• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

Can The Constitution Be UnConstitutional?


  • Total voters
    26
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
CAN THE CONSTITUTION BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

YES, actually there is in fact such a thing as the constitutionality of the Constitution.

The constitution is not just a self-validating document, which would ultimately make it a tool of unbridled tyranny (even as we see illegitimately being exercised today). Rather the Constitution is a document licensing government, and dictating the terms of that government, and doing so by a certain and unalterable philosophy.

It is because of the undeniable and immutable nature of this philosophy that we are able to recognize documents such as the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance as the Organic Law of this country, its founding principle, rather than just recognizing this country's "principle" as whatever it might be at the current point in time.

Among the foundational principles and philosophies of the Constitution are these immutable principles:

1) The Constitution is based on unalienable individual rights, with these rights not being provided by the Constitution itself, nor grants from the federal nor state governments, but only recognized in the Constitution, solely a "listing of particulars", even as affirmed by the 9th Amendment and the reference to other rights beyond those specifically enumerated. These rights are specifically recognized to prohibit the federal government itself acting to alter, interfere, or deny these rights in any fashion. Given this, by the terms of the Constitution itself, these rights are not any sort of "demand license" to be used against private citizens, or private organizations.

2) The Constitution does not dictate the terms of society, nor dictate how people might or shall live their lives, much less give federal government any authority to write statutes involving these details, as the only legitimate soil over which the Congress and federal government may legislate is a 10x10 mile square area known today as the District of Columbia; forts, arsenals, designated federal lands, and territories which are prospective states.

3) The Constitution only constitutes the fiction that is the federal government itself, by a positive detail and enumeration of its legitimate authority, and by the negative specific listing of those powers that no longer are to remain with the various states, as well as establishing the authority the federal government has with foreign nations.

4) The Constitution is founded on unalterable State sovereignty, even as recognized by the Supreme Court itself, with the federal government only being a proxy for the collective State sovereignty when the individual States themselves cannot reasonably each exercise that sovereign authority independently.


ANY and ALL violations of these terms represent violations of the Constitutional principle, and when incorporated into the Constitution, the corrupted and failed constitutionality of the Constitution itself.

► As such, the 18th Amendment and the Prohibition of the consumption of alcohol is inherently unconstitutional having violated #1, #2, and #4.

► As such, the 14th Amendment is inherently unconstitutional, given that it puts the federal in the position of policing rights in the sovereign states, and by this selective policing, in the position of fabricating rights and denial of real, with this violating principle #1, #2, #3 and #4.

► As such, the 17th Amendment establishing the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote, is of highly questionable constitutionality, as it reduces the unalterable sovereignty of the States themselves, and does so in an area where the State governments can, and have, legitimately exercised their independent authority and influence, with this being in conflict with principle #1, #3, and #4.

► As such, any hypothetical amendment intending to alter or abolish any of the Bill of Rights, inclusive of the 2nd Amendment, even if successfully being added to the Constitution by processes detailed in Article V thereof, would be flagrantly and undeniably unconstitutional, given #1, #2, #3, and #4.

In fact these means of introducing unconstitutionality into the Constitution, are invariably attempts to alter our form and principle of government, by surreptitious means, often under the cover of some societal benefice, but which itself is in conflict with the principles of the Constitution, and history has shown results in the gross illegitimate expansion of federal authority, even beyond what might have the quasi-legitimate limited terms originally intended. This is seen particularly and conspicuously with the 14th Amendment itself, originally only intended to ensure blacks the equal rights, privileges and immunities to which they were entitled by the Constitution, as every other citizen, but then fabricating the fallacy of "birthright citizenship" 30 years afterwards from a distortion of "jurisdiction", creating anchor babies by judicial fiat. There is not legitimately any such "birthright citizenship" resulting from mere birth on U.S. soil, which obviates the federal government's constitutional obligation to the two-way contract of allegiance, which is integral to citizenship itself.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol


The United States Constitution does not grant people rights, nor deny rights. The Constitution does ONLY create the fiction of the federal government and define its boundaries, both by positive definition of its enumerated powers, and by the negative prohibition of certain powers to the states.

Nowhere do the people's rights have any business being indicated or reduced by the Constitution.

