'Common Misunderstanding’ of Constitution Has Led to ‘Serious Erosion’ of Freedom [Video]

The Blaze ^ | Sept 8 2015 | Oliver Darcy

[Texas Eagle]

'Common Misunderstanding’ of Constitution Has Led to ‘Serious Erosion’ of Freedom

'Common Misteaching’ of Constitution Has Led to ‘Serious Erosion’ of Freedom

There. Fixed it.

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't know that judicial review, by itself, was a bad thing. The three branches were supposed to check each other. If the judicial branch invented judicial review, then the legislative branch should have pushed back by restricting the lower courts, a power they only used a few times.

The problem isn't when one branch exerts itself; the problem is when the other branches don't reassert themselves in response. Today we have the weakest Congress I have seen in my lifetime.

The states were supposed to be the final arbiter, until they neutered themselves with the 17th amendment.

-PJ

[PGalt]

‘Communists manhanding’ of Constitution Has Led to ‘Serious Erosion’ of Freedom

Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal.

You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

The Law - Bastiat

[SoothingDave]

And the 17th Amendment

[zeugma]

This professor is one of the few who've actually bothered to read the Letters from a Federal Farmer.

There were two arguments over the inclusion of the bill of rights. The Federalists argued against their inclusion, believing that by adding them to the Constitution, we would come to believe that only those rights enumerated were retained by the people (this is massively simplified, of course). Time has proven their arguments correct, in that you'll even find people here on Free Republic that don't believe there is such a fundamental right as personal privacy.

The Anti-Federalists whose side was taken up in the Federal Farmer argued that without listing some rights specifically the government would come to trample upon those rights without restriction.  Time has also proven them correct. Does anyone seriously believe the government would accept a right to keep and bear arms without it having been called out specifically by the founders?

[Yulee]

The Supreme Court itself has crippled freedom, writing laws by 5-4 votes of unelected Supreme Court justices who have lifetime tenure.

---

Did the Supreme Court itself set its own rules? What entity determined that there did not have to be a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, rather than a split decision, to determine the legality of a law.

It takes a unanimous decision to convict a man. Why not a unanimous decision to determine if a law is Constitutional. Where there is a dissenting opinion, there is doubt.

What happens when five of the nine believe that cannibalism, polygamy, bestiality,theft, murder, Shariah Law, wife beating, or any other activity considered immoral by most of our population is legal?

[100American]

To truly Learn one most not open only their mind, but their hearts as well...

People do not want to think unless it is focused on immediate gratification, and the Framers knew it, this is a primary reason we are a Republic and NOT a Democracy (mob rule)

May God have Mercy on America and bring her back to her true role in the World

[Dick Bachert]

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in men but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution” Thomas Jefferson

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” Daniel Webster

[Dick Bachert]

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in men but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution” Thomas Jefferson

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” Daniel Webster

[Dick Bachert]

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in men but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution” Thomas Jefferson

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” Daniel Webster

[DJ Taylor]

I find it unbelievable that the good professor could complete a five minute dissertation on the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional usurpation of power and not even mention Marbury V. Madison of 1803.

[Let_It_Be_So]

“It takes a unanimous decision to convict a man. Why not a unanimous decision to determine if a law is Constitutional. Where there is a dissenting opinion, there is doubt.”

Interesting. On the other hand, what if
1. a state (say, Massachussets) passed a law banning personal ownership of firearms,

2. it is appealed to the federal bench based on the assertion that it violates the US Constitution’s 2nd ammendment,

3. Federal judge upholds the state’s law

4. it is appealed to the USSC and it is also upheld because the vote was 8-1 (only one Justice ruled that the state’s ban on firearms was constitutional)

5. and since it wasn’t unanimous, the state’s law stands and firearms are banned. other states follow suit, etc.

[Tau Food]

In post 4, TexasFreeper2009 wrote: "It was the later amendments that gave the federal government near limitless power, especially the ones forced upon the nation by force after the civil war."

In post 17, DiogenesLamp wrote: "Another person who gets it. Ping to you other guys who don't want to believe it."

In this post, Tau Food writes: I don't agree. I don't think that those post Civil War amendments granted the federal government "near limitless power" and, for example, I don't think that the 14th Amendment granted the federal courts with the power to find that there exists a Constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

Are you sure that the right to homosexual marriage was envisaged by those who adopted the 14th Amendment? Isn't it possible that courts have exceeded their power and that they have misinterpreted that amendment? ;-)

[Yulee]

Of course the logical reply is that the voters of the state can change their laws, but no one can change a ruling of the unelected Judiciary.

We, for over a century were a union of states, but with the 17th amendment, and an overreaching Federal Judiciary, we have become something that our Founding Fathers would find abhorrent.

The Intellectual Elite make sure that anyone that does not meet their level of “political correctness” are slandered and tainted in the eyes of the general population.

The word “Democracy” is thrown about as an ideal, but our Founding Fathers established a Republic, in order to avoid mob rule.

