If I may, since some don't wish to read it on their own:

Wayne,
It is good that we all read it and take its whole meaning away from it and not just the bits and peices we like. I for one like the 10th amendment, but it hasn't been fashionable in more than a hundred years. At least since the Civil War. What would our country look like if we actually just really believed in the 10th amendment?

I enjoy the 9th too.

I think what happens when government is small and relatively weak, it doesn't affect much in our lives, so there isn't much stake in it for many. When government usurps the powers of the state and controls every aspect of our lives, then we do have a stake in what goes on, and then we have to divide ourselves into Republican/Democrat - Liberal/Conservatives and fight the other to preserve or defeat a position that government had no legitimate right to interfere in in the first place.

Right now the government for good intentions I am sure, has decided that it needs to tell me how much water my toilet can flush, or how hot my water heater can make my water, and what is and is not acceptable to injest, consume or get rid of. As a matter of fact, it tells my church what can and cannot be said from the pulpit (501 (C) iii status is pretty important to the life of a church now). The government tells me that an 18" barrel on my shotgun is fine, but a 17 5/8ths barrel is a felony all the while the constitution is telling the government that my right to whatever gun "shall not be infringed".

So- I believe we should read the entire constitution and either change it to our liking, or do what it says.
 
"I for one like the 10th amendment, but it hasn't been fashionable in more than a hundred years. At least since the Civil War. What would our country look like if we actually just really believed in the 10th amendment?

I enjoy the 9th too."

Personally, for me it really isn't that much of a like/dislike sort of thing. For me, it is utter disgust that those 2 ammendments have been of no real effect since the 1860's, when that terrible war was fought and the issue lost. Since then, the Federal Government has gradually usurped power from the states pretty much at whim, under the guise of the "Commerce Clause". Our forefathers must be rolling over in their respective graves right about now...
 
Where in #5 or #6 does it say that police must stop questioning you if you're in custody and ask for a lawyer? Looks like we've been doing it wrong ever since Miranda!!!! And apparently you don't have a right to a bench trial. You're required to have a jury trial.

"I for one like the 10th amendment, but it hasn't been fashionable in more than a hundred years. At least since the Civil War. What would our country look like if we actually just really believed in the 10th amendment?
Click to expand...

I like all of them, and their subsequent evolution through case law too.....
 
Last edited:
I like all of them, and their subsequent evolution through case law too....
Click to expand...

Evolution? I think of it as corrosion. And I do not believe that we have a living Constitution which "evolves" to represent a form of government other than that which was originally intended.

We have strayed from the Constitution. It is my belief that a man must choose between the Constitution and what we have now. I choose the Constitution i.e. sovereign States and limited federal government.

Isn't is something how some people can say that the US is sovereign in all matters, and that the States have no rights but are just administrative units of federal government, and all the while claim that they respect the Constitution?
 
Hugh:

Amen, Brother! I say again: Our forefathers must be rolling over in their respective graves right about now.

Evolution? BULLHOCKEY! The constitution remains as it was, ammeded and all. But the government has gradually come to ignore certain ah, inconvenient passages as it sees fit, and twist certain other passages as it sees fit. If you really want to know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote this document, read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. And just how does that stack up with what now passes for case law? The judges apparently have forgotten where we came from, and could care less what the architects had in mind.

Corrosion? Good term. Erosion works as well. Each wrongful judgment chipping away at the foundation, each wrongful judgment shifting us farther away from that republic that was established so long ago, and the ideals of limited government, freedom and liberty it was based on.
 
"I'd like to see federal legislation proposed requring the government to follow the Constitution."

Yah, right -- like they are actually going to vote to do that, and like it would have any chance of passing. Of course, they CLAIM to be following it now. Too bad they aren't.

--------------------
Added:
The problem with this is that the majority of the sheeple out there actually LIKE a vast, powerful all encompassing federal government that hands out goodies and acts like a nanny. They WANT to be safe and secure at the expense of liberties that they don't regard as all that important to their daily lives. They aren't about to vote to reign in a vast federal government as long as that government isn't "unduely" picking their pockets (taxing somebody else is ok, though), as long as they are on the receiving end of the largesse. "What's in it for me?" they ask. GIMME, GIMME, GIMME. And do whatever you want to as long as you make me feel good and get the bad guys.

