The Fallacy of a Return to the Constitution

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Only funny to see someone capitalize something to gain logic. You don't seem to realize that most of the constitution is just elaborate on powers included, not powers excluded, and that it does not say anywhere that it excludes those powers to the feds, only that its up to the states to deal with those powers; and as such, if the states accept new fed powers, then there is no problem . Try reading the article, read the constitution, read the Federalist Papers, read The Law of Nations, and then people you will be at such a height I can see your bald spot, but as you stand, all I here is a mouse squeak.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


This is not a return to the constitution and this is not what I addressed; this is an amending of the constitution. Potentially, you can amend the constitution to any new functionality - so to argue that an amending is a return is ridiculous. I do acknowledge that only a few things need change to get a better situation.

reply to post by Gazrok


I see you are a Ron Paul supporter. I myself have sent him hundreds in 2008. But, Ron Paul supports often fail to see the failure of capitalism in that the tendency is towards the growth of monopolies. Sure, there are some good directions that I see followers of Ron Paul moving in, but think deeply about those directions and think harder about where they lead or if the lead anywhere.

The constitution is, as anyone who studied it would know, a contract between state governments. I know what you are getting at as I have seen this line or reasoning before, but I don't care to get into it as I find looking at the theoretical aspects of problems much more poignant.

reply to post by METACOMET

reply to post by hawkiye


There must be one of you just with multiple accounts spewing the same idea over and over. The point of a constitution is to constitute a government. If the government ignores the constitution, it is the failure of the constitution to account for this.

"The maxim of law was well known then also that if it's not in there you can't do it."
Hahahaha. Given the fact they did it you with your maxim are evidently wrong. You probably mean they have no "right" to do it. Well, I already say this in that they have no jurisdiction unless the states leave it to them, which the states have.

"The real problem is that people are not willing to hold government accountable to its law." - As the constitution fails to give the people sufficient ways to hold gov accountable.

reply to post by Zngland


My ideas on a new constitution are much more advanced than those present at the time the constitution was made - as might be expected given the amount of time between then and now. See:

persistencesociety.com...

reply to post by tkwasny


haha, I don't think so. You seem to miss that sensation is a result of a pattern, and that pattern continues.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


"So such a remark is not only moot"
It is only moot if all states have the exact same restrictions in their own constitutions.

"it is pointless unless the point is to confound and confuse the ignorant who are prone to be mystified by such remarks."
This is so far off mark as to have shot your neighboring hunter in the face.

"We as individuals can, if we choose, fall prey to the mystical incantations of the priest class lawyer sect,"
You seem to miss the whole point of identifying lawyers as a priest; the point, or the connection, is that lawyers are privy to restricted knowledge and use words which have hidden meanings. I have done nothing of the sort and only presented logic. If you failed to see it, it is a reflection of your primitiveness just as an ape might see a cellphone as mystical. And, sorry to the moderators if I'm a little more direct in my insults than this guy.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


The whole point of the article was not to throw out the constitution as a worthless document. Instead, it was to get people thinking as to what should go into an constitution - and plenty of the concepts in the constitution should be included in any new document.

reply to post by petrus4


That's a very enlightening response. Did you learn all that playing D&D?

Sorry, just had to; hahahahahahahaha.

But truly, it was a very good response and I'd like to see your opinion on my ideas for society and government linked in:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by The Sword


I think, although you have somewhat of a point, you are missing the point that small government proponents make in that there are many "excess" governmental programs that can be cut. That is to say, small government wouldn't be "small" in some considerations, but it would be small relative to what you have now.

reply to post by capob

"So such a remark is not only moot" It is only moot if all states have the exact same restrictions in their own constitutions.

Of which they do, and of which I stated they did. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

"it is pointless unless the point is to confound and confuse the ignorant who are prone to be mystified by such remarks." This is so far off mark as to have shot your neighboring hunter in the face.

Really? When you make a claim that the First Amendment does not prohibit the states from abridging the freedoms enumerated in that Amendment, and fail to mention that ever single state Constitution does prohibit each respective state from doing so, then your remark is pointless unless the point is to confound and confuse. Perhaps, given your first remark in this post I'm replying to, you are confused.

You seem to miss the whole point of identifying lawyers as a priest; the point, or the connection, is that lawyers are privy to restricted knowledge and use words which have hidden meanings. I have done nothing of the sort and only presented logic. If you failed to see it, it is a reflection of your primitiveness just as an ape might see a cellphone as mystical. And, sorry to the moderators if I'm a little more direct in my insults than this guy.

You have most certainly done something of that sort and did it again! You somehow hoped to confuse the readers of this thread by making a silly statement like this:

It is only moot if all states have the exact same restrictions in their own constitutions.

