Article Four of the United States Constitution

This is a discussion on Article Four of the United States Constitution within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The bottom line here is that for much of that document no one knows what it means. And who is responsible for that? Once the ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23

Thread: Article Four of the United States Constitution

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    The bottom line here is that for much of that document no one knows what it means.
    And who is responsible for that? Once the government decided that changing the meaning of a word or phrase was easier and quicker than amending the Constitution they made the wording in the document useless. It was after all the government that decided that shall not infringe does not really mean shall not infringe. This same government decided that "shall make no laws" does not mean that they can make no laws. How can anyone know what a written document means if the definitions are changed so freely?

    Michael

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    These days, the government is just like the driver in front of you on the road, talking on the cell phone, eating a cheeseburger, and keeping three rambunctious kids in the back seat settled down. They don't have the time to read the signs. Besides that....the government doesn't work for us anymore....they just go to work like you and I do, with more benefits, better pay, more days off, able to sleep at night knowing they are wrapped up in the whole ordeal and willing to forget those who pay their bills and feed their family. Common sense is not a prerequisite for the job nor are they tasked with upholding the constitution for the people and by the people. They live at home and interact with their peers. Those peers are the seasoned, re-elected, and jaded members who have no face to show us once they are in office. Uphold the constitution? Honestly........I just don't see a piece of paper holding us together any more since there are so many that would rather see it burn, and those that would turn their back at the burning. Like a herd of cattle, we've been led through the gates and into the chute and castrated by those whom think they are better than the rest of society and America as a whole. Just remember one thing.........we've taken feed from their hands willingly, and when we were hungry, we couldn't smell the blood on their hands. We all suffer now. Some more than others, but it's the same boat. There's always a price to be paid. We should have paid when the price was low. Now...we'll be paying more than we should, and many are not willing to do that now nor do they have the means to do so. Each and every one of us made it what it is. Take the blame you deserve and stop looking for other places to place the blame. Be truly sorry for what you have not done, and especially for those who have done what you wouldn't. Nobody ever started a war over crying. The tears come after we've done all we can do and our brothers didn't come home. America just doesn't have the nuts it once did for the homeland. 50% would make a good army against gutless tyrants with the threat of a paper cut, a pencil stab, or a desk chair thrown. Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing complaints when nothing has been done to patch the foundation.

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hopyard - with the exception of the bolded part, I agree. If the precedence is unconstitutional, i.e., outside the enumerated powers of the Congress, they must refuse to deal with it - unless it is to reverse a prior unconstitutional vote.
    K-- as I wrote that I also had in mind Congressional history as a form of precedence. As for Congress attempting to overturn prior court rulings, there is certainly a time and a place and an issue for that, but caution must be exercised.

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    And who is responsible for that? Once the government decided that changing the meaning of a word or phrase was easier and quicker than amending the Constitution they made the wording in the document useless. It was after all the government that decided that shall not infringe does not really mean shall not infringe. This same government decided that "shall make no laws" does not mean that they can make no laws. How can anyone know what a written document means if the definitions are changed so freely?

    Michael
    There is no solution for what you are concerned with. That is the nature of the human mind, the way we use language, the way we think. We have agreed to solve these problems by using a particular court system with a particular structure. That is all we have. If we did it any other way there would be no arbiter of what something means and everyone would have their own idea.

    Just look at the discussions here on non-political stuff about use of force. We'll get half a dozen people looking at the black letter of a statute and say it means you can "shoot 'em in the back," and half a dozen other people looking at the same statute and say there was "no justified use of force."

    We are stuck with what we have because we don't have better and aren't smart enough to invent anything better--- of course if you all appointment me dictator I'll guarantee you that my interpretations are always the correct ones.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    There is no solution for what you are concerned with. That is the nature of the human mind, the way we use language, the way we think. We have agreed to solve these problems by using a particular court system with a particular structure. That is all we have. If we did it any other way there would be no arbiter of what something means and everyone would have their own idea.

