Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Hopechest


Sorry but the Constitution is my field of expertise.

Ah No, It is not.

You have Your OPINION of the Constitution, and Apparently, your are wrong.

That is good we have different views, but how is Hope wrong? You made the claim but neglected to offer a differing point of view for a point of discussion. So spill it, I am interested (in very much honesty; as we further ideas with open and honest debate), but just spouting off "you are wrong" is playground antics. Be an adult and discuss the issue(s) you disagree with.

Post Script
cconn487 brings up some good points for discussion. Good on them!

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Hopechest


Sorry but the Constitution is my field of expertise.

Ah No, It is not.

You have Your OPINION of the Constitution, and Apparently, your are wrong.

Really?

On what point?

Originally posted by Hopechest

As the convention progressed it turned into the complete re-writing of the Articles into what became an outline for the Constitution. The intent had nothing to do with government tyranny, those issues were not brought up until the Constitution began to be debated between Hamilton and Jefferson in the local papers to try and prove why each of their sides was the correct one.

I'd have to disagree with you there. The Constitution had a lot of different angles being played within it's formation at the time and it really depends on who you would look at and seek the opinions of.

It had nothing to do with Tyranny or preventing it for states like Virginia and New York ...or soon to be states. Whatever terming we want to use there for technical precision to the times. For the smaller ones though? It had everything to do with Tyranny and not historic but very much present day at the time. Hence...we had things like the Electoral College to balance the huge states from steamrolling the little ones ...as well as the House full of cats in need of herding on short service terms and plenty of them ...vs. the "esteemed Senate" of longer term and state appointment, as it was first envisioned to function.

So...I'd say preventing tyranny played a major role in the framing of the document ...depending entirely on who is describing the thought process.

Originally posted by cconn487

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Hopechest

 

And for the record, there was never any "original intent" of the Framers.

AAAAAAaaaannnd, you have just lost ALL credibility.

The original intent of the framers was to prevent the same kind of Government Tyranny that they were fighting against for a decade.

Sorry but the Constitution is my field of expertise.

Preventing government tyranny had absolutely nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was held to refine the Articles of Confederation because they were totally ineffective for the current time.

As the convention progressed it turned into the complete re-writing of the Articles into what became an outline for the Constitution. The intent had nothing to do with government tyranny, those issues were not brought up until the Constitution began to be debated between Hamilton and Jefferson in the local papers to try and prove why each of their sides was the correct one.

I see where your coming from, though establishing colonies half a world away and fighting a long bloody revolution against Royalty had to have something to do with the drafting of the Constitution.

I'm not saying that was the sole purpose of the Constitution, though I'm sure it had some political weight.

It had nothing to do with the beginning of the Constitution whatsoever. Its not like all the States were sitting around thinking they need to write a Constitution because of a threat that their government was becoming tyrannical. Each State had all the power within it, the Federal Government had absolutely no power.

The issues of tyrannical rule did not really enter into the process until the actual drafting started where they designed a system to prevent central control from becoming similar to systems they had previously known.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Hopechest

As the convention progressed it turned into the complete re-writing of the Articles into what became an outline for the Constitution. The intent had nothing to do with government tyranny, those issues were not brought up until the Constitution began to be debated between Hamilton and Jefferson in the local papers to try and prove why each of their sides was the correct one.

I'd have to disagree with you there. The Constitution had a lot of different angles being played within it's formation at the time and it really depends on who you would look at and seek the opinions of.

It had nothing to do with Tyranny or preventing it for states like Virginia and New York ...or soon to be states. Whatever terming we want to use there for technical precision to the times. For the smaller ones though? It had everything to do with Tyranny and not historic but very much present day at the time. Hence...we had things like the Electoral College to balance the huge states from steamrolling the little ones ...as well as the House full of cats in need of herding on short service terms and plenty of them ...vs. the "esteemed Senate" of longer term and state appointment, as it was first envisioned to function.

So...I'd say preventing tyranny played a major role in the framing of the document ...depending entirely on who is describing the thought process.

Of course you are correct wrabbit. The actual drafting included a lot of concerns about tyrannical rule especially from Jefferson and his group hence the creation of the Bill of Rights eventually. I was only referring to the very beginning of the process.

reply to post by Hopechest


Hamilton and Jefferson? I know Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued the points of Federalism and Dewitt, Henry, Clinton, Yates, Farmer, et al, wrote the Anti-Federalist papers; but from my knowledge, Jefferson strayed from the debates except in the Convention.

