User Panel
Posted: 2/27/2008 11:29:17 AM EST
A simple question...
We have a suprising number of 'Constitutional Experts' on this site, who apparently never read the document that they are such absolute experts on... The 'proof' of this is in the claims they make, for example: 'The Constitution only authorizes making treaties with foreign powers, not extranational entities like the UN' Which is false, the Constitution does not limit who treaties can be made with 'The Constitution requires a declaration of war for US troops to engage in hostilities overseas' Again, false, no such requirement exists in the document 'The Constitution exists only to limit the Federal Government, not to limit the states or the people' Again, clearly false based on the text which, (a) in the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States, and (b) in the actual body of the document, states that the Federal Constitution, and any treaties ratified or laws enacted under it's authority have supremacy over the laws & Constitutions of the States. Which would be a clear limit on STATE power 'The Income Tax is unconstitutional' Wrong based on (a) the power to tax (with no specifics on what may or may not be taxed) being granted to Congress in the body of the document, and (b) the 16th Ammendment clearly stating that income may be taxed Truly being a strict constructionist requires that you acknowledge ALL powers granted or reserved by the Constitution.... Not just the ones that agree with your personal politics (Remember: Many things that are the wrong course of action are still a legal & constitutional course of action, based on the literal text of the Constitution!)... But of course to do that, you have to read the thing... P.S. Quotes from the Founders do not trump the actual law... We are not a national 'Cult of the Founding' which worships the words of the men who wrote the Constitution and ignores it's text... As politically 'agreeable' as it may be for some of you to wish we could toss out the Constitution and replace it with 'The Founder Bible' (containing the amassed quotes of your favorite Founders - and ignoring the 'UnLibertarian' ones you don't agree with, of course), this is NOT a way to run a nation... So posting those quotes is pointless, especially when they are contradicted or ignored by the text of the Constitution itself... |
|
This will end badly.
Dave, some of your points are valid. Some are not. You probably ought to stick to what you know. Not a dig. Just friendly advice. |
|
QFT. Also, remember the quote that you are posting is from one of the founding fathers. There were 39 people who signed the Constitution. Just because one person felt one way, that does not mean that he spoke for the other 38 people or that his view was the same view that was put into the Constitution. The Constitution trumps your quotes. |
|
|
I would say I know this one quite well... And someone has to challenge the 'collective circle jerks' of ARFCOM every so often... Maybe make someone think about what they are saying... Last week it was the 'Shooting Mexicans & Encouraging War Crimes' thread... This week it's the 'Fake Constitutionalist who has never read the document' thread (inspired by the SPC New thread)... P.S. I predict that the site's habitual-offenders will all claim to have read the entire thing... Despite making claims of 'unconstitutionality' that no one would make if they actually READ the Constitution... Mr 'Treaties' would be a prime example of such a person... |
|
|
|
Do you actually think ANYONE is going to admit they did not read the Constitution? I know plenty of people who never did, but swore they had. And just reading the Constitution is only a jumping off point to actually understanding it. Without understanding the context in which it was written, the historical background of the terms used, and the philosophical underpinnings, the words themself can be easily twisted into something far different from their original meaning. |
||
|
Constitution?
Isn't that the brand of toilet paper preferred by liberals? |
|
Dave, either go away or cease and desist making sense. If this is not done, fingers-sticking-in-ears action WILL BE TAKEN, and may be accompanied by verbal notice of inability to hear you.
|
|
I think I saw a schoolhouse rock cartoon about it? Or was that I'm just a bill?
|
|
Not only have I read it, I was taught it, by a lawyer admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, who also happened to be a retired FBI Special Agent. How 'bout you?
|
|
I've read all of it and I've also written a couple of essays on it. I agree with your assessment that most people on this site know very little about constitutional law. |
|
QFT I've read it in its entirety. I definitely don't understand all of it. I do have actual size replicas of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights. Another project in the works that has been put on hold since the birth of our first child... I need to get out in the shop and build some frames. |
|
|
|
|||
|
Your poll needs multiple choices.
I have read all of it, but I only pay attention to the parts that I agree with. |
|
My constitutional law professor in law school make damn sure we all read it, several times. (he was stickler for details like that)
|
|
Which is pretty much what the Libs do... They read the Constitution and then ignore everything but part of the 1st Amendment, and the 4th and 5th Amendments... |
|
|
Not quite right. The only constitutional constraint on the people is found in the 21st amendment, which forbids interstate transfer of intoxicating liquors without payment of a tax. It is otherwise impossible for a non-state actor to violate a constitutional provision. |
|
|
Read it... Not that 'notable' of an education on it though... Of course, the thread is not aimed at you (presumably - you don't strike me as one of the 'common Constitutional offenders')... |
|
|
I read all the amendments again last night. I made a note to celebrate every Dec 5.
|
|
I only pay attention to the part that says I get to have a gun. That's the only part that really matters. Page 2 = mine I think this'll be a good one. I'm gonna IM Nationwide and Cinncinatus the link. |
||
|
For all of those folks that need one the Heritage Foundation is giving away free pocket size ones. Of course you have to sign up for email so you may be getting some junk as well
Free Pocket Constitution |
|
I used to carry a copy in my bag always...I forgot who printed the little pocket copies...I'll look for mine...
|
|
|
|
|
I've read it all, several times; I've taken a class on it (an elective -- I have several degrees but a JD isn't one of them); and I keep a copy of it right here inches away in the right-hand drawer of my office desk at all times (along with a KJV Bible and a Second Amendment Primer).
Most importantly, IMO, I know that none of the above makes me a Constitutional scholar -- a man must know his limitations. Conversant? Sure. Self-appointed "expert?" Not on your life... |
|
Yeah, I've read the Constitution.
+1 on the preamble. I have no doubt that a majority of of the douchebag bureaucrats have been trying to usurp it's intention for near a good 60 years or so. What's your point? ETA: Reminds me of a discussion at work about Eminent domain. What's your take on it? |
|
|
||
|
Dave, some of your interpretations are in dispute and have been since 1789. I have read the Constitution many times, read most of the Federalist Papers, much of the Anti-Federalist writings, a stupid number of pre and post republic (British and American), various writings of most governmental philosophers since Plato, the constitutions of a few states (though I know best Florida), and constitutions either written by us for other nations or those we have approved (Japan and Germany the prime examples). I am no expert, but I am also not ignorant.
|
|
Your interpretations here are consistent with someone who hasn't studied British constitutional and legal history. That's ok. But it also means a lot of what you are saying is just incorrect. The American legal tradition didn't just pop out of thin air and the men who wrote the Constitution had a few fundamental assumptions about what certain things meant. |
|||
|
AMENDMENT X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
|
|
I'm waiting for the day it is converted to Spanish, and the old version is tossed out. |
|
|
I read the original one about 2 weeks ago; also went to the memorials. the best trip I've taken in a long time.
|
|
Never said any of that is settled fact... Once again, the thread is aimed at THE FOLKS WHO CLAIM THINGS IN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION... |
|
|
With that section being 'the point' of my statement... Inverse negative... If the powers NOT delegated to the US or prohibited to the States are reserved to the States/People The powers that ARE delegated to the US or prohibited to the States are reserved for the US Thus, it limits both sides... |
||
|
And also had various fundamental problems with British Common Law... Once again, let's stick to the presumptive ARFCOM constitutional experts who obviously haven't read it or don't care, because the things they say it requires are either not there or contradicted by what is there... And not the high-level controversial shit that lawyers are still fighting over to this day... P.S. The British don't have a 'constitutional' history, as they never had a Constitution... Their entire system of law is based on precedent & acts of Parliament, without a 'cornerstone' document like our Constitution (Magna Carta comes close, but that is still not the same)... |
|
|
Agreed |
|||
|
Im still puzzled about the declaration of war scenario. Obviously we've gone to war quite a few times without it eg Nam, Bosnia, Korea, D.Storm etc etc but does that make it correct?
So the constitution grants Congress the EXCLUSIVE power to Declare war. But people like DaveA say all this means is that if Congress wanted to declare war they have the right but its not necessary. The framers felt the need to specifically point out which body (Congress) has the exclusive power to declare war but DaveA says this very statement actually means the opposite, anyone can bring the US to war if the military is willing. My question is, why even put it in the constitution if it for all intents and purposes has zero bearing on our decision to go to war? Did they make a habit of randomly throwing powers into the constitution to be not only completely ignored but to be interpreted by random people to mean the complete opposite of what it states? |
|
You are both wrong. Amendment X is very specific. It include NO new limit on the states, and no grant of any new power to the federal government. None. If a power is granted by the Constitution to the federal government, then the federal government has that power. All other powers, except those specifically prohibited to the states in the original text, belong to the states and/or the people. Thus it limits only one side: The federal. Almost all the powers prohibited to the states in the Constitution were specifically granted to the federal: Power to make treaties, coin money, regulate international and interstate commerce, wage war, raise armies and navies, levy custom duties, etc. Only a very small set of powers are off limits to either the federal or state governments: Neither can grant titles of nobility for example. If a power is not mentioned in the Constitution, then via the X, it belongs to the states or to the people. |
||||
|
I have... in fact I had to read part of it today in government.
|
|
|
|
|
We're dancing on the head of a pin here, around what the definition of 'limit' is... My contention being that telling the States they cannot have any of the Feds explicit powers is a limit on the States (preventing them from having all the powers of the Federal government AS WELL as those denied to such)... You are defining 'limit' in another fashion... Let's not turn this thread into a 'What is the meaning of 'is' type Clintonesque debate.... |
|
|
The main confusion is over whether the waging of war requires a declaration of war. A declaration of war is a formal act that triggers certain rules of warfare and diplomacy to go into effect. The power to do this, formally declare a state of war in international and maritime law, is a power exclusively granted to Congress in Article I Section 8. However, the President is also granted plenary powers as Commander in Chief in Article II Section 2. The exact limits of this power are not spelled out. Such staunch Constitutionalists as Jefferson and Madison fought numerous undeclared wars. Both received Congressional approval for their wars, but no formal declarations of war. Were they acting beyond their grant of power in the Constitution? Good arguments can be made on both sides. This is one of the rare areas in which a real gray area exists. |
|
|
I believe I've read it all. Can't say I've memorized it though.
I believe the Congressional right to Declare War is similar to what we have with the 2nd Amendment. Words that have never quite found their basis in facts and are sometimes barely worth the paper they are printed on. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.