Rights You Thought Were Protected by the Constitution But Are Not
- Thread starter KyJim
- Start date
Evan Thomas
Inactive
A majority of those delegates also thought slavery was OK. Times do change.
I always thought the 'vote' was that which was guaranteed, but not the 'voting.' That our government requires a vote to elect specified representatives, but that a particular individual's vote is not specifically protected nor regulated (because that matter was set up for the states to decide, and many/all of the original states had good reason to restrict decision making to a certain chunk of the population --the land-owning, educated, white males who quite literally ran everything as a matter of course)
I would agree subsequent amendments, wise or no, have essentially guaranteed the vote by infringing upon the states' original power to regulate it. The Voting Rights Act isn't even an amendment, and yet it has had this effect over large swaths of the US.
TCB
I would agree subsequent amendments, wise or no, have essentially guaranteed the vote by infringing upon the states' original power to regulate it. The Voting Rights Act isn't even an amendment, and yet it has had this effect over large swaths of the US.
TCB
Spats McGee
Administrator
A given proposition is not made constitutional by majority suppport, either of delegates or the population.
I mentioned this in another thread that reminded me of this, but protesting governmental actions may be a right at some level, but that level doesn't include immunity from arrest and prosecution. Even the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested. Multiple times. For a more recent example, George Clooney was arrested.
Just saw this on the local news, and it reminded me of this thread. Ohio man sentenced to hold 'BULLY' sign jeered, taunted
If the quote was about flogging, this doesn't really apply as the man wasn't effectively flogged. If the question was just of being put in the stocks, this seems very very similar. Stuck in public, in a humiliating situation, mocked and vilified by the citizenry passing by.
If the quote was about flogging, this doesn't really apply as the man wasn't effectively flogged. If the question was just of being put in the stocks, this seems very very similar. Stuck in public, in a humiliating situation, mocked and vilified by the citizenry passing by.
That guy has some choice, though. He could refuse and then have to serve all that probated time.
BTW, I do know that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to castrate criminals. Skinner v. Oklahoma -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma
BTW, I do know that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to castrate criminals. Skinner v. Oklahoma -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma
Mike Irwin
Staff
Another one that we on staff deal with more than we like to...
You do not have the Constitutional right to say anything you want in an on-line forum.
You do not have the Constitutional right to say anything you want in an on-line forum.
Times change but the U.S. Constitution does not...
Times may change but the U.S. Constitution does not. The text and meaning of the U.S. Constitution are the same as when it was written and signed. If you apply a different meaning to the U.S. Constitution than was used when it was signed, then you are upholding a law that was never passed in the first place. If the U.S. Consitution is to be changed, then it should be done legally through Amendments, not illegally through judicial subversion.
Vanya said:
Times may change but the U.S. Constitution does not. The text and meaning of the U.S. Constitution are the same as when it was written and signed. If you apply a different meaning to the U.S. Constitution than was used when it was signed, then you are upholding a law that was never passed in the first place. If the U.S. Consitution is to be changed, then it should be done legally through Amendments, not illegally through judicial subversion.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Everyone needs to remember a very important thing about the Constitution...
It does not, nor was it ever intended, to stand alone as the only document of law governing the United States.
If it were such, then the Framers would have stopped writing after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted.
But they didn't, they kept writing the US Code, the body of laws that works within the framework of the Constitution.
'The text and meaning of the U.S. Constitution are the same as when it was written and signed.'
No, not really, because the Framers put into place a mechanism by which the Constitution could be amended, as laid out in Article V, and it has been amended numerous times in the past 220 or so years.
The Bill of Rights were, literally, the first amendments to the Constitution as it was written.
It does not, nor was it ever intended, to stand alone as the only document of law governing the United States.
If it were such, then the Framers would have stopped writing after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted.
But they didn't, they kept writing the US Code, the body of laws that works within the framework of the Constitution.
'The text and meaning of the U.S. Constitution are the same as when it was written and signed.'
No, not really, because the Framers put into place a mechanism by which the Constitution could be amended, as laid out in Article V, and it has been amended numerous times in the past 220 or so years.
The Bill of Rights were, literally, the first amendments to the Constitution as it was written.
Actually... not.
BUT (big but), enough decided that the slavery issue would irrevocably divide the delgates
to where overall approval of the Constitution would fail... and therefore the concept of the
'United States' fail as we know it. Ergo, let it slide for the vote at the time.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3241
They figured they could resolve that pesky issue at a later time.
(...and we know how that turned out.)
Last edited: