The RIGHT. - Page 4

The RIGHT.

This is a discussion on The RIGHT. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Rob P. The creation of the Constitution by our representatives is what grants certain powers to the government. The existence of the ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 75

Thread: The RIGHT.

  1. #46
    Member Array sleepyhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    The creation of the Constitution by our representatives is what grants certain powers to the government. The existence of the document creates the government and they must act within the boundaries of that document.

    The government is charged with the creation of just laws to ensure the public welfare.
    I can agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    In essence what you are saying is akin to selective blindness. Because you, in your understanding of what you believe about the government, think that your rights supercede the rights of others or the governments powers, you think that the government doesn't have the power to limit what you do.

    You are wrong. You are wrong both legally and realistically.
    I do not believe that my right "rights supercede the rights of others", I'm not sure where you inferred that from.

    However, I do believe that my rights supersede the powers of government. For instance, I believe that I have the right to keep and bear arms, and the government can not infringe on it! Further, I believe that I have the right to do as I please, as long as I do not violate the rights of others.

    The government can, however, keep me from doing things. For instance, the government can keep me from violating other people's rights. Protecting people's rights is the fundamental purpose of government! Again, I am not sure how you inferred that I "think that the government doesn't have the power to limit what you do."

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Legally, the rights enumerated in the BoR are not unlimited. The SCOTUS, which was created by the Constitution to be the final arbiter of what is, and what is not, constitutional has determined that no "right" is unlimited. ALL rights are subject to regulation. Your personal opinion will not change that. When our forefathers created this country THEY determined that ONLY the opinions of the SCOTUS are what IS and what IS NOT. You may disagree but it doesn't matter and has no weight in anything. Nor will it ever have any weight.
    What you are saying is that the Constitution creates the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court determines the Constitution? I can not find in the Constitution where the power is given to the Supreme Court to be the "final arbiter of what is, and what is not, constitutional". Please provide the article and section, or amendment.

    In reality, it was the Supreme Court that decided that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. How convenient. I believe We the People, the ones that wrote it, have the power to interpret the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Realistically you're wrong because the government is the party with the guns, jails, police, yada, yada, yada who can FORCE you to obey under threat of prosecution and incarceration. Thus, the government HAS the ability to limit what you do. Is this legal? Maybe, maybe not. Realistically, what will happen is that you get arrested, jailed, charged, prosecuted, sent to prison, and THEN you get to apply to the same government in an appeal explaining why you shouldn't be stuck in a cell. Good luck with that one.
    Yea, you have a point there. If I am man enough though, I'll end up dead, not in prison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    So, self inflicted political blindness isn't such a smart idea.
    Self inflicted political blindness is the very thing that is allowing our liberties to wither, our nation to drown in debt, and our soldiers to die in undeclared wars!

    I prefer to think of myself as experiencing a political awakening.
    Last edited by sleepyhead; February 5th, 2010 at 10:51 PM.


  2. #47
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
    I do not believe that my right "rights supercede the rights of others", I'm not sure where you inferred that from.

    However, I do believe that my rights supersede the powers of government. For instance, I believe that I have the right to keep and bear arms, and the government can not infringe on it! Further, I believe that I have the right to do as I please, as long as I do not violate the rights of others.

    The government can, however, keep me from doing things. For instance, the government can keep me from violating other people's rights. Protecting people's rights is the fundamental purpose of government! Again, I am not sure how you inferred that I "think that the government doesn't have the power to limit what you do."
    I think you're a bit confused here. On the one hand you believe that the gov can keep you from violating the rights of others. On the other hand you believe that you have the right to do as you please (so long as that doesn't violate the rights of others).

    You have placed yourself into the position of deciding what does and what does not infringe on the rights of others based upon you own view of what constitutes that infringement. Unfortunately, it is the role of gov to determine this and not yourself. The gov has this power as previously indicated which you agreed is true.



    What you are saying is that the Constitution creates the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court determines the Constitution? I can not find in the Constitution where the power is given to the Supreme Court to be the "final arbiter of what is, and what is not, constitutional". Please provide the article and section, or amendment.

