Tell me what the following phrases mean:

[TemplarKormac]

Come on, there's no "Party" position on any of those naked statements, do not fear thinking for yourself.

Liberals take heed:

1) First Amendment (Free Speech)

2) Second Amendment (Right to bear arms)

3) Third Amendment (Quartering Soldiers in Peacetime)

4) Fourth Amendment (Search and Seizure)

5) Fifth Amendment (Self incrimination)

6) Fifth Amendment (Double jeopardy)

7) Sixth Amendment (Right to speedy trial)

8) Seventh Amendment (Right to jury trial)

9) Seventh Amendment (Re-examination clause)

10) Eighth Amendment (Cruel and unusual punishment)

11) Tenth Amendment (Reserved powers)

12) Ninth Amendment (Enumeration of Rights Clause)

This thread does not discuss any thing which follows after those general statements.

I could just have easily asked:

1) Rabbits can not be purchased

2) A woman's right to sexual consent shall not be infringed.

3) No Bus driver shall...

etc.

Would you care to run that by me again?

 

[dblack]

I actually tend to agree with the position that the Bill of Rights was largely a mistake. Some worried that it gave the wrong impression - that despite the admonition of the ninth to the contrary, future generations would see it as the list of our protected rights. Or that, despite the clarification of the tenth, the government had implied powers not specified in the body of the Constitution.

And that's pretty much what's happened. It would have been far more productive to reinforce the idea that general freedom to do as we please, provided we aren't harming others, was sacrosanct. And that the federal government was only granted the specific powers granted to it in the Constitution. Maybe it would have been better to list the ninth and tenth amendments in bold, or underline them or something.

Another issue I have with way we view the Bill of Rights is that it's often seen as the only part of the Constitution setting limits on the enumerated powers, when in fact the powers themselves contain important limitations. The much-maligned 'general welfare' clause for example, is part of a list of modifiers on the taxation power. The modifiers are constraints on the taxation power. In my reading, it's meant to prevent government from using the tax code as a means of granting preferential treatment, not as an "implied power to spend".

 

[tjvh]

I actually tend to agree with the position that the Bill of Rights was largely a mistake. Some worried that it gave the wrong impression - that despite the admonition of the ninth to the contrary, future generations would see it as the list of our protected rights. Or that, despite the clarification of the tenth, the government had implied powers not specified in the body of the Constitution.

And that's pretty much what's happened. It would have been far more productive to reinforce the idea that general freedom to do as we please, provided we aren't harming others, was sacrosanct. And that the federal government was only granted the specific powers granted to it in the Constitution. Maybe it would have been better to list the ninth and tenth amendments in bold, or underline them or something.

Another issue I have with way we view the Bill of Rights is that it's often seen as the only part of the Constitution setting limits on the enumerated powers, when in fact the powers themselves contain important limitations. The much-maligned 'general welfare' clause for example, is part of a list of modifiers on the taxation power. The modifiers are constraints on the taxation power. In my reading, it's meant to prevent government from using the tax code as a means of granting preferential treatment, not as an "implied power to spend".

It's also important to point out that the "general welfare" clause meant something different than providing people with preloaded EBT cards to buy groceries with who didn't want to work.

 

[g5000]

1) "Congress shall make no Law."

2) "Shall not be infringed."

3) "No Solider shall."

4) "No Warrant shall issue."

5) "No person shall be held."

6) "Nor shall any person be subject."

7) "In all criminal prosecutions."

8) "Where the value exceeds 20 dollars."

9) "no fact tried buy a Jury shall be otherwise re-examined."

10) "Cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted."

11) "The powers not delegated to the federal government."

12) "The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution."

Nice list.

The real trick is proving a violation of any of them has occurred. SAYING it has happened, and PROVING it has happened are two entirely different things.

There are people who think every time Obama takes a shit in a hotel, he is violating the Constitution.

 

[g5000]

Here's a post you will NEVER see from a right winger:

"The Supreme Court overturned a state law banning handguns. THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS NEVER HEARD OF STATES RIGHTS! 10TH AMENDMENT!!! 10TH AMENDMENT!!! 10TH AMENDMENT!!!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

You guys still wont define those basic statements. HAHHAHAHAHA

If you don't know what they mean, look them up yourself.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

1) "Congress shall make no Law."

2) "Shall not be infringed."

3) "No Solider shall."

4) "No Warrant shall issue."

5) "No person shall be held."

6) "Nor shall any person be subject."

7) "In all criminal prosecutions."

8) "Where the value exceeds 20 dollars."

9) "no fact tried buy a Jury shall be otherwise re-examined."

10) "Cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted."

11) "The powers not delegated to the federal government."

12) "The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution."

I for one am getting so sick of hearing this "shall not be infringed" cited as meaning that there should be no limits whatsoever to who can own a gun. Of course there can be limits and of course the government can infringe. We already do it with felons and insane people

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Oh, I was responding to a signature. Those things sometimes confuse me. Well anyway, if the right to bear arms is such a key part of our Constitution then how come it wasn't put in there? (It was added later)

 

[dblack]

I actually tend to agree with the position that the Bill of Rights was largely a mistake. Some worried that it gave the wrong impression - that despite the admonition of the ninth to the contrary, future generations would see it as the list of our protected rights. Or that, despite the clarification of the tenth, the government had implied powers not specified in the body of the Constitution.

And that's pretty much what's happened. It would have been far more productive to reinforce the idea that general freedom to do as we please, provided we aren't harming others, was sacrosanct. And that the federal government was only granted the specific powers granted to it in the Constitution. Maybe it would have been better to list the ninth and tenth amendments in bold, or underline them or something.

Another issue I have with way we view the Bill of Rights is that it's often seen as the only part of the Constitution setting limits on the enumerated powers, when in fact the powers themselves contain important limitations. The much-maligned 'general welfare' clause for example, is part of a list of modifiers on the taxation power. The modifiers are constraints on the taxation power. In my reading, it's meant to prevent government from using the tax code as a means of granting preferential treatment, not as an "implied power to spend".

It's also important to point out that the "general welfare" clause meant something different than providing people with preloaded EBT cards to buy groceries with who didn't want to work.

Well, yeah. I didn't mean 'providing' anybody with anything. It just meant government could only tax us for general purposes that applied to everyone. It couldn't just willy-nilly demand money for the hell of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Tell me what the following phrases mean:

Nothing randomly quoted out of context..

Correct.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I actually tend to agree with the position that the Bill of Rights was largely a mistake. Some worried that it gave the wrong impression - that despite the admonition of the ninth to the contrary, future generations would see it as the list of our protected rights. Or that, despite the clarification of the tenth, the government had implied powers not specified in the body of the Constitution.

And that's pretty much what's happened. It would have been far more productive to reinforce the idea that general freedom to do as we please, provided we aren't harming others, was sacrosanct. And that the federal government was only granted the specific powers granted to it in the Constitution. Maybe it would have been better to list the ninth and tenth amendments in bold, or underline them or something.

Another issue I have with way we view the Bill of Rights is that it's often seen as the only part of the Constitution setting limits on the enumerated powers, when in fact the powers themselves contain important limitations. The much-maligned 'general welfare' clause for example, is part of a list of modifiers on the taxation power. The modifiers are constraints on the taxation power. In my reading, it's meant to prevent government from using the tax code as a means of granting preferential treatment, not as an "implied power to spend".

Disagree.

Many seem to forget the fact that the Constitution was not conjured from thin air by the Framers; the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II – components of the Constitution can be found throughout that history.

It would have been impossible, therefore, for the Framers to not reference due process and codify its principles in the Founding Document, particularly with regard to the relationship between citizen and state (Third and Fourth Amendments) and the central tenets of due process (Fifth and Sixth Amendments).

The Framers would have also been compelled to address the doctrine of free expression with regard to speech, religion, the press, the right to free association, to assemble, and to petition the government (First Amendment); the right of the states and the individual to self-defense (Second Amendment); and limitations on certain forms of punishment (Eighth Amendment).

As we know from McCulloch it was the original intent of the Framers to afford Congress powers both enumerated and implied, and where the authority of the Federal government, although limited, was nonetheless supreme, and not subject to the dictates of the states, as indeed the Constitution is empowered by the people, not the states.

We also know from McCulloch that it was not the intent of the Framers that the Tenth Amendment function as some strict, absolute, impenetrable ‘demarcation’ between state and Federal governments, limiting the latter to a ‘finite’ list of powers. As the Court reaffirmed in US v. Darby (1941):

The [Tenth A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

From the beginning and for many years the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

It would be impossible for a modern Republic predicated on the rule of law, judicial review, and the interpretive authority of the courts to function under a doctrine of the “general freedom to do as we please, provided we aren't harming others,’ as there would never be agreement when one ‘crossed the line’ from the freedom of doing as he pleases to harming others.

Since we know it’s incorrect that the Federal government was only granted ‘specific powers’ by the Constitution, where the Founding Document affords Congress implied powers as well, we can understand the genius of the Framers as they responded to the desire of the people to create a National government, representative of all the people, not a collection of states. By the Second Quarter of the 20th Century the Court realized that America was well into a modern industrialized age, where the ‘liberty to contract’ had become a cruel anachronism, and that the relationship between employer and employee was forever changed.

Post-Lochner jurisprudence recognized this, and correctly acknowledged the regulatory authority afforded Congress by the Constitution. See, e.g., West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005). The General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause, for example, were intended by the Framers to allow Congress the latitude to tax, spend, and address the issues common to a modern, industrialized society. With regard to Congress’ Commerce Clause powers, the case law reflects an accurate and sophisticated understanding that commerce is never ‘strictly local,’ that no matter how seemingly ‘small,’ all markets are part of the greater commercial system, and all markets are effected accordingly.

We have a government, economy, and legal system as intended by the Framers, who wisely understood that the new Nation they created would not remain an undeveloped, isolated, and provincial agrarian society.

 

[longknife]

For you Redneck Liberals [that means extremely bigoted] - it means THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS!!!!

 

[Spoonman]

1) "Congress shall make no Law."

2) "Shall not be infringed."

3) "No Solider shall."

4) "No Warrant shall issue."

5) "No person shall be held."

6) "Nor shall any person be subject."

7) "In all criminal prosecutions."

8) "Where the value exceeds 20 dollars."

9) "no fact tried buy a Jury shall be otherwise re-examined."

10) "Cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted."

11) "The powers not delegated to the federal government."

12) "The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution."

Before or after liberals spin them into something totally unrecognizable?

 

[Spoonman]

Come on, there's no "Party" position on any of those naked statements, do not fear thinking for yourself.

Ok...here ya go...all those phrases mean that we had some seriously controlling forefathers in our history!

forefathers who had lived in a world where they didn't have those freedoms and liberties. They fully understood the need to protect them at all costs

 

[Moonglow]

We all know that even when Constitutional amendments were written the exact same way, they mean different things based upon whether they agree with the liberal ideology. Liberals know what they mean, they just cherry pick the amendments that suit them and attack the ones that do not.

Like with Reagan and his drug war?

 

[Moonglow]

For you Redneck Liberals [that means extremely bigoted] - it means THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS!!!!

When has our fed and state govts. never done this?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Like with Reagan and his drug war?

Because drugs were all legal before Reagan....