Q&A approach to opening new understanding

[Jack]

As John Maynard Keynes said, "When my information changes, I change my opinion.

Absolutely. To believe in absolute truth is to close the possibility of any further inquiry.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said:
What Osborn also needs to know is that some of us take partisan positions for very legitimate and heartfelt reasons. For example: I am a true-blue Clinton DLC Democrat. Before the '92 elections, the last politician I'd gotten genuinely excited about was Jon Anderson in 1980. A centrist independent. When I began watching the Democratic primary debates leading up to New Hampshire in '91, I didn't know Bill Clinton from a hole in the ground, but after 3 debates I was absolutely dumbstruck at not only how well thought out his positions seemed to be but how closely they matched my own thoughts... at least in those areas I'd given thought.

I say:
I too agree with a lot of what Clinton said, but I don't think his actions in all areas lived up to what his promises on "intent" were. He did a lot that was bad, one of the worst was an executive order 13107 giving the soverignity of the U.S. to the U.N. in times of extreme crisis, such as what would be incurred by a legitimate armed revolt by the people. This is not sound in any manner, nor is it in ANY way Constitutional. Also, notice the debates he was in. Limited debate between a couple parties. No full debates, with all parties. Even if YOU don't deem the other parties as valid, they have legitmate angles on many things, that can bring out flaws in the major parties stances, and this is CRUCIAL in our system.

Sonart said:
So yes, I'm a statist. I believe there's a reason why we abandoned the Articles of Confederacy for a democratic republic, and why Lincoln decided that a national identity was more important than the individual states. It was an evolution of an expanding nation. That nation of 30 million people in 1865 is now a nation of 290 million people living in a society that is complex beyond anything our founders could have imagined. Our constitution MUST evolve because we face issues and conflicts never even conceived of in the wildest imaginings of 200 years ago. And without a strong national identity, and a corresponding strong nation government, we may as well simply divide the nation up into 4 or 5 smaller nations from which people can pick and choose what national identity they want... Bible Belt Conservatives, Southern White Conservatives, North Eastern Labor Liberals, West Coast Socially liberal Pragmatists, etc., etc.

I say:
While I understand your fears of fragmentation, one has to wonder at what cost should we draw the line of unification? How many liberties, ideals, religions etc, will be outlawed before we draw that line?

I personally, view the Constitution as the limiting factor. The problem is, it has long been legislated into near oblivion. There is now no basis for most of the laws we have, since every level of the Constitution has been changed by civil law, as opposed to Common Law, which is what the Constitution DEMANDS must be done, in order to remain "Constitutional". Regardless of where the line is, do you agree or disagree that there are civil laws that exist that remove or impose regulation directly from the federal government to the citizens? If you do, then there is a clear definitive line of where we must address problems. Most laws are created out of need. If there is a need for a law, there are many ways to approach the problem, and the problem must be analyzed to see if it is a problem caused by other laws, or is it a legitmate problem based on rights. If it is another law, maybe we should question the necessity and functionality of the law that creates the problem. Regardless of which though, all problems can be addressed constitutionally, and there is no legitimate need to violate it.

[bishop]

Quote by: osborn I want to debate law, rights and Constitutional issues, not philosophy issues, at least in THIS thread.

the thing about any set of laws is that they're always subject to rhetorical arguments. and the thing about the constitution was that it was not soley influenced by philosophical ideals - it was heavily influenced by public opinion. certain bits of language were either omitted or watered down because certain states would have opposed it.

these two pieces - the timeless use of rhetoric plus the fact that the constitution itself was subjected to public opinion - are solid reasons why perceptions of the document's language have evolved (or devolved depending on your pov) over the years.

the legislature makes certain decisions based on public interest. those decisions could be supported by the majority of the public, or by a small handful of elite interests.. nevertheless, the legislature's primary concern has always been to represent their constituents (of course, money pollutes this - but does not eliminate it).. and depending on the issue, the public may hold their own interests higher than certain stipulations/limitations stated in the constitution. many americans want universal healthcare, for example - even though the constitution makes no mention of healthcare being a function of the federal government (i wonder if its writers would've even thought of it in their omission).

when the legislature pushes something through that has strong support, the supreme court has repeatedly taken public sentiment into account. MANY rulings have taken public opinion into consideration in fact. (this is in line with the fact that the constitution itself factored in public opinion.)

