The Constitution of The United States

[Guest]

After reading some of the "comments" by those of you that think you know what you are talking about, have any of you ever really read the Constitution of the United States and all its Amendments.

I don't think that the vast majority of our elected officials have even heard of this document let alone read it.

Let's take a poll and see how many of you have read the Constitution and understand States Rights and your Personal Rights that are granted by this document. What it acutally says the US Government (The Federal Government) can and can not do.

I have and the majority of the things that the US Government does are not in accordance with the Constitution yet we don't have one elected offical that will take a stand and enforce the provisions of this document.

[Guest]

I have read and continue to re-read The Declaration of Independence, U.S. constitution, Bill of rights and The Amendments> Personally for me I need to continually eview these documents. I keep them in my favorites on my computer and they are located at the back of my legal dictionary.

I will wager that there are substantially more Americans than you think who have studied these documents. I am glad you are one of them and have posted these comments. Thank you

[Guest]

rubicon,

I will be willing to bet that there are more that have NOT read these documents than there are that have, especially amoung our younger generation. If they had we would not be in the mess that we are in now.

[Guest]

Figmo,

You want to take a pole or a poll? Also, you have quite a few spelling errors in your two posts.

Remember, Figmo, that the Constitution is a living and evolving document. It can be changed and also interpreted differently by different people. For example, the 2nd Amendment to some people means that Americans may own any kind of firearm they wish - such as assault rifles, automatic rifles and pistols, streetsweeper shotguns with high capacity magazines, pistols with high capacity magazines, etc. Did the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment have any idea of those weapons? No, they had single shot muskets and single shot pistols. Personally, I would grant that Americans be allowed to own a single shot musket or pistol and that the well-regulated militia (National Guard) could have modern weapons.

When the Constitution was written, this was a small country with a small population. People were allowed to have slaves. Women could not vote. Would you take away the Amendments prohibiting slavery or the right of women to vote? I hope not.

As I said, the Constitution is constantly evolving. Anyone who says different is certainly not a scholar of history.

[Guest]

You have some strange ideas about our founding documents Bugs. Totally wrong, but interesting.

[Guest]

Precisely, what do I have wrong? You do not believe the Constitution is an evolving document? What about the Amendments - aren't they part of the evolution of the document? Can you disagree that the writers of the Constitution had no idea of modern weapons and only knew of muskets and pistols that were single shot?

[Guest]

Precisely, what do I have wrong? You do not believe the Constitution is an evolving document? What about the Amendments - aren't they part of the evolution of the document? Can you disagree that the writers of the Constitution had no idea of modern weapons and only knew of muskets and pistols that were single shot?

What is said in the Constitution is succinct and crystal clear. Evolving document? B.S. You're right about one thing; the Amendments. That's the only way to legally alter the rights of the American citizen under our charter. Now you liberals who can't get it done that way have found liberal activist judges to illegally write law. The Amendment process was rendered obsolete that way. It's all B.S.

[Guest]

Precisely, what do I have wrong? You do not believe the Constitution is an evolving document? What about the Amendments - aren't they part of the evolution of the document? Can you disagree that the writers of the Constitution had no idea of modern weapons and only knew of muskets and pistols that were single shot?

Yes there is a process put in place to amend the Constitution, but the process does not allow for some judges or politicians to change it to serve their ideas and opinions.

They also did not believe in the internet or air traffic control or, how to travel in space but some things they did believe are worth considering.



“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
Abraham Lincoln


“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
Patrick Henry

[Guest]

There's also something else to be considered about the 2nd Ammendment. At the time, the firearms used in the war (muskets, etc) *WERE* the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" of the day.

[Guest]

Figmo,

You want to take a pole or a poll? Also, you have quite a few spelling errors in your two posts.

Remember, Figmo, that the Constitution is a living and evolving document. It can be changed and also interpreted differently by different people. For example, the 2nd Amendment to some people means that Americans may own any kind of firearm they wish - such as assault rifles, automatic rifles and pistols, streetsweeper shotguns with high capacity magazines, pistols with high capacity magazines, etc. Did the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment have any idea of those weapons? No, they had single shot muskets and single shot pistols. Personally, I would grant that Americans be allowed to own a single shot musket or pistol and that the well-regulated militia (National Guard) could have modern weapons.

When the Constitution was written, this was a small country with a small population. People were allowed to have slaves. Women could not vote. Would you take away the Amendments prohibiting slavery or the right of women to vote? I hope not.

As I said, the Constitution is constantly evolving. Anyone who says different is certainly not a scholar of history.

