The Constitution of The United States

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-05-2011, 05:43 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Constitution of The United States

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.
  #2  
Old 06-05-2011, 06:03 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #3  
Old 06-05-2011, 07:50 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #4  
Old 06-05-2011, 08:38 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have Spellcheck?

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.
  #5  
Old 06-05-2011, 08:50 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You have some strange ideas about our founding documents Bugs. Totally wrong, but interesting.
  #6  
Old 06-05-2011, 09:06 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #7  
Old 06-05-2011, 11:00 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbugs View Post
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.
  #8  
Old 06-05-2011, 11:07 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbugs View Post
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
  #9  
Old 06-06-2011, 06:14 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #10  
Old 06-06-2011, 06:49 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbugs View Post
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.
  #11  
Old 06-06-2011, 08:04 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
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…
  #12  
Old 06-06-2011, 08:21 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #13  
Old 06-06-2011, 08:56 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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/LIBissue...es.asp?id=7128
  #14  
Old 06-06-2011, 09:39 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbugs View Post
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.
  #15  
Old 06-06-2011, 09:55 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 PM.