    In reality, it was the Supreme Court that decided that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. How convenient. I believe We the People, the ones that wrote it, have the power to interpret the Constitution.
    Look at:

    Article III - The Judicial Branch

    Section 1 - Judicial powers

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


    The parts about "law and equity arising under this Constitution" and "Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party" are the parts which grant the authority to the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution and the BoR. Again, this was given to the gov by the framers when they created the Constitution.

    Yea, you have a point there. If I am man enough though, I'll end up dead, not in prison.

    Self inflicted political blindness is the very thing that is allowing our liberties to wither, our nation to drown in debt, and our soldiers to die in undeclared wars!

    I prefer to think of myself as experiencing a political awakening.
    You can believe what you want in regards to your own motivations. However, you cannot transfer those beliefs onto others while ignoring the facts.

    Our liberties are being infringed because good people have done nothing to prevent it while those with personal agendas have striven to use money and power to usurp our rights for themselves. The solution is to challenge their rights to do so. Not to declare "anarchy" under a false penumbra of "freedom." When you try to use your own influence for your own personal benefit at the expense of the rights of others you become the dark twin of what you abhor.

    Beyond that:

    Our nation is "drowning in debt" due to policies which are created at the whim of the PEOPLE. The gov has the power to do this (public welfare clause) but it is driven by those who prefer bread and circuses to fiscal responsibility. If the people do not want these programs, then the gov cannot enact them or appropriate funds for them. (look at the healthcare debacle for an example of this.)

    Our soldiers are doing their duty. They are standing up to protect YOUR RIGHTS! I am sorry that you feel that their service somehow diminishes your freedom and Rights. But they are NOT there as some political gamepiece. Our servicemembers sometimes die in in uniform. But anyone who believes that it is only because of politics should spend some time in personal reflection in front of the memorial wall.

    The names on that wall are rememberances of real people who died in service of your country. They died to protect you. They died to protect the Constitution. They DID NOT die so that some politician could make some vague point of order in some unnamed political game.

  3. #48
    Member Array sleepyhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    I think you're a bit confused here. On the one hand you believe that the gov can keep you from violating the rights of others. On the other hand you believe that you have the right to do as you please (so long as that doesn't violate the rights of others).

    You have placed yourself into the position of deciding what does and what does not infringe on the rights of others based upon you own view of what constitutes that infringement. Unfortunately, it is the role of gov to determine this and not yourself. The gov has this power as previously indicated which you agreed is true.
    Nicely put, but not true. I agreed that the role of our government is to protect our rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, not to determine what they are. We determine what they are.

    I would also argue (and hope) that everyone, even you, agree that we can determine what our rights are on some level, regardless of what the government decides. For instance, if government passed a law stating that it was illegal to breathe between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 on the first Wednesday of every leap year, we would all agree that it is our basic right to breathe, and the government cannot take it away. We would either ignore the law, protest, or revolt. But nobody would say, "The government has the power to determine what my rights are, so I do not have the right to breathe." I have the right to breathe all the time. I determine this, regardless of what government does or says.

    I realize this is an absurd example, and the government would only come close to passing such a ridiculous law. However, it does demonstrate that we can determine, for ourselves, what our fundamental rights are.

    Being pragmatic, you might point out that this example is absurd to the extreme. I would agree. But let’s consider some other possibilities:

    • The government passes a law making it illegal to criticize the President or government officials.
    • The government forces all citizens of a certain national origin into internment, citing national security
    • The government forces a citizen out of her home, and gives the land to a corporation for purposes of the corporation’s profit. The Supreme Court upholds the action.
    • The government authorizes self-signed search warrants, again citing “national security”
    • Government agents dressed in black driving black vans kidnap a citizen and detain him indefinitely, denying him any communication with anyone, and without filing any charges


    Actually, these are not just possibilities. All of the above are factual. These are just what I could come up with off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more. And some are happening right now! Except the last one, of course, that never happens.

    These are all clear violations of basic, fundamental rights. If, as you say, the government has the sole power to determine our rights and interpret the Constitution, then we would have no recourse, and our supposed "rights" would be no more than privileges, granted to us by our government, and taken away at their pleasure.

    All of this, however, is ignoring an elephant in the room. The constitution itself turned a blind eye to the human rights violation of a WHOLE RACE! Obviously, slaves had the same inherent, unalienable rights as everyone else did, regardless of what the Constitution or government said. Would you argue that since the government said the slaves did not have rights, that it was so? Of course not! If a slave escaped, would you think to yourself, "According to the government, he has no right to be free. Someone should return him to his master."? Of course not! You would cheer him on, and help him achieve the freedom denied by the government! How many more slaves would have lived their lives in abject misery, denied all the rights and liberties of their birthright, if everyone let the government determine what their rights were?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Look at:

    Article III - The Judicial Branch

    Section 1 - Judicial powers

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


    The parts about "law and equity arising under this Constitution" and "Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party" are the parts which grant the authority to the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution and the BoR. Again, this was given to the gov by the framers when they created the Constitution. .
    “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..” means that the Supreme Court has the power to rule in cases involving laws that were created under the Constitutional legal system. I know the speech was much different back then, but I can’t stretch those words to come to your conclusion.

    The second clause you mention, though, I can see as giving the Supreme Court the right to rule in a case where a citizen brings suit against the government for violation of a right protected in the BoR, which would require an interpretation thereof. I never read it in that manner, thank you for expanding my view.

    However, if the government violates our rights (as it has before, and will again), we can still trump the government (and any Supreme Court interpretation) with our own interpretation. This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    It would be absurd to say that we have to get the Government to agree that we can abolish or alter it; or that we would have to take our case to the Supreme Court in order to get a proper interpretation to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    You can believe what you want in regards to your own motivations. However, you cannot transfer those beliefs onto others while ignoring the facts.
    I am not transferring my beliefs onto others, I am merely stating my beliefs. Which facts am I ignoring?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Our liberties are being infringed because good people have done nothing to prevent it while those with personal agendas have striven to use money and power to usurp our rights for themselves. The solution is to challenge their rights to do so.
    Agreed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Not to declare "anarchy" under a false penumbra of "freedom." When you try to use your own influence for your own personal benefit at the expense of the rights of others you become the dark twin of what you abhor. .
    I am not declaring anarchy! I firmly believe in the rule of law! I am not trying to use my own influence (however meager it is) for personal benefit at the expense of anyone’s rights. I’m merely explaining my beliefs on an Internet forum. What personal benefit are referring to? What personal benefit can I possibly get at the expense of others from posting on an Internet forum? Please explain what you mean here, it sounds as if you are accusing me of something horrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Beyond that:

    Our nation is "drowning in debt" due to policies which are created at the whim of the PEOPLE. The gov has the power to do this (public welfare clause) but it is driven by those who prefer bread and circuses to fiscal responsibility. If the people do not want these programs, then the gov cannot enact them or appropriate funds for them. (look at the healthcare debacle for an example of this.) .
    Umm, sorry, I got us off track a bit. But, since you took the bait…

    It's actually "general welfare", not "public welfare", but I see your point. The clause states "promote the general welfare", not "provide the general welfare." Furthermore, consider that “general welfare” was defined differently when this was written, as something that benefits the general public, not just certain parts of it. If this is so, as I believe, then these “bread and circuses” would not be constitutional. Or, at the very least, they would be much harder to justify. Not that anybody in power cares to do so anymore... (BTW, where did you get that term "bread and circuses"? I love it!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Our soldiers are doing their duty. They are standing up to protect YOUR RIGHTS! I am sorry that you feel that their service somehow diminishes your freedom and Rights. But they are NOT there as some political gamepiece. Our servicemembers sometimes die in in uniform. But anyone who believes that it is only because of politics should spend some time in personal reflection in front of the memorial wall.

    The names on that wall are rememberances of real people who died in service of your country. They died to protect you. They died to protect the Constitution. They DID NOT die so that some politician could make some vague point of order in some unnamed political game.
    I am not a politician; I am not playing for points in “some unnamed political game”.

    I am a veteran. I have reflected at the memorial wall. I know the price paid by our heroes, in body, in soul, and with life. I know that our troops are honorable and brave. I know what they die for.

