Skip to comments.
Ignorant About the American Constitution?
Capitalism Magazine ^
| December 10, 2003
| Walter Williams
Posted on 12/10/2003 11:22:04 PM PST by luckydevi
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: joanie-f; Jeff Head; First_Salute; dixie sass
These constitutional threads spark little interest among the "general population" of FReepers, so I feel free to post a large "suitable for framing" .jpg without getting flamed.
These cartoons were published in Harper's Weekly in New York City on October 4, 1862:
21
posted on
12/11/2003 1:58:03 PM PST
by
snopercod
(The federal government will spend $21,000 per household in 2003, up from $16,000 in 1999.)
To: Congressman Billybob
If I remember correctly from Civics classes and American History, it is not the Supreme Court that makes law, but Congress.
Somewhere along the way we forgot that.
22
posted on
12/11/2003 2:20:45 PM PST
by
dixie sass
(Meow, pfft, pfft, pfft - (hmmmm, claws needed sharpening))
To: luckydevi
"general welfare" BUMPMARK
To: tpaine
'General welfare' and 'regulate commerce' are our undoing.
24
posted on
12/11/2003 2:29:33 PM PST
by
Liberal Classic
(No better friend, no worse enemy.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
The comments by the esteemed Dr. Walter Williams fly in the face of alot of the manure you've been shoveling about your interpretation of the Constitution and the powers you believe that the Congress legitimately possesses.
25
posted on
12/11/2003 2:32:47 PM PST
by
Spiff
(Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
To: ETERNAL WARMING
It sounds to me ,from your post ,you have been freeping around here lately.. you forgot anyone who wishes to discuss the Constitution is a troll, and is the "ugly face" of Conservatism.
To: snopercod
Thank you for the ping.
27
posted on
12/11/2003 2:59:21 PM PST
by
dixie sass
(Meow, pfft, pfft, pfft - (hmmmm, claws needed sharpening))
To: luckydevi
Walter E. Williams bump!
28
posted on
12/11/2003 3:02:10 PM PST
by
k2blader
(Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?)
To: snopercod
As far as I am aware, historically, there was no insurrection. Although the South and in particular South Carolina was the first to actually seceed from the Union, the New England states had discussed seceeding from the Union not many years prior to the south and for basically the same reasons.
29
posted on
12/11/2003 3:07:43 PM PST
by
dixie sass
(Meow, pfft, pfft, pfft - (hmmmm, claws needed sharpening))
To: Liberal Classic
Worse yet, "general welfare" now includes the general welfare of the world, according to the Supreme Court.
30
posted on
12/11/2003 3:31:38 PM PST
by
snopercod
(The federal government will spend $21,000 per household in 2003, up from $16,000 in 1999.)
To: snopercod; Jeff Head; First_Salute
Not up to responding to all of your excellent posts tonight (will do so soon), but just wanted to share this photo with you all. It's not at all related to this thread, but hit me hard when I first saw it today. Thought you might all appreciate it as well:
31
posted on
12/11/2003 7:29:41 PM PST
by
joanie-f
(All that we know and love depends on three simple things: sunlight, soil and the fact that it rains.)
To: Jeff Head
It looks like the underlying premise of your reasoning is that the people have no retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish. The opposite of that is an underlying premise of my reasoning and I did not see anything in your reasoning to cause me to accept your premise over mine.
If my premise is correct, and the people have the Constitutionally retained right I stated and exercise that right, then seems to me that amounts to Constitutional authorization.
And this is the (probably unintended) consequence of an amendment to the Constitution. But just because consequences are unintended doesn't mean they don't exist.
Note that lower down in the Declaration of Independence it says that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, which relates to what I tried to lay out. Still further down are complaints about what the Government or the King did that the people did not want done, but there are also complaints about what the Government or the King did not do that the people did want done.
By the way, I don't very much like the implications of my reasoning, though that's irrelevant.
To: KrisKrinkle
It looks like the underlying premise of your reasoning is that the people have no retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish. No, that is not the premise of my reasoning.
The people do have the right, and the people have already outlined at the Federal level, in law, how that right is to be exercised. That's what the US Constitution is all about.
If it is not done through the amendment process, it is illegal, by definition, and by the direction of the people themselves through the ratification process, meaning the consent of the people.
So, we have the right, and at the federal level we have already defined how that right is to be exercised.
Now, my other point was that if the federal officials themselves begin circumventing the process (which all three branches of government have been doing for decades), then ultimately, like with the revolution, the people can resort to their natural right as outlined in the DOI to throw off such usurpations.
IMHO, the premise you are setting forth is that the people have the power to usurp the ratified, legal amenement process through their federal legislators that they themselves (the people) have ratified and directed those legislators to use. That, unless I am reading this wrong, is the fault I find. It's like the people saying...do it this way (the legal, ratified amendment process) and then turning around and telling their legislators that it is okay to violate it and break their oath. That leads, by affirmation, to what we already have...them breaking their oaths and circumventing the constitution, thinking that "the people will approve". They are trying to call this democracy...when this Republic was never intended to be a pure democracy in the least.
That may be the defacto state...but it is wrong, illegal and unconstitutional altogether.
Jeff
To: Looking for Diogenes
Don't forget the Air Force. There's no amendment authorizing that either. No amendment is needed for the armed forces. Amendements are for things not found in the body of the constitution.
34
posted on
12/12/2003 6:37:55 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
To: KrisKrinkle
In brief, while the Founders had no authorization to do things that would fall within the category of "bread and circuses", if the people have the reserved power to do those things, they have the right to have the Founders successors do those things on their behalf, and by doing so the people give the Founders successors authorization. Nonsense. If they desire that, they have been provided the means, it's called constitutional amendment.
35
posted on
12/12/2003 6:41:14 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
To: luckydevi
Look at who was eligible to vote at the time of the establishment of the Constitution.
Look at who is able to vote now.
Universal Sufferage doesn't work without safeguards on, oh heck, the USSC doesn't believe in safeguards, or the Constitution.
To: luckydevi
Maybe we need to wipe the entire legal slate clean with respect to Constitutional law, and start again, on the right track - with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Federalist Papers as the ONLY doucments the nine idiots on the Supreme Court are permitted to employ, and only in the same sense the original framers intended.
37
posted on
12/12/2003 6:57:17 AM PST
by
ZULU
(Remember the Alamo)
To: Protagoras
No amendment is needed for the armed forces. Amendements are for things not found in the body of the constitution. I see mention of the army and the navy, land and sea forces. I don't see any mention of the "armed forces" or any air forces. Can you give me the citation where you find in the Constitution the term "armed forces."
To: Looking for Diogenes
You are obtuse. Purposely or otherwise. End of discussion.
39
posted on
12/12/2003 11:31:06 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
To: Protagoras
No more obtuse than those who seem to claim that because Social Security is not mentioned in the Constitution it is therefore unconstitutional. Many legitimate activities of government including Social Security and the Air Force, are not in the Constitution explicitly but are nonetheless constitutional.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson