Do You Know What the Constitution Really Says?

Townhall.com ^ | September 14, 2011 | Rebecca Hagelin

[Iron Munro]

Imagine if Progressives were held back by "rigid ideas of what government could or could not do"!

[ArrogantBustard]

What are the 5 freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of peaceable assembly. Freedom from the establishment of a religion. Freedom to practice one's religion. Freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

That's six, not five, and I'm right.

Your question is posed wrongly.

Try reading the Constitution some time.

[Phlyer]

Whatever 9 lifetime political appointees say it says.

That's their opinion.

If we let them get away with it - meaning, we don't take steps to overrule them through the other branches - then We, the People will have concurred. But it is that concurrence that makes it so. The most important words in the Constitution are not, "We, the Justices of the Supreme Court . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It's "We, the People. . ."

In some cases - in fact, in a lot of cases - I find the logic and decisions of the Supreme Court to be compelling, and so I - as one of We, the People - agree with what they say the Constitution says. In a few high-profile cases I disagree. If enough people agree with me (and not with them), then we have the ultimate power to 'interpret' the Constitution through the ballot box.

Unfortunately, for a lot of "We, the People" the faded words aren't worth the parchment they cover. But that is our fault, not the justices. They're just politicians who are getting away with it.

[ArrogantBustard]

BTW, here's the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you want to be pedantic, it protects three freedoms and two rights, and imposes a restriction upon the government.

[Phlyer]

That's a very interesting picture, and it carries with it an implication that those who are to one side try to uphold the Constitution, while those to the other side do not.

That's a good question to ask, and like a horse race there can be real differences of opinion on it.

One of the interesting corollaries to that spread is that most of the more modern presidents are on the side of trampling the Constitution while most of the earlier ones are on the other side - with a notable exception of Reagan.

Unfortunately, if that is the true spectrum being displayed, then Lincoln belongs well over on the other side. And while I'd put George W. Bush well in the midst of traditional democrats like FDR and Kennedy, there is no way he is more to the 'trample' side than LBJ. (Lots of subtle things in this image, like GWB standing with the tramplers but looking at the respecters - a great thumbnail of his presidency.)

Thanks for sharing it.

[Kaslin]

His paintings are awesome

[tnlibertarian]

That's six, not five, and I'm right.

Your question is posed wrongly.

Try reading the Constitution some time.

Out of curiosity, are you a prick all the time, or just when you can hide behind the anonymity of the internet?

[C210N]

No, it is NOT BS.

Perhaps, though, I could have worded my statement better. You read it inverted - i meant that Most-to-all ‘rats don’t understand the constitution, but, giving a morsel, perhaps there are a small few who do. It goes hand-in-hand with members of the ‘rat party.

[ArrogantBustard]

What you see is what you get, bubba.

Out of curiosity, do you throw vulgar insults at strangers in real life, or only behind the anonymity of the internet?

[tnlibertarian]

I call 'em as I see 'em.

Judging by your handle, it's the reaction you're trying for, anyway. I should've recognized the personality flaw sooner, and I wouldn't have fed it.

[Ted Grant]

I know a deeply principled, free market conservative guy that once insisted that the postal system shouldn’t be run by the Federal Government because it was unconstitutional for it to be involved in such a tast. He went on and on on this theme - very thoughtful and very principled.

Then I told him the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to pass laws regarding establishing post offices.

Just shows to go you: for too many folks of all political stripes, being “principled” means turning your brain off at the door. :-)

[ArrogantBustard]

Hey, n00b, do you have any comments on the facts being discussed?

No?

Didn't think so.

Tells me everything I need to know about you.

[ArrogantBustard]

BTW, are you and that appalachian guy actually the same person using two different screen names? The sign-up dates on the two profile pages are within a week of each other.

[tnlibertarian]

So, the answer to my original question is ‘all the time’. Thanks.

[tnlibertarian]

BTW, are you and that appalachian guy actually the same person using two different screen names?

No, but that is an interesting coincidence. Oh, and he's right, it's 5.

[appalachian_dweller]

1. Press
2. Religion
3. Speech
4. Assembly
5. Redress of grievances

You counted freedom of religion twice. Now go away.

[appalachian_dweller]

Stop the name calling and learn to count.

[Jacquerie]

Anyone can break any law, that doesn't invalidate the law

Well said. The Constitution, despite some laughable Scotus decisions, still means what it says.

[Repeal The 17th]

OBAMA:
“...What kind of country would this be
if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare
just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?...”

[Darth Reardon]

Suppose someone mentions that gold and silver are money and paper is not supposed to be money under our Constitution. That the fiat currency we now hold is absolutely illegal. What will be the reaction from the Liberals and even many Conservatives to that?

Perhaps to challenge you site a reference.