The true constitutionalist

Originally posted by fbipeeperjr
Well, the opening poster obviously has never read nor understand the constitution.

It would be more useful if you could reference where I went wrong with the constitution. I didnt reference the constitution beyond 1775, the ammendments following that.

Notice he preaches what a constitutionalist SHOULD believe, instead of showing why by quoting of it? It's a great example of twisting the truth.

If you could be specific. This thread is in part our own views of the constitution and how we may misunderstand it. If you can reference me parts and Id be happy to further elaberate.

Some of that make some sense and some of that is stuff is spun. The Whole separation of Church and State thing (not in Constitution) was Jefferson's worry in a letter to another about having a Institution Like the Church of England from forming a govt branch and grow in Governmental power. Basically a Representative Republic Would be reflected by its people. People see or want to see things in the Constitution and like you say "Pick and choose" what they like... You lose one, you lose them all. Basically any True Constitutionalists would be any American understanding that They are the bearers of the Power and they are part of a great nation that was supposed to be about the Govt having little to no authority over them. Allowing the people to create the best society possible, and not a forced resentment style of enslavement. People want to help the needy? the needy don't need money from other peoples pockets stolen by the govt and given in a cold check in the mail, They need You to knock on there door and ask them if they need Your help.

Originally posted by Monteriano
While in the US, I carry arms and have no license to do so. The second amendment grants me that right and a license gives permission.

Nice sentiment, but I've got a semantic bone to pick. The second Amendment DOES NOT 'grant' you the right to bear arms. Nope.

The right to bear arms is something you have always posessed. The second Amendment merely 'affirms' your already held right to bear arms, and PROHIBITS governmental interference with same.

nenothtu out

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Monteriano
While in the US, I carry arms and have no license to do so. The second amendment grants me that right and a license gives permission.

Nice sentiment, but I've got a semantic bone to pick. The second Amendment DOES NOT 'grant' you the right to bear arms. Nope.

The right to bear arms is something you have always posessed. The second Amendment merely 'affirms' your already held right to bear arms, and PROHIBITS governmental interference with same.

nenothtu out

So then it is ok for children to bear arms because its their natural right? Its ok for those with prior convictions, those who have murdered in the past, to carry weapons? Basically my definition of legal as stated in the OP is that you are of age and that you do not abuse that right, such as taking a life away. There needs to be set limits. Keeping guns out of the hands of children, and those who have taken a life before, shouldnt be at all a negative to the "right to bear arms". Its just common sense.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The second Amendment DOES NOT 'grant' you the right to bear arms. Nope.

The right to bear arms is something you have always posessed. The second Amendment merely 'affirms' your already held right to bear arms, and PROHIBITS governmental interference with same.

Bam! Nailed it!

Most people forget that their right to bear arms comes from God himself.

IF one does not believe in God, then consider it a right conferred upon all sentient beings by the universe.

In some places it is illegal not to own a gun. I support such laws.

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The whole constitution is based on natural law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God.

Nonsense!

There is no such thing as natural law...

its a conceit that some people use when they don't want anyone to argue with them about it.

You are wrong.

Natural Law is the basis for Anglo-Saxon Common Law.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

So then it is ok for children to bear arms because its their natural right? Its ok for those with prior convictions, those who have murdered in the past, to carry weapons? Basically my definition of legal as stated in the OP is that you are of age and that you do not abuse that right, such as taking a life away. There needs to be set limits. Keeping guns out of the hands of children, and those who have taken a life before, shouldnt be at all a negative to the "right to bear arms". Its just common sense.

Absolutely. I have no problems with anyone arming themselves. If you haven't trained your kids right with them, someone will take care of that little matter for you, probably rather abruptly.

Prior convictions? Felons? No problem. If they aren't safe to walk the streets with a gun, they aren't safe to be among us, period. If they're THAT dangerous, deal with 'em permanently. When a man has "paid his debt to society", it ought to be DONE. Barring him from arms, or voting, or any of the other rights felons lose amounts to a life sentence, no parole. If they're that bad, put 'em away for good, however you'd like to, but don't turn them loose on the populace embittered because they're now less than citizens.