If the right to consume alcohol is indeed "a right", then it cannot be altered by the Constitution's amendment to deny that right, as again, rights are not provided by the Constitution, nor taken by it. Apparently those amending the Constitution thought the consumption of alcohol was indeed some sort of right for mankind, otherwise they would not have made an amendment to the Constitution, and instead would have sought to enact a federal statute prohibiting alcohol. Indeed, mankind has been drinking alcohol since the infancy of our civilization, back to ancient Sumeria.

If the consumption of alcohol is not a right, then it still has no business being in the Constitution, as the Constitution's intent is solely to constitute the federal government, and establish that federal government's relationship between the states, and foreign nations, and not to limit the actions of the people by that law of the land. Nowhere <else> does the Constitution indicate any sort of "negative right" to the people. What the 18th Amendment prohibition on alcohol was, was actually the grasp of unsupported federal authority, nowhere an authority provided unto the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.


The 18th Amendment Prohibition on the consumption of alcohol is the earliest evidence of Progressive Social Engineering dictate in this country, and is nowhere the business of the federal government, nor the Constitution itself, and nowhere an authority granted the federal government by that Constitution.


By these facts, the 18th Amendment had no business whatsoever being in the Constitution, and is intrinsically contrary to that document's structure and purpose in every respect - thereby thoroughly unconstitutional, and grossly so.
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Those amendments may go against the original intent of the Constitution, but they are amendments--that's the point. They make changes to the constitution. So you can say the amendments are bad because they go against the original constitution, but nothing more.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Those amendments may go against the original intent of the Constitution, but they are amendments--that's the point. They make changes to the constitution. So you can say the amendments are bad because they go against the original constitution, but nothing more.


So by this logic, anything that gets into the Constitution, by majority vote among the states and Congress, is inherently valid, and we're actually in fact a Democracy, despite every intention to prohibit that, and our rights are actually provided by government, at its whim, despite the fact that rights were deliberately recognized to prevent that?

Overall, this makes the Constitution nothing but a self-validating document, in service of the majority demand and socialism, and the ideal tool unbridled tyranny.

I'm pretty certain this is not at all what the founders intended.

Such a belief leaves only two options for any freedom at all, with nothing in between:

... either we relent put the government shackles on ourselves,
... or take up arms and start shooting.
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

So by this logic, anything that gets into the Constitution, by majority vote among the states and Congress, is inherently valid, and we're actually in fact a Democracy, despite every intention to prohibit that, and our rights are actually provided by government, at its whim, despite the fact that rights were deliberately recognized to prevent that?

Overall, this makes the Constitution nothing but a self-validating document, in service of the majority demand and socialism, and the ideal tool unbridled tyranny.

I'm pretty certain this is not at all what the founders intended.

Such a belief leaves only two options for any freedom at all, with nothing in between:

... either we relent put the government shackles on ourselves,
... or take up arms and start shooting.

A majority vote among the states and Congress is not purely democratic, since that requires a vote from the people themselves. The Constitution would not be an ideal tool to unbridled tyranny, because it is not that easy to get amendments passed. The ideal tool would be no Constitution.

But as far as the gist of your other general points are, yes. Most of the stuff the government does is not inline with the Constitution. Just look at the NSA. A piece of paper does not actually protect our rights.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
22,447
Reaction score
14,220
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

I think it can be unconstitutional, but not necessarily in the sense that you're framing the discussion to be. Changes to the Constitution are part of the Amendment process, which delineates what exactly is the constitutional method for implementing said amendments.

It can be argued that the Constitution itself was unconstitutional because the way it was ratified was specifically breached the existing framework of the Articles of Confederation.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
22,447
Reaction score
14,220
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

So by this logic, anything that gets into the Constitution, by majority vote among the states and Congress, is inherently valid, and we're actually in fact a Democracy, despite every intention to prohibit that, and our rights are actually provided by government, at its whim, despite the fact that rights were deliberately recognized to prevent that?

Overall, this makes the Constitution nothing but a self-validating document, in service of the majority demand and socialism, and the ideal tool unbridled tyranny.

I'm pretty certain this is not at all what the founders intended.

Such a belief leaves only two options for any freedom at all, with nothing in between:

... either we relent put the government shackles on ourselves,
... or take up arms and start shooting.

