# "Does it Still Matter?"  (Our Constitution)



## Wry Catcher (Jun 27, 2011)

In the 10th annual history issue of _Time_ is an article well worth reading.  

It opens with this comment:

"One Document, Under Siege.  Here are a few things the framers did not know about:  WW II.  DNA.  Sexting.  Airplanes.  The Atom.  Television.  Medicare.  Collateralized debt obligations.  The germ theory of disease.  Miniskirts.  The internal combustion machine.  Computers.  Antibiotics.  Lady Gaga.  

"People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today.  What would the framers say about whether the ..."

If you have an opinon on raising the debt ceiling, the 14th Amendment, the War Powers Resolution or any of a number of current issues, this article will either reinforce or weaken your opinion.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jun 27, 2011)

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.  If it was, there would be fewer troubles.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 27, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.  If it was, there would be fewer troubles.



Do you have an example?  I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 27, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.  If it was, there would be fewer troubles.
> ...



There is no link and I dont subscribe to Time.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 27, 2011)

To answer your original question. NO

The supreme court constantly over steps its stated power in the constitiution.

The legislative branch takes powers from the states and vests it into itself. Article 1 section 8. For example the EPA.

So no the constitiution does not matter anymore.


----------



## Sallow (Jun 27, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.  If it was, there would be fewer troubles.
> ...



We have a large standing army under federal control.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 27, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



Google, Time.  I found the entire article, but I also subscribe to the magazine.  I read the hard copy already.  If you can't find the article on line, I suppose I can post the link.  Before I do I need to know if in doing so I violate copywrite laws and/or rules of this message board.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



From Article I

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

It says nothing about how long the army can exist, but you cannot fund it for more than two years without congress re-approving it.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 27, 2011)

And before it gets stated the general welfare clause has been badly misinterpreted

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. (James Madison)

Here is a blog that explains it more eloquently than I could.

General Welfare | Connor&#039;s Conundrums


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 27, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



And Article I continues, "To provide and maintain a Navy"  (no time restriction, curious); and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (more curous indeed).  

But all of this is framed by the article in Time, the July 4, 2011 edition.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 27, 2011)

> "People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the ..."



All the Framers need say or would say is obey the rule of law. 



> The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.



Its being followed, exactly as intended. The problem you have is the rule of law  which is what the Constitution codifies  conflicts with conservative dogma. That you disagree doesn't make it wrong. 



> The supreme court constantly over steps its stated power in the constitiution.



Citation? 



> And before it gets stated the general welfare clause has been badly misinterpreted.



In your opinion. 



> Here is a blog that explains it more eloquently than I could.



Eloquent, perhaps, but wrong  at least until the Court says otherwise.


----------



## Sallow (Jun 27, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



You leave out several clauses.

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


First there is no such restriction on the navy.
Second, the army was meant to be drawn out of the state's militias.

Which means that the navy was meant to be permanent..the army was meant to be "as needed". And the fact that it was drawn out of state militias indicates that it was meant to be citizen based and de-centralized.


----------



## Anachronism (Jun 27, 2011)

The US Constitution lost all reasonable value with the election of one Abraham Lincoln in 1960. Lincoln was the first significant individual to use the document as toilet paper, and it's just gotten worse in the last 150 years. The biggest problem with it isn't that times or people have changed but that the English Language has changed; meaning that most Americans can't actually read it themselves and understand what most of it means because they have no real knowledge of our own History or the more "antiquated" style of language the document was written in.

Honestly, I think the document needs a complete and total re-writing, clarification, and updating.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 27, 2011)

I read your article.

Its just another piece of leftist porpoganda  intent on making the constitution a rubber band to wrap up a bunch of federal laws to control society with a huge big brother federal govt. 

The constitituion is not flexible unless you amend it.


----------



## Sallow (Jun 27, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> The US Constitution lost all reasonable value with the *election of one Abraham Lincoln in 1960. Lincoln *was the first significant individual to use the document as toilet paper, and it's just gotten worse in the last 150 years. The biggest problem with it isn't that times or people have changed but that the English Language has changed; meaning that most Americans can't actually read it themselves and understand what most of it means because they have no real knowledge of our own History or the more "antiquated" style of language the document was written in.
> 
> Honestly, I think the document needs a complete and total re-writing, clarification, and updating.


----------



## tonystewart1 (Jun 27, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > "People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the ..."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Letting the court decide is like letting the fox guard the hen house. 

Show me where in the consitution that federal courts had any jurisdicton in Brown vs the Board of Eduction. A lawsuit brought by people in Kansas against a Kansas BOE. Yet the court did rule because they want to make law.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> We have a large standing army under federal control.



Yeah, but we haven't had "times of peace" since Reagan.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



What part of those clauses forbids the keeping of a permanent federal army? The only restriction is it has to be funded every two years instead of a blanket "fund it forvever" provision. 

At best the two clauses regarding miltias allows for the federal goverment to take control of them, just as the national guard can be federalized.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jun 27, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.  If it was, there would be fewer troubles.



Whether it will matter in the future, will depend on the elections of 2012. I think many Senate seats will be taken by conservatives, and hopefully the presidency who will mean it when he or she puts their hand over their heart and swears to abide by the principles of the Constitution.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You are a lazy asswipe.

U.S. Constitution Under Siege over Libya, Taxes, Health Care - TIME


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2011)

Like Progressives, Obama hates the Constitution and think the Framers got it all wrong.

2001 Audio: Obama Shows His Contempt for the US Constitution


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 27, 2011)

The Constitution mattered today, for example: 


> Holding: Californias ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional. The Court held that the law imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech and cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.
> 
> Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on June 27, 2011. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which was joined by the Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Thomas and Breyer filed dissenting opinions.
> 
> Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association : SCOTUSblog


----------



## Sallow (Jun 27, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Nothing.

Which is funny..because somehow you guys seem to think there are restrictions on General Welfare and Commerce clauses.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 27, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> In the 10th annual history issue of _Time_ is an article well worth reading.
> 
> It opens with this comment:
> 
> ...



Yes it matters now more than ever.

Just look at how bad shit has gotten since we have let the federal govt overstep its constitutionally limited authority.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 27, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.  If it was, there would be fewer troubles.
> ...



if the constitution was followed we wouldn't be at war in libya.

if the constitution was followed we wouldn't have the patriot act

if the constitution was followed we wouldn't have medicare part D

if the constitution was followed we wouldn't have a massive national debt due to federal entitlement programs.

there are 4.


----------



## Sallow (Jun 27, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > We have a large standing army under federal control.
> ...



Which is probably the result of a large standing army under federal control.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 27, 2011)

tonystewart1 said:


> I read your article.
> 
> Its just another piece of leftist porpoganda  intent on making the constitution a rubber band to wrap up a bunch of federal laws to control society with a huge big brother federal govt.
> 
> The constitituion is not flexible unless you amend it.



I think its ambiguity is its genius.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Its not that there are restrictions, its that the clauses are vague enough to warrant restraint in thier use. Too many times they are used as means to increase the size of government, as opposed to the original intent of the consitution, which is to limit the means government can use.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Do you really think that the US disbanding its army would lead to world peace? You have to remember the barrier created by oceans is not what it was in the time of the founders. The US fought having a large standing army for years. Only upon the cold war did it decide it was a nessesary requirement for a modern state.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> > I read your article.
> ...



You been standing out in the penumbra too long. There's NOTHING ambiguous about it. It's a broken contract between a formerly free people and a weak central government. The Progressive Jihad on it has successfully nullified it.  The fault is ours, not the documents


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > tonystewart1 said:
> ...



Damn Frank, you are as dumb as a box of hammers.  Nearly every post thus far suggests your wrong;  interpretatons and opinions very among Constitutional scholars and even idiots such as yourself.

And idiot, no where in any post did I blame the document.  I said, fool, that its abiguity was its genius.  Of course a moron such as yourself wouldn't understand and not because you're willfully ignorant, you're too stupid to read, absorb and learn.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



There's no ambiguity in it at all, your flaccid insults notwithstanding.

Progressives have successfully nullified it through the Courts.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Insult?  They're descriptions, the only insult was to the box of hammers, fool.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Yawn.

I'd trade barbs with you, but I'd need a signed waiver first. I don't want your legal guardians suing me later for the emotional damage they'll claim I inflicted on you.

The Constitution was a contract between a formerly free people and a weak central government. If the Framers would see how we've corrupted it they probably would have stayed a British colony -- we have more fundamental freedoms.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2011)

One resource on an issue of controversy is linked below.  The issue, the 2nd Amendment.

Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 28, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



Hi Wry


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution mattered today, for example:



But, but... You fascists always scream that Thomas rules however Scalia tells him to - how could he be dissenting?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> One resource on an issue of controversy is linked below.  The issue, the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Cambodia citizens with no Second Amendment rights, 1975-1979


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Which is probably the result of a large standing army under federal control.



Could be - if you have a large army, the temptation to use is will be ever-present.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Damn Frank, you are as dumb as a box of hammers.  Nearly every post thus far suggests your wrong;



Then it should be a simple task for you to point out the portions that are ambiguous,

You can find it here.

(Assuming that you've never seen, much less read the document.)


----------



## rdean (Jun 28, 2011)

I love it when you get right wingers like Boehner or Palin repeating words from the Declaration of Independence and insisting they came from the Constitution.  Hilarious.

Paul Revere road to "Warn the British".  Who knew?

And to insist they knew what people who believed in slavery and had no idea of science or phones or TV's or vaccines or telecommunications or computers "thought" is hilarious.

Is it true that Benjamin Franklin thought the Constitution wouldn't last a hundred years?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

rdean said:


> I love it when you get right wingers like Boehner or Palin repeating words from the Declaration of Independence and insisting they came from the Constitution.  Hilarious.
> 
> Paul Revere road to "Warn the British".  Who knew?
> 
> ...



I love it when Progressives express the depth of their fundamental misunderstanding of our system of government.