Well said, yet Richie disagrees. Have to believe if a Democrat said the sun rose in the East Richie would say wrong, never happened, it rises in the West. Their is no truth but the "right" truth. :doh:

[Guest]

the Constitution is a living and evolving document. It can be changed and also interpreted differently by different people.

An age old leftist view. Nothing more than an excuse to subvert and ignore the principles on which America was founded. No wonder they like Obama. Birds of a feather…

[Guest]

Richie, You say the Amendment process to the Constitution is now BS. What one would you like to have stopped with? Don't forget the conservatives have wanted an anti-abortion amendment added in. Do you think any of the current ones are BS? All Presidents have wanted to add a Supreme Court justice who thinks their way. John Roberts was added by Bush. Bush wanted a court who thought the conservative way. Only natural to do so.

Lassen does not believe the Constitution is an evolving document. Obviously he does not believe in any of the Amendments. Evolve means change over time, Lassen.
Hancie - I do not remember reading in the Constitution anything about space travel. I do remember reading about weapons. Whatever leaning the Supreme Court has - liberal or conservative - you will have the justices interpreting the Constitution. Right now, it is the liberals and someday it will change to conservative, I am sure, but they interpret the Constitution.

[Guest]

Here's an excellent explanation of the US Constitution and the amendment process based on fact. I'm going to paste just a little part of the commentary. If you have an opportunity; I suggest you read it in its entirety.

..."In the original governing principles set forth in the Declaration (and then subsequently incorporated into the Constitution through Article VII), the right to life is one of three specifically identified inalienable rights; additional inalienable rights were subsequently enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The original documents – both the Declaration and the Constitution – make clear that the primary purpose of government, at all times and in all situations, is to protect those few inalienable rights.

"Some candidates believe that the right to life is inalienable only to the degree that a specific state agrees – that if a state does not believe that the right to life is inalienable, then the federal government should not force the state to protect that right. Yet protection for the few specifically enumerated inalienable rights must always surpass what any particular state wishes – and this is the proper constitutional position on all inalienable rights, whether of life, private property, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of religious expression, etc. It is the duty of all government – including state governments – to protect inalienable rights. In fact, if the philosophy originally set forth in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently secured in the Constitution is rejected – the belief that there is a God, that He gives inalienable rights to man, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights at all times (even when the states refuse to do so) – then there is no longer a unique American philosophy of government that will distinguish us from the rest of the world...

..."Yet, since the Founders specifically included Article V in the Constitution to specify how the Constitution might be amended, then a strict constructionist must also support the part of the Constitution providing for its own amendment. In fact, refusing to consider a constitutional amendment does not reflect strict constructionism but rather a rejection of Article V of the Constitution.

"The Founders wisely raised the bar so high as to make it is extremely difficult to pass any amendment, requiring a two-thirds approval of Congress and three-fourths approval of the states before any change could occur. Consequently, while there have been over 10,000 amendments to the Constitution proposed since 1789, only twenty-seven have been able to meet the constitutional standard. Of those twenty-seven, twelve were passed by the Founders themselves (the original “strict constructionists”) in only twenty years; in the subsequent two-hundred years, the nation has made just fifteen changes.

"Federal constitutional amendments should be rare, but that does not mean they should be non-existent. States cannot be allowed to pick and choose which inalienable rights they will protect (although under the Constitution they are completely competent to determine virtually all other issues). The Constitution was written to preserve American culture and society, not to cause citizens to stand idly by while the culture is destroyed – especially when they have in their hands the means to preserve it through a constitutional amendment in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself."...


http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=7128

[Guest]

Richie, You say the Amendment process to the Constitution is now BS. What one would you like to have stopped with? Don't forget the conservatives have wanted an anti-abortion amendment added in. Do you think any of the current ones are BS? All Presidents have wanted to add a Supreme Court justice who thinks their way. John Roberts was added by Bush. Bush wanted a court who thought the conservative way. Only natural to do so.

Lassen does not believe the Constitution is an evolving document. Obviously he does not believe in any of the Amendments. Evolve means change over time, Lassen.
Hancie - I do not remember reading in the Constitution anything about space travel. I do remember reading about weapons. Whatever leaning the Supreme Court has - liberal or conservative - you will have the justices interpreting the Constitution. Right now, it is the liberals and someday it will change to conservative, I am sure, but they interpret the Constitution.

You misunderstood me Bugs. I didn't say the Amendment process was b.s.; I said it is undermined by liberal activist judges who make law instead of enforcing law and thus have the rendered the Amendment process an antiquity no longer needed by elitists to change our charter.

To use your example, an attempt to pass an anti-abortion amendment would at least be working within the constitutional process which was brilliantly set up by our founders. The proposed amendment hasn't gained enough traction to even become close to real law, and to you it should be gratifying that the system still works in preventing a minority from unilaterally imposing it's will on the citizenry.