Either you are profoundly ignorant of the fact that every single state has the same restrictions as the First Amendment, or you are engaging in mysticism. Which would you rather own up to?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


"Of which they do, and of which I stated they did. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? "
You seemed to have completely missed the point of included that note in my main article on the amendment, and the point of including it was to inform those people who tend to address the issue as a federal government problem and not a state problem when their state is doing something breaking that concept.

"hoped to confuse the readers of this thread"
I don't assume my readers to be so stupid as to be confused by clear sentences - and the note was there for people who simply lacked the information. So pointless to argue on this trifle that it makes me suspicious of your character.

reply to post by capob


While you seem convinced that so many have missed your point, perhaps at some point it might occur to you that the problem lied in your communication. What you failed to state in your opening posts was that each state comes with a Constitution that most assuredly does prohibit that state from abridging certain freedoms. Many of those state Constitutions come with a declaration or Bill of Right that echoes the Ninth Amendment as well. Your failure to make this clear required someone step in and clarify this point.

If your sentences were so clear, and you don't presume people to be so stupid, then why have you spent so much time this evening insisting so many have missed your points?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Hahaha. Because, as I have seen so many times over, people fail to actually read the main post, or if they do, they only read a part. And, then you have the crowd that is so adamant my article would have to be much more expansive to avoid biased misinterpretation. Regardless, I have gotten some who seemed to like the article, and it does amuse me to respond to misinterpretation hahahaha.

Also, I presumed that people knew that, if they were in a state in the US, they had a state constitution and that constitution set forth the constitution (rights to people and state government) of the state. What in particular is in those constitutions is not a matter for this article, as that is not the topic of this article!

reply to post by capob

Also, I presumed that people knew that, if they were in a state in the US, they had a state constitution and that constitution set forth the constitution (rights to people and state government) of the state. What in particular is in those constitutions is not a matter for this article, as that is not the topic of this article!

Uh-huh. If you made this presumption, then what was the point of making this remark:

It is only moot if all states have the exact same restrictions in their own constitutions.

You've "presumed" all right, but your presumptions have failed you.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Oh, you again! How incessant!

you "Uh-huh. If you made this presumption, then what was the point of making this remark: "

your quote of mine " It is only moot if all states have the exact same restrictions in their own constitutions."

you "You've "presumed" all right, but your presumptions have failed you."

Go look up moot. I'll help you: " of no legal significance". And, when fed and state agree, the legal significance is the same in that no matter where you go, you are still under that directive. But, in arguing against or for that directive, it is a state matter, and so it is not a pointless point, and it serves for the very reason I specified in the previous post.

And, as for your statements:
"Statements such as the First Amendment prohibits Congress and not the states from infringing upon certain unalienable rights are outrageously disingenuous"
How is this outrageously disingenuous?

Now, enough with your arguments on semantics. If you want to win an argument so badly, go to your local elementary school. I care for significant points - things you seem to be void of. In fact, judging your character, just stop posting on my thread - as it is almost a certainty you will present nothing constructive.

reply to post by capob

Go look up moot. I'll help you: " of no legal significance". And, when fed and state agree, the legal significance is the same in that no matter where you go, you are still under that directive. But, in arguing against or for that directive, it is a state matter, and so it is not a pointless point, and it serves for the very reason I specified in the previous post.

Perhaps you should re-read my post declaring your legal argument moot. The Constitutions, federal or state are not "directives" to the people, but are directives to government. You are desperately sinking now. I doubt even you understand the above mystical incantation, because it is that ridiculous.

I all ready explained why your remarks of the federal Constitution not prohibiting states from abridging certain rights is disingenuous. I will try to state it more simply. Since every state has the same prohibitions on government that the First Amendment places on Congress, and since you failed, or declined to point out that the states do have these prohibitions, impliedly you are suggesting that the states are not bound by Constitutional restraints. You furthered this implication when you attempted to rebut my assertion your point was moot with the either ignorant or disingenuous reply you made, which was "It is only moot if all states have the exact same restrictions in their own constitutions."

You began this thread, at the very least, sounding intelligent. Clearly you are allowing your own rage to imbalance you. Take the rest of the night off, and try to come back tomorrow or later and make a cogent argument. Good luck.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by capob

 

Except that this is a country of over 300 million people.

It won't work to go back to "small" government.

"Small" government is a distraction -- at least in the terms presented by the current politicians. But in the eyes of the People, it isn't that far out of reach. The idea the the central government only be responsible for a small subset of governmental functions isn't that far-fetched; furthermore, the smaller units of government; those that reside within the communities and States, should have far much more latitude than the Federal Government.

Many calls have been made for the Federal Government to retreat to its primary functions, those prescribed within the Constitution and allow the States to be the "experiment" mills of self-government. But since the Federal Government has experienced the power of control (as do all nations with a central government) they have pursued a goal of obtaining as much control as possible, regardless of political party or letter behind ones name.