You're just drawing random-ass conclusions. Everything you've said here is a complete non-sequitur.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

You're just drawing random-ass conclusions. Everything you've said here is a complete non-sequitur.

Non sequitur, only by today's so-called "liberal" ideology, which is not liberal at all, but rather didactic Marxist Progressive fascism intending to corrupt the constitution to achieve its agendas at any cost.

It seems pretty clear and "sequitous" that if anything gets into the Constitution, and is able to alter the Constitution's fundamental principle, then the Constitution is really no longer based on those fundamental principles, such as unalienable individual rights, sovereign state authority, and government limited to only enumerated powers.

Also, as a corollary of this, if the Constitution is subject to multiple deliberate "interpretations", then things might be ascribed to the Constitution so as to corrupt its principles, and to no surprise, they have been.

And given the two above recognitions, it is no surprise that certain legislation, such as ObamaCare, has succeeded in turning constitutional principle on its ear, by its presumed constitutionality, while being flagrantly unconstitutional, fundamentally changing the relationship between citizen and government, and allowing government to fabricate rights, such as "health care", and then compel the citizens into servitude of the government and other citizens, to meet the rights of those other citizens and the obligations of the government itself.

If you find this clear and straightforward dissection to be "non-sequitous", then the problem is not the argument itself, but rather your own inability, or perhaps more aptly refusal, to follow along. That's your own ideological agenda, and not a problem with my argument.

In truth, there's nothing "random-ass" about the Constitution's structure and design.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

A majority vote among the states and Congress is not purely democratic, since that requires a vote from the people themselves. The Constitution would not be an ideal tool to unbridled tyranny, because it is not that easy to get amendments passed. The ideal tool would be no Constitution.

But as far as the gist of your other general points are, yes. Most of the stuff the government does is not inline with the Constitution. Just look at the NSA. A piece of paper does not actually protect our rights.

Woah, it's a good thing that a majority vote among the States and Congress is not democratic, and was not at all pursing any agendas in conflict with that Constitution after the Civil War, such as instituting puppet governments under martial law, compelling the ratification of amendments to the Constitution in conflict with its principles, and fabricating powers nowhere among the enumerated powers in the Constitution, but rather deliberately prohibited thereby.

By these corrupt fabrications, the federal government might then reference something like the 14th Amendment, and dictate and legislate unto the states despite such federal dictate and legislation to the states being deliberately denied the federal government by the Constitution,and then use this to police rights and compel things like integration, busing and compliance with rights by private individuals and private institutions, in violation of individual's guarantee of freedom of association in the 1st Amendment and other rights, and fabricate the fiction of "birthright citizen" anchor babies from the corruption of the "jurisdiction", resulting an abrogation of national sovereignty by the federal government, and failure to fulfill the federal government's responsibility in the two-way compact that is citizenship.

But since it's in the Constitution, it's cannot possibly be in any way tyrannous, and that document is in no way being abused to institute that tyranny under the presumption of constitutionality! Thank heavens!
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Woah, it's a good thing that a majority vote among the States and Congress is not democratic, and was not at all pursing any agendas in conflict with that Constitution after the Civil War, such as instituting puppet governments under martial law, compelling the ratification of amendments to the Constitution in conflict with its principles, and fabricating powers nowhere among the enumerated powers in the Constitution, but rather deliberately prohibited thereby.

By these corrupt fabrications, the federal government might then reference something like the 14th Amendment, and dictate and legislate unto the states despite such federal dictate and legislation to the states being deliberately denied the federal government by the Constitution,and then use this to police rights and compel things like integration, busing and compliance with rights by private individuals and private institutions, in violation of individual's guarantee of freedom of association in the 1st Amendment and other rights, and fabricate the fiction of "birthright citizen" anchor babies from the corruption of the "jurisdiction", resulting an abrogation of national sovereignty by the federal government, and failure to fulfill the federal government's responsibility in the two-way compact that is citizenship.

But since it's in the Constitution, it's cannot possibly be in any way tyrannous, and that document is in no way being abused to institute that tyranny under the presumption of constitutionality! Thank heavens!
I did not say that if something is in the Constitution it can't in any way be tyrannous. Strawman. If its in the Constitution its constitutional, tyrannous or not. The Constitution can be amended towards more liberty or less. Legal and constitutional does not mean good. It seems to me you are conflating "unconstitutional" with "tyrannous."
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Non sequitur, only by today's so-called "liberal" ideology, which is not liberal at all, but rather didactic Marxist Progressive fascism intending to corrupt the constitution to achieve its agendas at any cost.

