Constitution only applies to the People, not the govt.

[solletica]

There is common misconception about the Constitution that many posters here seem to have, and it concerns the scope of "We the People."

When the Constitution alludes to the People, it means exactly that, i. e. the actual people of the US, or in other words, those residents of the US that don't have a legally binding relationship w/the federal govt. or any other govt. entity within the US.

That means that federal/state politicians, military personnel, police forces (local and federal), etc. do not have any rights. Although they typically are granted certain protections equivalent or rivaling those found in the Constitution, strictly speaking, the Constitution does not apply to them.

If the Framers wanted to include pols, police, etc., they would've stated it in the Constitution, i. e. by saying something like "We the People and the Police and Congress."
.

 

[TurtleDude]

There is common misconception about the Constitution that many posters here seem to have, and it concerns the scope of "We the People."

When the Constitution alludes to the People, it means exactly that, i. e. the actual people of the US, or in other words, those residents of the US that don't have a legally binding relationship w/the federal govt. or any other govt. entity within the US.

That means that federal/state politicians, military personnel, police forces (local and federal), etc. do not have any rights. Although they typically are granted certain protections equivalent or rivaling those found in the Constitution, strictly speaking, the Constitution does not apply to them.

If the Framers wanted to include pols, police, etc., they would've stated it in the Constitution, i. e. by saying something like "We the People and the Police and Congress."
.

in reality the bill of rights applies only to the federal government in the sense that it restricts the federal government from doing certain things. The RIGHTS of the people were presumed by the founders to PRE EXIST the constitution and are not dependent on the constitution for their existence

 

[Master PO]

the title of your thread in wrong.

the constitution does not apply to the people.

the constitution is a limiting document ,placed on the federal government setting up the federal government, and delegating them powers, but it also says they states that they cannot engage in those powers the federal government is delegated.

no where in the constitution is there a restriction on the people.

the constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes rights, and places a restriction on the federal government not to create any law which infringes on them......this from the bill of rights preamble.

 

[solletica]

the title of your thread in wrong.

the constitution does not apply to the people.

the constitution is a limiting document ,placed on the federal government setting up the federal government, and delegating them powers, but it also says they states that they cannot engage in those powers the federal government is delegated.

no where in the constitution is there a restriction on the people.

the constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes rights, and places a restriction on the federal government not to create any law which infringes on them......this from the bill of rights preamble.

This is true. The Constitution places restrictions on what the federal AND local govts. CANNOT do to the people, but it DOES NOT place restrictions on what regulations the govt. can impose among govt. personnel.

For example, if a military recruiter goes to a campus and makes comments that the govt. doesn't like to students, the govt. IS ALLOWED to arrest him for making those comments--it would not violate any 1st Amendment protection because the recruiter is NOT acting as an individual, but as an agent of the govt. In other words, the govt. is allowed to REGULATE the conduct of its own personnel even if such regulation is incompatible w/something in the Bill of Rights.

Similarly, a member of the military who was issued a firearm to carry on a military base to augment his security as part of his position in the military (i. e. to defend against terrorists that target him as an enemy soldier) DOES NOT enjoy 2nd Amendment protection. In other words, a soldier can't cite the Constitution as an excuse to violate his orders, so if he uses that gun in any way that he wasn't authorized to use it for (i. e. if he was ORDERED not to shoot someone and he does), he CANNOT cite the 2nd Amendment as a defense for his actions.

The 2nd Amendment would only apply if he bought and owned a gun, and the purchase was not SANCTIONED in any way, directly or indirectly, by the govt. and his ownership of the gun was not expected to be part of his service in the military.

But there is a clear conflict of interest whenever someone who is a soldier, police officer, or politician cites the Bill of Rights as a defense for his/her actions, because there are cases when it's difficult to tell whether the act was done as part of his position or simply as an individual.

 

[Thoreau72]

This thread offers tortured logic.

 

[lawboy]

This is true. The Constitution places restrictions on what the federal AND local govts. CANNOT do to the people, but it DOES NOT place restrictions on what regulations the govt. can impose among govt. personnel.

Sure it does!

For example, if a military recruiter goes to a campus and makes comments that the govt. doesn't like to students, the govt. IS ALLOWED to arrest him for making those comments--it would not violate any 1st Amendment protection because the recruiter is NOT acting as an individual, but as an agent of the govt. In other words, the govt. is allowed to REGULATE the conduct of its own personnel even if such regulation is incompatible w/something in the Bill of Rights.

The BoR applies to government persons, to say he can or can not be arrested is FACT specific and PC, just as with ANY person.

 

[Slyfox696]

I find it sad how many posts in this thread seem to be confusing the Constitution with the Bill of Rights (which is part of the Constitution, but not the only part). The Constitution is the framework of our government. It outlines the roles and powers of the various branches of our government. The Constitution applies solely to the government, not the people. The Bill of Rights (and indeed many of the Amendments) provides limits of the government in their ability to rule, but it still is part of the framework for the government itself.

 

[Wiseone]

This topic is painful, the Constitution literally defines the basis for our government the majority of it isn't about individual rights or freedoms but rather how the government will be set up and how it will operate.

