constitution

[BradAnderson]

What can we do to get our elected representatives to look at each bill against the constitution. How many of our elected representatives have read the constitution?

The Constitution means nothing, since the People have no power to enforce it against the federal government.
At most, it's a division of power between oligarchies such as the legislative and judicial branches-- as the federal courts arrogate more power to government than they deny it,via legislating from the bench.

Likewse, "reading" the Constitution isn't same as understanding it-- not by a longshot. For example, consider the following facts:

1. the Constitution forms a federal republic of states, not a single common joint-state or nation;
2. the prhase "the People" as used in the Constitution, refers to the popular citizenry of an individual state-- not the popular aggregate of all states; and all government derives its just powers by their consent; and
3. The judicial branch is only intended to be the last resort within the government, while the People of a state are the final resort;
4. the purpose of a "well-regulated militia" to "maintain the security of a free state" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, means specifically to defend against the US military in order to keep it that way (Federalist 46); for this is the ONLY thing that the mlitary can't do, when it comes dow repelling invaders and enforcing laws-- King' George's men did that stuff just fine.


Now, however, the Constitution is simply a quaint tradition of lip-service towards limited government-- when there's obviuosly nothing limiting government in any meaningful way: as Madison made clear in 1800, most laws don't come before the federal court-- and many can't (such as admiistrative and policy laws); and likewise, the court might simply concur with unconstitutional legislation: and for this reason, there coud be no higher tribunal than the People of an individual state, to act in the highest sovereign capacity to determine whether it was breached, or the action taken in response.

[BradAnderson]

Keep reminding them who they work for, and if they continue to ignore us, vote them out. Of course the next office holder may not pay attention either, Washington ais seems to do that to some people.

"US" is the majority, -- but the purpose of the Constitution is to protect AGAINST a voting majority, otherwise it's just a darned "mission statement."
The popular majority can't protect everyone else against itself: they're not going to scrutinize the Constitution and say "oops, the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to ban guns-- I guess we can't vote for Bill Gungrabber."

Likewse, they're not going to vote for people who say the same: they'll just vote for people who claim that the Constitution ALLOWS it, no matter how untrue.

There is NO incentive for government to uphold the Constitution, without the ultimate power of a state's people to overrule it; if governments don't derive their just powers by consent of the governed, then the can't alter or abolish it-- and int can run amuck with impunity.
And so it does!

[BradAnderson]

Bush & Cheney couldn't hold a candle to this usurper.

Not at LITcandle anyway, with all those water-tortures. It's a fact that the Republicans tried to pass a bill abridging habeas corpus for US citizens accused of "helping terrorists--" which federal precedent nterprets to include FAILURE to protest its declared oposition.

This means that if you failed to support the Patriot Act-- or anything else-- and do it loudly enough, then you could be taken away in secret to a foreign country, and tortured you with no limits, until you "confess" to whatever they want-- or die: the federal government has even done this IN the United States, during similar suspensions.

Both parties are simply squabbling over power-- which comes only at the destuction of freedom.

[HK_packer]

Greed and Power!!!

[fuhr52]

Time to fire the elected officials that violate their oath to uphold the constitution

[Bohemian]

The Constitution means nothing, since the People have no power to enforce it against the federal government.
At most, it's a division of power between oligarchies such as the legislative and judicial branches-- as the federal courts arrogate more power to government than they deny it,via legislating from the bench.

Likewse, "reading" the Constitution isn't same as understanding it-- not by a longshot. For example, consider the following facts:

1. the Constitution forms a federal republic of states, not a single common joint-state or nation;
2. the prhase "the People" as used in the Constitution, refers to the popular citizenry of an individual state-- not the popular aggregate of all states; and all government derives its just powers by their consent; and
3. The judicial branch is only intended to be the last resort within the government, while the People of a state are the final resort;
4. the purpose of a "well-regulated militia" to "maintain the security of a free state" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, means specifically to defend against the US military in order to keep it that way (Federalist 46); for this is the ONLY thing that the mlitary can't do, when it comes dow repelling invaders and enforcing laws-- King' George's men did that stuff just fine.


Now, however, the Constitution is simply a quaint tradition of lip-service towards limited government-- when there's obviuosly nothing limiting government in any meaningful way: as Madison made clear in 1800, most laws don't come before the federal court-- and many can't (such as admiistrative and policy laws); and likewise, the court might simply concur with unconstitutional legislation: and for this reason, there coud be no higher tribunal than the People of an individual state, to act in the highest sovereign capacity to determine whether it was breached, or the action taken in response.

1st Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The individual's Right, through the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, to hold any branch of the government accountable to the Constitution, is the "Capstone" Right...

[Scarecrow]

too many good people are doing nothing. in that case the corrupt government can do whatever it wants.

[Cooter]

This group is fighting to restore the Constitution:

http://givemeliberty.org/

We would all be wise to join and support them, or at least check out the site.

It seems that we are at a crossroad in America. Either we turn back toward liberty, or be cast into servitude from our government full of tyrants. There is no more time for apathy.

[BradAnderson]

1st Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The individual's Right, through the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, to hold any branch of the government accountable to the Constitution, is the "Capstone" Right...

That just means that you can take it up with a federal court-- not a neutral mediator.