    When they are sent to fight and die in wars that are unjust, they become victims of a sick perversion of justice.
    Last edited by sleepyhead; February 7th, 2010 at 07:14 PM.

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    We have the right to do anything that we did not give up to the government in the Constitution. The fact that something is not mentioned in the Constitution means it is outside the powers of the Federal Government. The Constitution clearly states what the powers were that the states and citizens gave up to the Feds.

    Michael

  5. #50
    Member Array sleepyhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    We have the right to do anything that we did not give up to the government in the Constitution. The fact that something is not mentioned in the Constitution means it is outside the powers of the Federal Government. The Constitution clearly states what the powers were that the states and citizens gave up to the Feds.

    Michael
    One significant clarification: We have the right to do anything that we did not give up to the government in the Constitution as long as it does not infringe on the equal rights of others.

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
    One significant clarification: We have the right to do anything that we did not give up to the government in the Constitution as long as it does not infringe on the equal rights of others.
    Agreed, in most cases my rights end at the tip of your nose as they used to say. Most of this though is outside of the powers of the Federal Government and is left to the people or States and cities to resolve.

    Many people seem to believe that if something is not protected in the Constitution then the Federal Government can restrict it. I was merely trying to point out that this is backwards to the way I understand it. I have always considered the federalist papers and other writings of the time to be a good guide on the Constitution.

    Michael

  7. #52
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
    Nicely put, but not true. I agreed that the role of our government is to protect our rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, not to determine what they are. We determine what they are.

    I would also argue (and hope) that everyone, even you, agree that we can determine what our rights are on some level, regardless of what the government decides. For instance, if government passed a law stating that it was illegal to breathe between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 on the first Wednesday of every leap year, we would all agree that it is our basic right to breathe, and the government cannot take it away. We would either ignore the law, protest, or revolt. But nobody would say, "The government has the power to determine what my rights are, so I do not have the right to breathe." I have the right to breathe all the time. I determine this, regardless of what government does or says.

    I realize this is an absurd example, and the government would only come close to passing such a ridiculous law. However, it does demonstrate that we can determine, for ourselves, what our fundamental rights are.

    Being pragmatic, you might point out that this example is absurd to the extreme. I would agree. But let’s consider some other possibilities:

    • The government passes a law making it illegal to criticize the President or government officials.
    • The government forces all citizens of a certain national origin into internment, citing national security
    • The government forces a citizen out of her home, and gives the land to a corporation for purposes of the corporation’s profit. The Supreme Court upholds the action.
    • The government authorizes self-signed search warrants, again citing “national security”
    • Government agents dressed in black driving black vans kidnap a citizen and detain him indefinitely, denying him any communication with anyone, and without filing any charges


    Actually, these are not just possibilities. All of the above are factual. These are just what I could come up with off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more. And some are happening right now! Except the last one, of course, that never happens.

    These are all clear violations of basic, fundamental rights. If, as you say, the government has the sole power to determine our rights and interpret the Constitution, then we would have no recourse, and our supposed "rights" would be no more than privileges, granted to us by our government, and taken away at their pleasure.

    All of this, however, is ignoring an elephant in the room. The constitution itself turned a blind eye to the human rights violation of a WHOLE RACE! Obviously, slaves had the same inherent, unalienable rights as everyone else did, regardless of what the Constitution or government said. Would you argue that since the government said the slaves did not have rights, that it was so? Of course not! If a slave escaped, would you think to yourself, "According to the government, he has no right to be free. Someone should return him to his master."? Of course not! You would cheer him on, and help him achieve the freedom denied by the government! How many more slaves would have lived their lives in abject misery, denied all the rights and liberties of their birthright, if everyone let the government determine what their rights were?

    “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..” means that the Supreme Court has the power to rule in cases involving laws that were created under the Constitutional legal system. I know the speech was much different back then, but I can’t stretch those words to come to your conclusion.

    The second clause you mention, though, I can see as giving the Supreme Court the right to rule in a case where a citizen brings suit against the government for violation of a right protected in the BoR, which would require an interpretation thereof. I never read it in that manner, thank you for expanding my view.

