Extracted Comment

K

Kelly J

New member
I was pointed in the direction of the ANTI FEDERALIST PAPERS for the other side of thre Argument for the ratification ofthe Constitution and on the first article there was this comment I thought very interesting and desided to post it for your thoughts.


"Citizens have failed to do their duty to independently determine the constitutionality and legality of official acts. They have been all too willing to delegate that duty to courts, superiors, or legal advisors. The Principle of Nuremberg is that the duty to make such a determination cannot be delegated. The U.S. Constitution was meant to be understood and enforced by every citizen, according to the intent of the Framers, and not according to the passions of the moment. We have seen what happens in other countries, like the old Soviet Union, when an otherwise good constitution is not enforced by every citizen. This is especially important when courts become corrupt, and interpret the Constitution in ways that serves not the people but their would-be masters".

http://www.constitution.org/jeffcrim.htm
Last Paragraph in HTML Format

Home Page of Above Doc. http://www.constitution.org/
 
Not much of a thought but it is yours, and that is what I asked for, so thanks for your input.
 
Last edited:
Well, I remember swearing an oath to defend the constitution, in fact it is the only one I have ever taken, and until I get married, the only one I will. I take it very seriously. That said, we live in a republic, if everyone interpreted things thier own way there would be no law. That is an anarchist POV. We have courts for a reason, and untill someone openly ignores the constitution, its not time to take the law into our own hands.

BlackwaterdontmindwildheissickandgrumpyOPS
 
I haven't read the Soviet constitution so I can't remark on that, but reading the Federalist Papers AND the anti-Federalist Papers is essential to understanding the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers disagreed on some points and the Constitution, in some areas, was a compromise.

badbob
 
The U.S. Constitution was meant to be understood and enforced by every citizen.
Click to expand...

What's "bulloney," anyway? The idea that the Constitution should not be dependent on legalese -- and those who "speak" it" -- for the population at large to get answers about whether certain laws or actions are constitutional?

I think it's a perfectly valid argument that the Constitution should be easy for the layman to interpret and apply.

If it can be interpreted only by "learned" people, then that means anything they say simply has to be accepted and lived with by those "lesser" people who aren't smart enough :barf: to understand the document.


Fact is, there shouldn't be anything so ambiguous in the Constitution that it needs more than a moment's consideration to figure out "what they meant."



-azurefly
 
Blackwater Ops, I really don't want to bust your bubble, but take note, there are Thousands of laws on the books denying, regulating, banning, and plans yet to do more in regard to the Second Amendment, which is in direct violation of that amendment, the McCain/ Finegold Bill that was signed into law by President Bush within the last 3 years directly Violates the First Amendment of the Constitution, That's two right off the top of my head and to the best of my knowledge these two BILL of RIGHTS are still a part of the Constitution, are they not?
 
Well, I will have to disagree with your quote and Jefferson (as quoted) in the linked article, to wit:

... the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever;
Click to expand...

The Constitution delegates to the Congress certain powers. These are laid out in Article I, section 8 which include but are not limited to...

* Regulating commerce between states and foreign nations
* To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
* Securing limited exclusive rights to authors and inventors (patent regulations)

And most importantly;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Click to expand...

One can argue that permitting Congress to make laws on, say patent rights, implies the ability to decide if remedies will be civil or criminal (or both) when a violation occurs. The power to make laws also implies the power to specify the penalties for breaking those laws too.

Congress has powers to make laws with certain restrictions. When a law is clearly against the Constitution then it is null and void. Unfortunately, judges and lawyers want use to believe only they can truly determine if a law is constitutional or not.
 
Blackwater Ops, I really don't want to bust your bubble, but take note, there are Thousands of laws on the books denying, regulating, banning, and plans yet to do more in regard to the Second Amendment, which is in direct violation of that amendment, the McCain/ Finegold Bill that was signed into law by President Bush within the last 3 years directly Violates the First Amendment of the Constitution, That's two right off the top of my head and to the best of my knowledge these two BILL of RIGHTS are still a part of the Constitution, are they not?
Click to expand...

