709)
01-23-2011 11:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-23-2011 9:08 AM
|
|
Re: The Nation article
If the constitution was written as an absolute truth document to be followed only according to the beliefs and opinions of the original framers (who, btw, were not all of one mind?) then why is there any provision for amendment? That is the point right there. Not of one mind. 1 state, Rhode Island didn't even send a representative to the Constitution Convention. Most of the Constitution was a series of compromises because there was no consensus. To say that it is unchangeable or that it was written to validate the right wing is pure balderdash.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 9:08 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 4 of 17 (601711)
01-23-2011 1:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-23-2011 9:08 AM
|
|
Re: The Nation article
It is always funny how the right-wing nuts haven't even the simplest understanding of the foundations of the Constitution. If we look at the original constitution, and all of its earliest amendments, there is a clear ideal developed within the document: it is a law that regulates the government according to the will of the people, not a law that regulates the people according to the will of the government. Stupid amendments, such as prohibition, clearly violate this ideal. In others, we must look at the wording to see the shift from 'control the government' to 'control the people' mentality, but it is there. And now, we've nimrods trying to propose amendments for doing stupid things like 'banning gay marriage', a proposition not only at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to reasonability and justice, but also clearly against the original mentality, ideals, and foundations of the Constitution itself. It's sadly unfortunate. But yes, the conservative extremists are clearly stealing the Constitution right from under the noses of the publicsometimes even gaining their supportand have been doing so for quite some time. Jon
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 9:08 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4258 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: 07-08-2008
|
|
|
Message 5 of 17 (601714)
01-23-2011 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-23-2011 9:08 AM
|
|
Re: The Nation article
it was an interesting article but very biased in the federalist (Washington, Adams, Hamilton) way of thinking. it seems to be a federalist article. If you are a federalist then it probably told you what you want to hear. I myself more identify with the anti-federalists (Jefferson, Madison, Burr), who funny enough seem to be from the same state i live in (Burr was from NY). When you view this from the anti-federalist perspective you see this article for what it is.
If the constitution was written as an absolute truth document to be followed only according to the beliefs and opinions of the original framers (who, btw, were not all of one mind?) then why is there any provision for amendment? to cover things not covered, maybe to add things. probably because the definition statement before the question is incorrect.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 9:08 AM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 6:01 PM | | Artemis Entreri has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: The Nation article
Hi Artemis Entreri, thanks.
it was an interesting article but very biased in the federalist (Washington, Adams, Hamilton) way of thinking. it seems to be a federalist article. If you are a federalist then it probably told you what you want to hear. And the founding fathers were intimately familiar with the absolute failure of the Articles of Confederation ... The Articles of Confederation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net So they went back to the drawing board and gave the federal government jurisdiction over the states. *
I myself more identify with the anti-federalists (Jefferson, Madison, Burr), who funny enough seem to be from the same state i live in (Burr was from NY). When you view this from the anti-federalist perspective you see this article for what it is. Or is that supposed to be ...
I myself more identify with the anti-federalists (Jefferson, Madison, Burr ( who funny enough seem to be from the same state i live in, Burr was from NY)). ... seeing as Jefferson and Madison were from Virginia. Madison also wrote over 1/3rd of The Federalist Papers which advocated The Federalist Papers - Wikipedia
quote:
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution.
When you view this from the anti-federalist perspective you see this article for what it is. And what is that? Perhaps you can describe what the anti-federalist perspective is ... if this is incorrect: Anti-Federalism - Wikipedia
quote:
Anti-Federalism is a US political philosophy which opposes the concept of Federalism. In short, Anti-Federalists dictate that the central governing authority of a nation should be equal or inferior to, but not having more power than, its sub-national states (state government). A book titled "The Anti-Federalist Papers" is a detailed explanation of American Anti-Federalist thought. Anti-Federalism also refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy.
