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

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.

We could have a whole discussion about this but we should probably do it in another thread so as not to derail this one.

Heck, we could have a whole discussion just on FDR and his governing style.

reply to post by Hopechest

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.

So, you are saying that the intent of the founders in framing the constitution had nothing to do with preventing tyrannical rule, which is why the constitution was laid out as it was to begin with?

Honey, I think you just went right off the rails here.....

(I'm of course, ASSUMING that you are a girl... I will be equally comfortable calling you "Buddy" or "Dude" if "Honey" misrepresents your gender )

Ever since 9/11, Bloomberg's New York has been forefront as the urban police state model. Geographically, I think the real erosion of our rights has begun here. The 'See Something Say Something' program in public advertisement instills fear of ones neighbor. And stop and frisk... I still can't believe people over there let this happen. And New York State was kneejerk reactionary, the first to pass restrictive gun legislation.
So look now as Bloomberg's Big Brother society begins to spread its tendrils, and first to Boston. Look for stop and frisk in Boston, and where next?
New York Bloomberg does not work for you.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
So, you are saying that the intent of the founders in framing the constitution had nothing to do with preventing tyrannical rule, which is why the constitution was laid out as it was to begin with?

Bills of Rights had nothing to do with the original intent of the Constitution. Separation of powers was laid out in Articles I-III, all powers delegated by the People were laid out in all the Constitution and those not delegated, are assumed held by the People (and the States); good and bad.

The design of the Constitution is to disseminate and dilute power from one man (king, prince, military leader, etc) to the widest berth possible, without wholly giving the mob complete say. It is a delicate balance a republic. You want people involved (democracy) but at the same time, you cannot completely give them control (for fear of pure mob rule and just ending back to the point which you fought so hard to deny).....yet here we are thanks to some interpretations of the Constitution and a few Amendments that have allowed it.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Hi Wrabbit nice thread
here is something you might want to carefully consider

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
- Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

(in an address to the Bilderberger organization meeting at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991. As transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates. )”

thinkexist.com...

thats not even getting into kissenger's " poor dumb animals " quote
oh well, these perps hate minions more then thier enemies
offed just before payday if possible

reply to post by ownbestenemy

So, you are saying that the intent of the founders in framing the constitution had nothing to do with preventing tyrannical rule, which is why the constitution was laid out as it was to begin with?

Bills of Rights had nothing to do with the original intent of the Constitution.

It's funny because you didn't answer my question, or address my point.

The design of the Constitution is to disseminate and dilute power from one man (king, prince, military leader, etc) to the widest berth possible, without wholly giving the mob complete say. It is a delicate balance a republic. You want people involved (democracy) but at the same time, you cannot completely give them control (for fear of pure mob rule and just ending back to the point which you fought so hard to deny).....yet here we are thanks to some interpretations of the Constitution and a few Amendments that have allowed it.

So... you ... Agree with me that the original intent of the framers was to prevent tyranny?

I'm getting mixed signals here...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I was only commenting in passing to a question directed to another poster. The design of the Constitution was to spread the power base as wide as possible; but still factored in human interaction. The Constitution is not a treatise upon the People or even the States (for the most part save Article I, Section 10). It was (I hate saying "was"; but that is where we are at today) a limiting document on the functions of Government. Valid functions were outlined and those not outlined, were to be determined outside of the scope of the Federal Government.

The Constitution surely lays the foundation to limit the natural encroachment of human tendency to rule over another, but the Bill of Rights played no part in that . That was an afterthought brought on to bring the States that were fearful of an all encompassing central Government that will dictate their paths. Unlike today...where States cannot wait to get their position at the central trough; thanks to the 17th Amendment along with numerous blackmail bills such as the Highway Act.

Bloomberg. Ugh! Thanks for letting us know the 'constitution' is the root of all evil world wide. Someone needs to sit him down and remind him he's a public servant and nothing more. He is the mayor of New York. Not the mayor of the planet. Pray tell us Mr. mayor, how we can change, after all, aren't we all made in your image ?

reply to post by Danbones

You know, that rings a distant bell of memory somewhere .... So does a statement made in a TV interview by then former President Vicente Fox after he left office in Mexico. Something to the effect that within years we wouldn't resist the idea of a unified North America or joint currency but for failure of our current one, we'd welcome if not demand it.

Like Kissinger, it's sure been late in coming by original thinking, I'd guess. Late didn't mean never though, did it? I can actually see scenarios today where if Los Angeles went up in riots this summer, for example ...and the Feds just kinda threw up their hands and said 'so sorry...we're too broke to help, dontcha know!', the public would accept a restoration of order by whatever means it took. Outsiders included.