    However, if the government violates our rights (as it has before, and will again), we can still trump the government (and any Supreme Court interpretation) with our own interpretation. This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence:

    It would be absurd to say that we have to get the Government to agree that we can abolish or alter it; or that we would have to take our case to the Supreme Court in order to get a proper interpretation to do so.

    I am not transferring my beliefs onto others, I am merely stating my beliefs. Which facts am I ignoring?

    Agreed!

    I am not declaring anarchy! I firmly believe in the rule of law! I am not trying to use my own influence (however meager it is) for personal benefit at the expense of anyone’s rights. I’m merely explaining my beliefs on an Internet forum. What personal benefit are referring to? What personal benefit can I possibly get at the expense of others from posting on an Internet forum? Please explain what you mean here, it sounds as if you are accusing me of something horrible.

    Umm, sorry, I got us off track a bit. But, since you took the bait…

    It's actually "general welfare", not "public welfare", but I see your point. The clause states "promote the general welfare", not "provide the general welfare." Furthermore, consider that “general welfare” was defined differently when this was written, as something that benefits the general public, not just certain parts of it. If this is so, as I believe, then these “bread and circuses” would not be constitutional. Or, at the very least, they would be much harder to justify. Not that anybody in power cares to do so anymore... (BTW, where did you get that term "bread and circuses"? I love it!)

    I am not a politician; I am not playing for points in “some unnamed political game”.

    I am a veteran. I have reflected at the memorial wall. I know the price paid by our heroes, in body, in soul, and with life. I know that our troops are honorable and brave. I know what they die for.

    When they are sent to fight and die in wars that are unjust, they become victims of a sick perversion of justice.
    Your views are your views. I am just pointing out that your views are not held universally. In fact most of your views have been discredited and are only held by a few "fringe" believers. Seriously, you don't really know what you're saying even though you like to throw out phrases that "sound" like you know something.

    1) You need to learn a bit about what "law & equity" means. The SCOTUS has the power to use "law & equity" to make decisions about anything that lawfully comes before them under the limits of the Constitution. This is their SOLE function. Under your view the Constitution is unable to be interpreted by ANYONE because only "the people" have that authority. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for "the people" to do this (other than the right to vote). In fact, it is CONGRESS which has the authority to amend the Constitution through the ratification process and it is the job of the SCOTUS to act as a "check and balance" to the other 2 branches of our government. Not your nebulous "the people." Further, if "the people" were the only ones with the power to decide what is and what is not allowable, then the Constitutional grant of power to the SCOTUS is meaningless. And I'm pretty sure that the continental congress would not just throw a meaningless section into the Constitution. I'm fairly certain that they meant what they wrote. If so, then your interpretation is clearly wrongheaded.

    2) The phrases you use are meaningless. For example: Your comment that "When they are sent to fight and die in wars that are unjust, they become victims of a sick perversion of justice."

    This is exactly what I mean by "meaningless." "Justice" did not send any of our military members anywhere. There are no "victims" in our military. And justice has not been "perverted" by their service or by the fact that they have been called to serve and have been deployed.

    You may disagree with the decision of those who ordered the deployment of our military forces. That is your right and it is obvious that this is your position. However, your statements make no sense because the things you cite as the basis for your beliefs are figments of your imagination. You'd be better off just sticking to "no war for oil" or some other slogan. The one you're using is just not credible no matter how much emotion you try to plug into it.

    More enlightened thought, less hyperbole.

    3) I'm not "accusing" you of anything. Your world view pits your beliefs against the majority view of what the Constitution really says. So, rather than understand that you may not be as up to speed on this as you think, you believe that YOUR VIEW is the one which rules over the others. And, of course, YOUR VIEW happens to put your personal beliefs and welfare in front of everyone else's. And to support your claim to superiority, you claim that no one has any authority to counter it. Sort of proclaiming yourself king and denying the truth about who really is king.

    4) Your position on "general welfare" makes no sense. "Promoting the general welfare" requires that government pick and choose which programs they will fund that will reach the most people and will do the most good. Thus, "promote the general welfare" meant the same then as now.