and the most important point - technically, nothing is unconstitional unless the supreme court rules as such. this is spelled out clearly in the constitution and this truth really can't be refuted. if you're looking for a purely legal answer, that's it. people who oppose certain pieces of legislation use the timeless art of rhetoric to argue their case, but the decision lies with the supreme court.

i certainly support many policies/laws that do conflict with the constitution's verbage.. it just so happens, though, that all of these policies (to the best of my knowledge) have not been ruled as being unconstitutional - therefore they ARE constitutional. in some other cases, such as fiat, the court has ruled in favor of fiat.

and just one more point on public opinion (which is a huge factor in all policy decisions and supreme court rulings)... peoples' mentalities can change over time. it can be argued that forcing the public to live with a rigidly perceived constitution, which would prohibit all sorts of federal initiatives, would limit their freedom. there are instances where the best decisions are not necessarily constitutional. a shining example of that was the louisianna purchase. it can be easily argued that the purchase wasn't constitutional, but since it was such an incredibly good bargain, nobody was about to push the issue in the courts.

[zynner]

Quote by: Sonart So yes, I'm a statist. I believe there's a reason why we abandoned the Articles of Confederacy for a democratic republic, and why Lincoln decided that a national identity was more important than the individual states.

Did Lincoln have the legal authority to single-handedly change the Constitution?

If yes, can you cite that authority?

If no, can you state a principle that allows anyone to do such a thing?

Quote by: Sonart Our constitution MUST evolve because we face issues and conflicts never even conceived of in the wildest imaginings of 200 years ago.

When it is time for the Constitution to evolve, by what process should it?

Why was the 18th Amendment passed (banning alcohol)? Why did they bother passing a constitutional amendment? Why not just have Congress pass a law? Why not just have the president declare it so?

What principle was involved in passing that amendment?

What principle can you cite that would support the idea of amending the constitution in any way other than the way specified in the document itself?

Quote by: Sonart And without a strong national identity, and a corresponding strong nation government, we may as well simply divide the nation up into 4 or 5 smaller nations from which people can pick and choose what national identity they want.

Do you think the South had a right to seced in 1861?

Do you think the American colonies had a right to seced in 1776?

What principle states that a people can or cannot "disband the political ties which bind them" when they so choose?

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Isherwood To believe in absolute truth is to close the possibility of any further inquiry.

That is an absolute statement.

Therefore, you must not believe it.

Gotcha! ;-)

~ zynner

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said:
the thing about any set of laws is that they're always subject to rhetorical arguments. and the thing about the constitution was that it was not soley influenced by philosophical ideals - it was heavily influenced by public opinion. certain bits of language were either omitted or watered down because certain states would have opposed it.

these two pieces - the timeless use of rhetoric plus the fact that the constitution itself was subjected to public opinion - are solid reasons why perceptions of the document's language have evolved (or devolved depending on your pov) over the years.

I say:
But, the Constitution is a contract between the people, and the Federal Government. We are "allowing" them to rule, based on a set of rules. Those rules can only be viewed through the lens they were signed in under, since as we know, contracts are only valid if they are abided to by the letter. In order to do that, one must almost have a dictionary of the times it was written, and if it exists, I would love to have it to share.

The government we currently have, and have had, swears in to uphold and protect that contract, and we the people hold them to that, or it is OUR JOB to do that. If the people are intentionally misled due to manipulation of laws that have been created within a 100 years, which also those hundred years happens to be the 100 years that embodied the most change ever known to public communication options, and speed, it must be viewed as being extremely critical to the decision making process since information is pouring in from all angles, and we can't check every source, for every piece of information we are bombarded with. Public "perception" of their position can be affected by the media, and has been provable since WWII.

Also, let me point out US Code: Title 18-241, conspiracy against rights, as outlined in the Federal Constitution. This is a US Code law that can be used to punish those I am speaking of for their legitimate violations.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

There is no denying that we CLAIM to be a Constitutional system, yet we have laws that contradict each other all over the place between the Constitution, and civil law. This in iteself, CAN NOT BE, and still be Constitutional.

Do you see my point here?