The inverse is that conservatives have been trying to get that Amendment to the Constitution enacted because of liberal activist judges who subverted the true intent and nature of the Constitution to wildly reinterpret it's meaning and, in effect, write new law guaranteeing the right to terminate the life of the unborn with a finding of a "right to privacy" that does not exist in the framework or text of the Constitution.

Supreme Court judges are bound to uphold the Constitution and not to write law which is the purview of the Legislature. It should not matter the ideological bent of the Justice, but sadly that is not the case, and our nation is not better for it.

[Guest]

Tbugs,

Sorry for the mispelling of 'POLE." Sometimes fingers are behind in what brain tells them to do and hits the wrong key. I did proof read but missed that one, plus a few others. I see that when liberials disagree with something and don't have a valid argurement they attack the spelling. Right on is what you did.

I can see that you are strongly against the 2d A of the Constitution of the United States. What you don't realize is that once they do away with the 2D A then none of the other Amendments mean anything. The government must fear the people, not the people fear the government.

Did you know that the 1968 Gun Control Act was taken almost word for word from the Gun Registration Act that Germany did before WW II. To get really educated on this check out this web site, http://www.jpfo.org and watch the two movies (No Guns For Negros & No Guns For Jews) and read about gun control, which is actually people control. Google it, get educated on the 2d A. you might learn something. Yes, the weapon of mass destruction at the time was the musket. Now we have better weapons, the Constitution did not specify that only muskets were allowed. They left room for improvement in our self protection. The militia at the time the Constitutiion was written included everyone in their state between the ages of 16 and 60. The men provided their own weapons and ammunitiion and I believe a 3 day supply of food. Have not looked that one up, the food thing, for sometime and don't really remember the exact amount. It was NOT the National Guard, but farmers, cobblers and any other male, in good health, in the state.

We, including me and the rest of us, have failed in keeping an eye on our elected officials. We are now paying the price for watching American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Mork and Minde and the rest of the mindless dribble on TV. We have let our media, the fourth watch dog of government become a servent of those in power.

The two most hated words that I hear are I am a "Career Politican." Public service is NOT a career. The founding fathers never invisioned that but if you read the Federalist Papers, they stated that we should watch out for that or we would lose this great country.

Having served 20 plus years in the Military with two combat tours plus 20 years in Law Enforcement and being in several 3d world nations, there is no place like the United States and we must all work together to stop the "Career Politicans" from ruining this great country. No one knows how WW III will be fought but WW IV will be with sticks and stones.

Have a good day, I know that I will.

[Guest]

We are on the same page, Richie. However, Supreme Court justices do not write law. They interpret laws to decide which ones are constitutional. Look what the "liberal" justices did for owning guns in Washington DC. The opinion of the Court was that it was unconstitutional to ban handguns in Washington DC - and that was a "liberal" controlled court.

Yes, abortion abolition can be added to the Constitution IF it goes through the long procedure - the same as marriage being defined as between a man and a woman - flag burning - and other hot button issues. The Equal Rights Amendment failed because 3/4 of the states did not ratify it in time given by the Constitution.

Changes can be made to the Constitution but slowly and carefully - like evolution takes a long time. It is an evolving document.

[Guest]

Figmo, my friend -

Congratulations on serving your country for 20 years in the military and 20 in law enforcement. Yet, you say that being in public service is not a career? A law enforcement officer is definitely in public service. I worked for the Federal government for 36 years in the Veterans Administration. I was in public service and very proud of it - as you should be for your service as a law enforcement officer.

No, we do not see eye-to-eye on gun control. You can carry yours if you have the proper permits and I will not. I put down my weapons after getting out of the Army in 1969 and have not picked one up again.

I do agree with you on career politicians.

Yes, I will have a great day. I live in The Villages.:coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Tbugs,

Let me clarify "Public Service." What I ment by that is elected Public Service. I am leary of anyone who will spend 20 million dollars, every 6 years, for a job that pays 170K a year for 6 years. They are owned by who ever put up the most money to get them elected. They are not serving us, they are the servants to those that own them.

BTW, do you have car insurance? Do you plan on getting in a wreck so that you can use it. I have car insurance and hope that I never have to use it. I am legal to carry my firearm in all 50 states (HR 218) or is it 58 as our current President stated in a speech not to long ago. I would rather have it and never need it, than not have it and need it.

The State of Florida Concealed law does not state that you have to carry a firearm, you can carry mase, taser or a firearm. They did their law correctly.

Please look up the web site that I referrenced. It is very educational and explains a lot about people control, not gun control.

