|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2006 : 09:12:27
|
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation. Its wording and intent are quite clear. The document was meant to be taken literally. There are, unfortunately, many who seek to undermine the blueprint for our democratic republic. Those who, under the shallow guise of 'interpretation', craft laws, bureaucratic regulations and executive mandates which fly in the face of that revered document. They question why we should still adhere to principles set forth two centuries ago. They believe those principles are outdated, and the patriots who established them were just ordinary politicians from an era long past.
Our forefathers were, of course, men who had all the flaws inherent to humanity. But they were far from ordinary. They were true patriots, exceptional men who, as a militia, personally took on a tyrannical government and won the right to liberty for themselves and for their descendants. They were not drafted. They were not issued arms and munitions by their government. They risked not only their lives but the lives of their families and their personal fortunes. They were outnumbered and outgunned and they often had only their spirit and determination to sustain themselves. These were men who loved liberty and understood freedom is the birthright of mankind and not a favor granted by the state. They were, in fact, suspicious of government in general and installed into our Constitution the safeguard of a well armed citizenry to assure government remained the servant of the people and not their master. They etched a document which embodies the essence of liberty. A document which serves as a model for others who cherish freedom. A document which limits the powers of the state. A covenant once held sacred between those who govern and we who select them.
Such is no longer the case.
The spirit which thrived at the birth of this nation has grown stifled and mute. Over the past eight decades, our Liberty has been squandered by an indifferent public which remains silent as government encroaches upon our personal lives, confiscates our earnings and encumbers our property in the name of public welfare, necessity, security and, of course, the Snail Darter. This silent public, to whom I refer as the 'dumb masses', is comprised of the apathetic, the politically unconscious and those too cowardly to stand up to the state when it exceeds its authority.
In a free society, the individual has the right to engage in any activity which does not infringe upon the rights of another, cause him harm or deprive him of his property. Government must be underwritten to the point it may effectively safeguard our rights, provide for courts of justice and defend our nation against its enemies. But, when the state confiscates fifteen percent of your earnings and tells you it might parcel some of it back to us in monthly payments IF we live long enough, it has exceeded its authority. When government takes another twenty five percent of your earnings and gives it away to corporations, the United Nations and the IMF, it has exceeded its authority. When government takes up to two thirds of your estate when you die, it has exceeded its authority and caused your survivors great harm.
When laws are concocted which tell the individual how to run his business or use his property, how and to whom it is permissible to make love, or what size toilet you may purchase for your bathroom, government has exceeded its authority. When the state fills its prisons, at taxpayer expense, with offenders whose only victims are themselves, it has exceeded its authority.
When the federal government usurps the ability of local communities to determine how their children are to be educated, it has exceeded its authority. When it attempts to socialize and monopolize our system of health care, it has exceeded its authority. When it dictates to the ill how they may medicate themselves and requires them to obtain its written permission to purchase or even possess life saving medications, it has exceeded its authority, When it attempts to disarm the citizenry, the only force which constrains government from becoming even more tyrannical, it has dangerously exceeded its authority.
And when elected officials surrender our soverignty to a plethora of multinational bureaucracies, they forfeit their right to govern this nation.
The greatest threat to our Constitution now comes from within our own country. Today, with executive orders and bureaucratic regulations. the president and his cabinet bypass the legislature to craft their own laws, directives and mandates which plunder the rights and soverignty of individuals and local government. In Congress, public offices which should be occupied by citizen statesmen are held by career politicians who maintain their offices by being popular rather than practical. They incessantly chip away at the constitutional foundation of our government, assuming dictatorial powers with the stroke of a pen and at the expense of justice and individual liberty.
The single greatest threat to our Constitution; however, is the apathy of the 'dumb masses'. Those who willingly subjugate themselves to the whims of an all powerful elite who think they know how to run our lives and our businesses better than we. Those who have become so dependent upon government largess they will continue to accept these abuses and continue to allow tyranny to foul the halls of Congress.
Until our federal, state and local governments are once again populated by those who abide by the principles of Liberty, the only rights you will ever possess are those for which you are willing to fight and die. Thanks to the 'dumb masses', you may find yourselves in that situation sooner than you think.
http://www.scribeslair.com/dumbmasses.htmlThor (JMc)
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2006 : 09:34:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation.
Starting from line one, one of the biggest, most glaring, contradicting statements anyone could possibly make about the US Constitution. The Constitution absolutely does require interpretation, and in fact within itself, puts forth descriptions of the kinds of judicial powers necessary for that interpretation. Duh.
And from line two... oh, never mind... the whole essay went down the toilet at line one. 
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 03/12/2006 09:35:35 |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 14:58:07 [Permalink]
|
| Everything expressed with language requires interpretation. For that matter, everything we take in via our senses requires interpretation. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 18:06:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation.
Starting from line one, one of the biggest, most glaring, contradicting statements anyone could possibly make about the US Constitution. The Constitution absolutely does require interpretation, and in fact within itself, puts forth descriptions of the kinds of judicial powers necessary for that interpretation. Duh.
Duh, indeed. You put forth a strong, convincing ad hominem argument...but a Constitutional scholar you are certainly NOT. Originally the court had no such power and it was not the intent of the authors to so imbue it.
