The US Constitution Is a Contract, And It Has Been Broken

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

The Constitution is a contract.
It is an agreement between the states and the federal government.

That's what you say. but it isn't true. The Constitution isn't a contract between the federal government and the States. It's the supreme law of the United States of America, that establishes the supremacy of the federal government and the rights of the states.

The Constitution restricts the government.

Obviously we're not reading the same Constitution.

Yours may have a little red book cover.

I saw that and wondered how someone could miss the point of the COTUS by that much, and immediately thought it would be swell if you came along and offered a correction.

a reply to: network dude

Correction doesn't need to be done, just read the US Constitution, it's self explanatory, for any one who's literate and has half decent comprehension.

It's advised to read the Declaration of Independence, because it's the first document of the Charters of Freedom.

FYI spoiler alert, democrats had nothing to do with individual rights, they (dems) didn't even exist during the drafting.
So don't.

Any one who's still confused, search Consent of the governed.

Finally, that Tenth Amendment explains that "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."

In other words, the federal government, can NOT delegate itself authority. We the People, are the authority.

Our rights are protected, the gov is restricted.

There's no other way around that, unless you're a weaseling commie.

AMERICA, if you don't love it, you're free to leave it.

🇺🇲

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

The Constitution is a contract.
It is an agreement between the states and the federal government.

That's what you say. but it isn't true. The Constitution isn't a contract between the federal government and the States. It's the supreme law of the United States of America, that establishes the supremacy of the federal government and the rights of the states.

The Constitution restricts the government.

Obviously we're not reading the same Constitution.

Yours may have a little red book cover.

Are you denying, then, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? Do you deny that the US Constitution deposits the supremacy of US law with the Federal Government?

The Constitution restricts the government.

Uhmm...The Constitution also instructs the government when and how it may violate the rights of the people. The government, for example, can take your property, your freedom and your life, so long as it also applied your right to due process. The government can enter your house and seize your papers and property if it has a warrant.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Are you denying, then, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

Are you denying, then, that the Constitution is also a contractural agreement between the people of the states, and the federal government? The people agree to be citizens and fund the federal government, and the federal government agrees to repel invasion. Signed agreement that has been broken.

a reply to: network dude

We have laws about our border. We have a process (however flawed) to enter the country, and even to become a citizen.

There are also asylum laws. These are the laws that people are having trouble with, and need to be addressed, changed.

It's true that a person can enter the USA illegally, and live and work here for one year before they apply for asylum, and may only apply if they get caught and risk deportation. It's also true that some of these people immediately seek out border control to turn themselves in. The law says these people must have their cases adjudicated in immigration court, before an immigration judge before they can be deported.

It's true that there are long lines of asylum seekers at legal border check points, and that each legal border check point can take a certain amount of asylum seekers each day, whether or not their claim has a decent chance of meeting the very narrow American qualifications for asylum. The law says these people must have their cases adjudicated in immigration court, before an immigration judge before they can be deported.

It's also true that the Senate has a bipartisan bill that drastically limit asylum that the Speaker of the House has promised not to take up, because it'll hurt Donald Trump campaign's strategy.

If Republican are throwing tantrums about immigration, yet refusing to anything about it, it must be a presidential election year!

I wonder if we're going to see a Trump/Abbott ticket?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Are you denying, then, that the Constitution is also a contractural agreement

Yep. That's exactly what I am doing.

If there is any dispute between the federal government and the states regarding Constitutional jurisdiction, the Supreme Court adjudicates it. SCOTUS either rules something is constitutional, or it isn't. If SCOTUS does rule something unconstitutional, that doesn't mean the US Constitution is broken, and the whole deal is off. LOL

Contracts are signed by all parties involved...or verbally agreed to. I didn't sign the US Constitution (or verbally agree to its terms) and neither has anyone alive today...therefore, the idea that it is a contract is null.

originally posted by: WiiDemBoyz
Contracts are signed by all parties involved...or verbally agreed to. I didn't sign the US Constitution (or verbally agree to its terms) and neither has anyone alive today...therefore, the idea that it is a contract is null.

The representative of the state signed for the people of the state.
You have been 'signed for'.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
If SCOTUS does rule something unconstitutional, that doesn't mean the US Constitution is broken, and the whole deal is off.

SCOTUS doesn't have to rule on if there is an invasion or not. The state can declare an invasion and that the Federal Government has failed to uphold it's end of the contractural agreement. It can protect itself. The right of self preservation supersedes any notion that someone/something has to get permission to protect itself first.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Constitution insures the rights of the individual over the government.

It is a document that limits government.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

The Constitution insures the rights of the individual over the government.

It is a document that limits government.

The 2nd Amendment is an example of how the framers didn't trust the government and how they gave rights to the people. A fully functioning 2nd Amendment right to bear arms ... an armed population .... ensures that the government behaves itself correctly.