Not ALL the public, but enough to allow it to happen, I fear. It's a very bad place I think our nation has reached. It's made all the worse by the sheer % today who simply don't have living memory of America prior to the day the Towers fell. This was SUCH a different nation on Sept 10th, 2001. It's getting near impossible to effectively explain that ...given just how different it is now.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I can guarantee Mayor Bloomberg wont be calling Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a Muslim extremist terrorist. Calling him that would be Un-American in his little "left" spinning World.

Leave the Constitution to those who live by it.



S&F

Originally posted by grey580
If you are serious about your Freedoms.
It's time to put up or shut up.
Get off your chairs and go visit your congressman.
Hell become a congressman and change things.

Complaining about stuff on the internet isn't going to change anything.

So what are YOU complaining about on the internet today?
Comon lighten up...we are all sharing the same vision, that of the constitution abrogated for a mess of potage, and no more security than we ever have had....
The false logic is plain enough to see, but there are those who seem to fall for the slogans without thinking....
Its always a hope that someone out there will read something sometime to snap them awake for long enough to see the evil thats comming.
We are all brothers and sisters in the rage against the machine.......
Humanity faces two paths today....that of the borg type future....or human freedom with dignity, and a fair share for all.....

Originally posted by tkwasny
Just because something is not mentioned does NOT mean it is permission to do anything about it.

But it also doesn't give sole authority over it. That is implied to the States and the People respectively, outside of Article I, Section 10 (and the Ninth Amendment). No one I would think is arguing that the Federal Government cannot engage in the actions they have, but they want clear authority of such. Instead, much is relied upon precedents set by a sympathetic court who has seen the Constitutions in their eyes; just look at the expansion of the Commerce Clause.

If the Government feels it to be the sole scope of a certain sector of commerce or our lives, it should be left to Congress to present that idea to change the Constitution (through the amendment process); otherwise, it is left to each state to determine their course of action.

If one state wishes to let its people ride without helmets, or legally purchases alcohol at a certain age, or recognize a union between consenting adults, that State should not fear the encroachment of the Federal Government nor the other States in the Union.

Why have States if we all need to adhere to only national policy?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You know, in Chicago, we have insanely-high taxes and gun-control (gun banners, really), and yet, NYC has creeped me out for years with their totalitarianism. I didn't pay much attention before Mayor Ghoul-iani, but between him and Bloomberg, its like they're vying for a spot in Aldous Huxley's Hall of Shame.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes here in kanukistan we have Harpers "harmonization"
kinda like Vincente's futuristic meandering that you just mentioned

Jelly beans will be standardised in sized shape flavour cost and color betwix all three districkts

i think you have periscoped the common enemy

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Yes here in kanukistan we have Harpers "harmonization"

ahahaha, yes. Kanukistan indeed.
Harper keeps 'Harping' us at every chance, he is a great lap dog

Death and injury are inevitable in this world. The world cannot, will not ever be 100% safe. It just won't happen, EVER.

The probability that you will be killed by a "terrorist" is extremely miniscule.


I'll let the Great ole' George sum it up for you all.

A sad time to be a human, watching this march again, i wonder
if this is how good people in so many countries before ours
felt as the transition happened, so many will welcome this with
open arms until they understand what they are giving up, every
single time throughout history when this occurs the end result
has always been the destruction of the country by those who
believe they have a right to force their will onto others.

Onward into oblivion, i keep seeing the quote about those who
give up freedom for safety deserve neither, and while it is pertinent
i think a much more pertinent one is History is doomed to repeat
itself. that just about sums this up, those who refuse to learn
from history are being led down a path that is already well traveled.
I just wish they wouldn't drag the rest of us along with them.

If there is one thing that cannot be doubted is that our fore fathers
wanted freedom, not to give up their freedom to a different master,
i really wish all those who wish for a nanny state type deal would
just move to a country where that is already the case, there are
enough of them out there....... why not let the U.S. be the home
of the free again.

I knew that guy would not be able to limit his power grab to Big Gulps.

I swear on everything, everyday I wake up and read the daily news, it just keeps sounding more and more like we are headed towards another civil war. Gov vs citizens, and in all actuality that is a very scary precipice to be standing on.

I have this collective consciousness theory, based on the History of Chicago. I was born and raised around there and when the city was built, it was built by immigrants from Ireland, Poland, Italy, Israel etc. Those workers created "blocks" that they lived on and "bars" they drunk at, and these "blocks" would fight each other tooth and nail, like gangs over territory and based on nationality. These were the first "gangs" in that city and they have been there ever since, to this very day, murder capital all over blocks, colors, territory.

Now if you look at the History of the U.S. you have something very similar as far as collective consciousness goes. Stolen land from the natives, 90%+ of which got killed by European disease. Rebellion and war from England. And then a civil war over the rights of Black people.

Civil war and war in general is built into the very foundations of America, and it feels like it will be inevitable that a civil war will occur.

It really sucks to see stuff like this come out of Bloombergs mouth. Sounds like Nanny state, fascist, elitist, dictatorship, crap.

Microchips for everyone!!!! Yay!!!!