Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

[Master PO]

The fact that they have violated our rights proves that you're wrong.

they have violated our rights, that is correct ,however that is because the federal government has become involved in the life's liberty and property of the people...something the founders did not want and that has happened via income taxes, and the commerce clause and the elastic clause.

if we had no income taxes, and no federal government involvement in commerce inside of states [like the founders intended]the federal government could do little do you....it is the USSC that has allowed the federal government to violate our rights, by declaring unconstitutional laws the federal government has made ON the citizenry constitutional.

 

[sangha]

they have violated our rights, that is correct ,however that is because the federal government has become involved in the life's liberty and property of the people...

Which proves that I'm right when I say there are no words that a constitution can use that can prevent it from happening.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Which proves that I'm right when I say there are no words that a constitution can use that can prevent it from happening.

Especially as our understanding of rights shifts over time.

The original constitution allowed slavery! and kept the vote from anyone but white men who owned property. Thank goodness things shift over time.

We now understand that same sex couples and inter-racial couples have a right to marry; that's not something our founders would have ever dreamed needing as a right.

 

[Master PO]

Which proves that I'm right when I say there are no words that a constitution can use that can prevent it from happening.

1.well we had delegated powers......yet for some reason people see more powers then are delegated.......this allows violations by the federal government.

2 we had the 10th amendment as a further protection...which made it know...but for some reason, some people do not like the 10th and act like its not there...which allows the federal government to violate rights of the people

3.we had a senate in the hands of state governments, as a protection against violations of the people rights by the federal government......but the 17th destroyed that

5 we had a Constitution which barred the senate from creation any legitimation, creating revenue.....the senate does it anyway.

4.we had a USSC which delegated themselves with power ...the supreme court - "the supreme court decides what the Constitution says...............instead of interpreting the constitution.

 

[sangha]

1.well we had delegated powers......yet for some reason people see more powers then are delegated.......this allows violations by the federal government.

2 we had the 10th amendment as a further protection...which made it know...but for some reason, some people do not like the 10th and act like its not there...which allows the federal government to violate rights of the people

3.we had a senate in the hands of state governments, as a protection against violations of the people rights by the federal government......but the 17th destroyed that

5 we had a Constitution which barred the senate from creation any legitimation, creating revenue.....the senate does it anyway.

4.we had a USSC which delegated themselves with power ...the supreme court - "the supreme court decides what the Constitution says...............instead of interpreting the constitution.

All of which proves that I'm right when I say there are no words that a constitution can use that can prevent it from happening.

 

[Master PO]

Especially as our understanding of rights shifts over time.

The original constitution allowed slavery! and kept the vote from anyone but white men who owned property. Thank goodness things shift over time.

We now understand that same sex couples and inter-racial couples have a right to marry; that's not something our founders would have ever dreamed needing as a right.

the Constitution did not allow slavery, because it was a state issue....if you dont believe me, show me the clause in the Constitution.

the Constitution did not deny people the vote, its a state issued listed in the constitution, and it was not a right but a privilege in the time of the founders

you dont have a right to marry...marriage is a privilege, because it takes an action from government for it to be legal from a government stand point.

 

[Master PO]

All of which proves that I'm right when I say there are no words that a constitution can use that can prevent it from happening.

i will admit you are correct, because of the people not being vigilante over their government.

income taxes

federal reserve act

17th amendment

commerce clause as interpenetrated by the USSC

have vastly allowed the federal government to violate the rights of the people.

that's why when the founders say the federal government is limited.....its supposed to be limited, to protect the people.

 

[paddymcdougall]

the Constitution did not allow slavery, because it was a state issue....if you dont believe me, show me the clause in the Constitution.

the Constitution did not deny people the vote, its a state issued listed in the constitution, and it was not a right but a privilege in the time of the founders

you dont have a right to marry...marriage is a privilege, because it takes an action from government for it to be legal from a government stand point.

Then it did a pretty horrible job of protecting our rights, didn't it?

And yes, marriage is a right - the supreme court ruled it so.
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

 

[Master PO]

Then it did a pretty horrible job of protecting our rights, didn't it?

And yes, marriage is a right - the supreme court ruled it so.
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

the purpose of the Constitution is to create federalism....a separation of powers.

federal is delegated few powers, and is limited by the constitution........if some people would stop wanting the government to do things for them in their personal lifes, then they could not violate rights....

before and after the constitution, states governed the people, and rights were by state constitution.

the bill of rights were restrictions on the federal government only, that they are to make no laws which violate the rights recognized by the Constitution....if government cannot do things for the people [redistribution, regulate people], then they cannot violate rights of the people.

marriage cannot be a right.......because it takes someone to preform the ceremony be that from a church or government......no right has the power of force on another Citizen or government.

 

[paddymcdougall]

marriage cannot be a right.......because it takes someone to preform the ceremony be that from a church or government......no right has the power of force on another Citizen or government.

Actually, marriage wouldn't have to involve another person. Used to be jumping over a broom was sufficient; and to divorce, you put their shoes outside the building.

 

[Master PO]

actually, marriage wouldn't have to involve another person. Used to be jumping over a broom was sufficient; and to divorce, you put their shoes outside the building.

for rights everyone and government must stand back and not hinder the exercise of the right.

Privileges require an action by government for the privilege to be exercised

 

[The Mark]

Especially as our understanding of rights shifts over time.

The original constitution allowed slavery! and kept the vote from anyone but white men who owned property. Thank goodness things shift over time.

We now understand that same sex couples and inter-racial couples have a right to marry; that's not something our founders would have ever dreamed needing as a right.

I don't really consider it a right in itself - it does not seem separate from the freedom to associate and the idea of equal treatment under the law.

Basically it's something which is not denied to heterosexuals and thus denying it to homosexuals is unequal treatment.

But it is likely that the occurrence of such a debate would likely be unexpected for the founders. Hell I don't think they had an "equal protection under the law" at the time, anyway. Seeing as that was mostly 14th A.

 

[The Mark]

All of which proves that I'm right when I say there are no words that a constitution can use that can prevent it from happening.

I agree that we cannot prevent the possibility.

But I think that we should attempt to provide systems within the overall framework that will require any such changes to be illegal and/or extra-legal, and provide checks against even that if possible.

 

[sangha]

the Constitution did not allow slavery, because it was a state issue....if you dont believe me, show me the clause in the Constitution.

The Constitution, as originally written, not only allowed slavery it also prohibited states from protecting slaves who had escaped slavery in other states by requiring states to return them to their owners

Here's the clause, from Article IV, Sec 2

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

IOW, not only is your claim about slavery inaccurate, but this clause shows how the constitution allowed the federal govt to force states to comply with laws passed in other states and to be involved in the personal lives of people (after all, you can't get any more involved with someone's personal life than telling them they have to remain a slave even if they relocate to a state that forbids slavery)

 

[Master PO]

The Constitution, as originally written, not only allowed slavery it also prohibited states from protecting slaves who had escaped slavery in other states by requiring states to return them to their owners

Here's the clause, from Article IV, Sec 2


IOW, not only is your claim about slavery inaccurate, but this clause shows how the constitution allowed the federal govt to force states to comply with laws passed in other states and to be involved in the personal lives of people (after all, you can't get any more involved with someone's personal life than telling them they have to remain a slave even if they relocate to a state that forbids slavery)

first...... when i said.... not involved in the personal life's of the people.........AGAIN...as i have stated many times over and over......"involved" meaning the CONGRESS creating laws [federal law] ......[not the federal courts, or the executive branch] on the back of Citizens, concerning their bodies, the property they have created, or worked for.


the Constitution states that the federal government will uphold state laws, if a person were to escape to another state, the law does not mention slavery, it covers slavery and indentured servitude which existed....for black and white people.

remember the words....."ensure domestic tranquility".........the federal government has no authority over slaves, its a state issue, one of the goals of the Constitution is to keep peace between the states...which were fighting with each other before the Constitution was written.

NOTE: if you read, the original clause of the Constitution it said this: No person legally held to service or labor in one state, escaping into another, shall in consequence of regulations subsisting therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

the founders stuck out "legally"


Art. IV. sect 2, parag: 3. the term "legally" was struck out, and "under the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view--

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. So freedom of speech is conditional.

In many states, ex-cons can't vote. And I don't think any state allows prisoners to vote. The right to vote is conditional.

Just two examples.

A

The case in which the Supreme Court said you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, Schenk v United States, was overturned in the 1960s. Also the metaphor as used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, was yelling fire in a crowded theater AND causing a panic. The case in question dealt with a pacifist to spread literature during World War I demanding people not report for the draft, The court had rolled that his speech could be restricted for wartime contingency. That was the basis for the metaphor. The Supreme Court overturned this decision in the 1960s in another decision in the 70s and has never revived the Schenk ruling.

Even so there is no law against yelling fire in a theater. If someone is hurt you can be charged with an action that led to their injuries, but we do not put muzzles on people entering theaters.

We also restrict convicted felon's from owning guns unless their rights restored. so your example about voting is already done with firearms, and that is as a result of a criminal conviction subject to due process in a court of law. Prior restraint

 

[sangha]

first...... when i said.... not involved in the personal life's of the people.........AGAIN...as i have stated many times over and over......"involved" meaning the CONGRESS creating laws [federal law] ......[not the federal courts, or the executive branch] on the back of Citizens, concerning their bodies, the property they have created, or worked for.

The constitution is federal law and it involved itself with the personal lives of citizens which you wrongly claimed it couldn't do. You also wrongly claimed the constitution did not allow slavery even though it's clear that it not only allowed slavery, it also *prohibited* states from making it's own laws concerning the return of slaves.

And your definition of "involved" is one that only you believe in. The dictionary states otherwise.

the Constitution states that the federal government will uphold state laws, if a person were to escape to another state, the law does not mention slavery, it covers slavery and indentured servitude which existed....for black and white people.

Ahh, I see! It doesn't mention "slavery"; It mentions "slavery and indentured servitude" - That changes it completely

And that clause says the opposite of what you claim. It doesn't require the Fed to UPHOLD state laws. It requires the FED to OVERULE state laws in favor of the state law of another state, even though it has no jurisdiction in the state where the escaped slave was then living.

So much for "state soveriegnity" That just got tossed under the bus

remember the words....."ensure domestic tranquility".........the federal government has no authority over slaves, its a state issue, one of the goals of the Constitution is to keep peace between the states...which were fighting with each other before the Constitution was written.

Yes, the federal govt has no authority over slaves, except that it could overturn state laws that allowed escaped slaves to remain free.

 

[Master PO]

well its i see i have to dispel again this idea of "yell fire in a theater"

you are not held accountable for your speech, you are held accountable for the pain and suffering, loss of revenue or product which your speech can cause.

if you yell "fire" in crowded theater and not one person moves, there is no damage, no pain no suffering and nothing is lost, when who is the victim?....

 

[Master PO]

The constitution is federal law and it involved itself with the personal lives of citizens which you wrongly claimed it couldn't do. You also wrongly claimed the constitution did not allow slavery even though it's clear that it not only allowed slavery, it also *prohibited* states from making it's own laws concerning the return of slaves.

And your definition of "involved" is one that only you believe in. The dictionary states otherwise.



Ahh, I see! It doesn't mention "slavery"; It mentions "slavery and indentured servitude" - That changes it completely



Yes, the federal govt has no authority over slaves, except that it could overturn state laws that allowed escaped slaves to remain free.

your argument is DEAD..

constitutional law............is not federal law!

the Constitution grants congress the ability to create federal law.....for the general constitutional powers of article 1 section 8....to define them into working law.

 

[sangha]

your argument is DEAD..

constitutional law............is not federal law!

Of course it's federal law. It's even in the US Code.

Remember?

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=32

Article VI

This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land;

 

[Master PO]

Of course it's federal law. It's even in the US Code.

Remember?

Article VI

you did not read well,.....only the DOI, was inserted into the revised statures of 1878..not the constitution, the Constitution and the DOI, ARE USED in u.s. enabling law.

the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

u.s. code /statue law, is federal law....this is what government operates off of.

constitutional law is passed by amendment thru congress and then on to the states were 3/4 of them must ratify that amendment to become constitutional law.

federal law is passed by congress and signed by the president and becomes law.

federal law...is subservient to constitutional law

 

[sangha]

only the DOI, was inserted into the revised statures of 1878..not the constitution, the Constitution and the DOI, ARE USED in u.s. enabling law.

The revised statutes do not contain any section called "enabling laws". The constitution is part of the same section of the revised codes which detail federal law.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

 

[Master PO]

The revised statutes do not contain any section called "enabling laws". The constitution is part of the same section of the revised codes which detail federal law.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

u.s enabling law is used when new states join the union.....their Constitutions cannot be repugnant, to the federal Constitution or the PRINCIPLES of the DOI.

explain your link please.

 

[sangha]

u.s enabling law is used when new states join the union.....their Constitutions cannot be repugnant, to the federal Constitution or the PRINCIPLES of the DOI.

explain your link please.

So enabling law is "used when new states join the union" and the constitution is enabling law which means "the constitution is used when new states join the union"

Bzzzzt!!

Wrong answer. The constitution is "the supreme law of the land" and is used for more than just when new states join the union.

My link is to the page of the revised statutes where the constitution is listed as part of federal law. In fact, it starts at the first page of the sections with federal law.

 

[Master PO]

So enabling law is "used when new states join the union" and the constitution is enabling law which means "the constitution is used when new states join the union"

Bzzzzt!!

Wrong answer. The constitution is "the supreme law of the land" and is used for more than just when new states join the union.

My link is to the page of the revised statutes where the constitution is listed as part of federal law. In fact, it starts at the first page of the sections with federal law.

no....... enabling law is federal law.......for a state to join the union, its constitution must not be repugnant to the federal Constitution or the DOI, as stated by federal law......which federal ENABLING law can be created on the issue of states joining the union...because Constitution grants that constitutional power.

in the revised statutes...again you dont read.......you skip and read what you wish to read.

the organic laws of the u.s. are not [positive law.......they are NON-positive law]



Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_law