57 states? ATM's kicked the economy's ass? Asthma Breathalyzer? Corpse-men? Seeing dead people? Pinning Medal of Honor on a deceased soldier and insisting he was alive?

What the fuck do phones or TV's or computers have to do with the system of government?  What is fundamentally different about the Constitution as a result of any of those?

Hilarious!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jun 28, 2011)

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

That's about the best summary of the Constitution one could find.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Hey, I don't consider the Libya matter a settle matter.  Obama was under pressure to act, using different 'tools' of course, as our nation has almost always acted when people around the world are in trouble.  No American service personnel have been (to my knowledge) KIA or wounded and possibly thousands of civilians have been protected by a real coaltion.  

As for the other three points I don't find them valid.  Spending is authorized in the Constitution, in Article I, section 8  "The Congress will have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Depts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States".  

Again, the ambiguity of the general welfare clause rears its head.  What did welfare mean and how was it defined by the framers?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 28, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



still the constitution doesn't allow the president to do what he decided to have the military do, go to war with the govt of lybia, without congressional approval.

You did not adress the patriot act

And you misquoted Article 1, it says in its full context


			
				article 1 section 8 said:
			
		

> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> ...



As you can see they went on to describe just what falls under the general welfare and defense of the united states.  Retirement and healthcare were not listed.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 28, 2011)

I doubt the Framers would give a fig about Lady Gaga.

Really, if WC thinks Lady Gaga is of Constitutional Importance, then it's no wonder he/she/it is so whack.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Agreed.  I did not post the entirety of section 8, however, since you have raised the issue, consider.  The phrase, "to raise and support Armies" does not authorize a draft.  One might infer that a draft is authorized on the basis of "provide for a common defense"; a draft was not listed in the inumerated powers.

In fact one might argue the 13th Amendment prohibites the Congress from authorizing a draft, which they did in the Selective Service Acts (of which I'm sure were challenged during every war and in particular the Vietnam conflict).


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2011)

I'm off to son number two's home to meet an electrition or three in re estimates.  I hope a real debate and discussion evolves on this thread and that CrusaderFran stays away.  His stupdity works only to derail honest and open debate.  Having to defend ones opinion is healthy and there is always a possibility when debating details, of actual learning, even from those with whom we disagree..I respect those who hold opinions which differ from my own and are smart, informed and civilized all things crusaderfrank is not.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> I'm off to son number two's home to meet an electrition or three in re estimates.  I hope a real debate and discussion evolves on this thread and that CrusaderFran stays away.  His stupdity works only to derail honest and open debate.  Having to defend ones opinion is healthy and there is always a possibility when debating details, of actual learning, even from those with whom we disagree..I respect those who hold opinions which differ from my own and are smart, informed and civilized all things crusaderfrank is not.



Translation: CF is a 50 caliber sniper and I'm wearing a bullseye T shirt


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 28, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



interesting thought!  

So your saying the 13th ammendment, by abolishing involultary servitude, exept for punishment for a crime, makes it illegal to draft citizens.  Since they are forcing you to labor against your will the draft would be contrary to the 13th as involunatry servitude is not dependant on compensation but on circumstance.  

Very interesting.   Are we on the same page right now or did i misunderstand you?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I think we're on the same page, but maybe drawing different inferences.  The Congress passed the Selective Service Act and the bill was signed into law by the president, precedent suggests for, say, the Congress to pass and the president to sign legislation on universal healthcare.  Didn't we draft and require young men to put their life in jeopardy?  Certainly asking one to pay for health insurance is not as great a burden as telling them to land on Utah Beach or take the point in a jungle half a world away from home.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 28, 2011)

The Supreme Court dismissed the 13th Amendment argument long ago: 


> [A]s we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
> 
> Arver v US [245 US 366 {1918}


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court dismissed the 13th Amendment argument long ago:
> 
> 
> > [A]s we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a *war declared* by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
> ...



The SC issued that ruling in 1918.  At that time the selective service act had not been used to draft young men into a conflict which had not been declared by that "great representative body".  Korea and Vietnam drafted young men into conflicts where war had not been declared.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 29, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



It would be able to be stretched like that (the 13th ammendment) as requiring you to purchase a product from a private company to be in good standing is not the same as requiring you to labor in a job against your will.  

And I see the courts shot down using the 13th ammendment as a way to get out of a draft, so much for that little excercise in thinking


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 29, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I suspect the court "shot down" the argument in terms of practicality.  It's clear many young men are stirred by martial music and patriotism as well as a full time job and a full belly to enlist.  Others think let some other slob get their ass shot off, I'm here, they're there and I can get all the tail I want.

In fact the draft is not involuntary servitude.  It is expressly forbidden in the Constitution and defined in Ballentine's Law Dictionary thusly:  "Compulsory labor under bondage, slavery or peonage, except as imposed by way of punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted".

I with great reluctance concede.  My example does not meet all the elements necessary for  bondage, slavery or peonage as defined.  I will seek another example, but, I'm off for one more bid on electrical work for my son's home.


----------