[Guest]

Figmo,

I have no problem with you carrying a weapon. When I worked in Washington DC, I always carried very concentrated pepper spray. Never had to use it but always felt safer. Here in The Villages, there is no need in my viewpoint. However, if you feel safer with your weapon, carry it. I am sure you follow the rules and would never show your weapon as a gesture unless you were going to use it for defense. Remember that person last Christmas time who showed his pistol when someone took his parking space? Dumb move.

I agree with you on politicians.

See, we can get along just fine.

[Guest]

Tbugs,

The DA (Dumb A**) who showed his weapon when someone took his parking space should have had his license revoked, fined and weapon taken away from him. Stupid has no place when dealing with firearms. He was lucky that he did not get shot. Here in New Mexico that could have very well happened.

We will be full timers in TV by the middle of next month. This move has gotten harder than either of us thought, hope that we can get together for a cold one. Me, I do ice tea, but will gladly buy you a beer or beverage of your choice.

I know that we will get along just fine.

[Guest]

The reason batters don't move out of the batters box is becuase they know their batting averages will go down. There are those individual who like to use a sliding scale when it comes to moral issues. As example witness some of todays television show; especially the reality shows. So imagine what would have happen if people in power had free hand at utilizing the US Constituion as an evolving document. The founding fathers did not view this document as living and evolving document and in so not to change its content provided for clarification utilizing amendments thus not disturbing the mother document.

I like what they did and I don't want it changed. I also liked a once civilized and polite society which would be offended and even embarassed by viewing perverted sexual behavior but the devil is out of the can and we will continue to decline.

[Guest]

As most of you might have figured out, when it comes to the Constitution I am a strong support of the Second Amendment.

The government needs to fear us, as a people armed and ready to defend our rights, once gun control (actually people control) is established the rest of the Constitution is meaningless as there will be no way to control or limit anything the US Government wants to do.

I just want to know when we are going to get some "representatives" who we have elected will stand up and start supporting the oath that they took to uphold and honor the Constitution and defend it against foreign or domestic enemies.

[Guest]

Rubicon,

From what I think you said, you like the Constitution as written and do not want it changed. However, I also think you said you agree with the amendment procedures.

If you agree with the premise the Constitution can be amended, you agree that it is a living document that can evolve just like other living things.

The writers of the Constitution did not count slaves as whole people but as 3/5 of others for representation and taxation purposes. Well, that evolved when the 13th Amendment was ratified and abolished slavery. Women could not vote when the Constitution was written but that evolved with the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Evolution means slow change due to time. The Constitution is evolving. America is evolving. Even plants, animals, and people are constantly evolving.

[Guest]

Rubicon,

From what I think you said, you like the Constitution as written and do not want it changed. However, I also think you said you agree with the amendment procedures.

If you agree with the premise the Constitution can be amended, you agree that it is a living document that can evolve just like other living things.

The writers of the Constitution did not count slaves as whole people but as 3/5 of others for representation and taxation purposes. Well, that evolved when the 13th Amendment was ratified and abolished slavery. Women could not vote when the Constitution was written but that evolved with the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Evolution means slow change due to time. The Constitution is evolving. America is evolving. Even plants, animals, and people are constantly evolving.

The Constitution cannot ever evolve. That is liberal b.s. speak. The Constitution can only be Amended. Of course, as we've discussed before, that process has been usurped by liberal judges.

[Guest]

Richie,just not true...conservative judges are guilty of the same practice and to deny this is very wrong.

[Guest]

Richie,just not true...conservative judges are guilty of the same practice and to deny this is very wrong.

Well, lets just say judges then, although I still am certain it's mainly a problem with liberal judges.

The process of passing an Amendment to the Constitution has all but been relegated to the dust bin of history with the acceptance of unelected judges, appointed by the people who want to change law in an expedient and illegal manner, making new law with decisions concocted with wildly inventive new "interpretations", and not enforcing the law as written.

[Guest]

Well, lets just say judges then, although I still am certain it's mainly a problem with liberal judges.

The process of passing an Amendment to the Constitution has all but been relegated to the dust bin of history with the acceptance of unelected judges, appointed by the people who want to change law in an expedient and illegal manner, making new law with decisions concocted with wildly inventive new "interpretations", and not enforcing the law as written.

Seems to me the founding fathers would not mean to support lunatic fringe religious sects picketing the funerals of our brave servicemen and women who gave their lives to preserve the constitution.

[Guest]

Seems to me the founding fathers would not mean to support lunatic fringe religious sects picketing the funerals of our brave servicemen and women who gave their lives to preserve the constitution.

Hot button issue, but I would say you're wrong in your assessment of what the founding fathers felt was protected free speech. Of course, the "lunatic fringe" is also free to have their butts kicked.