Anyone who has committed a murder, with a gun or otherwise, really shouldn't be loose amongst decent folk. But then that gets into more semantics, on just what a 'murder' is. Legally, it's an 'unjustifyable homocide'. Then there's the question, which has always puzzled me, of why people seem to think that 'gun violence' is so much more violent than say, for instance, 'clawhammer violence' or 'knife violence' or 'ballpoint pen violence'. Isn't violence violent? I just don't get that. You can call me stupid if you like, but the gun don't make the crime, what the person DOES with it does, so deal with the person, and the crime. Don't limit everyone else.

Are you in favor of giving up your vote, because a felon can't seem to be trusted with one?

nenothtu out

[edit on 2009/5/10 by nenothtu]

[edit on 2009/5/10 by nenothtu]

If you are a true constitutionalist, you would read the Declaration of Independence. We would and should have overthrown our current legislators in our states and Federal representatives a long time ago. Are there any patriots left? Has the fluoride in our water destroyed our ability to reason? The time is coming when there will be changes made but I fear they will become worldly rather than American changes. Below are direct quotes and what parts do you not understand? We have despots running this country and now is the time for change. It is not too late in the game. We can become great once again. America first and then worry about charity to other countries than feed from our hog trough.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Monteriano, you are correct but in your previous post you said you carry because it is your second amendment right and have a license?

You have the right to OWN property, a gun is property and you need no permission from the government, i.e. licensure.

Nenothtu, you have good points also.

What many people do not undertsnad is there are so many books out there, American Jurisprudence, Cooley's Constitutional Law, Blackstones just to name a few. They are expensive and huge. Most attorneys never read them and never does any Law Enfocement person read them and most don't even know they exist.

If ones reads the Constitution as it is written and uses basic common knowledge of Common Law, "do unto others......" This is the perspective needed to comprehend how the Founders would have wanted the Constitution interpreted, I believe.

As for the scofflaw wanting to possess a gun, I believe that the moment you make up your mind to commit an act which violates the rights of others or damages others property, you waive YOUR rights as a human being and are nothing more than an animal. To be dealt with in the harshest form. That may be extreme but the point would be made that that type of behaviour would not be tolerated. If police had this way of thinking from the begining and if that were televised to the nation, how many people would act out against society? I think very, very few.

There are many good posts here, many good interpretations and many sound ideas. I think that this discussion would do the founders proud, even if a few go from one extreme to the other, that is what makes balance.

Proud to BE an American. I Thank my fellow Citizens who have fought in the needless wars for fighting. I go to the Legion a few times a month, have passed out literature there and Constitutions, I was shocked that most, if not all the people there did not have a copy of it and few have ever read it. I recently passed out the book "War is a Racket" by Brigadeir General Smedley Butler. Very interesting read and so factual. He was there and very involved and printed the truth.

All we can do now is "endeavor to perservere", from dishonest ole Abe. Keep educating each other and our fellow Americans and try and stop those crooks in Congress and the Whitehouse from destroying our sovereignty and our country. I think we will ALL agree on that.

Remember, you do not NEED a license to do something you already HAVE the RIGHT to do. Weather that be gathering food, hunting and fishing, or traveling on your motorbike or in a car. These are your Natural Born Rights, the government can not prohibit you from these things because you did not "get or obtain" their permission. WE must fight this fight to take back OUR country. This would be a start.

It also goes without saying too, that if doing these things makes you happy, then that reinforces that Right (Declaration of Independence). So long as you harm no one or their property and you do not trespass on their rights. It is that simple. And we need to let the police officers and government officials know this, They are citizens also but, THEY are OUR servants, not our masters.
WE ARE THE MASTERS.


[edit on 10-5-2009 by daddio]

[edit on 10-5-2009 by daddio]

reply to post by daddio


I have no license and refuse one. The government does not grant me permission for my rights as given to me bt my Creator.