    Just look at the discussions here on non-political stuff about use of force. We'll get half a dozen people looking at the black letter of a statute and say it means you can "shoot 'em in the back," and half a dozen other people looking at the same statute and say there was "no justified use of force."

    We are stuck with what we have because we don't have better and aren't smart enough to invent anything better--- of course if you all appointment me dictator I'll guarantee you that my interpretations are always the correct ones.
    My concern is not so much with the honest disagreement as to what a particular law means. My problem is the way legislators want to change the definition of a word. The famous definition of "is" if you will. When we disagree with the meaning of a law we can go back and correct it with word changes in an amended or new law. If we can no longer rely on the meaning of ones words there is no remedy for that. Congress should make laws not a new language.

    Michael

  7. #21
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    My concern is not so much with the honest disagreement as to what a particular law means. My problem is the way legislators want to change the definition of a word. The famous definition of "is" if you will. When we disagree with the meaning of a law we can go back and correct it with word changes in an amended or new law. If we can no longer rely on the meaning of ones words there is no remedy for that. Congress should make laws not a new language.

    Michael
    I think there is an appropriate lesson here from the Alice in Wonderland tale. The Queen proclaims that a word means exactly as she say, nothing more and nothing less. Our legislatures define words all the time; e.g., "assault rifle." e.g., "weapons of mass destruction." Many of us will vehemently disagree with how these are defined.
    Another example, when I was young the word "rape" had a very specific meaning but with time that has changed considerably.
    I really don't think there is a way out. This is how people use language and how language develops and two people can read or hear the same word and get very different meanings out of it. Look in a dictionary. Many words have half a dozen different definitions depending on the context in which they are used. Where such words are found in a law, context (situations) may make a big difference in what the word means. Someone has to decide. Inevitably in our system that is a judge--either at the state or federal level. No way out. That is all we have.

  8. #22
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    Well, I think we are taking the first step in the right direction.

    Rep John Boehner, the new Speaker of the House, is apparently changing the House rules regarding the submission of bills to the floor. All bills submitted for consideration will need to have Constitutional authority before it will reach the floor. Unless the relevant Constitutional authority is on the top page of the bill, the clerk will either return the proposed bill to the member(s) concerned, or just drop in the trash. Without the proper authority, no bill will ever reach the floor.

    While I like the idea, it doesn’t go far enough. Boehner also needs to apply the same criteria to bills referred from the Senate, or for that matter, any bill coming out of the White House.

    Chris
    I agree.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,082
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    And who is responsible for that? Once the government decided that changing the meaning of a word or phrase was easier and quicker than amending the Constitution they made the wording in the document useless. It was after all the government that decided that shall not infringe does not really mean shall not infringe. This same government decided that "shall make no laws" does not mean that they can make no laws. How can anyone know what a written document means if the definitions are changed so freely?

    Michael
    Exactly. This "no one knows what it means" crap has got to come to an end. It is written in plain English and the more the government comes up with ridiculous excuses as to why they can blatantly ignore it the more "confusing" it gets. Time to wake up and get back to reality.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. The Constitution Of The United States
    By QKShooter in forum Reference & "How To" Forum
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: April 1st, 2013, 12:34 PM
  2. United States v. Chester
    By dldeuce in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 4th, 2011, 12:51 PM
  3. R.I.P. The United States of America
    By Free American in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: July 21st, 2009, 01:31 AM
  4. The Intent of The Second Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America
    By Bumper in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 19th, 2004, 02:01 AM

Search tags for this page

article four of the u.s. constitution (4 points)

,
constitution reciprocity
,
reciprocity constitution
,
reciprocity in the constitution
,
reciprocity in us constitution
,

the idea behind article 4 of the u.s. constitution was to

,

the idea behind article 4 of the u.s. constitution was to:

,
u.s. constitution reciprocity
,
what does article four of the us constitution mean
,
what does article iv of the united states constitution stand for:
,
what does the article 4 in the constitution mean
,
what was the idea behind article 4 of the constitution
Click on a term to search for related topics.