 

[haymarket]

in reality the bill of rights applies only to the federal government in the sense that it restricts the federal government from doing certain things. The RIGHTS of the people were presumed by the founders to PRE EXIST the constitution and are not dependent on the constitution for their existence

So who are they dependent upon for their existence and continued protection and honoring?

 

[Kal'Stang]

So who are they dependent upon for their existence and continued protection and honoring?

The People.

 

[Kal'Stang]

There is common misconception about the Constitution that many posters here seem to have, and it concerns the scope of "We the People."

When the Constitution alludes to the People, it means exactly that, i. e. the actual people of the US, or in other words, those residents of the US that don't have a legally binding relationship w/the federal govt. or any other govt. entity within the US.

That means that federal/state politicians, military personnel, police forces (local and federal), etc. do not have any rights. Although they typically are granted certain protections equivalent or rivaling those found in the Constitution, strictly speaking, the Constitution does not apply to them.

If the Framers wanted to include pols, police, etc., they would've stated it in the Constitution, i. e. by saying something like "We the People and the Police and Congress."
.

Those who wrote the Constitution were speaking for every single citizen in the country. That is why it says "We the People". Saying "We the People" was not in any way an indication that the Constitution applied only to The People and not the Government. To even suggest such is silly considering the Entire Constitution that was made and signed before the BoR's was made (and subsequent amendments) and spoke specifically on how the Federal government was to be formed and the powers allowed to each branch of the government. Then when the BoR's was made it was made to restrict the government from infringing on The Peoples pre-existing Rights. So again, not about The People, but about the Government.

Also, last I knew every single politician, military personnel, and police personnel were made up of citizens and as such are granted full protections outlined in the BoR's...unless they voluntarily wave those protections.

 

[Master PO]

This is true. The Constitution places restrictions on what the federal AND local govts. CANNOT do to the people, but it DOES NOT place restrictions on what regulations the govt. can impose among govt. personnel.

For example, if a military recruiter goes to a campus and makes comments that the govt. doesn't like to students, the govt. IS ALLOWED to arrest him for making those comments--it would not violate any 1st Amendment protection because the recruiter is NOT acting as an individual, but as an agent of the govt. In other words, the govt. is allowed to REGULATE the conduct of its own personnel even if such regulation is incompatible w/something in the Bill of Rights.

Similarly, a member of the military who was issued a firearm to carry on a military base to augment his security as part of his position in the military (i. e. to defend against terrorists that target him as an enemy soldier) DOES NOT enjoy 2nd Amendment protection. In other words, a soldier can't cite the Constitution as an excuse to violate his orders, so if he uses that gun in any way that he wasn't authorized to use it for (i. e. if he was ORDERED not to shoot someone and he does), he CANNOT cite the 2nd Amendment as a defense for his actions.

The 2nd Amendment would only apply if he bought and owned a gun, and the purchase was not SANCTIONED in any way, directly or indirectly, by the govt. and his ownership of the gun was not expected to be part of his service in the military.

But there is a clear conflict of interest whenever someone who is a soldier, police officer, or politician cites the Bill of Rights as a defense for his/her actions, because there are cases when it's difficult to tell whether the act was done as part of his position or simply as an individual.

when you join the military, those restrictions placed on government by the bill of rights, not longer apply to you, becuase you now fall under the UCMJ....uniform code of military justice

 

[solletica]

Those who wrote the Constitution were speaking for every single citizen in the country. That is why it says "We the People". Saying "We the People" was not in any way an indication that the Constitution applied only to The People and not the Government.

BY definition, the People is not the govt. There is a clear separation. If there weren't, then pols could take advantage of their position as a legal govt. official to advance an agenda for the country or for themselves by exploiting one of the Bill of Rights, and that was never the Framer's intent.

For example, a pol in Congress doesn't enjoy the Constitutional right to enact or even write a bill that mandates or or in any favors or advocates any specific religion. He can't claim "freedom of religion" to make such a bill.

He also has no right, in his capacity as a member of Congress, to give any speeches anywhere advocating a specific religion or religious argument in any way, shape, or form.

Another example: a (corrupt) FBI agent makes a deal w/a drug lord lieutenant to help ship large amounts of contraband in his federal vehicle (or his own truck) while he's investigating another crime, and a bystander catches him by noticing it in his vehicle. That bystander and his buddies would have the right to search his vehicle (of course, it would suicidal to ask, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional), with force (using his own guns) if necessary. The agent could not legally deny the request claiming 4th Amendment protection, and the bystanders have every legal right to expose a crime.

It needn't be said that nowadays, the US govt. and its police forces/pols routinely ignore all laws and all Amendments and does anything it wants and makes lame excuses for it. Still, it's important to remember that its actions are never Constitutional.

 

[Paschendale]

Last I checked there was no asterisk anywhere in the constitution after the word "people".