Not sure why you think it's an all or none situation. Why limit options? The constitution is not a perfect document. It was largely crafted by Federalists who, more than anything else wanted to pave the way for the NWO. It is a compromise in witting to sell Washington DC which today is an independent country just like the Vatican. Most of it's virtue came from the Bill of Rights which was added by the non federalists to help them live with what they had done by agreeing to the Constitution in the first place. One of the most fundamental flaws in the constitution, for example, is that the salaries of the federal "employees" comes from the federal empire and not the state where they reside. This means their allegiance is to the brotherhood of the empire and on top of that their taxable as citizens of the empire, furthering their dependency upon it.

I rather suspect that this "all in one" is a manipulation. Perhaps the next step is we must except homosexuality because we've bought into accepting "everything". High and low do exist. There is no true equality. There are only degrees of purity and impurity. If people don't harm others, interfere in their property, or try to mislead them in agreements they should be free to do as they like. That doesn't mean a collective of people has to accept them. It does mean they have to have some tolerance for their existence. But that tolerance doesn't mean having to employ or associate with them if are not within the capacities of tolerance by that collective. The collective will pay it's own price for it's intolerance if it is unreasonable. Just as the birds of the field are fed so there will always be a place somewhere for those intolerable to others. However, tolerance is a virtue worth cultivating so long as it is not genuinely harmful to one's spiritual welfare. Like it or not, good association is good and bad association is bad.

Up the road a little from my house there is a Hispanic family whose children go to school with my kids. The dad disappeared about a 6 months ago the first time and his daughter told my son at school the the cops had sent him back to Mexico. About 3 weeks later he was out front cutting the grass at their house...in February he was picked up at his job and sent to Mexico again and yesterday we saw him with his daughter at the convenient store down the road from the house. It is so easy.



reply to post by David9176

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I agree with everything you say in your post.

But my observation is that many if not most people on ATS who say they are strict Constitutionalists are really anti-federal-government and especially anti-federal-aid. They want to end all national social programs, like medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc. I think programs like federally-backed student loans would also fall into this category. Also civil rights legislation on the national level. There is in general a lot of disagreement as to how much power the federal government should have.

The Constitution does give each state the right to enact its own legislation on social and most other issues and to fund these programs, and in general the right to govern itself.

Federal programs are usually founded on the what "promotes the general welfare" clause of the Constitution. Barack Obama, who taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, has that interpretation. For example, if one state were to take away the right of minorities to vote in that state the fed could intervene, because the welfare of the whole population is involved.

People opposed to this interpretation insist that anything that takes power away from the states and gives it to the fed is a violation of the Constitution.

"Strict Consitutionalists" have disagreements among themselves. They have different motives and different interpretations, depending on the issue at hand. For example, some Constitionalists believe going off the gold standard was a violantion of Constitional law. I myself don't think there's much of anything about the Treasury Department at all in that document.

What is usually comes down to is how you can use the Constitution to support the things you want to support and how you can ignore it if it doesn't.

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Federal programs are usually founded on the what "promotes the general welfare" clause of the Constitution. Barack Obama, who taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, has that interpretation. For example, if one state were to take away the right of minorities to vote in that state the fed could intervene, because the welfare of the whole population is involved.

People opposed to this interpretation insist that anything that takes power away from the states and gives it to the fed is a violation of the Constitution.

I apologize in advance, BUT, Barack Obama is a puppet and an idiot.

You are mistaken here. Article 4 section 2 keeps one State from restricting the rights of the people in relation to all the other States. It is the Equal Protection Clause.

You are entitled to the same rights and privileges as those "citizens" in the several States. You must demand to exercise your rights. The federal government is for "Foreign Affairs" only, period.

The "general welfare clause" is for no such thing. The Federal Government can NEVER intervene.

And yes, social security and ALL those other programs should be abolished. What you have never heard of or are not aware of is the fact that there used to be things called "Surety Bonds". They are still available if you have $100,000 to put into one.