Damn, how did I end up on this side of the debate? Look, you need to read what I posted and comment in this thread:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219213&page=3

I'm with you, I just think that if there was no uniform accepted process to interpret legislation, including the constitution, we would have anarchy. The problem is the people we have chosen(elected or appointed by people we have elected) are idiots. :mad:

What is it that you want exactly, the authority to enforce your own interpretation of the law? Should everyone have that?:confused:
 
BillCA said:
And most importantly;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Just the way Hamilton would have put it!

The "Implied Powers Doctrine," just like the so-called "Welfare Clause" negates the reasoning behind enumerating specific powers. If Congress can do anything under either doctrine, then the Congress has no limits whatsoever and we do not have a limited federal government, but an all powerfull government that has no limits whatsoever.

That is precisely where we find ourselves today.
 
Blackwater Ops, this was what I took issue with.

"We have courts for a reason, and untill someone openly ignores the constitution, its not time to take the law into our own hands".

No one is even suggesting we take the law into our own hands, and the only thing I personally have suggested is that we as a people need to take back the Government and return to a REPUBLIC FORM OF SAME WHICH AT PRESENT IT IS NOT.
 
BillCA , Bear in mind these articls were the ANTI FEDERALIST PAPERS, and it was a counter argument to the Federalist Papers so there wa intended to be discourse, it was offering an opposing point of view or interpritation.
 
ANTIPITAS, that is exactly why I am for regainning control of the Government through the Power of the VOTE to return this Government back to the Republic form of Government it was intended to be.

The Government has because of the People been allowed to grow way beyond the Constitution Limits, and if we as the People do not take it backand regain our control over it we will be forever insubjection to it as much so as if it were a MONARCHY, instead of a Republic.
 
Blackwater Ops, "I'm with you, I just think that if there was no uniform accepted process to interpret legislation, including the constitution, we would have anarchy. The problem is the people we have chosen(elected or appointed by people we have elected) are idiots".

To this I can agree, and the biggest mistake that has been made IMHO, is the appointment of activist Judges to the Supreme Court.

The Judges that are selected to the Supreme Court, I think should above all else must be very knowledgeable in all aspects of the Constitution, as it was written and intended, not as percieved and interprited.
 
As I remember, the lesson from Nuremburg was simple: If the reigning power, be it a President, a King or the local cop on the beat, tells you to do something unconstitutional, and you do it, you are as guilty as he. All too many defendants at the War Crimes Trials used the plea "I was just following orders." They were convicted anyhow.
The ordinary citizen here in the U S of A will probably never run afoul of this principle, but police officers and military personnel can and do. Each cop or groundpounder has to have enough background in constitutional law to be able to decide whether or not he will follow orders. We cannot tell them that there is one set of rules for them and another, stricter set for everybody else. That is anarchy!
 
Remember too that we also have the power of jury nullification but now some judges are specifically telling juries that they do not have that right.:mad:
 
Oldphart , You left out ther most important part of the statement, and that is that as a Military person you are bound to obey ALL LAWFULL ORDERS!
 
BadBob, here is an attempt:

Lawful \Law"ful\, a.

1. Conformable to law; allowed by law; legitimate; competent.
2. Constituted or authorized by law; rightful; as, the lawful owner of lands.
Lawful age, the age when the law recognizes one's right of independent action; majority; -- generally the age of twenty-one years.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Legal:

1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers.
2.
a. Authorized by or based on law: a legal right.
b. Established by law; statutory: the legal owner.
3. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations.
4. Recognized or enforced by law rather than by equity.
5. In terms of or created by the law: a legal offense.
6. Applicable to or characteristic of attorneys or their profession.
n.
1. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws.
2. legals Investments that may be legally made by fiduciaries and certain institutions, such as


Hope this helps.
 
kellyj, I would have agreed before I did my research. If all laws (i.e. lawful) were legal there would be no use for the Supremes in the black dresses. Their main job, supposedly, is to decide if a law, statute, or whatever is Constitutional. Legislators can pass all the laws they want, but, if the laws are "repugnant to the Constitution", they aren't legal.


"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

badbob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top