"The Constitution created a judiciary and a Supreme Court, but interestingly, the Founders did not specify the powers of the Supreme Court. As a consequence, it was impotent and little respected in its first 14 years of existence.
This fact became evident with the resignation of the first Chief Justice John Jay, who left his position because he felt the judiciary was not clothed in any real power. There is every reason to believe this is exactly the way the Founders wanted it.
But Chief Justice John Marshall changed all that in 1803. Appointed by President John Adams, Marshall engineered the greatest power grab in American history, declaring in Marbury vs. Madison that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws passed by legislative bodies. The Constitution did not give the Supreme Court this power....(snip)
(snip)...Today, conservative strict-constructionists or "originalists" argue that Supreme Court justices should base their judicial decisions on the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. This is an interesting argument when one realizes that the Founders did not "originally" (or ever!) give the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
If we truly wanted to follow the "original intent" of the Founders we would strip the Supreme Court of its power of judicial review and give the power to declare laws unconstitutional back to popularly elected bodies, where it would seem the Founders and - just as importantly - the American people, wanted it.
"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/15/143302.shtml
quote:
And from line two... oh, never mind... the whole essay went down the toilet at line one.
Flush twice, it's a LONG WAY to the brain. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 19:21:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation. Its wording and intent are quite clear. The document was meant to be taken literally.
So because the First Amendment doesn't specify freedom from religion, a literal reading suggests the Feds could indeed mandate that everyone be religious (even though they couldn't specify which religion).
Yeah  the Constitution requires no interpretation. Pull the other one.quote:
In a free society, the individual has the right to engage in any activity which does not infringe upon the rights of another, cause him harm or deprive him of his property.
Well, if it ever turns out that spotted owl poop cures cancer, some people will have a lot to answer for under your rule of law, no?quote:
But, when the state confiscates fifteen percent of your earnings and tells you it might parcel some of it back to us in monthly payments IF we live long enough, it has exceeded its authority. When government takes another twenty five percent of your earnings and gives it away to corporations, the United Nations and the IMF, it has exceeded its authority. When government takes up to two thirds of your estate when you die, it has exceeded its authority and caused your survivors great harm.
When laws are concocted which tell the individual how to run his business or use his property, how and to whom it is permissible to make love, or what size toilet you may purchase for your bathroom, government has exceeded its authority. When the state fills its prisons, at taxpayer expense, with offenders whose only victims are themselves, it has exceeded its authority.
When the federal government usurps the ability of local communities to determine how their children are to be educated, it has exceeded its authority. When it attempts to socialize and monopolize our system of health care, it has exceeded its authority. When it dictates to the ill how they may medicate themselves and requires them to obtain its written permission to purchase or even possess life saving medications, it has exceeded its authority, When it attempts to disarm the citizenry, the only force which constrains government from becoming even more tyrannical, it has dangerously exceeded its authority.
Want to have some fun, folks? Replace every instance of "state," "government" or "federal government" (or the like) in the above three paragraphs with "we, the people."quote:
And when elected officials surrender our soverignty to a plethora of multinational bureaucracies, they forfeit their right to govern this nation.
Yeah, the Founders thought that everyone should realize that corrupt officials should be elected out of office. I wonder what happened there? Oh, that's right: the dumb masses. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:07:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
Duh, indeed. You put forth a strong, convincing ad hominem argument...but a Constitutional scholar you are certainly NOT. Originally the court had no such power and it was not the intent of the authors to so imbue it.
The point is, your claim, "The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation," is clearly untrue. Any communication of any sort requires interpretation. No piece of communication can even be communication without interpretation. To suggest that is just plain silly. So when you open an essay with such a ridiculous contradiction, at least some people, the people who realize how ignorant that first sentence is, are going to ignore the rest of it.
And if you want to go back to the time when the Constitution was written, hop in your time machine and go. Good riddance. We could use a lot fewer whiners around here anyway. If you aren't willing to propose reasonable, do-able solutions to your problems, all the mouthing off you can do makes you exactly as productive, and deserving of the same contempt, as any other troll who might land in these forums.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:17:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
If we truly wanted to follow the "original intent" of the Founders we would strip the Supreme Court of its power of judicial review and give the power to declare laws unconstitutional back to popularly elected bodies, where it would seem the Founders and - just as importantly - the American people, wanted it.
Yeah, so that the currently-elected career politicians can put a whole bunch of homosexuals in jail or worse, since that's what the American people seem to have wanted until the SCOTUS ruined their mob rule. That sorta flies in the face of libertarianism, don't it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 21:15:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation.
Starting from line one, one of the biggest, most glaring, contradicting statements anyone could possibly make about the US Constitution. The Constitution absolutely does require interpretation, and in fact within itself, puts forth descriptions of the kinds of judicial powers necessary for that interpretation. Duh.
Duh, indeed. You put forth a strong, convincing ad hominem argument...
