The U.S. Constitution

[rightwinger]

Yep. Taxing a man's labor and redistributing the fruits of that labor to others is theft at a minimum, economic slavery at it's heart. I stand against slavery. You?

A slave has no choice

Your constitutionally elected representatives decide the tax rates

Not long ago, constitutionally elected representatives decided slavery was acceptable too. Today, we have no choice but to labor on behalf of others. If we refuse, we go to jail. In other words, we have no choice. Sounds like slavery.

You have a choice to abide by our laws or not

 

[eflatminor]

A slave has no choice

Your constitutionally elected representatives decide the tax rates

Not long ago, constitutionally elected representatives decided slavery was acceptable too. Today, we have no choice but to labor on behalf of others. If we refuse, we go to jail. In other words, we have no choice. Sounds like slavery.

You have a choice to abide by our laws or not

Funny, that's the same thing they used to tell slaves back in the day.

 

[rightwinger]

Not long ago, constitutionally elected representatives decided slavery was acceptable too. Today, we have no choice but to labor on behalf of others. If we refuse, we go to jail. In other words, we have no choice. Sounds like slavery.

You have a choice to abide by our laws or not

Funny, that's the same thing they used to tell slaves back in the day.

As a US citizen you have the right to elect those who represent you. If you are unhappy with having to contribute to the society from which you benefit, you are free to elect those who represent your views

Otherwise, you have to abide by the decisions of those who are constitutionally elected

Slavery? I think not

 

[eflatminor]

You have a choice to abide by our laws or not

Funny, that's the same thing they used to tell slaves back in the day.

As a US citizen you have the right to elect those who represent you. If you are unhappy with having to contribute to the society from which you benefit, you are free to elect those who represent your views

Again, the exact same thing the Dems that supported slavery centuries ago told those that stood against the practice. I see your still supporting the party of slavery. Shocking, I know...

Otherwise, you have to abide by the decisions of those who are constitutionally elected

Suck it up slaves, your fate has been decided by those that know what's best for others. Got it.

Slavery?

Forcing some to labor on the behalf of others, yes, that's what's at the heart of the concept of slavery.

I think not.

Clearly. Good luck with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

The founding fathers did the best they could in the political climate of the times. Advocating "All men are created equal" in the 18th century was groundbreaking

However, trying to equate the needs of an 18th century impoverished America to a 21st century Superpower is foolhardy. Each generation must establish the type of government that best meets the needs of their era (within the framework of the Constitution)

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

You went with the liberal amended version of that quotation that is used dishonestly to present an opinion that Jefferson did not hold. I'm not saying you are dishonest, but those who amended it were.

The original version:

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

Thus a provision to amend the Constitution was included in the original document. And to assume that those who signed the Constitution were advocates of slavery is to totally dismiss the very clear record they left behind. The vast majority of the signers did not advocate slavery.

 

[Polk]

Is it that wonderful of a document? You'll notice that most nations that copied its structure have not been stable. Have you considered that our stability may be largely based on luck?

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody before or since has EVER copied that document. Every other nation assigns the rights that the people will have. The U.S. Constitution does not.

 

[Intense]

Name a Single Country that Acknowledges Unalienable Rights. Name a Country that Acknowledges that there are Values and Principles that are above It's Authority. Name a Country that puts the concept of Justice above It's own Dogma, where it would seek to conform to what is obviously above it, rather than redefine what It finds Itself in Conflict with. Show the True Justification and Cause behind Constitutional Amendment? Personally, to me, the true sign of a Just Government, is One that can recognize It's limits, Learn from It's mistakes, and serve Justice in a way that even deals constructively with the loose ends, rather than compound the damage, by finding Itself on the Wrong side of the Equation, when the day is done. We are not Infallible. Government is not Infallible. Cause and effect, consequence, are both evidence and witness to that.

 

[rightwinger]

The founding fathers did the best they could in the political climate of the times. Advocating "All men are created equal" in the 18th century was groundbreaking

However, trying to equate the needs of an 18th century impoverished America to a 21st century Superpower is foolhardy. Each generation must establish the type of government that best meets the needs of their era (within the framework of the Constitution)

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

You went with the liberal amended version of that quotation that is used dishonestly to present an opinion that Jefferson did not hold. I'm not saying you are dishonest, but those who amended it were.

The original version:

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

Thus a provision to amend the Constitution was included in the original document. And to assume that those who signed the Constitution were advocates of slavery is to totally dismiss the very clear record they left behind. The vast majority of the signers did not advocate slavery.

I went with the version inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial

Jefferson clearly acknowledged that the needs of the people would change over time. The amendment process is to change the Constitution not to block judicial interpretation

Those who signed the Constitution were willing to kick the slavery can down the road. It resulted in war and 600,000 dead Americans

 

[regent]

As an anti-federalist my preference is for the Articles of Confederation.

Had they known back then just how obscene the attempts to justify tyranny through the commerce and welfare clauses would be, I suspect the anti-federalists would have won the day. I guess they thought enumerating powers and making those limitations crystal clear with the 10th amendment would ensure we remain free. Suckers.

I agree. As wise and as ahead of their times as they were, the Founders simply could not fathom a value system as held by some in modern day times. And they did not allow for how the original intent would be twisted and rewritten by politicians and by courts. They, to a man, rejected any form of the welfare state at the federal level--they were well aware of the dangers of that--but they naively assumed that future governments would understand that the Constitution does not allow it. They did not count on a corruption of their intent with a redefinition of the general welfare clause that has resulted in a 16 trillion dollar debt that is growing at the rate of 5.5 billion dollars per day at this time.

Welfare was a responsiblity of the states. When the states could no longer afford the welfare, the federal government assumed that responsiblity. I think today both states and national govenment are responsible. The founders were not of one mind they each were thinking individuals and the constitution is a bundle of compromises.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document.

Disagree.

If anything most Americans are more aware now than anytime in this great Nation’s history of their privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution; indeed, for at least the last 60 years Americans have used the Constitution to realize their rights and individual liberty.

As Justice Kennedy aptly noted in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Americans have thus over the last six decades used the Constitution to fight for their fundamental right to vote, their right to public accommodations, their right to due process, their right to privacy, and today same-sex couples fight for their right to equal protection of the laws.

And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

What exactly was the time period of America’s ‘former greatness’? Certainly not the period of time when African Americas where three-fifths of a human being and held in bondage, or when women weren’t allowed to vote, and certainly not during any period of time when the races were segregated, or access to public accommodations restricted due to religion or ethnicity.

America’s greatest period has been the last 40 to 50 years, and the best is yet to come; America’s greatness his here, now, today – nothing need be ‘restored.’

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence predicated on the doctrines of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts, and the rule of law.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, to enact laws which are held supreme in the land, and which can be neither ignored nor ‘nullified' by the states.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

The Constitution also restricts each state from violating the civil liberties of its citizens, one’s civil liberties are not dependent upon his state of residence; ones civil rights are not determined by majority rule.

The Constitution protects all persons in the United States from the capricious excess of state and local governments:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

The founding fathers did the best they could in the political climate of the times. Advocating "All men are created equal" in the 18th century was groundbreaking

However, trying to equate the needs of an 18th century impoverished America to a 21st century Superpower is foolhardy. Each generation must establish the type of government that best meets the needs of their era (within the framework of the Constitution)

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

You went with the liberal amended version of that quotation that is used dishonestly to present an opinion that Jefferson did not hold. I'm not saying you are dishonest, but those who amended it were.

The original version:

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

Thus a provision to amend the Constitution was included in the original document. And to assume that those who signed the Constitution were advocates of slavery is to totally dismiss the very clear record they left behind. The vast majority of the signers did not advocate slavery.

I went with the version inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial

Jefferson clearly acknowledged that the needs of the people would change over time. The amendment process is to change the Constitution not to block judicial interpretation

Those who signed the Constitution were willing to kick the slavery can down the road. It resulted in war and 600,000 dead Americans

Still keeping it honest. . . .

Cato Institute Fellow and University of Alberta history professor emeritus Ronald Hamowy has called the inscriptions "[p]erhaps the most egregious examples of invoking Jefferson for purely transient political purposes." Hamowy argues that:

Planned and built during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the walls of the memorial are adorned with quotations from Jefferson’s writings, many of which suggest that Jefferson advocated positions consistent with the aims of the New Deal—with which he would, in fact, have had little sympathy. Thus, Jefferson’s admonition that an educated electorate was essential if liberty were to be preserved is transmuted into a call for universal public education. And his caution that man, as he advances in his understanding of the world, must accompany his greater enlightenment with changes in his social institutions becomes a justification for a new theory of government in keeping with the social-democratic principles that animated the New Deal.[17]. . . .
Jefferson Memorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really should quit while you're ahead. If you are trying to make a case for a different version of Jeffersonian philosophy, you're going to have to do with it with his own words, and not what some liberal wants him to have said.

 

[rightwinger]

You went with the liberal amended version of that quotation that is used dishonestly to present an opinion that Jefferson did not hold. I'm not saying you are dishonest, but those who amended it were.

The original version:

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

Thus a provision to amend the Constitution was included in the original document. And to assume that those who signed the Constitution were advocates of slavery is to totally dismiss the very clear record they left behind. The vast majority of the signers did not advocate slavery.

I went with the version inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial

Jefferson clearly acknowledged that the needs of the people would change over time. The amendment process is to change the Constitution not to block judicial interpretation

Those who signed the Constitution were willing to kick the slavery can down the road. It resulted in war and 600,000 dead Americans

Still keeping it honest. . . .

Cato Institute Fellow and University of Alberta history professor emeritus Ronald Hamowy has called the inscriptions "[p]erhaps the most egregious examples of invoking Jefferson for purely transient political purposes." Hamowy argues that:

Planned and built during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the walls of the memorial are adorned with quotations from Jefferson’s writings, many of which suggest that Jefferson advocated positions consistent with the aims of the New Deal—with which he would, in fact, have had little sympathy. Thus, Jefferson’s admonition that an educated electorate was essential if liberty were to be preserved is transmuted into a call for universal public education. And his caution that man, as he advances in his understanding of the world, must accompany his greater enlightenment with changes in his social institutions becomes a justification for a new theory of government in keeping with the social-democratic principles that animated the New Deal.[17]. . . .
Jefferson Memorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really should quit while you're ahead. If you are trying to make a case for a different version of Jeffersonian philosophy, you're going to have to do with it with his own words, and not what some liberal wants him to have said.

Interesting historical spin

Still doesn't negate the fact that Jefferson acknowledged the needs of future generations to establish the government they need and doesn't change the quote

Hamowy is a "libertarian" historian. So, of course his historical interpretations will reflect those views

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is it that wonderful of a document? You'll notice that most nations that copied its structure have not been stable. Have you considered that our stability may be largely based on luck?

True, things such as geography and an abundance of natural resources have contributed to America’s greatness.

The genius of the Constitution isn’t so much the document itself, but its case law as interpreted by the courts, reaffirming fundamental principles of freedom and liberty generation after generation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The founding fathers did the best they could in the political climate of the times. Advocating "All men are created equal" in the 18th century was groundbreaking

However, trying to equate the needs of an 18th century impoverished America to a 21st century Superpower is foolhardy. Each generation must establish the type of government that best meets the needs of their era (within the framework of the Constitution)

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

You went with the liberal amended version of that quotation that is used dishonestly to present an opinion that Jefferson did not hold. I'm not saying you are dishonest, but those who amended it were.

The original version:

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

Thus a provision to amend the Constitution was included in the original document. And to assume that those who signed the Constitution were advocates of slavery is to totally dismiss the very clear record they left behind. The vast majority of the signers did not advocate slavery.

I went with the version inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial

Jefferson clearly acknowledged that the needs of the people would change over time. The amendment process is to change the Constitution not to block judicial interpretation

Those who signed the Constitution were willing to kick the slavery can down the road. It resulted in war and 600,000 dead Americans

Correct, judicial review predated the Constitution, it was well-established in Colonial America as a fundamental aspect of the law:

In England, the by-laws of corporations had been subject to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations. Eventually, legislation from all the English colonies was limited by the principle that it could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed around 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council and the crown reviewed over 8,500 colonial acts.

In 1787, the Framers of the Constitution simply presumed that judges would continue this practice by voiding legislation repugnant to the Constitution. A few Framers worried about the power; however, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase noted that, although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the constitution void, general opinion, all the Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court justices had so decided.

The Ethics of Prosecutors - Boston College

 

[Polk]

Nobody before or since has EVER copied that document. Every other nation assigns the rights that the people will have. The U.S. Constitution does not.

Are you kidding? For most of the 20th century, most Latin American constitutions were functional copies of ours.

 

[Polk]

Is it that wonderful of a document? You'll notice that most nations that copied its structure have not been stable. Have you considered that our stability may be largely based on luck?

True, things such as geography and an abundance of natural resources have contributed to America’s greatness.

The genius of the Constitution isn’t so much the document itself, but its case law as interpreted by the courts, reaffirming fundamental principles of freedom and liberty generation after generation.

Courts have been very effective at shaping interpretation in a way that's been a net positive, but that highlights one of the great weaknesses of the system: it only works as long as people consider court decisions valid.

 

[regent]

Is it that wonderful of a document? You'll notice that most nations that copied its structure have not been stable. Have you considered that our stability may be largely based on luck?

True, things such as geography and an abundance of natural resources have contributed to America’s greatness.

The genius of the Constitution isn’t so much the document itself, but its case law as interpreted by the courts, reaffirming fundamental principles of freedom and liberty generation after generation.

Courts have been very effective at shaping interpretation in a way that's been a net positive, but that highlights one of the great weaknesses of the system: it only works as long as people consider court decisions valid.

Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?

 

[Polk]

True, things such as geography and an abundance of natural resources have contributed to America’s greatness.

The genius of the Constitution isn’t so much the document itself, but its case law as interpreted by the courts, reaffirming fundamental principles of freedom and liberty generation after generation.

Courts have been very effective at shaping interpretation in a way that's been a net positive, but that highlights one of the great weaknesses of the system: it only works as long as people consider court decisions valid.

Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?

Yes. Most people without a legal background find the notion odd, but the purpose of appellate courts is to apply these foundation legal doctrines that exist outside and predate the Constitutional framework.

And a clause granting judicial review would not have strengthened the Court. The Court's power of review is pretty firmly ingrained at this point. The bigger threat is lack of enforcement power.

 

[regent]

Courts have been very effective at shaping interpretation in a way that's been a net positive, but that highlights one of the great weaknesses of the system: it only works as long as people consider court decisions valid.

Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?

Yes. Most people without a legal background find the notion odd, but the purpose of appellate courts is to apply these foundation legal doctrines that exist outside and predate the Constitutional framework.

And a clause granting judicial review would not have strengthened the Court. The Court's power of review is pretty firmly ingrained at this point. The bigger threat is lack of enforcement power.

Executive's job, but it reminds me of Jackson's supposed, let the court enfoce it.