Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignored? (1 Viewer)

[Beaudreaux]

I've never done this before - take a post from another member and make a thread from it. I hope this isn't against the rules.

This thread is not to discuss Gun Control, or Muslim Banning, or any political act in and of itself, but rather the implications that one part of the US Constitution is more important or less important than another part, and why you feel that way.

I feel that the issue brought up within another thread, in the post below, is worth in-depth discussion, deep examination, and its own thread:

One side screaming that we need to encroach on the first, but protect the second.

The other side screaming that we need to encroach on the second, but protect the first.

Both side oblivious to the lunacy of their pathetic attempts to equivocate why their damaging of constitutional rights is more "okay" than the other one.

In that post, he is (correct me if I'm wrong) referring to the proposal to infringe on the 1st Amendment Right of Muslims (as Trump has called for) without the benefit of the protection of Due Process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendment, yet protecting the 2nd Amendment Right by one party, while at the same time, the other party is calling for the 1st Amendment Rights Muslims to be respected, while openly arguing to ban certain guns and refuse to allow certain people to buy a gun without the benefit of Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendment (as Hillary Clinton did today in her speech from Cleveland) in an open attack on 2nd Amendment Rights. For instance, another example is the erosion of 4th Amendment by our government intercepting our emails, and other electronic communications.

So let's talk about this.

Which rights matter to you, and which ones do not? Are there any rights that are more important than others?

Please don't go into the "Your rights end where mine begin" because we all know that although there are limitations such as public accommodations. If you want to have a conversation about public accommodations and how that may impose on your religious beliefs and rights, feel free to open a new thread about that, but this isn't the thread for that discussion.

Here's my take in a nutshell - ALL of the US Constitution matters, equally. The separation of powers. The limitations placed on the governments power, and the recognition of the inalienable rights of the people and the powers reserved to the states, all are important.

In my opinion, it matters not for what purpose an erosion of a Constitutional right or protection is undertaken, the potential damage is unacceptable and must be stopped.

I have read post after post of why one group or another has to relinquish its rights for the greater good. Please, tell why I should agree with that. Pick your right that you believe must be curtailed for the greater good and why it's less important than the other rights. Not the stuff you can talk about in the Gun Control forum (like you disagree with the language interpretation), or the Religion forum (like one religion is a religion of peace and one isn't therefore the one that isn't shouldn't be allowed in the country), but why the right itself is less important than the other rights.

Please proceed under the assumption that the rights laid out in the US Constitution apply to all people within the boundaries of the United States and its possessions, not just US Citizens (pretty much because that's the truth).

Zyphlin, If I've unintentionally broken a rule by doing this, please delete or move this thread as you see fit.

 

[11Bravo]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I've never done this before - take a post from another member and make thread from it. I hope this isn't against the rules.

This thread is not to discuss Gun Control, or Muslim Banning, or any political act in and of itself, but rather the implications that one part of the US Constitution is more important or less important than another part, and why you feel that way.

I feel that the issue brought up within another thread, in the post below, is worth in-depth discussion, deep examination, and its own thread:



In that post, he is (correct me if I'm wrong) referring to the proposal to infringe on the 1st Amendment Right of Muslims (as Trump has called for) without the benefit of the protection of Due Process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendment, yet protecting the 2nd Amendment Right by one party, while at the same time, the other party is calling for the 1st Amendment Rights Muslims to be respected, while openly arguing to ban certain guns and refuse to allow certain people to buy a gun without the benefit of Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendment (as Hillary Clinton did today in her speech from Cleveland) in an open attack on 2nd Amendment Rights. For instance, another example is the erosion of 4th Amendment by our government intercepting our emails, and other electronic communications.

So let's talk about this.

Which rights matter to you, and which ones do not? Are there any rights that are more important than others?

Please don't go into the "Your rights end where mine begin" because we all know that although there are limitations such as public accommodations. If you want to have a conversation about public accommodations and how that may impose on your religious beliefs and rights, feel free to open a new thread about that, but this isn't the thread for that discussion.