It seems pretty clear and "sequitous" that if anything gets into the Constitution, and is able to alter the Constitution's fundamental principle, then the Constitution is really no longer based on those fundamental principles, such as unalienable individual rights, sovereign state authority, and government limited to only enumerated powers.

Also, as a corollary of this, if the Constitution is subject to multiple deliberate "interpretations", then things might be ascribed to the Constitution so as to corrupt its principles, and to no surprise, they have been.

And given the two above recognitions, it is no surprise that certain legislation, such as ObamaCare, has succeeded in turning constitutional principle on its ear, by its presumed constitutionality, while being flagrantly unconstitutional, fundamentally changing the relationship between citizen and government, and allowing government to fabricate rights, such as "health care", and then compel the citizens into servitude of the government and other citizens, to meet the rights of those other citizens and the obligations of the government itself.

If you find this clear and straightforward dissection to be "non-sequitous", then the problem is not the argument itself, but rather your own inability, or perhaps more aptly refusal, to follow along. That's your own ideological agenda, and not a problem with my argument.

In truth, there's nothing "random-ass" about the Constitution's structure and design.
It is Constitutional to amend the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended in a way that changes its original intent. Good or bad, that's the way it works. So you may have problems with certain amendments, perhaps rightfully so, but they are still constitutional. The fact that you argue they are tyrannical amendments doesn't change that.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

I did not say that if something is in the Constitution it can't in any way be tyrannous. Strawman. If its in the Constitution its constitutional, tyrannous or not. The Constitution can be amended towards more liberty or less. Legal and constitutional does not mean good. It seems to me you are conflating "unconstitutional" with "tyrannous."

THe only way anthing in the Constitution might be inherently constitutional, is if we entirely disregard the fact that the Constitution is founded on principles of protecting individual rights, and limiting government to strictly enumerated powers, and turn the Constitution into a purposeless contact dictating the terms of society, no longer a compact between sovereign states, to create the fiction that is the federal government.

This is not just amending the Constitution to "less liberty" but rather the overturn of the entire principles of the constitution, and each time doing so under some false cover of societal benefit, such as only taxing those cruel corporations and evil rich (16th Amendment), or only ensuring rights of the victimized blacks that are guaranteed to all citizens (14th Amendment).

In fact these corruptions to the Constitution, and corrupt manipulations of original intent, have gone on to such a degree that NO AMENDMENT is even necessary to overturn freedoms and promote whatever illegitimate tyrannous government agenda. Witness ObamaCare.

IN each of these corruptions to the Constitution, the constitution has been taken from a general "form" of government, to being dictating the details of government, or providing the authority to dictate previously denied details of government, and change the very form of government itself.

Claiming that the alterations to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, and inherently tyrannous, is nothing but a fools paradise, accepting the appearance of legitimate government, in name only, rather than the actual fact of legitimate government by accepted terms, and is why Americans deserve the enslavement they are about to undergo.
 
Last edited:

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

It is Constitutional to amend the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended in a way that changes its original intent. Good or bad, that's the way it works. So you may have problems with certain amendments, perhaps rightfully so, but they are still constitutional. The fact that you argue they are tyrannical amendments doesn't change that.

It is Constitutional to amend the constitution in areas that are pursuant to its original intent.

It is not Constitutional to amend the Constitution so as to subvert that original intent, nor is it made constitutional by mere ratification of those amendments.

The way it actually works is no amendment can actually be made to the constitution that actually withdraws, unalienable rights nowhere provisions of that Constitution. Yet with amendments like the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 18th actually withdrew rights to the individual citizens, or their collective bodies, the sovereign states, and corrupted these rights. And it is no surprise these Amendments actually came in a surge of the original Progressivism, enabling government tyranny.

The fact that they are Amendments does not change the fact that they are inherently tyrannical and in conflict with those unalienable rights, and incompatible with and not pursuant to the Constitution - unconstitutional.

The difference between what the founders rejected in the Revolutionary War, and what we face today, is that they had no guarantee of the rights they recognized as unalienable , not even any precedent for those rights, yet they acted nonetheless, but we do have precedent, and guarantee, and those rights are the only acceptable basis to legitimacy in our form of government.


