SmarterthanYou
rebel
you have a fundamentally flawed viewpoint of the amendment process then.
irrelevant.
no we haven't
House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines Read more: http://www
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
how so? what did i state that is not accurate?
yes it is. currently we do not have the right to engage in this type of religious activity, is this not the government prohibiting the exercise of religion?
you said we the people created the constitution. marbury v madison interpreted the constitution and we the people have acquiesced. we could overturn that case anytime we want.
Good Luck
New member
If there is a chance the government would use a nuclear weapon against the People, then, yes, the people should have access to them. But, since doing so would be, essentially, suicide, the idea is ludicrous in the extreme. Not even Saddam was so insane with his need for power. Quit sounding like \\(\()/)//, taichi, dune, bear, and the liberal brain dead.
Do YOU believe that, because of some impossible, quit stupid, extreme example a "bad" result of unlimited rights, that a right should then be controlled by the government as government sees fit? I do not. I believe in liberty - WITH responsibility. And that is exactly what the founders handed us in the Constitution. Rights are unlimited because the founders believed government should not have any authority to limit them. There is no mincing of their words. NO LAW, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, etc. are absolute phrases. If the phraseology limiting government's power is absolute, how can ANYONE then claim the government can still place limits? Where does it say, or even remotely imply, "...make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...except for reasonable limits"? Where does it say, or even remotely imply, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for reasonable limits"?
How many times does it take for you to get it: the RIGHT is unlimited. But being unlimited does NOT mean one can hide behind the right to escape consequences for malicious or negligent actions which result in harm to others. You cannot be prosecuted for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. You CAN be prosecuted for deliberately causing a harm or a harmful situation. That is the purpose of the fire example. They were NOT saying the right to free speech is limited. They were saying that HAVING that right does not mean one can do harm with it and escape the consequences.
The rulings ARE technically unconstitutional. But what should we expect? The courts system is part of the government, and government will always look out for government first. They violate the wording of the Constitution. People have just gotten so used to the idea that the Constitution does not actually mean what it says, (thanks, progressives, for that particualr contribution to the death of liberty) that they blindly accept when the courts rule on what some WANT it to say.
But, if ENOUGH people want the Constitution to say something different, THAT is when they have amended it. Amending is the CORRECT way, the ONLY correct way, to change the Constitution to say something other than what it currently says. Which in turn means amending is the only correct way to change the meaning of the Constitution, since it means what it says.
Good Luck
New member
Nothing, since you have not been stating much, but rather implying false conclusions through carefully phrased questions.
No, it is protecting people from harm caused by the actions of others. The law is not against religion, it is against committing murder (and/or assisted suicide, which was illegal until a short while ago.) Again, rights are unlimited. But using that fact to try and escape consequences for deliberate or negligent harm is not permitted. You may not see the difference, but the difference is fundamental to our system. Rights are absolute. Government can NOT make a law making it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, because not all instances of yelling fire in a crowded theater are harmful. Government cannot constitutionally limit our rights, they can only respond when a person causes harm. (Unfortunately what government can constitutionally do, and what they DO, are often somewhat, if not radically different.)
A delegation of elected people wrote the Constitution. The people, through their state legislatures, ratified it. That is how a constitutional republic works. There were reasons the founders rejected a democracy. You can look them up at your leisure.
Since then, all three branches of government, including the judicial, have been encroaching and outright violating the limits the Constitution placed on them. And yes, we, the People, (at least an unfortunately large majority) have acquiesced.
That does not make it constitutional. Nor right.
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i've made conclusions numerous times.
your belief prohibits the free exercise thereof by claiming an act, which is integral to the practice of their religion, is illegal. you're mincing words and skirting the issue by claiming it is the act, not the religion, but that completely ignores that it is apart of that religion. same with the peyote cases. because peyote is illegal, your logic is - the government is not prohibiting the exercise of religion, rather, they are prohibiting the use of peyote. however, that completely ignores that peyote is integral to their practice of religion. you sit in judgment of their faith and by making peyote illegal, their right to practice their religion is not unlimited.
it may not make it right, but it does make it constitutional under the laws of our country. don't like it, change it.
Good Luck
New member
No, it does NOT make it Constitutional. The Constitutions says what it says and means what it says. Courts have usurped the authority to tell the People what the document says. But calling a buzzard a swan does not make the ugly critter swim. The laws are still unconstitutional be cause they violate the worded intent of the Constitution. That is the very definition of unconstitutional.
What has occurred, as I stated before, is a large enough majority have come to accept these results, often because they agree with the results. The problem is a court decision can be overturned later with little more than a set of judges decides the decision was wrong. Now, that is good when the previous decision was plainly wrong, like Dred Scott. But, we are seeing it applied today to GOOD decisions, like the exclusionary rule. By declaring evidence gained in illegal searches off limits to prosecute the crime, they stated that the government should not be allowed to benefit from violating the Constitution. It protects the rights enumerated in amendments 4, 5 and others. But recent decisions are eating away at the exclusionary rule, by allowing evidence gained illegally, under certain circumstances. (Well, gee whiz, yur honor, we THOUGHT we had that danged warrant!!) So what we have is a protection of one of our most basic rights which can literally be withdrawn from us by a plaintiff, a couple lawyers, and, from the originating court up through a simple majority of SCOTUS, about 9 wrong judges. 9 men have the authority to overturn the exclusionary rule. Not much protection for us there, is it? But that is the kind of "constitution is a fluid document" thinking gets us. Paper thin that can be taken away any time. If they can search us illegally (as long as it's accidental), if they can forbid us firearms they think we are too stupid and untrustworthy to own, what other rights do we have that they can NOT take away, if all it takes is 9 or so judges TELLING us what the Constitution really means? The idea that rights are limited simply implies that government has the authority to define and apply limits to our rights - an open invitation to have ALL of our rights removed - for our own good, of course.
Now, what if we had done the CORRECT thing, and using the court's decision, admit a lack in the Constitution for consequences should government violate our rights, then written an amendment to plug that hole? If we had amended the Constitution to say what we wanted it to say: that the government is forbidden to gain from any violation of rights, then it would take 357 people to agree to send it to have (however many people are in 2/3 of the legislatures of 2/3 of the states) also agree to removing that protection. That's a lot of people, whose careers are dependent on keeping at least a high plurality of their constituents happy, to agree to reduce our Constitutional rights.
The thing is, using the intended process (after all, they wrote us instructions on how to make changes) for changing the meaning of the Constitution simply makes sense for the continued existence of our Constitutional rights and protections. If we allow government to tell us what it means, those meanings will drift (and have drifted) toward a stronger, more intrusive and, eventually, more tyrannical government.
I do my best.
Do you? Or do you not want it to change?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It's not something you stated, as much as it sounds like something you're assuming. The government doesn't amend the constitution, we the people do. either through our federal representatives or our states. There are two ways to initiate the amendment process and they both start with the people.
a majority of the people may have acquiesced, you are correct. whether that's through apathy or sheepledom, who's to say. but we the people still have the ability to maintain all of our rights in the face of oppressive goverment through jury nullification.