Trashing the Constitution

FAME (Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education) ^ | 6-16-03 | Edwin Vieira

[eyespysomething]

bump to read later

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later.

[Consort]

How many people did it take to make abortion legal? What does the Constitution or the Founders say about abortion? I believe I am correct in stating that a majority of the Supreme Court determine what the Constitution means.

[Cacique]

Hey Clemenza,

Speaking of fiat money.

[DPB101]

Yes, only 5 people in the entire universe determine what the US Constitution means; not the Congress or the President or the Pope or the Founding Fathers.....

And the only way they can protect that immense power is by acceding to the will of the majority. But they have to be very, very clever. They can't be obvious. They can't move fast. They need to creep up on citizens with pages and pages of reasons why separate but equal is constitutional for one court but not another, why congress could give land to Christian missionaries once but now a Christian cannot preach on public land.

It is the biggest con going. But when enough people are happy with the con, it continues. Someday the court may go to far. It will be interesting when Americans simply say "no", I will say "God" in the pledge.

[Misterioso]

"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose." -- John Maynard Keynes

[Consort]

And the only way they can protect that immense power is by acceding to the will of the majority.

Unfortunately, I don't thinks that's true. But the Left is getting more bolder and we have to retain control of Congress and the White House while possible Supreme Court retirements are approaching. And we have to control the Governorships since they can fill Senate vacancies.

[tpaine]

Yes, only 5 people in the entire universe determine what the US Constitution means; not the Congress or the President or the Pope or the Founding Fathers..... 19 -con-

Wrong again, of course. The plain words & concepts of the constitution itself clearly state its meaning.
Many here refuse to believe its basic simplicity. - They want it to support their particular agenda. - Damn shame.

How many people did it take to make abortion legal? What does the Constitution or the Founders say about abortion?

You answered your own question. Abortion has never been 'illegal' as the constitution obviously ignores such moral issues.

I believe I am correct in stating that a majority of the Supreme Court determine what the Constitution means.

Nope. -- They can issue their legal opinions, but if the 'law' in question is repugnant to the basic principles of our constitution, no one need honor or obey their 'determination'.

This safeguard is part of our 'checks & balances'. -- Which states should be using to protect their powers.
Politically, they lack the will to fight the feds. - Damn shame.

[tpaine]

It is the biggest con going. But when enough people are happy with the con, it continues.
Someday the court may go to far.

It will be interesting when Americans simply say "no". --
25 -DPB-


Well said. I predict that day will come soon, when the court backs the admimistration on further gun control 'regulations'..
Both feds & states are obviously infringing upon our RKBA's. It will be the tipping point.

[DPB101]

Eventually courts come around to popular opinion. The most obvious case was with FDR. Rather than allow him to pack the court, the justices gave in and began upholding the laws congress passed. Their power is, when push comes to shove, what they are concerned about--not the constitution. Notice how the number of justices has reminded steady while it used to vary some. When either party has a huge majority in congress, the justices get nervous. Congress can clip their robes. They don't want to push things beyond what a majority of congress will tolerate.

The country is about split on abortion now. But the trend is toward reversing Roe Vs Wade. When support gets over 60% and hangs there for a while, the court will reverse Roe.

[DPB101]

I'm betting religion will do it. People have been pushed to the wall there too. There is a lot more money behind censoring religious speech than there is behind banning guns. The ACLU, AUSCS and others are not going to stop suing.

But we will see. Either way, it will be interesting to watch what happens what SCOTUS issues an opinion and large numbers of people ignore it.

[plusone]

I am a partial gold bug, and sound money advocate, but I see a problem with a purely gold coin standard. Since there is only so much gold, and the yearly increase from mines is fairly small, where does the extra money come from to pay the interest? If you agree to pay a 5% return on borrowed mney, then where does the extra 5% of gold coins needed for this interest come from?

[DPB101]

Why not take the anti-Federalist position? Roger Sherman and Patrick Henry had it right: the constitution is the problem.

Elliot's Debates --Thursday, June 12, 1788.

Mr. HENRY The tyranny of Philadelphia may be like the tyranny of George III. I believe this similitude will be incontestably proved before we conclude.

His (Jefferson's) amendments go to that despised thing, called a bill of rights, and all the rights which are dear to human nature--trial by jury, the liberty of religion and the press, &c. Do not gentlemen see that, if we adopt, under the idea of following Mr. Jefferson's opinion, we amuse ourselves with the shadow, while the substance is given away?

Under the abominable veil of political secrecy and contrivance, your most valuable rights may be sacrificed by a most corrupt faction, without having the satisfaction of knowing who injured you. They are bound by honor and conscience to act with integrity, but they are under no constitutional restraint.

Of what advantage is it to the American Congress to take away this great and general security? I ask, Of what advantage is it to the public, or to Congress, to drag an unhappy debtor, not for the sake of justice, but to gratify the malice of the plaintiff, with his witnesses, to the federal court, from a great distance? What was the principle that actuated the Convention in proposing to put such dangerous powers in the hands of any one?

Wherefore is religious liberty not secured? One honorable gentleman, who favors adoption, said that he had had his fears on the subject. If I can well recollect, he informed us that he was perfectly satisfied, by the powers of reasoning, (with which he is so happily endowed,) that those fears were not well grounded. There is many a religious man who knows nothing of argumentative reasoning; there are many of our most worthy citizens who cannot go through all the labyrinths of syllogistic, argumentative deductions, when they think that the rights of conscience are invaded. This sacred right ought not to depend on constructive, logical reasoning.

That sacred and lovely thing, religion, ought not to rest on the ingenuity of logical deduction. Holy religion, sir, will be prostituted to the lowest purposes of human policy.

When we see men of such talents and learning compelled to use their utmost abilities to convince themselves that there is no danger, is it not sufficient to make us tremble? Is it not sufficient to fill the minds of the ignorant part of men with fear?

Pass that government, and you will be bound hand and foot.

Pass this government, and you will be carried to the federal court, (if I understand that paper right,) and you will be compelled to pay shilling for shilling .

Can, then, the state governments look it in the face? You dare not look it in the face now, when it is but in embryo . . .

[Consort]

I'll stick with my assertion.

They could have ruled either way or not ruled at all in the Bush/Gore general election, for example. They can do the same on any Constitutional matter that ever comes up.

[Consort]

Congress can clip their robes. They don't want to push things beyond what a majority of congress will tolerate.

What can Congress do to them?

[DPB101]

Add or subtract the number of justices. Limit appellate jurisdiction. Maybe some other things. Turn off the heat in the winter and A/C in the summer?

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 2

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[tpaine]

DPB101 wrote:

Why not take the anti-Federalist position? Roger Sherman and Patrick Henry had it right: the constitution is the problem.
_____________________________________


Tell me what ~you~ see as the 'problem', in your own words.

Henry was past his prime, imo, when he wrote that bit. I fail to see his point.

[Aric2000]

I hope tht Roe vs Wade gets overturned, but probably for totally different reasons then you do.

The Constitution is BLANK on moral issues such as abortion, therefore the federal government has NO power to state anything.

If the Constitution says NOTHING, then those are the places for the states, and the people, please see the 10th amendment.

You may think it is immoral, but in fact that does NOT matter in the least. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Because the laws of abortion, yes, or no, are state issues and should have been tossed back to the states to decide for themselves.

For a group to use the federal government to shove their views down everyones throat through judicial activism is not only immoral, it should be illegal.

This is a republic, NOT a democracy, that is why the Bill of Rights was spelled out, because the states were afraid of this happening.

You want to fix this mess?

Here is what you do, repeal the popular election of senators, and have them voted upon by the state legislatures as it was originally, it was a check and balance, that check is now gone, states rights are GONE!! Because the senators were there to protect those rights.

And 2nd, get government back under its constitutional restraints, and I MEAN EVERY ONE OF THEM, not just the ones you disagree with, but the ones that you think they should do as well, but are indeed unconstitutional, such as federal welfare, SSI, NEA, etc, etc, ad nauseum......

One of these days they are going to push it too far, and we shall see who holds the REAL power in this country, the elites, as they like to pretend, or the people, who the elites pretend matter.

[tpaine]

Consort wrote: I'll stick with my assertion.
They could have ruled either way or not ruled at all in the Bush/Gore general election, for example. They can do the same on any Constitutional matter that ever comes up
-con-


So what?
The USSC has no power to enforce their rulings.

[DPB101]

Henry was past his prime, imo, when he wrote that bit. I fail to see his point.

Henry's point was everything would become a Federal case and we would be ruled by judges, that there was no protection against the constitution meaning whatever judges say it means.

He was correct. Past his prime or not when he predicted what would happen.