This is how they worked; You would purchase this at your neighborhood bank, the Surety Bond. Each week you would put some of your weekly earnings into it. It would grow. The Bank had the right to borrow out that money to the community businesses and city with an interest rate attached. The bank would make a few bucks on YOUR money and you would get 1/4th the interest the bank got on the loan.

This Surety Bond would cover your auto insurance, health insurance, home owners insurance and it would be your retirement account when you got too old to work and drive. By eating non-manipulated healthy food you would be in good health so you wouldn't "need" to see a doctor often. If you were a safe driver you wouldn't "need" to use it for collisions. And your home, I assume, would not have burned down or been damaged by a storm so you wouldn't "need" to use it for that.

After 60 some odd years, it would be a substantial sum. It would be enough to retire on. Now keep in mind that if the "dollar" were based on gold, the dollar today would be about $14 compared to the rest of the world. Everything would be much cheaper. So your dollar would go a very long way.....BUT!!!!!!

The Banksters saw this in advance and invented the "insurance company"......ha ha, now they could take YOUR WEALTH for themselves.

It is all just a redistribution of the wealth into the hands of a few. What about this do people not understand. The Constitution in it's original form would have prevented this. But it has been manipulated and subverted so many different ways I lost count. Take the "original 13th amendment". See it at

www.barefootsworld.net...

Just read these books; "Our Enemy, the State" by Albert J. Nock and "Hamilton's Curse" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and there are so many more.

The Uniform Comercial Code makes all of us slaves. That was the trick. And nobody knew about it till it was too late and no one knew how to fight it and/or didn't have the resolve to do so.............until now!!

reply to post by Sestias


I agree with you on those aspects noted. Its apparent that folks here use the constitution only to see it for their side, my hope is that there is a consensus on one constitution, instead of taking advantage of its meaning and framing it another way. Iv said it before, this constitution goes beyond gun rights and taxes, there should be no laws discrimminating citizens on the bases on how they carry out their private lives, neither should their be any religious conflict within government.

The true constitutionalist knows of all the above. The issue is that most conservatives, while happily waving the constitution for gun rights, will outright ignore all the rights stated in the constitution. Liberals admittedly can be just as worst, wanting guns to be heavily regulated, wanting regulation on talk show hosts who tend to be extreme in their views but at the same time calling out "rights for all". We all have a duty to preach the constitution in its full, because right now there are people there trying to claim it for their own, and this isnt what the founding fathers intended.

Excellent post SG. I had one question and a disagreement I wanted to share.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The true constitutionalist has the right to bare arms but at the same time recognizes that they are of no pity or support from the constitution to abuse that right.

Can you clarify that a little for me. I'm not sure what it is you may be trying to elude to.

The true constitutionalist recognizes the rights of american citizens regardless of their race, culture, religion or sexuality to serve in the military and represent their nation but also recognizes the rights to those members to freely express.

You had me until the last eleven words. The military has the luxury to practice something the civilian sector is not bound by: HONOR. They then have to set terms for what is considered honorable or dishonorable. I think that these terms and definitions are to encourage and instill the highest qualities and characteristics of a citizen. Now clearly, it doesn't ensure that all members in the military will adhere to them, but then they run the risk of reprimand and possibly losing the privilege of defending the constitution and the nation.

In this, Adultery and homosexuality are considered dishonorable. And I am in full agreement. Which is why I think the current "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy is the best possible position to allow homosexuals to serve the country in a military capacity.

I personally believe that marriage is a religious rite, not a constitutional right. It seems that the federal government got involved because of taxes. I am all in favor of, to use a term I dislike, domestic partnerships. This would encompass and two adults, despite sex, or relationship to enter into a legal partnership for tax, employee benefits and the likes.

I personally think homosexuality is an abomination and society should not be considering it normal or acceptable, nor promote that lifestyle the way it does. From a legal standpoint however, it is fine. I believe the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality is one of the many things that has led to the current collapse in society and contributed as a tool for changing America into such a socialist leaning nation.