The Articles of Confederation are a failed experiment, why should we go back to a failed system?
to cover things not covered, maybe to add things. probably because the definition statement before the question is incorrect. And to correct things that were not right, such as equal rights for women and minorities, or do you think these should be repealed? Note that Burr was in favor of abolishing slavery and equal rights for women. Do you think the health bill should be repealed? Enjoy. * However they did not give power to a single entity in the federal government, but created a system of checks and balances between 3 different branches of government. Now I personally have concerns about the increasing power of the president with the bush\cheney power grabs and "patriot" act nonsense, and I also would like to see a lot more apolitical distance in the supreme court. The court is not supposed to make political decisions. Edited by RAZD, : added footnote
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 6.4
|
|
Message 7 of 17 (601735)
01-23-2011 6:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
01-23-2011 6:01 PM
|
|
Re: The Nation article
RAZD asks:
Do you think the health bill should be repealed? It's not like we havent seen this before: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
- xongsmith, 5.7d
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 6:01 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Artemis Entreri
Suspended Member (Idle past 4258 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: 07-08-2008
|
|
|
Message 8 of 17 (602029)
01-25-2011 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
01-23-2011 6:01 PM
|
|
Re: The Nation article
Or is that supposed to be ...
this is the internet, I do not play the grammar game. usually one attacks grammar when they have nothing left to argue about, and want to feel intelligent, or superior. I myself could care less.
Madison also wrote over 1/3rd of The Federalist Papers which advocated
really it was just under one third, but that is not the point. Though I am not sure what your point is? maybe its because an Anti-Federalist wrote some papers called the federalist papers, and you think its ironic? I am not sure, and I do not want to assume i understand what you mean; that was just a guess.
The Articles of Confederation are a failed experiment, why should we go back to a failed system?
this is a question that would be asked by federalists. Was it not the supreme federalist Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in the federalist papers that the Bill of Rights were unecessesary?[rhetorical] Alexander Hamilton writes: It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. are you anti-Free speech and the 1st amendment as it appears this guy was?
Note that Burr was in favor of abolishing slavery and equal rights for women.
I know who Aaron Burr was, but thanks for your concern.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 6:01 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by Taz, posted 01-25-2011 11:03 PM | | Artemis Entreri has not replied | | | Message 13 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2011 3:19 PM | | Artemis Entreri has not replied | | | Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 02-01-2011 2:45 AM | | Artemis Entreri has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 9 of 17 (602041)
01-25-2011 5:55 PM
|
|
|
The intent of the Founding Fathers
The intent of the Founding Fathers is, of course, totally irrelevant. The fact is, they are dead.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2011 10:26 PM | | jar has replied |
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 10 of 17 (602068)
01-25-2011 10:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
01-25-2011 5:55 PM
|
|
Re: The intent of the Founding Fathers
The intent of the Founding Fathers is, of course, totally irrelevant. No, it is not. The expressed intent is a cornerstone to understanding what the provisions and articles mean. It forms a part of the contract the people accepted in adopting the Constitution. This is why the Federalist Papers are so often cited in legal decisions. The framer's intent is not sacred, however, and most certainly can be ignored, but only by the will of the people who have as their right the power to alter, amend, add or detract from the original contract, the original intent, they accepted.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by jar, posted 01-25-2011 5:55 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by jar, posted 01-25-2011 10:30 PM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 11 of 17 (602069)
01-25-2011 10:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by AZPaul3
01-25-2011 10:26 PM
|
|
Re: The intent of the Founding Fathers
The framer's intent is not sacred, however, and most certainly can be ignored, but only by the will of the people who have as their right the power to alter, amend, add or detract from the original contract, the original intent, they accepted. Correct. But that in effect does say that the original intent is irrelevant, it can be changed and has been changed as needed to meet the needs of each period and will continue to evolve in teh future.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2011 10:26 PM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: The Nation article
Artemis Entreri writes: usually one attacks grammar when they have nothing left to argue about, and want to feel intelligent, or superior.