Here's my take in a nutshell - ALL of the US Constitution matters, equally. The separation of powers. The limitations placed on the governments power, and the recognition of the inalienable rights of the people and the powers reserved to the states, all are important.

In my opinion, it matters not for what purpose an erosion of a Constitutional right or protection is undertaken, the potential damage is unacceptable and must be stopped.

I have read post after post of why one group or another has to relinquish its rights for the greater good. Please, tell why I should agree with that. Pick your right that you believe must be curtailed for the greater good and why it's less important than the other rights. Not the stuff you can talk about in the Gun Control forum (like you disagree with the language interpretation), or the Religion forum (like one religion is a religion of peace and one isn't therefore the one that isn't shouldn't be allowed in the country), but why the right itself is less important than the other rights.

Please proceed under the assumption that the rights laid out in the US Constitution apply to all people within the boundaries of the United States and its possessions, not just US Citizens (pretty much because that's the truth).

Zyphlin, If I've unintentionally broken a rule by doing this, please delete or move this thread as you see fit.

Teetering with the constitution is a slippery slope. I think unless the nation is unanimous in what they want to change, it shouldn't be done.

For instance. The hippies love the first amendment. Those guys love a good protest or chance to spit on a veteran.

The countryboys love them some 2nd amendment. What's more fun than shooting beer cans all day long?

In a nutshell, just leave it alone.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I've never done this before - take a post from another member and make a thread from it. I hope this isn't against the rules.

This thread is not to discuss Gun Control, or Muslim Banning, or any political act in and of itself, but rather the implications that one part of the US Constitution is more important or less important than another part, and why you feel that way.

I feel that the issue brought up within another thread, in the post below, is worth in-depth discussion, deep examination, and its own thread:



In that post, he is (correct me if I'm wrong) referring to the proposal to infringe on the 1st Amendment Right of Muslims (as Trump has called for) without the benefit of the protection of Due Process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendment, yet protecting the 2nd Amendment Right by one party, while at the same time, the other party is calling for the 1st Amendment Rights Muslims to be respected, while openly arguing to ban certain guns and refuse to allow certain people to buy a gun without the benefit of Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendment (as Hillary Clinton did today in her speech from Cleveland) in an open attack on 2nd Amendment Rights. For instance, another example is the erosion of 4th Amendment by our government intercepting our emails, and other electronic communications.

So let's talk about this.

Which rights matter to you, and which ones do not? Are there any rights that are more important than others?

Please don't go into the "Your rights end where mine begin" because we all know that although there are limitations such as public accommodations. If you want to have a conversation about public accommodations and how that may impose on your religious beliefs and rights, feel free to open a new thread about that, but this isn't the thread for that discussion.

Here's my take in a nutshell - ALL of the US Constitution matters, equally. The separation of powers. The limitations placed on the governments power, and the recognition of the inalienable rights of the people and the powers reserved to the states, all are important.

In my opinion, it matters not for what purpose an erosion of a Constitutional right or protection is undertaken, the potential damage is unacceptable and must be stopped.

I have read post after post of why one group or another has to relinquish its rights for the greater good. Please, tell why I should agree with that. Pick your right that you believe must be curtailed for the greater good and why it's less important than the other rights. Not the stuff you can talk about in the Gun Control forum (like you disagree with the language interpretation), or the Religion forum (like one religion is a religion of peace and one isn't therefore the one that isn't shouldn't be allowed in the country), but why the right itself is less important than the other rights.

Please proceed under the assumption that the rights laid out in the US Constitution apply to all people within the boundaries of the United States and its possessions, not just US Citizens (pretty much because that's the truth).

Zyphlin, If I've unintentionally broken a rule by doing this, please delete or move this thread as you see fit.

When any rights are stripped............the rest will soon follow.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Although quite guilty of contextomy, let me present this old argument:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Franklin, 1775.

How The World Butchered Benjamin Franklin’s Quote On Liberty Vs. Security | TechCrunch

The idea that the importance (urgency?) of a matter not only adds it as a new federal power but makes the rest of the constitution somewhat less valid (dated?) is a dangerous game to be playing.