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.

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.

The first sentence above clearly states the primary purpose of government - to secure these rights, and the government is not only no longer doing so, but also is actually a direct threat to those rights.
 
Last edited:

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

THe only way anthing in the Constitution might be inherently constitutional, is if we entirely disregard the fact that the Constitution is founded on principles of protecting individual rights, and limiting government to strictly enumerated powers, and turn the Constitution into a purposeless contact dictating the terms of society, no longer a compact between sovereign states, to create the fiction that is the federal government.

This is not just amending the Constitution to "less liberty" but rather the overturn of the entire principles of the constitution, and each time doing so under some false cover of societal benefit, such as only taxing those cruel corporations and evil rich (16th Amendment), or only ensuring rights of the victimized blacks that are guaranteed to all citizens (14th Amendment).

In fact these corruptions to the Constitution, and corrupt manipulations of original intent, have gone on to such a degree that NO AMENDMENT is even necessary to overturn freedoms and promote whatever illegitimate tyrannous government agenda. Witness ObamaCare.

IN each of these corruptions to the Constitution, the constitution has been taken from a general "form" of government, to being dictating the details of government, or providing the authority to dictate previously denied details of government, and change the very form of government itself.

Claiming that the alterations to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, and inherently tyrannous, is nothing but a fools paradise, accepting the appearance of legitimate government, in name only, rather than the actual fact of legitimate government by accepted terms, and is why Americans deserve the enslavement they are about to undergo.
The Constitution can be interpreted in ways that are arguably unconstitutional, such as the instances you provide. But the constitution and its amendments cannot be unconstitutional. Alterations to the constitution are going to change the constitution from what it originally intended no matter what. That doesn't make amendments unconstitutional. That's what amendments do.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

The only conceivable away that part of the Constitution could be considered unconstitutional would be if there was an explicit, irreconcilable contradiction. An example would be that if one part says only women can vote and another part says that only men can vote. I would presume that the SCOTUS would deem that the more recent amendment repeals the earlier one in that extremely unlikely scenario.
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

It is Constitutional to amend the constitution in areas that are pursuant to its original intent.

It is not Constitutional to amend the Constitution so as to subvert that original intent, nor is it made constitutional by mere ratification of those amendments.

The way it actually works is no amendment can actually be made to the constitution that actually withdraws, unalienable rights nowhere provisions of that Constitution. Yet with amendments like the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 18th actually withdrew rights to the individual citizens, or their collective bodies, the sovereign states, and corrupted these rights. And it is no surprise these Amendments actually came in a surge of the original Progressivism, enabling government tyranny.

The fact that they are Amendments does not change the fact that they are inherently tyrannical and in conflict with those unalienable rights, and incompatible with and not pursuant to the Constitution - unconstitutional.

The difference between what the founders rejected in the Revolutionary War, and what we face today, is that they had no guarantee of the rights they recognized as unalienable , not even any precedent for those rights, yet they acted nonetheless, but we do have precedent, and guarantee, and those rights are the only acceptable basis to legitimacy in our form of government.

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.

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.

The first sentence above clearly states the primary purpose of government - to secure these rights, and the government is not only no longer doing so, but also is actually a direct threat to those rights.
They are still constitutional. Again, all you can argue is that they go against the original intent of the constitution or that they are bad and tyrannical amendments. But that doesn't change the fact that they are still constitutional. Again, you are conflating tyrannical with unconstitutional.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

They are still constitutional. Again, all you can argue is that they go against the original intent of the constitution or that they are bad and tyrannical amendments. But that doesn't change the fact that they are still constitutional. Again, you are conflating tyrannical with unconstitutional.

They are against the constitution - unconstitutional.

And it is not just a matter of "original intent", which is entirely irrelevant, when that original intent which might involve intending one branch of government to operate by one method, but rather another method was actually instituted. That is not the case here.

In these considerations the entire principle of the Constitution itself has been corrupted - those unalienable rights.