Bishop said:
the legislature makes certain decisions based on public interest. those decisions could be supported by the majority of the public, or by a small handful of elite interests.. nevertheless, the legislature's primary concern has always been to represent their constituents (of course, money pollutes this - but does not eliminate it).. and depending on the issue, the public may hold their own interests higher than certain stipulations/limitations stated in the constitution. many americans want universal healthcare, for example - even though the constitution makes no mention of healthcare being a function of the federal government (i wonder if its writers would've even thought of it in their omission).

when the legislature pushes something through that has strong support, the supreme court has repeatedly taken public sentiment into account. MANY rulings have taken public opinion into consideration in fact. (this is in line with the fact that the constitution itself factored in public opinion.)

I say:
You forget though Bishop, the Constitution while allowing change, SPECIFIED the only legal way with which to effect that change. Not following this procedure, is clear violation of its own laws. Public opinion can not change the Constitutionally enumerated rights, nor can it infringe upon those rights, and still maintain the usage of the system since it becomes a contradictory piece of pointlessness.

If you back laws with the basis of the Constitution, they must abide by it, or they share no relation, and more importantly, the government inflicting that damage is no longer a valid representative of the people, by law.

Bishop said:
and the most important point - technically, nothing is unconstitional unless the supreme court rules as such. this is spelled out clearly in the constitution and this truth really can't be refuted. if you're looking for a purely legal answer, that's it. people who oppose certain pieces of legislation use the timeless art of rhetoric to argue their case, but the decision lies with the supreme court.

I say:
It is funny you mention that, because in all points of the matter, I may have just closed my evidence to a Supreme Court case, which hopefully, once prepared, will be picked up by a lawyer seeking recognition, since it is this system with which I fight that has removed my right to defend myself in a court of law. If I could represent myself, I would, but because I can't I have to depend on the hope that a lawyer will state his career in a landmark, nation changing case. A tall order, created by the system of which I speak. That is why I am here, asking for all of you to help argue your points of fact, so that I can poke as many holes in this case before hand.

Bishop said:
i certainly support many policies/laws that do conflict with the constitution's verbage.. it just so happens, though, that all of these policies (to the best of my knowledge) have not been ruled as being unconstitutional - therefore they ARE constitutional. in some other cases, such as fiat, the court has ruled in favor of fiat.

I say:
As of now, you are correct. That is because most have not been competently challenged. I am working on that, and all of your assistance is appreciated. It is only in the mass acceptance that this ruling matters, which is why I do it. We all as citizens though, have the right to withhold taxes from the system in pursuit of this case, as this petititon for redress of grievance clearly states.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...etitionFed.htm

Bishop said:
and just one more point on public opinion (which is a huge factor in all policy decisions and supreme court rulings)... peoples' mentalities can change over time. it can be argued that forcing the public to live with a rigidly perceived constitution, which would prohibit all sorts of federal initiatives, would limit their freedom. there are instances where the best decisions are not necessarily constitutional. a shining example of that was the louisianna purchase. it can be easily argued that the purchase wasn't constitutional, but since it was such an incredibly good bargain, nobody was about to push the issue in the courts.

I say:
I don't think you can name one problem that can't be addressed and corrected constitutionally. There are other options for everything we have now, and not a single one must be a federal issue. If you wish to address a couple, I will respond in kind. The Louisiana purchase happened, we can't change it now, but I definitely feel it should have been addressed, and in some ways still could be better addressed than through tax breaks to indian revervations.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zynner said:
When it is time for the Constitution to evolve, by what process should it?

Why was the 18th Amendment passed (banning alcohol)? Why did they bother passing a constitutional amendment? Why not just have Congress pass a law? Why not just have the president declare it so?

What principle was involved in passing that amendment?

What principle can you cite that would support the idea of amending the constitution in any way other than the way specified in the document itself?

I say:
You are following my line of logic exactly Zynner. I beleive that the prohibition amendment was a test of the waters by the already corrupt system, which then sought to change the way the people "viewed" their rights and the law, on order to affect the change sought by the believers in the ruling elite, and the concept of the New World Order.

[Sean]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready While that is the way the surface of the big picture looks, can you say it was arrived at honestly by the people finding their own "rut" through exploration of ideology, or being led to it by selective coverage by a corporate manipulated media, since about the end of World War II.