    If you are referring to modern day "entitlement programs" these are programs which were enacted by CONGRESS and signed into law by the President. As such they are laws made under the powers granted to the legislative and executive branch of our gov. So long as Congress lawfully exercises its powers then the laws are Constitutional. But, supposing that the exercise of power wasn't done lawfully, under your view, no one would be able to determine if the law were Constitutional or not because the SCOTUS (under your view) would not have the power to do so. Thus, the chore would fall onto the heads of the individual citizens.

    Which is where we get to anarchy. If individuals believe that the laws have no power over them and that they can disobey the laws with impunity; then anarchy reigns. Under your view this is the end result.

  8. #53
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Your views are your views. I am just pointing out that your views are not held universally. In fact most of your views have been discredited and are only held by a few "fringe" believers. Seriously, you don't really know what you're saying even though you like to throw out phrases that "sound" like you know something.

    1) You need to learn a bit about what "law & equity" means. The SCOTUS has the power to use "law & equity" to make decisions about anything that lawfully comes before them under the limits of the Constitution. This is their SOLE function. Under your view the Constitution is unable to be interpreted by ANYONE because only "the people" have that authority. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for "the people" to do this (other than the right to vote). In fact, it is CONGRESS which has the authority to amend the Constitution through the ratification process and it is the job of the SCOTUS to act as a "check and balance" to the other 2 branches of our government. Not your nebulous "the people." Further, if "the people" were the only ones with the power to decide what is and what is not allowable, then the Constitutional grant of power to the SCOTUS is meaningless. And I'm pretty sure that the continental congress would not just throw a meaningless section into the Constitution. I'm fairly certain that they meant what they wrote. If so, then your interpretation is clearly wrongheaded.

    2) The phrases you use are meaningless. For example: Your comment that "When they are sent to fight and die in wars that are unjust, they become victims of a sick perversion of justice."

    This is exactly what I mean by "meaningless." "Justice" did not send any of our military members anywhere. There are no "victims" in our military. And justice has not been "perverted" by their service or by the fact that they have been called to serve and have been deployed.

    You may disagree with the decision of those who ordered the deployment of our military forces. That is your right and it is obvious that this is your position. However, your statements make no sense because the things you cite as the basis for your beliefs are figments of your imagination. You'd be better off just sticking to "no war for oil" or some other slogan. The one you're using is just not credible no matter how much emotion you try to plug into it.

    More enlightened thought, less hyperbole.

    3) I'm not "accusing" you of anything. Your world view pits your beliefs against the majority view of what the Constitution really says. So, rather than understand that you may not be as up to speed on this as you think, you believe that YOUR VIEW is the one which rules over the others. And, of course, YOUR VIEW happens to put your personal beliefs and welfare in front of everyone else's. And to support your claim to superiority, you claim that no one has any authority to counter it. Sort of proclaiming yourself king and denying the truth about who really is king.

    4) Your position on "general welfare" makes no sense. "Promoting the general welfare" requires that government pick and choose which programs they will fund that will reach the most people and will do the most good. Thus, "promote the general welfare" meant the same then as now.

    If you are referring to modern day "entitlement programs" these are programs which were enacted by CONGRESS and signed into law by the President. As such they are laws made under the powers granted to the legislative and executive branch of our gov. So long as Congress lawfully exercises its powers then the laws are Constitutional. But, supposing that the exercise of power wasn't done lawfully, under your view, no one would be able to determine if the law were Constitutional or not because the SCOTUS (under your view) would not have the power to do so. Thus, the chore would fall onto the heads of the individual citizens.

    Which is where we get to anarchy. If individuals believe that the laws have no power over them and that they can disobey the laws with impunity; then anarchy reigns. Under your view this is the end result.
    Your views are also opinions and it is only your opinion that other views have ben discredited.