Adams promoted the new Constitution via letters to various other delegates, including Jefferson. Jefferson himself, promoted the ideals via legislation and the creation of the Virgina Constitution; which led to the expansion of the ideas promoted within, but I again, never heard of him outspoken in open debate with Hamilton.

reply to post by Hopechest

Well, there I';d say you have good points as well.

It's really been amazing to me, the more I've actually researched the founding of the nation both for academic assignments and my own self education on it. It's SO much more complex than the TV versions of even channels like History would make it sound. To hear some history presented? They all agreed on the high points from the earliest days of deciding King George was a Goober in need to telling off...right to the end and ratification by the States.

Oh how much more there was to the whole thing, eh? It's nice to stumble across deeper discussions like this.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Of course you are correct wrabbit. The actual drafting included a lot of concerns about tyrannical rule especially from Jefferson and his group hence the creation of the Bill of Rights eventually. I was only referring to the very beginning of the process.

Except the Bill of Rights and how modern government views them is going down the path that Madison himself (the father of the Bill of Rights), was wholly concerned with! Bills of Rights were unnecessary if we understand that the Constitution has nothing to do with the People and everything to do with the delegation of powers (from the People) to a Government.

Bills of Rights only empower the Government to believe they are the provider of such Rights and that they can take them away (welcome to the debate on the 2nd Amendment).....

What I would like to know is, what is Mayor Bloomberg referring to? What do we need to "re-interpret"? The 2nd Amendment -- which I believe is what he is trying to infer -- or the First Amendment? The Fifth Amendment (since we are saying we don't need to allow an American citizen (heinous has his crimes charged; he deserves representation) a lawyer to ensure the State isn't lying to make its case?

I mean, come on.....I have pointed this out before; John Adams provided legal representation to the accused in the Boston Massacre even though he was fighting the tyranny and oppression of the very Government who employed those soldiers! Rule of Law is highly disregarded today....

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Hamilton and Jefferson? I know Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued the points of Federalism and Dewitt, Henry, Clinton, Yates, Farmer, et al, wrote the Anti-Federalist papers; but from my knowledge, Jefferson strayed from the debates except in the Convention.

Adams promoted the new Constitution via letters to various other delegates, including Jefferson. Jefferson himself, promoted the ideals via legislation and the creation of the Virgina Constitution; which led to the expansion of the ideas promoted within, but I again, never heard of him outspoken in open debate with Hamilton.

It is assumed that Yates put most of them together but we only are sure of a handful of the authors of all the Brutus papers. Jefferson and the anti-federalists obviously were working together so regardless of who the direct author is, the ideas certainly contained ideas expressed by Jefferson. He certainly did not stray from the debate but actually was one of the leaders of it.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Well, there I';d say you have good points as well.

It's really been amazing to me, the more I've actually researched the founding of the nation both for academic assignments and my own self education on it. It's SO much more complex than the TV versions of even channels like History would make it sound. To hear some history presented? They all agreed on the high points from the earliest days of deciding King George was a Goober in need to telling off...right to the end and ratification by the States.

Oh how much more there was to the whole thing, eh? It's nice to stumble across deeper discussions like this.

Its actually quite fascinating. Did you know that up until the very end of the Convention, the presidential term limit had been agreed upon to be a 1 term 7 year period. At the last minute this was changed with no debate and to this day we are unclear about why they suddenly flipped.

It doesn't help that basically all we have to go on are Madison's notes of the Convention so many issues are left up to detective work regarding the writings surrounding this period.

reply to post by Hopechest

Preventing government tyranny had absolutely nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution.

Explain the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Hopechest
Of course you are correct wrabbit. The actual drafting included a lot of concerns about tyrannical rule especially from Jefferson and his group hence the creation of the Bill of Rights eventually. I was only referring to the very beginning of the process.

Except the Bill of Rights and how modern government views them is going down the path that Madison himself (the father of the Bill of Rights), was wholly concerned with! Bills of Rights were unnecessary if we understand that the Constitution has nothing to do with the People and everything to do with the delegation of powers (from the People) to a Government.