 

[SocialD]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

the third amendment can pretty much be ignored since its not relevant anymore. that's about it.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

The 18th and 21st Amendments can pretty much be ignored but they should be remembered on that list of things not to do with a Constitution.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Which rights matter to you, and which ones do not? Are there any rights that are more important than others?

Here's my take in a nutshell - ALL of the US Constitution matters, equally. The separation of powers. The limitations placed on the governments power, and the recognition of the inalienable rights of the people and the powers reserved to the states, all are important.

Please proceed under the assumption that the rights laid out in the US Constitution apply to all people within the boundaries of the United States and its possessions, not just US Citizens (pretty much because that's the truth).

I think it is important to differentiate between those Amendments that apply to Individual and State's rights from those which apply to the function/operation of the Federal government.

Thus: There are currently 27 Amendments. The following pertain to the Federal government and really have no application outside it's function.

12th Amendment modifies and clarifies the procedure for electing vice-presidents and presidents; 16th Amendment reserves the U.S. government the right to tax income; 20th Amendment establishes date of term starts for Congress & the President; 22nd Amendment limits the terms that an individual can be elected as president; 25th Amendment establishes the procedures for a successor of a President; 27th Amendment denies any laws that vary the salaries of Congress members until the beginning of the next terms of office for Representatives.

As pointed out by Lutherf on post #6 above; both the 18th and 21st should be remembered as an important example of "WTF!!" government interference, but otherwise ignored.

All the rest? Important to maintain as protections of OUR individual rights or State's rights.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

the third amendment can pretty much be ignored since its not relevant anymore. that's about it.

You never know. I prefer to leave that one alone as well.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I think it is important to differentiate between those Amendments that apply to Individual and State's rights from those which apply to the function/operation of the Federal government.

Thus: There are currently 27 Amendments. The following pertain to the Federal government and really have no application outside it's function.

12th Amendment modifies and clarifies the procedure for electing vice-presidents and presidents; 16th Amendment reserves the U.S. government the right to tax income; 20th Amendment establishes date of term starts for Congress & the President; 22nd Amendment limits the terms that an individual can be elected as president; 25th Amendment establishes the procedures for a successor of a President; 27th Amendment denies any laws that vary the salaries of Congress members until the beginning of the next terms of office for Representatives.

As point out by Lutherf on post #6 above; both the 18th and 21st should be remembered as am important example of "WTF government interference," but otherwise ignored.

All the rest? Important to maintain as protections of OUR individual rights or State's rights.

Although many do not effect private citizens' daily lives, they are no less important, such as the 25th Amendment, given the Alexander Haag debacle that could have caused a Constitutional Crisis, and been considered a potential, if not short lived, coup d'etat.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Although many do not effect private citizens' daily lives, they are no less important, such as the 25th Amendment, given the Alexander Haag debacle that could have caused a Constitutional Crisis, and been considered a potential, if not short lived, coup d'etat.

Well. I consider government a necessary evil. One to be tolerated only so long as it serves the people rather than guides or attempts to control us.

That said, I am not denigrating their value...insofar as amendments designed to correct glitches in the system. But they are of minor import other than that.

 

[MrT]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Please proceed under the assumption that the rights laid out in the US Constitution apply to all people within the boundaries of the United States and its possessions, not just US Citizens (pretty much because that's the truth).

Zyphlin, If I've unintentionally broken a rule by doing this, please delete or move this thread as you see fit.

The 10th amendment.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Well. I consider government a necessary evil. One to be tolerated only so long as it serves the people rather than guides or attempts to control us.

That said, I am not denigrating their value...insofar as correcting glitches in the system. But they are of minor import other than that.

Agreed.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

The 10th amendment.

What about the 10th Amendment?

 

[polgara]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I've never done this before - take a post from another member and make a thread from it. I hope this isn't against the rules.

This thread is not to discuss Gun Control, or Muslim Banning, or any political act in and of itself, but rather the implications that one part of the US Constitution is more important or less important than another part, and why you feel that way.

I feel that the issue brought up within another thread, in the post below, is worth in-depth discussion, deep examination, and its own thread:



In that post, he is (correct me if I'm wrong) referring to the proposal to infringe on the 1st Amendment Right of Muslims (as Trump has called for) without the benefit of the protection of Due Process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendment, yet protecting the 2nd Amendment Right by one party, while at the same time, the other party is calling for the 1st Amendment Rights Muslims to be respected, while openly arguing to ban certain guns and refuse to allow certain people to buy a gun without the benefit of Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendment (as Hillary Clinton did today in her speech from Cleveland) in an open attack on 2nd Amendment Rights. For instance, another example is the erosion of 4th Amendment by our government intercepting our emails, and other electronic communications.

So let's talk about this.

Which rights matter to you, and which ones do not? Are there any rights that are more important than others?

Please don't go into the "Your rights end where mine begin" because we all know that although there are limitations such as public accommodations. If you want to have a conversation about public accommodations and how that may impose on your religious beliefs and rights, feel free to open a new thread about that, but this isn't the thread for that discussion.

Here's my take in a nutshell - ALL of the US Constitution matters, equally. The separation of powers. The limitations placed on the governments power, and the recognition of the inalienable rights of the people and the powers reserved to the states, all are important.

In my opinion, it matters not for what purpose an erosion of a Constitutional right or protection is undertaken, the potential damage is unacceptable and must be stopped.

I have read post after post of why one group or another has to relinquish its rights for the greater good. Please, tell why I should agree with that. Pick your right that you believe must be curtailed for the greater good and why it's less important than the other rights. Not the stuff you can talk about in the Gun Control forum (like you disagree with the language interpretation), or the Religion forum (like one religion is a religion of peace and one isn't therefore the one that isn't shouldn't be allowed in the country), but why the right itself is less important than the other rights.

Please proceed under the assumption that the rights laid out in the US Constitution apply to all people within the boundaries of the United States and its possessions, not just US Citizens (pretty much because that's the truth).

Zyphlin, If I've unintentionally broken a rule by doing this, please delete or move this thread as you see fit.

Greetings, Beaudreaux. :2wave:

All of our Constitution matters to me, and nothing should be changed or ignored, because it applies fairly and equally to everyone! It has served our Country well for hundreds of years, and since people from every other place on this planet want to immigrate and live here, our Founders did something truly remarkable for all of us when they penned the words this country stands for! :applaud

 

[MrT]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

What about the 10th Amendment?

It is less important than the rest of the Constitution because it is a short sighted and poorly worded amendment that has, thankfully, been degraded by the Supreme Court over the years such that it's only purpose now is to prevent the federal government from forcing the States to enact a federal program.

 

[Van Basten]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Well, there is that rumored North Dakota I always hear about.

 

[Captain America]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I'm just grateful that our forefathers, in their horse drawn carriages, didn't include in the constitution, "The freedom to drive as fast as you desire shall not be infringed upon."

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

It is less important than the rest of the Constitution because it is a short sighted and poorly worded amendment that has, thankfully, been degraded by the Supreme Court over the years such that it's only purpose now is to prevent the federal government from forcing the States to enact a federal program.

The 10th Amendment is where the fact is codified that the Constitution limits, rather than empowers, the federal government and reserves the bulk of the governing power to the people and states.

The lessening of that fact through executive overreach, and by SCOTUS rulings upholding legislative overreach, does not lessen the fact of what it is supposed to protect - the power and authority of the people from the potential threat of tyranny from their government. There are certain actions, as in the Civil Rights Act, where the Equal Protection Clause was further codified in law, that IMHO does not impinge upon the 10th Amendment. But there are other examples (the federal government forcing the people to by a commercial product for an example) where the 10th was usurped in a federal power overreach.

 

[Gaius46]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

the third amendment can pretty much be ignored since its not relevant anymore. that's about it.

Despite the fact that it's rarely litigated the founders considered the 3rd to be very important. The quartering of soldiers was one of three or four hot button issues that precipitated the Revolution.

Today it serves as the basis for what we call the Castle Doctrine. The 3rd doesn't get nearly as much love as it deserves.

On the OP question. All parts of the Constitution are equally important though given the amount of ink it got the founders may have considered the judiciary to be of secondary importance.

 

[MrT]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

The 10th Amendment is where the fact is codified that the Constitution limits, rather than empowers, the federal government and reserves the bulk of the governing power to the people and states.

The lessening of that fact through executive overreach, and by SCOTUS rulings upholding legislative overreach, does not lessen the fact of what it is supposed to protect - the power and authority of the people from the potential threat of tyranny from their government. There are certain actions, as in the Civil Rights Act, where the Equal Protection Clause was further codified in law, that IMHO does not impinge upon the 10th Amendment. But there are other examples (the federal government forcing the people to by a commercial product for an example) where the 10th was usurped in a federal power overreach.

Here's the primary problem with the 10th amendment. A strict interpretation doesn't allow for any evolution of cultural norms or even basic technology. For example, air planes and interstate highways are not mentioned in the Constitution - for obvious reasons (same goes for electricity, internet, etc.) and yet we need at least some level of federal regulation on those topics in order for the United States to maintain a cohesive and competent policy. A strict interpretation of the 10th amendment would dictate that those topics remain in the hands of the States since authority was not granted to the Federal Government through previous amendments - or at least not through strict, textualist interpretations of those previous amendments.

 

[Eric7216]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

One side screaming that we need to encroach on the first, but protect the second.

The other side screaming that we need to encroach on the second, but protect the first.

This is a red herring. Unfortunately many self professed liberals no longer believe in the 1st Amendment and support crime against "hate speech", climate warming deniers, and other things that they have disagreements. Conservatives are more likely to support both 1st and 2nd amendments. Just recently called for withholding rights from people who are suspected, based on their speech, of being potential terrorists. Trump, to his credit, understands that you can not withhold rights based on suspicions based on speech. There has to be criminal (i.e. proven in court) activity.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I'm just grateful that our forefathers, in their horse drawn carriages, didn't include in the constitution, "The freedom to drive as fast as you desire shall not be infringed upon."

You know, they didn't include that in the Constitution, but they did pass a law exempting themselves from arrest, harassment, or being impeded while traveling back and forth, to and from the Capital on official business. So in a way...

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Here's the primary problem with the 10th amendment. A strict interpretation doesn't allow for any evolution of cultural norms or even basic technology. For example, air planes and interstate highways are not mentioned in the Constitution - for obvious reasons (same goes for electricity, internet, etc.) and yet we need at least some level of federal regulation on those topics in order for the United States to maintain a cohesive and competent policy. A strict interpretation of the 10th amendment would dictate that those topics remain in the hands of the States since authority was not granted to the Federal Government through previous amendments - or at least not through strict, textualist interpretations of those previous amendments.

The Commerce Clause covers interstate commerce. There is no need for the federal government to be involved in the electrical power industry, or the internet for that matter - other than the power already discussed - interstate commerce.

The principles enshrined in the Constitution are applicable to technological, and human advancements. An example would be that the Equal Protection Clause ensures that one group of people (gays for instance) cannot be treated differently than another group of people (straight people in this instance) by the government when it comes to law, regulation, policy, and official recognition (legal recognition of marriage rights as an example). The Founding Fathers would have never imagined Same Sex Marriage as an issue, but in their wisdom, they created a document that dealt with the basic tenants of freedom and liberty that transcends change.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

This is a red herring. Unfortunately many self professed liberals no longer believe in the 1st Amendment and support crime against "hate speech", climate warming deniers, and other things that they have disagreements. Conservatives are more likely to support both 1st and 2nd amendments. Just recently called for withholding rights from people who are suspected, based on their speech, of being potential terrorists. Trump, to his credit, understands that you can not withhold rights based on suspicions based on speech. There has to be criminal (i.e. proven in court) activity.

Please read what this thread is about, and what it is not about. Thank you.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Well, there is that rumored North Dakota I always hear about.

Yeah, that North Dakota Clause of the Constitution is a tricky one. :doh