Right Wingers and the US Constitution

[Abatis]

The thing is, I was acquainted first with right-wing ideology growing up.

It just became burned into my mind that the 2nd Amendment means you can arm yourself up to the tits with pretty much anything you want.

But then I grew up and actually read the Constitution and studied it, and I learned that it's the only Amendment in the Constitution to use the words "well regulated", and the guns the framers of the Constitution were talking about were muskets. They could not have possibly been talking about semi-automatic weapons that can kill a whole classroom of kids in under 5 minutes.

I've learned that, like the bible, many right-wingers profess to know the truth about everything, but really they're just talking out of their asses.

The real problem is the left-wing, 20th century communitarian ideology you adopted and then applied to the US Constitution reading it as if the right to arms is granted or given to the people because of course, it only exists because the 2nd Amendment created it . . . You are completely ignorant of the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights and will never understand how those principles relegate your ridiculous beliefs to flat-earth status piped through Marx's ass.

 

[Erand7899]

Is a law constitutional until struck down by the courts?

Is an unreported violation of the criminal statutes a crime?

 

[Darkwind]

Right Winger .. Left Winger?
Fringe both.

Very knowledgeable?

Believing something to be true does not make it so. Most everyone on the right who uses the US Constitution as a shield in argument is as ignorant as the old right wingers who used patriotism as a shield.

Fringe people are reactionaries, but reading and carrying around a copy of the US Constitution in ones pocket does not guarantee reading and comprehension skills or understanding of concepts necessary for informed and intelligent conversation, let alone debate

What is clear is that the only comprehension that most radical left-wingers have on the Constitution is that it stands in the way of their agenda and power grab. For you to denigrate an individual on their comprehension of the Constitution given your ideological belief is amusing at best.

your comprehension skills, or truer your lack of any, have kept you from knowing Dante's publicly stated ideological bent. Dante did not vote for Obama until 2012 which means he did not vote for Obama in either the primary or general elections in 2008

Your voting record is an indictment on your comprehension skills regarding the Constitution?

What? Seek help. Really, I mean that. Nothing but love for ya.

 

[Darkwind]

Is a law constitutional until struck down by the courts?

No. It remains an unchallenged law, and until someone does challenge it, it will be enforced.

If struck down, the law does not become unconstitutional. It simply means that the way it is written, it violates the Constitution. The Congress and make changes to a struck law and then pass it again. At which time, it can once again be challenged. Or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not concerned much what folks on the far side of the moral and political universe think about the Constitution or the Republican Party, for that matter. They are no more important than a little rain squall that moves quickly on.

 

[regent]

Is a law constitutional until struck down by the courts?

Is an unreported violation of the criminal statutes a crime?

I asked first.

 

[Abatis]

Is a law constitutional until struck down by the courts?

Marbury told us that it is a fundamental rule of our Constitution that any act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Deciding if a law is constitutional is not difficult, all one needs to do is have a familiarity with the unchangeable foundational principles of the Constitution to decide it.

"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? . . .

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. . . .

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. . . .

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! . . .

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? . . .

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

http://constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm Link Added. Each Copy and Paste Must be Linked to It's Source. -Intense

 

[regent]

Marshall is making the case that the Court has the power to strike down a law, but what of ordinary citizens do they have the power? Must we obey laws we believe are unconstitutional?
Are we obeying laws today that may someday be declared unconstitutional?

 

[Abatis]

Marshall is making the case that the Court has the power to strike down a law, but what of ordinary citizens do they have the power? Must we obey laws we believe are unconstitutional?
Are we obeying laws today that may someday be declared unconstitutional?

The law is void.

The Court is not saying that they must declare the law to be repugnant for it to be considered repugnant and non-law.

The people are the final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and the final judge of whether the government is operating within the principles of its establishment.

If government is violating the principles of its establishment and exceeding the expressly defined thus limited powers granted to it, the people can exercise their original right of self defense and rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers we conferred through the Constitution.

If that de-powering can not be done peacefully, then the people have retained the right to keep and BEAR arms and can fight to regain liberty and de-power the illegitimate government with force.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Abatis, we live in a post-Taney court.

 

[regent]

Marshall is making the case that the Court has the power to strike down a law, but what of ordinary citizens do they have the power? Must we obey laws we believe are unconstitutional?
Are we obeying laws today that may someday be declared unconstitutional?

The law is void.