Bread and Circuses. I fear for this nation.
 
I am sick and tired of all the clever arguments made that attack and erode the Constitution.
Too often, prosecutors act like it is just an inconvenience to be cleverly got around.
And then we have meatheads like Larry Flynt claiming to be "a friend of the 1st Amendment." Bulloney, Larry! It is people like him who make the freedom of speech harder to justify and defend.
 
Evolution? I think of it as corrosion. And I do not believe that we have a living Constitution which "evolves" to represent a form of government other than that which was originally intended.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you disagree with all the resultant case law that put more restrictions on the police?
 
Hugh, I think you'd be doing a diservice to yourself by ignoring Frank. He may not be posting things you like, but they are informative and based on current law. For the record, I believe in what Frank is saying.
I also believe that the Constitution was made to be changed as the people saw fit, over ever changing times. Our country cannot move forward without revisiting this document and amending where necessary. It is only proper that we ensure our laws hold true to the Constitution, but that they may also serve the people who are living in 2005, not the 1700s.
That is the reason that the Islamic fundamentalists are in such dire straits. They are trying to live in the 21st century by abiding word-for-word the Quran and shari'a law. They do not want to change, and that is why they are hiding out in caves, executing women and chopping off limbs. All based on laws from centuries ago.
 
So in other words, you disagree with all the resultant case law that put more restrictions on the police?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights about police or any "powers" that they may have.

I do see the thing about the Militia securing the security of their states, but damned if I can find anything about police.

Wayne
 
They are trying to live in the 21st century by abiding word-for-word the Quran and shari'a law. They do not want to change, and that is why they are hiding out in caves, executing women and chopping off limbs. All based on laws from centuries ago.
Click to expand...

Good analogy. It took General Crook a long time to get those Apaches to stop cutting off the noses of adulterous women too in the late 19th century!!

I don't see anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights about police or any "powers" that they may have.

I do see the thing about the Militia securing the security of their states, but damned if I can find anything about police.
Click to expand...

Well, the police are here to stay. Sorry. What about case law?? Ignore it when it restricts the police?
 
Did they do away with the "ignore" feature?
Click to expand...

Hugh, just click on my name, then "public profile" then click the "ignore list" part. Then you can get back to discussing the legal or political ramifications of shooting people with different kinds of bullets, or which politician is most likely to sponsor a bill that will let you hunt with a tactical nuke when it's only muzzle loading season.....

Man you have been eating your wheaties huh Frank?
Click to expand...

Nah, just couldn't sleep and now I'm sick of watching the Wiggles with the kids....but I do have to go to the jazz club now...Catch you later daddy-o.....
 
"I also believe that the Constitution was made to be changed as the people saw fit, over ever changing times."

Absolutely correct. And there's an established procedure contained within the framework for doing exactly that. It is called the constitutional ammendment.

And that's the problem with relying on subjective standards such as case law. What happens is that one or a panel of judges gets to determine what the constitution "means", colored through their own preferences, often to suit their own or their benefactors' whims. Such decisions become part of the body known as "Case Law". The problem with case law, and the procedure that leads to it often known as "Legislating from the Bench" is that it shortcuts the will of the people, it shortcuts the people's representatives in the legislative and executive branch, and it makes mockery of the very constitution it pledges to uphold.

It becomes government by the appellate judge instead of government by the people & their representatives.

There's no way to fire those @$$holes, they get to make up law as they go, to suit their own ideals once they make it to the bench. And guys like Frank get to quote them on it, justifying their proposed slippery slope on those very same rulings. It becomes the law of the loophole, the law of the "Gotcha" clause, the law of the "Wherever did they come up with that? What were they thinking?" rulings. It becomes the "Hey, they are doing that over in the E.U. and it sounds nice to me, so why not do an end run around Congress and dictate it here?" ruling.
 
There's no way to fire those @$$holes, they get to make up law as they go, to suit their own ideals once they make it to the bench. And guys like Frank get to quote them on it, justifying their proposed slippery slope on those very same rulings.
Click to expand...

I believe they're impeachable. As far as justifying what I do at work, I just work with the tools that the legislature gives me in the form of statutes, and enforce them the way the Federal and State courts tell me I can.
 
On this thread and on the other, I don't think that anyone is going to change their positions.

So, it's nothing more then a lost cause.

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