Not necessarily. Sometimes a person's post is so out of this world crackpot that the only appropriate response is to point out his grammatical errors. I remember one time in another forum I was talking with a person who proclaimed that he's got absolute proof of god. Ok... I thought to myself and asked him to elaborate. So, basically his proof went something like this. According to the laws of thermodynamics a system like earth needed an external energy source to keep it alive. Since we haven't found any such source of energy yet, it must be god that's radiating energy to keep earth alive. Now, how the flying fuck do you respond to something like that? I know I know, I should have pointed out that big ass bright object in the sky we see every day. At the time, I didn't know what else to say except correcting his spelling and grammar errors. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
What is an anti-federalist today?
Hi Artemis Entreri,
this is the internet, I do not play the grammar game. usually one attacks grammar when they have nothing left to argue about, and want to feel intelligent, or superior. I myself could care less. Curiously, I thought I was being polite, trying to understand your position. Another alternative would have been to flame you for claiming that Jefferson and Madison were from New York, but I don't call that debate.
really it was just under one third, but that is not the point. And you quibble about grammar. Certainly Madison wrote a lot of the Federalist Papers. These papers were written to encourage people to pass the Constitution and replace the failed Articles of Confederation.
Though I am not sure what your point is? maybe its because an Anti-Federalist wrote some papers called the federalist papers, and you think its ironic? I am not sure, and I do not want to assume i understand what you mean; that was just a guess. I guess this really comes down to what you mean by anti-federalist, today, rather than in the 1700's - which you have not really explained. Did you note that I quoted the wiki article and asked you if it was accurate or did you have another meaning, perhaps one more current?
this is a question that would be asked by federalists. Was it not the supreme federalist Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in the federalist papers that the Bill of Rights were unecessesary?[rhetorical] Curiously, all this demonstrates that labels are not useful when people have a variety of opinions that overlap. What this amply demonstrates to me is that not all the Founding Fathers were of one mind. They made compromises to arrive at a better solution to government than the Articles of Confederation had provided, and they learned from their mistakes.
are you anti-Free speech and the 1st amendment as it appears this guy was? I have no trouble with people voicing opinions on whatever topic they want, I do find, however, that the actual words used could often use some refining.
I know who Aaron Burr was, but thanks for your concern. Thomas Paine was also in favor of abolishing slavery and allowing women to vote (he is also one of the few Americans that went to France to help their revolution, and was nearly beheaded). Possibly the most liberal of the Founding Fathers. http://www.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/chap2/paine.html So, what do you mean by anti-federalist and federalist? Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 14 of 17 (602751)
01-31-2011 2:21 PM
|
|
|
What I have never been able to square with the right wing rhetoric is the freedom of religion. I am pretty sure that the laws given to Moses did not say that you could worship whichever god you wanted, and worship whichever graven image you want. In fact, I am pretty sure the Bible suggests quite the opposite. The Bible even describes the Hebrews conquering other tribes for the express reason that they were worshiping the wrong god and praying to idols. Which Mosaic laws specifically do they think are enshrined in the Constitution? Where in Mosaic law does it suggest that States can nullify a federal health care law? Chapter, verse? Or the right to bear arms? Due process? The powers that are separated into 3 wings of government? The Sabbath? Are we only allowed to sell kosher meats in the US? Does the Constitution outlaw pork and shellfish? What exactly are they on about?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 02-01-2011 12:29 AM | | Taq has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 15 of 17 (602830)
02-01-2011 12:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Taq
01-31-2011 2:21 PM
|
|
Taq writes: What I have never been able to square with the right wing rhetoric is the freedom of religion. I am pretty sure that the laws given to Moses did not say that you could worship whichever god you wanted, and worship whichever graven image you want. I don't see any dilemma for right wingers. Freedom of religion means the right to practice any brand of Bible based Christianity that you chose without the state stepping in and forcing you to be Anglican or Catholic. That's pretty much idiot Justice Scalia's view of the Establishment Clause. "Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion. My court has a series of opinions that say that the Constitution requires neutrality on the part of the government, not just between denominations, not just between Protestants, Jews and Catholics, but neutrality between religion and non-religion. I do not believe that. That is not the American tradition.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Taq, posted 01-31-2011 2:21 PM | | Taq has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2011 1:25 AM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2