I do not see any ad hominem. Can you please elaborate/clarify? Preferably by quoting the offending paragraph and explain how it was an ad hominem. I never really got a grip on how it works...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 00:11:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Over the past eight decades, our Liberty has been squandered by an indifferent public which remains silent as government encroaches upon our personal lives, confiscates our earnings and encumbers our property in the name of public welfare, necessity, security and, of course, the Snail Darter. This silent public, to whom I refer as the 'dumb masses', is comprised of the apathetic, the politically unconscious and those too cowardly to stand up to the state when it exceeds its authority.
'dumb asses', too. Because a lot of people who do vote, don't study or understand what they are voting for. They vote by rote.
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 07:39:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation. Its wording and intent are quite clear. The document was meant to be taken literally.
So because the First Amendment doesn't specify freedom from religion, a literal reading suggests the Feds could indeed mandate that everyone be religious (even though they couldn't specify which religion).
Yeah the Constitution requires no interpretation. Pull the other one.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Y'know, you really ought to read it some time. It's not that long and doesn't use big words.quote:
quote:
In a free society, the individual has the right to engage in any activity which does not infringe upon the rights of another, cause him harm or deprive him of his property.
Well, if it ever turns out that spotted owl poop cures cancer, some people will have a lot to answer for under your rule of law, no?quote:
But, when the state confiscates fifteen percent of your earnings and tells you it might parcel some of it back to us in monthly payments IF we live long enough, it has exceeded its authority. When government takes another twenty five percent of your earnings and gives it away to corporations, the United Nations and the IMF, it has exceeded its authority. When government takes up to two thirds of your estate when you die, it has exceeded its authority and caused your survivors great harm.
When laws are concocted which tell the individual how to run his business or use his property, how and to whom it is permissible to make love, or what size toilet you may purchase for your bathroom, government has exceeded its authority. When the state fills its prisons, at taxpayer expense, with offenders whose only victims are themselves, it has exceeded its authority.
When the federal government usurps the ability of local communities to determine how their children are to be educated, it has exceeded its authority. When it attempts to socialize and monopolize our system of health care, it has exceeded its authority. When it dictates to the ill how they may medicate themselves and requires them to obtain its written permission to purchase or even possess life saving medications, it has exceeded its authority, When it attempts to disarm the citizenry, the only force which constrains government from becoming even more tyrannical, it has dangerously exceeded its authority.
Want to have some fun, folks? Replace every instance of "state," "government" or "federal government" (or the like) in the above three paragraphs with "we, the people."
Yeah, be thankful the Constitution was designed to establish a Republic - to protect the individual from the vagaries of "democracy" as well as the tyranny of government...or at least it would if it were followed. Else the sheeple might decide to imprison everyone who espoused unpopular ideas.quote:
quote:
And when elected officials surrender our soverignty to a plethora of multinational bureaucracies, they forfeit their right to govern this nation.
Yeah, the Founders thought that everyone should realize that corrupt officials should be elected out of office. I wonder what happened there? Oh, that's right: the dumb masses.
What do you do when they are ALL corrupt? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 07:41:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation.
Starting from line one, one of the biggest, most glaring, contradicting statements anyone could possibly make about the US Constitution. The Constitution absolutely does require interpretation, and in fact within itself, puts forth descriptions of the kinds of judicial powers necessary for that interpretation. Duh.
Duh, indeed. You put forth a strong, convincing ad hominem argument...
I do not see any ad hominem. Can you please elaborate/clarify? Preferably by quoting the offending paragraph and explain how it was an ad hominem. I never really got a grip on how it works...
Duh |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 08:02:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What do you do when they are ALL corrupt?
Every single official is corrupt? You can prove that? A song by the Kinks comes to mind... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 09:56:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation. Its wording and intent are quite clear.
This statement alone is untrue. The Constitution was specifically written in very general terms so as to be open to interpretation for instances that did not fully conform to the day of it's drafting or that advances in society and technology would blaze new ground in the intervening years.
It's wording is generalized and a broad interpretation is possible. Even the terms are not fully fleshed out. The Judiciary has been tasked with the interpretation of the Constitution. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 10:23:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Y'know, you really ought to read it some time. It's not that long and doesn't use big words.
Fine. Bad example, I was writing off the cuff.
Instead, perhaps, without interpreting anything, you can tell me what the words "free exercise," "well regulated," "unreasonable," "probable cause," "speedy," "excessive," "cruel and unusual" mean in absolute terms related to the Amendments in which they can be found?
Hey, a literal reading of the Constitution means that double-jeopardy doesn't apply in cases where the punishment faces isn't execution or dismemberment: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." So the government can try you as often as it likes if it's just trying to throw you in jail, right?quote:
quote:
Yeah, the Founders thought that everyone should realize that corrupt officials should be elected out of office. I wonder what happened there? Oh, that's right: the dumb masses.
What do you do when they are ALL corrupt?
That was actually my question to you: at this point in time, eleminating judicial review (for example) as one step towards bringing about the libertarian ideal would simply result in much more abuses of power than we've already got. Seems to me the only place to start the revolution is by kicking the politicians out, but calling the electorate the "dumb masses" certainly makes it seem like you'd rather alienate them than use them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 14:54:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Duh
You'll have to explain it in more detail. How does "duh" qualify as an ad hominem? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