One example - Direct Tax
: we have been so habituated and inculcated that a tax on personal income is acceptable for government, and part of our responsibility to bear as citizens, but a direct tax on personal income was deliberately prohibited by the founders for real cause, because it enabled the government to engage any agenda whatsoever against the populace, or sections of the populace, so as to enact whatever social design it might choose. And this is why the Founders indicated that any such direct tax must be applied to each state according to the census, and not directly to the individuals enumerated in that census, thereby prohibiting their targeting.

The founders knew that a direct tax on personal income must be prohibited because of its inherently despotic nature,. Yet the courts and legislature would have us believe that personal income is not and never was included in direct tax, and have even characterized it as an excise, or event tax, which goes against the fact and simple truth. Our working 40 hours a week is an equal exchange of labor for payment, and not any sort of event tax, such as purchasing gasoline, or buying widgets. Furthermore, direct taxation is immediately undermining industry and initiative, by the theft of the equal payment for that industry, and a form of involuntary servitude.

The Pennsylvania Ratification convention specifically addressed direct taxation and recognized income from "trades and occupations" in the primary definition, Yet what we've been led today as the definition of direct tax, is income from property, and rents, and dividends, which is only the secondary definition of direct tax.

Regarding direct tax, that PA Ratification Convention indicated:

This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in it collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments.

These facts and principles were not changed by the ratification of the 16th, but rather only the Constitution was corrupted in principle, enabling the tyrannous, despotic agendas we see today. The 16th Amendment did not suddenly make direct taxation legitimate, and compatible with those individual rights.

Direct taxation was not just haphazardly prohibited as an irrelevant matter, but it is the very fabric of the Constitution itself, and it remains entirely in conflict with the Constitution - unconstitutional - by its violation of individual rights and freedoms.

This is not a matter of just "interpreting" the Constitution in a way that is unconstitutional but rather directly corrupting the Constitution so that it is no longer compatible with its principle, foundation, and no longer pursuant to its purpose, but rather entirely at odds with that purpose.

In short, these Amendments remain in direct conflict with the Constitution, despite their ratification and inclusion therein. The problem is not my argument, but rather your own believe the Constitution is some haphazard, loosely defined product that might change the terms to the people, when the Constitution only provides the terms that government might be allowed to exist, so as to protect the people's freedoms.
 
Last edited:

AllanHampton

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
699
Reaction score
95
Location
Arkansas, but I am Texan.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Those amendments may go against the original intent of the Constitution, but they are amendments--that's the point. They make changes to the constitution. So you can say the amendments are bad because they go against the original constitution, but nothing more.

Perhaps if we had a better understanding of the 1787 Constitution, as worded, then we would understand the purpose of an Amendment.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
487
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Constitution can not be unconstitutional.

Like the bible cant be unbiblical.
 

AllanHampton

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
699
Reaction score
95
Location
Arkansas, but I am Texan.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

So by this logic, anything that gets into the Constitution, by majority vote among the states and Congress, is inherently valid, and we're actually in fact a Democracy, despite every intention to prohibit that, and our rights are actually provided by government, at its whim, despite the fact that rights were deliberately recognized to prevent that?

Overall, this makes the Constitution nothing but a self-validating document, in service of the majority demand and socialism, and the ideal tool unbridled tyranny.

I'm pretty certain this is not at all what the founders intended.

Such a belief leaves only two options for any freedom at all, with nothing in between:

... either we relent put the government shackles on ourselves,
... or take up arms and start shooting.

Nonsense, no law enforces itself!
 

AllanHampton

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
699
Reaction score
95
Location
Arkansas, but I am Texan.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

I think it can be unconstitutional, but not necessarily in the sense that you're framing the discussion to be. Changes to the Constitution are part of the Amendment process, which delineates what exactly is the constitutional method for implementing said amendments.

It can be argued that the Constitution itself was unconstitutional because the way it was ratified was specifically breached the existing framework of the Articles of Confederation.

Anything can be argued, as well demonstrated on this board. Upon ratification of the Constitution the States gave up the power to make Treaties and consigned that power to the new federal government replacing the Article of Confederation. However, the new federal government relieved the States of their Treaty obligations and assumed the responsibility of fulfilling them.

So, the Article of Confederation was done away with but not entirely breached. Valid obligations were fulfilled.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Nonsense, no law enforces itself!

I'm uncertain what you're actually rejecting.

1) The presumption that the Constitution might validate itself in whatever form, by its new alterations validating themselves, which I profoundly reject, as this only results in ever expanding government authority under the <false> color of constitutionality.