The latter of course; very few people actually decide their party identitification/ideology based on their own “exploration”. When did people ever do this? I honestly do not see this as possible. The user Zynner nailed the political climate reality right on the head when he said:

Quote by: zynner I would like to remind you that just over 100 million people voted out of a total population of nearly 300 million. Around half of those eligible did not bother to vote at all. You can hardly claim they like the current political situation. They don't even want to participate.

We can barely get the populace out to vote, and the most recent turnout numbers were considered high. This has more to do with the amount of elections we have (too many) in my opinion, and less with public interest. I think most people have a short attention span; some just gave up trying to keep up with our immensely complicated process, while others go out and vote their party id once every four years.

What I am trying to say is that I find it unrealistic to expect a large portion of the electorate to explore their political ideology. I think the closest we can get to such a goal is through the very same outlet that causes most of the problems, the media. Perhaps a more informative media would encourage people to do such personal “exploration”.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The Constitution was written in plain English so all could understand it very simply. There are rights, that we deem sacred, and those rights are the only essential things you need to understand to fully understand the reach of the law. That makes laws creation relatively simple, since you don't OUTLAW everything, you simply draw a common sense line as to where the limits are, and then investigate the case specifically, the job of the court.

I guess I just do not think everyone views such core principles in the same manner. I think the social climate will determine what certain principles mean. Our outlook changes, so the meaning behind our core principles must to.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready we have corporations that have become a burden, because they can't sustain in a business enviroment of their own accord(some due to infringement on the free market by protectionism) we are being asked as taxpayers, to BAIL THEM OUT, so they can CONTINUE to fail. That is not how capitalism was designed, or intended to be used.

Right, and I agree for the most part. However, I think a case-by-case evaluation of major companies needs to be done in order to save jobs. That is, if by bailing out a company we prevent major layoffs that would cause a deeper blow than corporate welfare should we save a company?

Sorry if I missed some quotes, I am new to this role on the forum

[Osborn F Enready]

Sean said:
The latter of course; very few people actually decide their party identitification/ideology based on their own “exploration”. When did people ever do this? I honestly do not see this as possible.

I say:
People throughout history have placed education on a pedestal, so people can make more informed choices about how to better themselves, and their communities and nation. As I said, this is the job of the media, and why newspapers were created. The question to me is, when did the media get the gall to only serve news that served its own political, or economic ends? This is a reason to review FCC policy of the past, and where and how the airwaves we use everyday came from, and who actually owns them. How else could you have all of these major networks delivering the same news, scoop for scoop, if not coercion of "some" type? Every channel you pick, especially the 24 hour networks, are like copies of one another in the "stories" and "angles" they cover. The only difference is they approach them from black or white, either or. They rarely if ever cover questions the other ones dont, and if so, they are partisan based. Even the people in charge of the media, have admitted to their "self perceived" missions.

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
-Richard Salant, former President of CBS News

Sean said:
We can barely get the populace out to vote, and the most recent turnout numbers were considered high. This has more to do with the amount of elections we have (too many) in my opinion, and less with public interest. I think most people have a short attention span; some just gave up trying to keep up with our immensely complicated process, while others go out and vote their party id once every four years.

I say:
It is unfair to label all the non-participants into one group. Many don't participate for many different reasons. I would agree that many dont out of the sheer complexity of the system, but that complexity is a product of the mess created by contradicting laws, and lack of accountablity at ALL levels of government. Right now, we have allowed the entire system to be swallowed by two major parties, and this has only happened over the last 156 years, but mainly over the last 60 years since the advent, and abuse of media. They are synergistic problems, that spawn a myriad of other problems just because they exist.

Sean said:
What I am trying to say is that I find it unrealistic to expect a large portion of the electorate to explore their political ideology. I think the closest we can get to such a goal is through the very same outlet that causes most of the problems, the media. Perhaps a more informative media would encourage people to do such personal “exploration”.

I say:
I agree. One of my biggest contentions in my thread about the problems in the U.S. (link in second post, this thread) is that the media has been overtaken by elitist minded individuals, as well as policed by a group of hard corps editors kept in line with things such as those set forth in "project Mockingbird." You have to realize that the majority of these problems bloomed right before the beginning of WWII, and since then, have been spiralling in all directions from spawning new laws, new precedents, and new "concepts" of law. This is only happening because we have not been getting educated correctly about law, government, and our role in it for at least the last 75 years.

