Posted: 11/17/2007 7:18:45 PM EDT
|
The Constitution is far more important than “The law of the land:” it is the SOURCE of the law, and of all authority. We do not swear allegiance to a king, or to a warlord. We swear to “protect and defend” the Constitution. It serves us best when we depart from it, for it, not the whim of a dictator, serves as the point of departure. Finally, it is the point to which we return. --FrankSymptoms, 17 November 2007 Comments? |
I read this bit 3 three times and it still doesn't make any fucking sense. Sounds like a jackass trying to sound smart to me. The constitution serves as a guide in all public affairs. When you depart from your guide then you get lost and the guide is of no use to you. There is strong evidence of this in our society today. We have departed from our guide many times and now our country is wandering, especially when it comes to domestic affairs. I have yet to see an instance where we have departed from the constitution and then returned to it. edited to add profanity. |
|
motown_steve, this is a similar line of thought to what I touched on in your thread. Do you never see a point where certain parts of constitution would have to be suspended in order to uphold its primary tenets? [ETA] Bourbonitis typos. [ETA2] Re: below. Damn, calm down. No need to yell. How about a civil discussion? |
NO, GODDAMNIT. ETA: Above, feel free, I'm just making my point. Emphatically. 
|
No. The founding fathers put a process in place for amending the constitution if and when it becomes necessary. They also laid down the conditions under which the constitution could be suspended. Short of an insurrection then no part of the constitution should ever be suspended for any reason...ever! |
 That has to be the oddest concept I have ever heard of and very foolish and foolhardy… if you suspended some part of the Constitution how could you possibly guarantee the reinstatement of the suspended part. A dangerous and reckless thing to suggest… no freaking way. |
Strictly speaking, Lincoln never had the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus since such was an enumerated power of the Congress in Article I, Section 9. Yes, I know it is actually a restriction on Congress, but the restriction includes an explanation of when it doesn't apply. Since the restriction applies to the Congress and the exception is included in the sentence, it stands to reason that the power to declare habeas corpus suspended is a Congressional power. The President would only be able to arrest without charge IF the Congress authorized it. In the Civil War, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus (one of the complaints against the King in 1776) without Congressional Act. In Ex Parte Merryman, Lincoln's acts were declared illegal but Lincoln ignored the Chief Justice's ruling. Almost immediately following the war and Lincoln's death, Habeas Corpus was reinstated in the North and came back eventually in the South. |
|
I don't take the idea lightly of suspending any part of the Constitution. Here some things I see going on that I am simply running out of ideas how to reverse within the bounds of the Constitution: The imbalance of Leftist propaganda bombarding America / everywhere from a vast spectrum of media sources. THEY rendered the 1st Amendment not worth the paper it was written on, NOT US, and NOT the FOUNDERS. What masquerades as "NEWS" these days is nothing but subjective, Leftist agenda-driven, exploitation and brainwashing. Unless or until News organizations properly label anything that spins an agenda as "Commentary", they should no longer have the protections that traditionally protected news organizations. I am not claiming to have the perfect answer, and I am not suggesting we censor news outlets that don't toe the current administration's line. I'm saying that a news outlet that employs an overt agenda for ANY socio-political ideology should not be able to hide behind freedom of the press if their non-commentary reporting shows bias. I am probably not expressing this very well. Lots of bourbon in me right now... |
Completely disagree. It is up to us to exercise our rights to fix this problem. If they make no money, they stop reporting the crap they do. If we keep watching, they keep making money. The solution, clearly, is not to suspend the first protection of the Bill of Rights. |
As a member of the "subjective Leftist agenda-driven, exploitation and brainwashing" media I will merely say that things like this are why I am glad that my Second Amendment rights stand-guard over my First Amendment ones. |
The only answer to bad speech is more speech. Once your answer involves 'well, lets just ignore the Constitution for a second', you've fucked up. |
|
Well, I already tried this discussion several weeks back and it went about the same, and I even think at least one of the same members was ripping me a new one then, too. The prize-winner was someone that said I was no better than the lefties that want to take away guns. Wonderful... Jonas, relax. You don't have to shoot me because I will never be in a position to implement a suspension of any part of the Constitution. [ETA] more bourbonitis typo corrections... |
hate to tell you, but he really is the only one who will make an active effort to restore rights. a lot of the so-called conservatives may block new legislation, but they wont lift a finger to restore your rights. Not even Fred Thompson. So if you want to go along with the whole "sane" voting thing, then knock yourself out. You reap what you sew. Have fun. |
Its single-most important tenet and PRIMARY function is to limit the size, power, and scope of the Federal Government to the level the people and States decided upon when they formed that government. "Suspending" the Constitution would violate the very reason it was written. If a government "suspends" its written Constitution, it is essentially declaring itself above the law, with the power to do anything, answerable to no one. Realistically though, why bother to officially suspend it? Its not like they're abiding by it now, anyways... |
SM - I'm not really worried. I've read enough of your stuff to know this just sounds like you postulating some bourbon induced questions. I do maintain, though, that the Bill of Rights was constructed to read along the lines of "1. The government can't do this, this, that or this. 2. Juuuuuust in case you forget number 1...." 
|
|
The Constitution is an agreement between men. It is no better or worse than any other such agreement. It is no more or less durable than any other such agreement. It is a special document, insofar as it defines the raw basis of our society, but it does not have arms or legs and The Constitution has no power to do anything or to enforce anything. We are not ruled by The Constitution. We have agreed, as a nation of men, to attempt to live to this ideal - but this agreement frequently goes squirrley... When it comes down to it, Might Makes Right. The Constitution is Right because we have codified and established the Might to enforce it. In the absence of Right, We The People have to step up and provide the Might. Remember clearly: We defend the Constituion. It does not defend us. This is a mistake that I think a lot of people - even people on ArfCom make. Shane |
I guess another bourbon induced question would be how do we maintain protections of freedom of religion if mosques are providing sanctuary to, or even recruiting/indoctrinating Islamists that are plotting or conducting terrorist activities in the US? [ETA] As for the 1st Amendment, what I am mostly pissed about is what I feel are several instances of politicians, newspeople and others making public statements, etc, that I personally feel crossed the line of protected free speech and were seditious or treasonous (provided aid to the enemy - our opponents in Trashcanistan and Iraq). |
Dude, I couldn't agree more...I was being serious. 2 months ago you wouldn't have seen a reply like this here...glad to see shit turn around. |
Regarding the religious question: Freedom of Religion is not freedom to use religion as a way to hide crimes. For example, the notion of using a church as sanctuary from the police, etc., does not exist in the United States. Also, if a specific religious group was using its religion as a means to directly harm the rights of others (such as killing them), then they lose that protection. Same thing as if I scream "bomb" in a crowded room trying to get people hurt. |
RON PAUL??? Is that you?????
|
Ok, then what about the media-carried statements by anti-war politicians that embolden the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan to just wait us out until Hitlary is elected (you don't seriously believe her "hawk-ish" pandering bullshit for a second, do you?) and we pull out of the Middle East, or this "Redacted" movie that is shot to look like a documentary, etc, etc, etc, that can be used to inflame and recruit people to fight against our troops? |
A) Hillary is not an anti-war candidate. B) No one said this whole 'freedom' thing was supposed to be easy. |
Great point, beautifully made! WE swear to protect the Constitution... we DON'T swear to be bound by it because it is a given that if we live in this country, we will do so. We protect and defend it because it guarantees our liberties. Of course we stray from it. But don't tell me that we are worse off than any dictator-driven 3rd world cesspool that doesn't have these protections. |
+1 |
But...that's the mistake... It guarantees nothing. The Constitution does not have arms, legs, or a head. It does not talk. The bill of rights enumerates natural rights that already exist. Constitutions do not give, grant, create, guarantee or protect rights. They exist only to *restrict* rights, or to *restrict* the power of government. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.", right? Well, if that's true, then fill in the blank, "Constitutions don't guarantee rights, ________________ guarantees rights." Shane |
No one answered because the answer is so obvious as to make the question seem rhetorical. |
The Constitution is the heart & soul of our nation,.. It is to be taken literally - as written law - in all cases, even when what it says goes against our beliefs... What is written, is written - BOTH when it empowers AND when it restricts the actions of government... To deny either case is to deny the entire document.... |
|
I read it to mean that we only depart from "it" when the departure services "it" not government or some other entity/person. Depart isn't the correct word to use since the system has built in protections against staleness. I believe the constitution was written, understanding full well that it would have to be reviewed against things the drafters could not imagine. Example: The drafters clearly understood about government searches, hence the 4th amendement (notice amendement). However the body used to review and rule on the intent of people long passed had to rule what that meant when gov't uses thermal imaging, night vision, flashlights, etc. Being unable to be here to answer every question that arises they built in a system to check, balance and add-on if necessary. Joe |
It really doesn't even exist to do that. We, The People, are intended to restrict the power of government. In the debate hall, at the ballot box, and ultimately at the business end of a weapon. As you stated, the Constitution does nothing on its own. What it was meant to provide is a valid justification in domestic and international eyes, should our government go horribly astray and need to be reigned in with force by its citizenry. Of course, we're long past that, now. |
You started strong, but I'm lost on the last part. Would you care to elaborate? |