2) Or the idea that the country is based on certain unalterable principles as the basis of that Compact that created the government, founded on the unalienable individual rights, and the sovereignty of the several States, which the government and Constitution itself are now in violation of. The principles described in the Declaration, and its inclusion in U.S. Code as the organic law of this country, would strongly confirm this as the legitimate truth.


If you're rejecting #2, then you're rejecting the principles of this country, and embracing the idea of an ever-expanding tyrannous government that has given itself a false legitimacy by the alterations to the Constitution made under false assurances, and inaccurate representations to the people.

The issue is not one of "enforcing", but rather of self "validating". Our failure to enforce the unalterable terms of the Constitution, has allowed government to corrupt it by initial misrepresentation of those alterations, and violate those original terms which allowed the government to exist, now under the false color of constitutionality.

Apparently you believe that the document cannot limit <enforce> itself to original terms, but do believe that the document can validate itself, in disregard to those unalienable original principles, which is a belief that really prohibits holding this country forth as any sort of ideal of freedom.

How do you imagine that the government might give itself the authority to pervert the very "rights" recognized in the Bill of Rights, into being something the government polices,and thereby grants, and even to use them as an on-demand "license" against other private citizens, when these are in extreme conflict with the purpose and nature of rights?
 
Last edited:

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

I think it can be unconstitutional, but not necessarily in the sense that you're framing the discussion to be. Changes to the Constitution are part of the Amendment process, which delineates what exactly is the constitutional method for implementing said amendments.

The constitution only creates the fiction that is the federal government. It does not create rights, nor grant them. It does not forfeit sovereignty of the states, but only empowers the federal government to act as proxy for the interests of the cumulative states.

Nowhere can the Constitution diminish the unalienable rights of the citizens.

Nowhere can the Constitution diminish that sovereignty of the states, yet that it what some intend the Constitution to have done by amendment, and corruption. Even as recognized by the supreme court in Pollard's Lessee, that sovereignty cannot be forfeit by even the state's own willful act. In this regard the state sovereignty, the representation of the cumulative citizens within, is much like the unalienable rights of individuals.

If individuals and states cannot even willfully give up their own sovereign authority and unalienable rights, then how is it possible that these Amendments might be valid under the Constitution?

It is not possible, and the Constitution does not 'self-validate" as constitutional anything that is incorporated within it.

It can be argued that the Constitution itself was unconstitutional because the way it was ratified was specifically breached the existing framework of the Articles of Confederation.

The "way it was ratified" has no bearing on the corruptions to the Constitution being unconstitutional. I'm definitely not indicating that the Constitution as a whole is unconstitutional.

What I am actually indicating is that the alterations to the Constitution and the interpretation of those alterations, are corruptions to the unalterable principle of the Constitution, and thereby themselves unconstitutional.

For instance:
>> The government cannot give itself the authority to police rights, because those rights are specifically recognized to prevent the government's alteration of them.

>> The government cannot give itself the authority to tax individual income, not even by amendment <16th>, nor by the corrupt re-definition of "direct tax" and reclassification of personal income as a "excise" event tax, which it clearly is not. The reason is that an individual has no net gain from employment, no profit, is a result of the fact that employment is the equal exchange of labor for remuneration. No one, not even the furthest left Communist union members, would claim that an individual's labor is without worth, but that is what the government is saying in taxing payment for that labor.

Article 1, Section 9, "Limits to Congress: "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."​

This is reason for the very existence of the constitutional mandate that EVERY direct tax must be distributed to the state itself according to the census of enumeration, paid by some other collection means, and not applied directly to the individual making the income because, as recognized by this nation's founders, direct taxation is nothing but the tool of despots, enabling the government to wield agendas against individuals. "This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments."

No amendment, nor redefining employment income to be an "excise tax", can change this fact.

>> The government cannot give itself the ability to fabricate rights, such as health care, because the ability to create rights, is also the ability to deny real, fundamental rights, and that is precisely what we see with ObamaCare and the abrogation of 80% of the Bill of Rights.

All of these, and more, are illegitimate and unconstitutional, because "that which is unchangeable" (Individual rights & State Sovereignty) cannot be changed merely by following the the process detailed in Article V of the Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom