The US Constitution

There has been a lot of talk lately about the federal government and observance of constitutional boundaries.
Recent laws have brought some scrutiny of this, along with at least two representatives recently being chastised for their words and the perception that they ignore or disregard the constitution
There is a discussion of powers of congress and the executive.
There is the issue of states vs. federal powers.
There is also the question of certain SCOTUS decisions, and if they are too liberal in their interpretation over time. The slow creep of the commerce clause for example.

The constitution appears to be clear on these matters, but of course, everyone has their own opinion of how it should be interpreted.

But let's discuss your views on it as a whole, please pick one or more that 'fits best' and defend your position.

Wow, a poll on RIU that actually has legitimate, non-biased options. I voted for that reason alone.

i think the constitution sounds good on paper only. It has been invaded by loopholes cults. illuminaties. i think they are real and still active in america today, september eleven was a inside job to justify going to war. Just look up how much money is made off of wars and you'll see why any nation loves war.

greedy mindless politicians

for anyone who hasn't read it. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

the constitution is great...but does it matter anymore? is any of it considered law or is it enforced anywhere? it seems to me constitutional violations are common and commonly accepted

one of the constitution's great flaws is that it does not place enough restrictions on government. the checks and balances built into the system break down under the pressure of intense partisanship and the possibility of one agenda taking control, representing only a portion of the population, has become a reality far too often and with increasing frequency. the authority of the judicial branch, though considered the ultimate arbiter on constitutional matters, is not active enough in the legislative process and its supposedly apolitical position is a myth. that every law should pass muster concerning the rights of the individual seems obvious, but such determinations are left up to the legislators themselves and the court is only brought into play after legislation has passed and someone questions its validity. the presidency itself, a nod to the concept of a single representative for the nation as a whole, is a position better left to committee than one individual. the implication that he is "the people's king" is far too apparent. the independence of regional authority was not described emphatically enough to protect it from the grasp of a centralized federal government, leading to the constant erosion of states' rights and, in turn, the rights of the individual. that the centralized control was meant only to protect the autonomy of the individual states and to prevent them from imposing undue influence on the lives of their citizens seems obvious from the writings of the time, but that sentiment was not conveyed strongly enough in official documents and has been perverted to suit the desires of those in power.

the constitution's greatest strength, its flexibility, is also among its greatest flaws. with no limits on the size and scope of the federal government, the natural tendency of any group to grow has created the behemoth we deal with today. the powerful, always seeking ways to increase their power, continually find ways to increase the size of their fiefdoms and to prolong their stays in positions of power. perhaps it is a sign of its creators' hubris, that they could avoid the traps of the past with the force of their will and the righteousness of their goal alone, that allowed them to omit the concepts of term limits and similar safety measures from the constitution. their errors in not being thorough enough to describe the function of federal authority and the evolution of our language over the intervening years have left us in the position of having to fill in the gaps with our own interpretation of the founders' intent and the conflicting voices of those vying for power.

the constitution is bull shit just to keep every happy thinkin they have got rights ect.

THE ONLY RIGHT YOU HAVE IS THE RIGHT TO STFU AND KEEP PAYING TAXES.

westhamm1132 said:

the constitution is bull shit just to keep every happy thinkin they have got rights ect.

THE ONLY RIGHT YOU HAVE IS THE RIGHT TO STFU AND KEEP PAYING TAXES.

Click to expand...

ignorance at its finest

I have traveled to other countries and I’m always glad to be back in the US. Most other countries are just corrupt shit holes devoid of hope, prosperity, freedom and individual rights so I feel compelled to add my 2 cents.

The Constitution is as perfect a document as man was able to compose. The founding fathers were highly educated, worldly scholars who knew history, law and what kind of governments had been tried in the past. They knew this form of government would be the only structure that would guarantee freedom and prosperity for its citizens.

They knew that men coveted power above everything else and that the powers of Federal government had to be tightly regulated. They knew that the State Government was much easier for the local citizens to monitor and control than some far off government entity. They knew that the locally controlled, State government, had to control the Federal Monster to keep it from becoming our master.

Do we have problems? Oh HELL YES! We The People, have fallen asleep and let the Federal Government take over as the controlling force of law when in fact, the State is the one that controls the Feds. It is now working exactly opposite to what it was intended and what the constitution allows.

Our rights and liberties have been stolen and our freedoms have been chained up in the cellar under the pretense of safety & security. Federal abuse of power is rampant and individual rights are nearly nonexistent anymore.

How?

The citizens of this country became too lazy to pay attention to what the politicians were doing.
The Politicians became more and more corrupt, greedy and ambitious.

The Great Depression caused people to look to the Feds for help and that was all the opportunity they needed. They grabbed the reins of power and never relented.