We seem to be in the dying days of our Republic, just as the Wiemar Republic in Germany. The same elements that brought down that government are at work within our own nation. The different brands of socialist have aligned themselves with all sorts of radical elements in order to destabilize our government, believing that they will eventually win out.

The socialist in Iran were all in for the revolution, until they discovered that the tiger they had made a bargain with would eat them and dominate (the mullahs).

Hopefully our own patriots will stand for the Republic and revert our government to what the Founding Fathers intended.

[DiogenesLamp]

Are you sure that the right to homosexual marriage was envisaged by those who adopted the 14th Amendment? Isn't it possible that courts have exceeded their power and that they have misinterpreted that amendment? ;-)

It was most certainly NOT envisioned by the framers of the 14th amendment. Neither was "Anchor Babies" and Authorizing non natural citizen Presidents, or kicking religion out of public schools and government buildings/ceremonies.

But this is what happens when you write a bunch of sentimental crap with no clearly defined limits or boundaries, and then force it down people's throats at the point of a gun.

The courts are free to interpret ambiguity and the removal of restraints on their power in any manner they so wish.

The Framers of the 14th were idiots compared to the founders. They tried to do too much and they didn't work hard enough to get the meaning and intent right.

It is a gobbledygook soup, with predictable bad consequences. It is also a consequence of the civil war empowerment of the radical Republicans who were the "liberals" of their day.

[TexasFreeper2009]

The sneaky way the “equal protection” clause was written allowed for it to be interpreted as granting near limitless power to federal government.

Coupled with the commerce clause, the income tax amendment and the amendment to allow direct elections of Senators and the power of the states was completely neutered.

Then partisan politics rendered the built in checks on the presidencies power by the legislative branch obsolete and the destruction of our Republic was nearly complete.

All that remains is for the now all powerful president to destroy the courts and the transformation to a dictatorship will be complete.

[Tau Food]

The Framers of the 14th were idiots compared to the founders

I think if you read the original Constitution of the United States or the Bill or Rights, you'll find plenty of provisions that have "no clearly defined limits or boundaries." For example, the 14th Amendment's "due process of law" duplicated the 5th Amendment's "due process of law." And, what famous decisions interpreted "due process of law" in a rather extravagant way to help find a supposed "right of privacy" therein? Constitutions commonly use broad, somewhat vague terms for various obvious reasons. It's really not fair to hold drafters responsible for crazy interpretations

But, I want you to notice that you seem to prefer to blame the 14th Amendment (from the 1860's) rather than the misuse of that amendment in the 21st century. Do you think it possible that you do that because of your strong feelings about Lincoln and because you think that the 14th Amendment is easier to associate with Lincoln than a 21st century misinterpretation of the amendment?

Look at that stretch you're making, all because you have been wanting to blame Lincoln for homosexual marriage. As I've said before, that connection is very dubious. (In fact, you really cannot even properly blame Lincoln for the 14th Amendment.)

But you keep swinging at those bad pitches! :-)

[DiogenesLamp]

But, I want you to notice that you seem to prefer to blame the 14th Amendment (from the 1860's) rather than the misuse of that amendment in the 21st century. Do you think it possible that you do that because of your strong feelings about Lincoln and because you think that the 14th Amendment is easier to associate with Lincoln than a 21st century misinterpretation of the amendment?

I do that because when you track abortion to Roe V Wade, it asserts the 14th is it's basis. When you track the banning of prayer in public schools and the excising of religion in government buildings and ceremonies, that too tracks back to the 14th.

The "Gay" marriage things is a deliberate application of the "equal protection" clause. And so on.

Pick any subject regarding which the court decisions are wrecking the society, and you will find most of them are a consequence of the 14th amendment.

I figured this out long before I had any interest in learning more about the civil war. I started with abortion and worked my way backwards. Same on a lot of other subjects. A bunch of this modern crap converges on that point in history.

Look at that stretch you're making, all because you have been wanting to blame Lincoln for homosexual marriage. As I've said before, that connection is very dubious. (In fact, you really cannot even properly blame Lincoln for the 14th Amendment.)

This is like a guy racing his car out of control, hitting a fence, crashing into a house and setting it on fire. You are trying to say the fire is the result of actions beyond his control, and that his driving had nothing to do with it.

No, Lincoln's driving is definitely responsible for the crash and subsequent fire which burned through what were then established legal principles.

[HiTech RedNeck]

One can’t really “Equally Protect” everything in the sense that the modern activists claim to propound. Something is going to be thought the less, and probably is going to end up getting special opprobrium in an effort, begging the question, to justify that.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Unless, perhaps, one wants to go to a “fair lottery system” to determine who wins a particular face off. Okay, the Christians win the coin toss this time, but next time it might be the gays, and after that the animal rights people, and....

Laugh, but that’s the only “fair” way to do it under that kind of idea of “fairness.” Since there is stalemate, we need lotteries.