 

[Mr.Nick]

The United States Constitution and espiecally the Bill of Rights was manifested to grant civil liberties to the INDIVIDUAL US citizen - it certainly was not - nor ever - in place as an Federal/national authoritarian document that grants power of the State governments over the people or the individuals within said state that didn't violate constitution law - Obamacare is NOT a constitution law - it's nothing more than a mandate....

The whole premise of the Tenth Amendment just validates my aforementioned facts...

The real tyrants are the ones on MSMBC yapping away believing their ****ing opinions trump our Bill of RIghts and the numerous founding documents that have been preserved for anyone to read have been degraded by progressives and deemed "old fashioned and inundate - not because they're the documents are not - they're just a threat to the public school systems 1984 Orwellian lesson plan.

In shot the "progressive opinion" and what they deem logical is moot considering we already have a document that grants evey individual in this nation the opportunity to climb the latter and become a successful individual which progressives loath.....

Unfortunately progressives believe it's the other way around

 

[Moot]

There is common misconception about the Constitution that many posters here seem to have, and it concerns the scope of "We the People."

When the Constitution alludes to the People, it means exactly that, i. e. the actual people of the US, or in other words, those residents of the US that don't have a legally binding relationship w/the federal govt. or any other govt. entity within the US.

That means that federal/state politicians, military personnel, police forces (local and federal), etc. do not have any rights. Although they typically are granted certain protections equivalent or rivaling those found in the Constitution, strictly speaking, the Constitution does not apply to them.

If the Framers wanted to include pols, police, etc., they would've stated it in the Constitution, i. e. by saying something like "We the People and the Police and Congress."
.

The police, politicians, military, etc...are people, too. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people.

You have to read the Preamble in context. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,......do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The constitution is a contract between we the people and the government and it outlines the duties and power given to it by 'we the people'.

 

[American]

So who are they dependent upon for their existence and continued protection and honoring?

Please provide verifiable and duly certified evidence that that our existence depends upon someone besides ourselves.

 

[American]

The United States Constitution and espiecally the Bill of Rights was manifested to grant civil liberties to the INDIVIDUAL US citizen - it certainly was not - nor ever - in place as an Federal/national authoritarian document that grants power of the State governments over the people or the individuals within said state that didn't violate constitution law - Obamacare is NOT a constitution law - it's nothing more than a mandate....

The whole premise of the Tenth Amendment just validates my aforementioned facts...

The real tyrants are the ones on MSMBC yapping away believing their ****ing opinions trump our Bill of RIghts and the numerous founding documents that have been preserved for anyone to read have been degraded by progressives and deemed "old fashioned and inundate - not because they're the documents are not - they're just a threat to the public school systems 1984 Orwellian lesson plan.

In shot the "progressive opinion" and what they deem logical is moot considering we already have a document that grants evey individual in this nation the opportunity to climb the latter and become a successful individual which progressives loath.....

Unfortunately progressives believe it's the other way around

Frankly I wish you'd take it down a few notches, you're making my head hurt.

 

[haymarket]

Please provide verifiable and duly certified evidence that that our existence depends upon someone besides ourselves.

I have no idea what you are talking about or why you would ask such a thing of me and for what purpose. It makes no sense.

My comment dealt with the process whereby a right is created and protected through the force of the people and the action of their government. Your challenge to me has nothing to do with this in any way shape or form.

 

[Master PO]

I have no idea what you are talking about or why you would ask such a thing of me and for what purpose. It makes no sense.

My comment dealt with the process whereby a right is created and protected through the force of the people and the action of their government. Your challenge to me has nothing to do with this in any way shape or form.

rights are endowed,.................... and the constitution recognizes some of the rights people have by the written confirmation of the BOR, other rights have been recognized by our courts ......like right to vote, ...this falls under the 9th amendment.

no laws have been passed in the history of the u.s. which grants rights to the people... because that would defy the founding principles.

when government passes a law, which people feel violates rights of the people [say......a right which have not been adjudicated yet in court] which would fall under the 9th amendment, Then that law is taken to court and challenged, the court then decides whether the law is legal, OR does it violate a right which part of the 9th, then court EITHER states it does not violate a right or it then recognizes the right thru the USSC...that it is a pre-existing right of the people, before the constitution was ever created.

 

[haymarket]

rights are endowed,...................

by who?

 

[Moot]

Please provide verifiable and duly certified evidence that that our existence depends upon someone besides ourselves.

TD was talking about rights and thats what Haymarket was responding to. The founders just assumed that all rights exist because it would be impossible to list each one. The bill of rights enumerates a few certain rights for protection but the ninth amendment protects all other rights not enumerated.

 

[Master PO]

by who?

a higher power....you interpret that yourself, that is why the founders left it as subjective to the reader.

since rights are endowed, and not created by the people or governments........neither one has the power to take them away from the public at large

 

[Master PO]

The founders just assumed that all rights exist because it would be impossible to list each one. The bill of rights enumerates a few certain rights for protection but the ninth amendment protects all other rights not enumerated.

i would have used "acknowledged" instead of "assumed"......however your post is very good Moot......

 

[haymarket]

a higher power....you interpret that yourselfe

yes - a higher power than the individual - the collective will of the American people acting through their duly elected government.