This is why I support, and advocate support of things like this, and I commend McKinney on her resolve, which has been growing since her personal beleifs of a frauded presidential election have been proven, to her satisfaction personally:

U.S. Representative McKinney Censored in Congress
Reviewed by Charlene Jones

Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) used the word “impeachment” on the House floor but, she said, it was not reflected in the official transcript of her September 8 description of “high crimes and misdemeanors visited on the American people.” In a speech entitled Tremendous Challenges that Face our Country, McKinney recounted the incompetence of the Bush Administration in addressing the needs of hurricane Katrina victims and the policies of Republican elites responsible for rampant poverty and an increased racial divide. Questioning everything from the lack of action on Katrina to rewarding the rich, the congresswoman later promised to use the word repeatedly on the House Floor until she sees it reflected in the Congressional Record.

www.rense.com/general67/specorder.htm

If they have the balls to censor the Congressional Record, there is no limit to their blatant abuse. How can I not suspect, if not attempt to prove coercion in the media, if things like this are happening

Sean said:
I guess I just do not think everyone views such core principles in the same manner. I think the social climate will determine what certain principles mean. Our outlook changes, so the meaning behind our core principles must to.

I say:
Regardless of principles, we must all acknowledge and accept the basis for our legal system. If the system can't exist and function under its agreed to limitations, we must design a new system, and cast off the old one that we don't follow. Otherwise as I said before, tyranny and hipocrasy are blatantly evident, and that is enough cause in itself to warrant LEGAL revolution.

Sean said:
Right, and I agree for the most part. However, I think a case-by-case evaluation of major companies needs to be done in order to save jobs. That is, if by bailing out a company we prevent major layoffs that would cause a deeper blow than corporate welfare should we save a company?

I say:
If we bail them out, what incentive is there NOT to fail? We are giving them incentive TO fail by bailing them out. This is opposite logic, or reverse cause and effect.

[Sean]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If we bail them out, what incentive is there NOT to fail? We are giving them incentive TO fail by bailing them out. This is opposite logic, or reverse cause and effect.

The incentive would be huge dividends for a successful company. I am not advocating we bail out every company. However, if the company is going to be an unprofitable one, and is going to fail, then it better be employing a ton of American workers to make it worth saving.

This has been a fun debate. I'll keep an eye on it.

[Dirty Name]

Since this is sounding more and more like a Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Justice Osborne F. Enready, allow me to play the role of a Senator on the judiciary committee:

Justice Enready, please share with the committee your views on the constitutionality of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Also, please share with us IF you believe the Constitution enumerates a basic right to privacy, and if so, where you find that right.

[zynner]

Quote by: Dirty Name Also, please share with us IF you believe the Constitution enumerates a basic right to privacy, and if so, where you find that right.

This is an attempt to re-write the Constitution.

The rights of the people are not enumerated. They don't need to be. They pre-exist it. Read the 9th Amendment (and the entire Bill of Rights, for that matter).

The Constitution was not written to define the rights of the people. It was written to define the limited powers of the federal government, and to a lesser exent the state governments.

I can point to the enumeration of the power of the federal government to pass bankruptcy laws. I can point to the clause stating that the federal government has only those powers enumerated. I can point to the clause stating that the Constitution -- not congressional votes -- is the supreme law. Therefore, I can support the proposition that the federal government has the power to pass bankruptcy laws.

Can you cite where the federal government was ever granted the power to make laws having to do with privacy at all?

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready when did the media get the gall to only serve news that served its own political, or economic ends?

My take on the media is, it is neither a liberal nor a conservative slant. Rather, it is a statists' slant.

Media "jouralists" (if you can call them that) go to universities to learn their craft. American universities today are full of statist professors. Their salaries, grants, scholarships, and livelihoods are entirely dependent upon the state. The state (federal, state, local) has an inherent self-interest in promoting a pro-statist viewpoint and agenda. You will never see an officially-sanctioned textbook that says something bad about the US government, except a few isolated instances where some other government person rode in on a white horse to save the day.