The Court is not saying that they must declare the law to be repugnant for it to be considered repugnant and non-law.

The people are the final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and the final judge of whether the government is operating within the principles of its establishment.

If government is violating the principles of its establishment and exceeding the expressly defined thus limited powers granted to it, the people can exercise their original right of self defense and rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers we conferred through the Constitution.

If that de-powering can not be done peacefully, then the people have retained the right to keep and BEAR arms and can fight to regain liberty and de-power the illegitimate government with force.

So the people decide if a law is unconstitutional and if the government resists the people can de-powering the government with their power to bear arms? Am I reading that correctly? What is the procedure for this process, can one person declare a law unconstitutional? Is this procedure written in the constitution or is it your interpretation of the constitution?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is it specifically about the Constitution that turns left wing Americans into slobbering idiots? Does it get in the way of the progressive agenda? Look at the stuff the mad left wing anti-war idiots were saying about the former president.

what percentage of Americans protested the war in the streets?

Very small. On the other hand, who gives a fuck.

you have trouble with context? reading and comprehension?

What is it specifically about the Constitution that turns left wing Americans into slobbering idiots? Does it get in the way of the progressive agenda? Look at the stuff the mad left wing anti-war idiots were saying about the former president.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The only thing that guarantees comprehension skills is comprehension skills.

There are two forms to the United States Constitution. The original itself, and the one created by two hundred plus years of political interpretation and judicial activism. The original is easy to read and comprehend by anyone with normal skills. The second is a contorted version that requires highly specialized constitutional lawyers to read and comprehend.

then you are saying most Americans and especially reactionary Americans, lack the most basic normal skills? there is hope for you yet

No, I didn't say that at all. Refer back to reading comprehension skills. Most functionally literate people can read and comprehend the original constitution, and its amendments, and can form a good understanding of the intentions of the framers. Its takes highly trained and specialized lawyers to twist that simple language into the legal morass that we have today.

For instance, the phrase "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is simple for even a grade school student to understand. It takes some real smart lawyers to twist that simple statement into "Congress shall make no laws respecting..., unless congress thinks that making a law respecting... is good public policy."

again, you are wrong and history and facts bear this out

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right Wingers and the US Constitution

they tend to talk about it lots and supposedly carry pocket versions, but yet they still have issues with comprehension?

crazy. It's crazy that anyone takes a right winger seriously

Members of the Reagan team intervened in Carter's hostage negotiations in order to disrupt the release of the hostages - which release they felt would destroy their chances of unseating Carter, who was aligned with an alternative energy movement seeking to disentangle the USA from Middle Eastern terror regimes. Carter claimed that the planet's diminishing petroleum reserves would have disastrous political, economic and national security implications - and leave the US economy hostage to big oil and the middle east. He asked the nation to build a "moonshot" around using less oil so that we could better protect our standard of living from rising oil costs. Problem was that Reagan was heavily financed by big oil, a movement which could not relinquish its middle eastern oil partnerships, and which did not want competition in the energy market, or conservation (both of which would lower big oil profits). This is why the partnership between Reagan and Iran (revealed in the Iran-Contra Scandal) was so treasonous (and beyond anti-constitutional). The Reagan Big Oil movement (centered around relationships with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq - as well as minor relationships with the Taliban and mujahideen) would not only make terrorism stronger, but it would erect an economy-destroying monopoly over the world's most important resource: energy.

Here is where it gets truly criminal and creepy. Reagan was the first president to declare a war on terrorism. He did this while secretly selling weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and ramping up aid to Saudi Arabia, along with quietly removing Hussein's Iraq from the official list of terrorist regimes. He did this so he could ramp up financial and weapons aid to Hussein in hopes of hedging his many bets in the region. Many of the figures in the Reagan intelligence and defense apparatus would later serve under Bush 43 to launch the second war on terror. It was pure propaganda on a level that would do the old Soviet Union proud.

To understand the Reagan ascendancy (which was still in power under Bush 43), you need to understand all the complicated relationships between the GOP and Big Oil and the Middle East. The fact that the Reagan Revolution was launched in and through a partnership with Iran is just the tip of the iceberg. From energy policy to deficits and financial deregulation to starting wars under false pretenses, this movement has not only shredded the constitution, it destroyed a great nation in 30 short years.

Reagan legacy...
It was about the Courts and deregulation.

geeze, you're dumb