    The SCOTUS does not have the final say on what's constitutional. The people do. And the proper vehicle for the people's opinion on that is their state government. The constitution is a compact (contract) between the sovereign states. The people of a state, through their state government, have a right and responsibility to determine what is constitutional. If a state determines that the ferderal govrnment is overstepping its bounds, it has the right to nullify the offending law or regulation. Ultimately, each state has the right of secession. This is not detetmined by the SCOTUS. It is the nature of a compact. State governments acting in the interests of and at the behest of their people is not anarchy.

    That is my view. It also happened to be Thomas Jefferson's and many other founders. It is as valid as yours or anyone else's. Whether or not is has been discredited is also a matter of opinion. We are all just exercising our right to express our opinions here, are we not?

  9. #54
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    The preamble to the constitution is just that: a preamble. It states the reasons for creating the law and can help in interpreting it, but they are not the law. The law begins at Article 1, Section 1.
    Last edited by Corwin; February 8th, 2010 at 01:27 PM. Reason: deleted extraneous word

  10. #55
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    The problem is, slowly but surely, over the years, we have let our elected officials do our thinking for us. In the name of political correctness they have eroded our constitutional rights by redefining their interpretation of the broad nature of of our greatest document. I believe the constitution intended a certain amount of ambiguity to allow for flexibility in it's application. We have apathetically let our government grow larger and larger and more controlling. Something our forefathers purposely tried to prevent. They failed to realize that total control is the prime objective of government by its definition. Politicians have re defined the limits set by the constitution by making us believe they know better than we what the framers of the constitution really meant. When this first started, we the people should have struck them down with a with a resounding "NO". Now I fear it's too late.

  11. #56
    Senior Member
    Array Landor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    635
    Technically the 2nd was meant to bear arms in any fashion. It was interpreted that way right up to the late 1800's. As time went on the political correctness and literal politics movement started. Now the supreme court can't even make a law without it having to be amended again and again because our politicians are scum bags. We live in a literal world. If the laws says this then that's what we do. Anything else is a matter of interpretation. Just like when DC lost it's gun ban. The hi court said the people had the right to own guns but they did not say what guns or what was considered a gun. The local government decided to write their version of what a gun was and back to court we go. This is how politics is done today.

  12. #57
    Member Array Big Larry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    97
    District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument
    listen to the opinion of the court, well worth the time
    Walk quietly and carry a big stick.

  13. #58
    Senior Member
    Array Landor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    635
    That was a great listen but once again we see how the interpretation of the second amendment is so different between the justices. The bill of rights are the rights of the people yet the four opposing justices will sit there and say they believe that the second amendment is not an individual right as far as for you and me. If it is then it must also be a right for convicted felons.

    It makes me sick.

  14. #59
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
    Your views are also opinions and it is only your opinion that other views have ben discredited.

    The SCOTUS does not have the final say on what's constitutional. The people do. And the proper vehicle for the people's opinion on that is their state government. The constitution is a compact (contract) between the sovereign states. The people of a state, through their state government, have a right and responsibility to determine what is constitutional. If a state determines that the ferderal govrnment is overstepping its bounds, it has the right to nullify the offending law or regulation.
    Actually, no the States do not. The concept of "federalism" means that the Constitution is supreme to laws of the federal gov which are supreme to the laws of the States where those laws are in conflict.

    Marbury v. Madison was the case which decided that concept.

    Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ultimately, each state has the right of secession. This is not detetmined by the SCOTUS. It is the nature of a compact. State governments acting in the interests of and at the behest of their people is not anarchy. That is my view. It also happened to be Thomas Jefferson's and many other founders. It is as valid as yours or anyone else's. Whether or not is has been discredited is also a matter of opinion. We are all just exercising our right to express our opinions here, are we not?
    We fought a war over this. Your view lost.

  15. #60
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Actually, no the States do not. The concept of "federalism" means that the Constitution is supreme to laws of the federal gov which are supreme to the laws of the States where those laws are in conflict.

    Marbury v. Madison was the case which decided that concept.

    Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    We fought a war over this. Your view lost.
    The SCOTUS claimed a power the Constitution did not grant it. Neither that decision nor Lincoln's war settled the matter. This country was founded on Rule of Law, not Might Makes Right...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •  

Search tags for this page

ferderal jurisdiction and the concept of federalism

Click on a term to search for related topics.