An example is that Americans are taught that Abraham Lincoln "freed the slaves." Not only did he do no such thing, he was in favor of shipping them off to Liberia, Africa. He belonged to a popular organization that created Liberia for that very reason. But Lincoln was the first link in a chain of the statist's illegal abuse of power. So, they will never, ever say a bad word about him, even though he was a de-facto dicator who trashed the Constitution. The point is, the universities will only teach views that are consistent with statist ideology.

Those who go into journalism are generally people who want to "do good works." If they are led to believe that only the state can "do good works," then we can't really expect them to come out with a journalism degree and view the world from a different view. To do that would require continued learning beyond and outside of the university. Those who do that sometimes are able to show that the statist view is flawed (men like John Stossel). Most, though, probably just give up because their paycheck demands they don't rock the boat.

Then, you have the executives. Some of them are former journalists with similar mindsets, while others were educated in business schools. It is generally in the best interests of any media business to promote a statist viewpoint because it is just easier to report on what the president is doing than 50 different governors. You also have the problem of the government claiming to "own" the airwaves and, therefore, the media businesses needing to also not rock the boat -- just as journalists who want press passes to White House briefings, so to the executives want to stay in business.

In addition, there is a much deeper incestuous relationship between big business and big government than most people realize. An example is that the Federal Reserve gives grants to universities. Since the FR promotes Keynesian economics, you can be sure that any department not promoting this statist economic view will not be supported with the big bucks of the FR (which controls the money supply, yet has always refused being audited -- so we really don't know how much money they make). It was when the statists infected the universities, paid by your tax dollars, that the media began to change.

Another issue is, government censorship on the media also has had a chilling effect on a free press. This is yet another reason why Lincoln was America's worst president ever. He threw reporters in jail who disagreed with him (without trial), shut down newspapers who printed negative stories of him (no laws gave him this power), and set a precedent that the government can control what the media does (a direct violation of the Constitution).

If the system can't exist and function under its agreed to limitations, we must design a new system, and cast off the old one that we don't follow.

I think advocating this is a mistake. There are many statists who would jump at the chance to do this.

For all its flaws, one great thing you can say about the US Constitution is this: it says what it says, for all to see who will see it.

As long as that document exists as the supreme law, any person can take the time to read it and ask themselves: If the Constitution really says that, then how come the government doesn't seem to do what the Constitution says?

As long as you have that, you have the ability to show people what the reality is. Most people never bother to read it after high school, when they are told by their government teacher what it "means." Even lawyers are taught by the government professors what it "means."

But being able to actually read it as an adult, without a government teacher influencing you to think a certain way, is proof that the elephant really is in the room -- no matter what anyone else tries to pretend.

~ zynner

[Sonart]

Quote by: zynner Did Lincoln have the legal authority to single-handedly change the Constitution? If no, can you state a principle that allows anyone to do such a thing?

Did Lincoln single-handedly change the Constitution? Are you suggesting that Lincoln's defiance of a State's "right" to leave the Union if they so choose exceeded his authority? Then so be it. The guiding principle is simple, declared in the Gettysburg address...

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

...the question of whether a nation conceived on the principle of a democratic republic, composed of States 'United' under a constitutional federal government, can actually succeed as a nation. Recall that at the ratification of the Constitution, the United States was an entirely new and unique experiment in national government, a democratic republic, never seen in history. If it's component states are simply allowed to leave willy-nilly when they so choose, then the experiment of a constitutional democratic republic becomes a failure, having proven that such a nation cannot exist without disintegrating at the first sign of regional dispute.

As to Lincoln's authority...

Article I Section 10 -- Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Additionally, federal law states you cannot take up arms or commit treason against the federal government, and as Commander in Chief, Lincoln had the authority to execute that law, by force of arms if necessary

Quote by: zynner When it is time for the Constitution to evolve, by what process should it?

Simple...

Article III Section 1 -- The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

...meaning when there is any question as to whether an act of legislation - a law - is or isn't constitutional, those questions shall be resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States and in such inferior courts -- specifically the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal -- established by Congress.

FOR EXAMPLE: questions arising regarding the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...

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.

...the Supreme Court of the United States and all but one of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have determined that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is a qualifying statement that makes the right to keep and bear arms conditional on it's necessity for the maintainance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution.

The current and standing U.S. Supreme Court legal precedent on this issue remains, United States v. Miller, March 30, 1939... "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "Shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

This ruling has since supported and clarified by the various Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal... with the exception of Texas, of course. Friggin' Texans are out to screw us yet :rolleyes: ...

1st Circuit Court -- Thomas v. Members of City Council of Portland, 1984 -- second amendment applies only to weapons that have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

2nd Circuit Court -- Bach v. Pataki -- Accordingly, we hold that the “right to keep and bear arms” does not apply against the States and affirm the district court’s dismissal of Bach’s Second Amendment claim.

4th Circuit Court -- United States v. Johnson, 1974 -- "The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a `reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

6th Circuit Court -- Stevens v. United States, 1971 -- Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.

9th Circuit Court -- Silveira v. Lockyer, 2002 -- After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the words employed in the amendment's two clauses, and the effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that the language and structure of the amendment strongly support the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective state militias, and the amendment's operative clause establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving the right of the people to "bear arms" -- to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia. . .

10th Circuit Court -- United States v. Oakes, 1977 -- To apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy. This lack of justification is even more apparent when applied to appellant's membership in "Posse Comitatus," an apparently nongovernmental organization. We conclude, therefore, that this prosecution did not violate the second amendment.

Therefore, when the NRA pontificates that you have a individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms, they're lying to you.

.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready SoccerfreakAB2 said: Osborn, take off the constitution cloak and listen to what I'm saying. You sound like a devout theist with his Bible. We can change the constitution and we've done it plenty of times. Don't speak like its the ultimate authority over everything and everyone. We can change it for a reason. People, ideas, technology, all evolving, all changing. I say: You are right to a degree (legally). We can change the Constitution if we follow ITS oultined procedure to do so. If we don't abide its rules, why have it? It was designed as a "system" of law, and you cannot have a system of law when the lawmakers break their own rules, or hypocrisy and tyranny are evident. We claim to uphold it, yet we have allowed the central government to pass laws encroaching EVERY single right within it, NATION wide, therfore removing any citizens chance to get away from laws they find abhorrent, unjust, unconstitutional. The system isolated itself in the New Deal, and all the changes you speak of I beleive came AFTER the New Deal, which literally abolished all the checks and balances within the Constitution. Why would they claim to uphold something, when they violate every single limitation emplaced on them by the document? Could it be fear of being seen as "treasonous"? There are only certain ASPECTS of the document that can be changed by amendment. SoccerfreakAB2 said: As for born leaders and those fit to rule, are you saying you could have led the attack on the beaches of Normandy, or you could easily fill the job of the president for a week? Or maybe you could be captain of the Brazilian soccer team for a season or two. We have faults and weaknesses as humans, and we have our strengths. Leadership and learning (or will of) are strengths of humans. I know what your thinking. Maybe that I'm some knucklehead who wants ultimate power, or to give someone ultimate power, or to put complete trust into the ideal human leader. That is not true. I generally like our system of representative democracy, yet the representation portion needs fixing, not replacement. I say: I am not, nor have I ever, suggested replacing the Constitutionally allowed system, only the parts that the system has changed AGAINST the Constitution. Would you agree this president, as well as all Congressmen and Senators SWEAR in to uphold, and defend the Constitution? If so, they need to be tried for treason. SoccerfreakAB2 said: In the beginning the power was not derived by the people, it was derived by the delegates of the colonies who signed the Constitution and put it into effect. The power was then kept in place by the people, not derived from the people. The "people" can change and alter the system, but they didn't start it. I say: Not true, or at least, not fully true. The power was derived from the people, and yes, they can change the system if DONE by constitutional provisions. No government, state or federal or local, can change the law in violation of the Constitution. Do you disagree? If so, show me where this power is described in the Constitution, since that is what LAWMAKERS swear in their service to uphold and protect. Our representatives are our last line of defense in keeping protected from federal tyranny. They have failed on numerous occasions with no threat of accountability due to violations occuring over such an expanse of time, that the people couldn't effectively raise argument to the problems while those that changed the laws were in office. Accountability may be long gone, but the point of the matter is simple. Either we abide by the Constituion, or we stop acting as though we abide by it and scrap it. Which is your choice? SoccerfreakAB2 said: I'm sad to see you find it ok for our nation to be divided amongst ourselves. You are so obsessed with rights and choices that you are blinded by their effects. Let's look to history about this sectional division among nations. I say: I find it hard to believe you think this argument has sound backing. I can show you that every government that has had direct authority over its citizens, has led to tyranny of all sorts, from economic to social. My case in history has been proven time and time again, yet I do not see and line of logic in the example you posted. My examples? Lengthy,factual opinion on the problems in the US I have many, so if you wish to see more, just ask and I will try to explain or provide links where necessary. You completely disregard the creation of a Federal Bank, the reason for creation of paper money, the derision of power, and where it is delegated. Those are essential to proving your points.