Bills of Rights only empower the Government to believe they are the provider of such Rights and that they can take them away (welcome to the debate on the 2nd Amendment).....

Yep I would agree with you. The Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights for a couple of reasons, one of which was that they feared that if they outlined specific rights, that only those rights would be considered constitutional and nothing else would be.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Preventing government tyranny had absolutely nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution.

Explain the Bill of Rights.

OK.

The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution because the Constitution was already completed when they were added.

Therefore, it had nothing to do with the framing of it. Kinda like saying putting paint on your house is part of the process of laying the foundation.

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com...
change the interpretation of the constitution?
A with nice slab of Bii

well, NOW this stuff is starting to come together...

reply to post by Hopechest

OK.

The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution because the Constitution was already completed when they were added.

Preventing government tyranny had absolutely nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution.

Explain the separation of powers. (Checks and Balances)

i didnt even get past your op...isnt this what we or some of us have been saying...the govt wants YOU to give up your freedoms for saftey and security.....the current....for lack of a better term.."leaders' want you to live in fear and give up any privacy or most freedoms of privacy to the govt......

is it the masses, the public that send drones and armies to far off countries that supposedly are threatning america?..is it the public that send troops into ....'wars',.... iraq, afganistan, libya, bosnia?.....the u.s govt does what it wants when it wants...'for the people by the people' no longer exists....it is now 'for the govt, by the govt'...the u.s public has become less than irrelevant, it as become a nuisance to the govt...something that needs to be controled, subjugated..so the corporations can continue to thrive on the money and labor of the people...........ok, sorry i've calmed down

"the masses do not influence untill they do influence"

reply to post by Hopechest

Did you know that up until the very end of the Convention, the presidential term limit had been agreed upon to be a 1 term 7 year period. At the last minute this was changed with no debate and to this day we are unclear about why they suddenly flipped.

I have to admit that I had no idea of that piece of history to it. I knew they'd debated and seriously considered term limits to prevent the effective installment of a King through election, as sure as by succession they'd come from ...but I didn't know or at least recall the 1 7yr term being the result of that.

I'm glad Washington was the man he was. (and even that isn't quite as pure as history suggests..more to it than his sincere belief in limits) That held fairly well right up to FDR and the man who almost became what we most sought to avoid ..but then, the solution came from the very issue that formed the problem, didn't it? Government is such a fascinating topic when the propaganda of all sides and viewpoints are stripped as much as ever can be done to see how things actually played out and worked.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Preventing government tyranny had absolutely nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution.

Explain the Bill of Rights.

I am sure Hope will reply, but the enumeration of certain Rights, via a "Bill of Rights" was contested for the most part. It was a specific list (save the Ninth Amendment; a bastard of an Amendment of immense proportions) of specific areas that the Government shall never infringe upon.

That is where the issue comes to bear though. By avoiding and neglecting the Ninth Amendment and by recognizing that the Government is what made the Bill of Rights, the Government has basically stated they can decide what they mean. The very fear that Madison had in his reservations to Jefferson when the debates occurred about them or there specific inclusion of them.

Many of the Anti-Federalist feared that Government would infringe upon Rights because they were not specifically enumerated; regardless of the understanding that the Constitution was very specific in the powers delegated to the Federal Government.

Madison writes:

My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I suppose it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice.

Including why he saw no importance or even foresaw the dangers of them as following:

1. because I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted.

He believed in negative declarations; as most of our law used to be; i.e., what wasn't law was legal but now we rely upon law to tell us what is legal and what is not.

More importantly, against a Bill of Rights, we pens the following:

3. because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other.

The power was never granted to the State to deny a person representation, so why do we need to declare it and thus subject it to judicial review to interpret it how they see fit? This is what we are faced with today...similar to the First, Second and Fifth Amendment arguments experienced today.

By merely declaring them, it opened the door to Government interpretation of those clauses.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Hopechest

 

OK.

The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution because the Constitution was already completed when they were added.

Preventing government tyranny had absolutely nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution.

Explain the separation of powers. (Checks and Balances)

This whole discussion was revolving around the original intent of the framers, what you are asking about certainly had to do with tyrannical rule but that was the actual framing of the document, not the reasons for the creation of the document itself.

That is what we have been discussing.