Skip to comments.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Posted on 06/13/2005 7:29:51 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
click here to read article
I don't see a way to stop the growing government at this point. Well there is a way, the same way we stopped the British Crown.
As a country, we have fallen so far away from what the founding fathers expected. If they saw the size and scope of the current federal government, they would take up arms again, all the while chastising us for letting it get so out-of-hand. FDR would have been run out of town on a rail, along with Lincoln, and most presidents from about 1840 on.
What they put into the Constitution was so simple and clear, I really can't understand why it's become so muddied.
> It was my defense for misspelling Constitution, and it was originally unintentional...but ridiculously ironic. So, I have added it as my first tagline. And now, the pun is intentional.
Excellent! And BTW, spelling trivia aside, thanks for the thought of posting the U.S. Constitution, even if a dupe post. Fact is, that's my own hobby-horse as well. I keep a copy on my writing desk, the Bill of Rights is my best explanation for why I'm One Proud American, and my daughter (11 y.o.) and I read it out loud together sometimes as a reminder of how lucky we are to live here.
So I applaud your intentions, and thank you.
We DON'T need them!! Thier inclusion in the Constitution as amendments is one of the MAJOR reasons that a vast majority of the people believe that thier rights come FROM the government!!
Hamilton SPECIFICALLY warned against a "Bill of Rights", stating, in essence, that by explicitly stating that the Congress shall pass no law... that this would be perversely construed to mean that the Congress WOULD have had that power had that amemdment not been included!!
NOWHERE in the constitution is the congress, the president, or the courts given the power to violate our freedom of speech, etc... (all of those enschrined in the BoR) or any other right which we retained unto ourselves.
11th Amendment The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
How do you read this one? With internatinal laws and trates and WTO cases, etc - but the foreign states would include class-action lawsuits as the decisions in one state do not affect those in another correct?
I believe that James Madison, who wrote the amendments, agreed with Hamilton on that. That we would think the "Bill of Rights" were our only rights. In fact, that is exactly what most of us now do think. I hate to think how many times I have seen a post by a freeper stating that this right or that right is not spelled out in the Constitution, as if we are limited to the rights spelled out in the first 10 amendments.
Or conversely, how many times does one see posts arguing that our government is not prohibited from doing this or doing that, so it must be legal.
When in fact, our government is limited to the powers enumerated, while our freedom is unlimited, restricted only by those laws which our society has found necessary.
It seems to give states immunity from federal lawsuits, or from lawsuits using federal law. Last year, two men in Florida sued a state university citing age discrimination. The age discrimination law was federal, and the university claimed immunity under the 11th Amendment. The judge agreed and threw the case out.
You need to find a new source. Your constitution is an amendment short.
Simple and clear are beautiful words that most dismiss as ignorance and stupidity, as they do not allow for the prattling of the "intellectual elite" to use 15 letter words, that most have never heard of, in 10,000 word commentaries, that once uttered, render said rhetoric ineffective, as they fail to corroborate the essence of their thesis. I think ;*)
I really can't understand why it's become so muddied.
All the better to "alter" the original intent such as those posted in #46.
Ever notice how many people seem to think that "Give us your tired, your poor...." is part of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
the anti-federalists were also very prescient
. Everyone knows that is part of the LA Clippers draft guidelines.
That explains the new ending: "....your huddled masses and criminal element..."
Yes, ingnorance scares me.
Emma Lazarus...'founding mother' who knew.
Wasn't that Baby Spice of the Spice Girls?
Do you mean the original anti-federalists, the Nationalists, or do you mean the federalists that the anti-federalist started calling the anti-federalists and then themselves the federalists?
No one ever claimed that adoption of the Constitution was consistent with the Articles of Confederation. That wasn't the point. We ditched the AofC, just as we ditched tbe British Crown.
"I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag" - Craig Washington
"I also wish that the Pledge of Allegiance were directed at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it is when the President takes his oath of office, rather than to the flag and the nation" - Carl Sagan
"The principles of a free constitution are irrecoverably lost, when the legislative power is nominated by the executive" - Edward Gibbon
"If the 1st Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." -Thurgood Marshall
"Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." -Hugo Black
"Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?" - C.D. Tavares
"The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government." -Ayn Rand
"The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny." -Hugo Black
"Even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts." -Supreme Court
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704)
Sure he matters. I see your John Locke and raise you a John Milton.
Clear, concise, divinely inspired!
What a contrast to the European "Constitution." Ours is direct and to the point. After over 200 years, we've only had to add a few paragraphs and haven't yet had to change a thing. We could probably fit 10 of our Constitutions inside the Euro preamble alone!
To understand it's history and interpretation, you need the Annotated Constitution.
It is amazing how many great thinkers there were, and what a shortage it seems we have today. Or maybe just too many voices today that I miss the intelligent ones in the noise.
As a matter of fact, I've read most of it.
I did not in my original post indicate whether or not I agreed with any of it. I simply pointed out that it existed.
If you want to start a flame war over it, go for it. But argue with Congress, not me, because Congress authorized it's creation in 1992.
And the 16th amendment means NOTHING because only Congress has the authority to coin money