The people are not repsonsible and cannot make decisions regarding the constitutionality of the acts and laws of congress. That is the job of our judges and elected officials.

The New Deal has no relevance to the government of today.

What parts of the government have been changed to go against the constitution? And make sure they are legitimate and not changes that are interpreted by our judges.

The president, congressmen, and senators swear to uphold the constitution. Do they always do a good job? No. But we're human and American and we're too busy with our lives to vote in good people, which leads me to one conclusion that it is not our government your attacking, but the LEADERS of the government that we've voted it. Why are they bad? Because they are human and are bad. Why are some worse than others? Because, generally speaking, we don't take time anymore to weigh the candidate proposals to carefully select our representatives. Most of us don't put it on the priority list. It's probably right behind "take the kids to soccer practice" and ahead of "feed the dog."

Tell me exactly HOW the people derived their own power and not the delegates who debated and finally created the constitution.

"They [representatives we vote in] have failed on numerous occasions with no threat of accountability due to violations occuring over such an expanse of time, that the people couldn't effectively raise argument to the problems while those that changed the laws were in office."

The representatives fail us, not the government system.

Ok, maybe my historical example was confusing, so I will restate my state division one, which is just like the Spain one, and I want to hear why and how the division of states socially and religiously is justified:

"Say New Jersey has a large amount of Muslims as their leaders and main population. With a central government, they have little religious authority over law making. With more power to the states, they can give more power to the Muslim religion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just speaking hypothetically. With more power to the Muslims in New Jersey, why would you want to live in New York, where say more Catholics live and are being treated better? Now you have a growing population of Muslims in NJ and more and more Catholics in NY. This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION."

A divided nation is ineffective, violent, and will cause more harm than an ineffective and violent central government. In the latter case, the people are united and are strong in numbers and can overthrow a violent and completely ineffective government. In the former case, the people are divided and are fighting amongst each other and have no strong numbres to get any reforms accomplished. Civil is a common effect of this division. Look at the United States civil war for example, in why two sides of the nation disagreed over an economical advantage, but a social disadvantage (slavery). Prove me otherwise historically or by another means that these divisions either will not happen, or will be positive for our nation, if that term has any meaning to you.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name:
Since this is sounding more and more like a Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Justice Osborne F. Enready, allow me to play the role of a Senator on the judiciary committee:

I say:
Ohhh, kinky. Your in to role playing? LOL

Dirty Name said:
Justice Enready, please share with the committee your views on the constitutionality of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

I say:
First off, let me say that the Supreme Court has been corrupted for at least 60 years, and this has effected not only the decisions, but the cases heard before the court.

AS to your question, while I don't see it relevant, I will answer. I am not a study of all court cases, but I know some. Roe vs Wade has not been a big issue for me, because women have the right to abortion as of now. We have argued this case in several areas, at least two seperate threads. I feel the Constitution speaks clearly of what a citizen is, when a person becomes a citizen, and when a citizen has rights. In the U.S, some of our rights are enumerated in the Constitution, but not all. The ones that are not enumerated, are pretty much non-existent now, in this day and age. The enumerated ones, have been regulated and outlawed to the point of triviality.

In the U.S., a sovereign nation, we apply our rights as per the Constitution, which clearly describes the rights of its citizens. Our Constitutional rights surpass any nation (I know of) in the fact that all rights are essentially guaranteed from infringement by local, state, federal or outside authority. In order to have full rights in the United States, you must be a BORN or naturalized citizen. Notice how it states born, and not conceived. This should not have been an issue for the Federal Government, since their job is to apply Constitutional law to the case it has befo