After that, the Feds perverted the laws of the lands in order to maintain their death grip of power.
Supreme court judges fell in lock step to the wishes of the Fed.
Lawyers replaced morals, judges replaced fairness & good conscience.

Case law replaced Constitutional law and most of the new laws invalidate common sense.
It spread like a cancer from there, to the State, the Local Government, the Schools, the work place and then to the family.

State Government became shills for the Feds in order to obtain more federal funding. What the feds said, was what they did to keep the dollars rolling in.

America was divided into the left and right, dems and repubs, whites and minorities in order for the parties to maintain and grow their power. It had nothing to do with concern of the constituents, it was only promoted for power. Until we understand that, we will never unite as citizens and that’s the intended goal of the Fed. Divide and conquer has always worked and is working now as well.

Tenure replaced a teachers effectiveness and despondency and indoctrination replaced education.
Sound bites in the media replaced thoughtful reason and trendy ideology replaced our moral compasses. Truth became a victim of the “agenda of the media”.
Lazy boy recliners replaced family time and TV replaced the parents.

In a disposable society, some things are worth holding onto. We have made it this far as a country in just over 200 years. Now at least, we know some of the problems, some of the wrong ways to do things and some of the best ways of doing things. We’re a young nation, we’re entitled to make a few mistakes so long as we learn from them and never let them happen again.

We should also hold onto the fact that we as a Country have done more for the world than any other nation in history. We have shown more charity, decency, fairness, strength of character and sacrifice. Name any other country that is first on the scene when there is disaster or trouble anywhere in the world. What is the first country that the rest of the world looks to in times of need?

The question is: do we have the strength of character to say we need to return to the ways of our forefathers? We need to call right, right and wrong, wrong. We need to stand against evil and stand for good. We need to fight our enemies with our full might and help our allies with our full favor.

We need to reign in the Politicians & Lawyers who have seized total control over us and made “We The People” into “you the slaves” of Washington & State.

Politicians have stripped our individual rights and sold them to the highest bidders (like the Tobacco, Pharmaceutical and Liquor industry to name just a few).

Do we have the balls to eliminate the Nanny State and stand on our own merits?

Do we have the fairness to say, some things the conservatives say make sense, some things the independents say make sense and some things the left say make sense?

Do we have the common sense to say that BOTH the Dems and Repubs have SCREWED us! They have “tag teamed” us for the last 75 years!

Are we steadfast enough to make them pay for their actions at the polls?

Do we still have the strength to fight those foes of freedom?

Do we still value freedom, liberty and individual rights?

Our Politicians have tried to make us into slaves, we need to make them our bitch…

The way to do that is to vote for the constitutional candidate in your area.

Just be sure to do your homework as they will all be saying they are supporters of the Constitution.

Just the ramblings of an old curmudgeon. S

Making gold worth 15 times more than silver was probably(IMO) the largest flaw in the Constitution. The rest of the flaws were made by politicians who try to change the constitution.

Anyone else care to comment ? It seems that half the people polled are dissatisfied with the current system in some way.

Man o' the green said:

It seems that half the people polled are dissatisfied with the current system in some way.

Click to expand...

not necessarily dissatisfied. i realize those things that could be better, nothing is perfect, but there are also things that could be worse and many of the changes being made these days are for the worse.

The tail is wagging the dog. That's the problem. S

undertheice said:

not necessarily dissatisfied. i realize those things that could be better, nothing is perfect, but there are also things that could be worse and many of the changes being made these days are for the worse.

Click to expand...

I suppose part of my concern is to the current government, and if they aren't strictly following the constitution. I'm looking for justification of the current government either to explain how it does operate within its boundaries, or what explicit changes are needed to bring the constitution in line with the direction of the current government.
These can certainly be debated.

Again, I'm not looking at the Bush, Clinton or any other recent years. It would be argued that "they started it" or that this particular government is being singled out. That is not the point. As I said, recent events have brought more attention to this, and the constitutionality of federal action is in question in the minds of the public.

Does the constitution allow :

Manipulation of private enterprise ? ( bailouts, pay restrictions, etc. )
Required purchases ? ( Health insurance mandate )
Federal regulation of intrastate commerce ? ( State regulated insurance for example )
Control of energy through taxation ? ( cap / trade )
Federal bribery of states through redistribution ? ( conditional highway dollars, etc. )
Preferential tax treatment of the poor ? ( progressive income tax )

If not, how should it be allowed and what are the general consequences ?

the constitution was written by a bunch of rich white guys who wanted to keep what they had.
it is no basis for a government.

Man o' the green said:

Does the constitution allow :

Manipulation of private enterprise ? ( bailouts, pay restrictions, etc. )
Required purchases ? ( Health insurance mandate )
Federal regulation of intrastate commerce ? ( State regulated insurance for example )
Control of energy through taxation ? ( cap / trade )
Federal bribery of states through redistribution ? ( conditional highway dollars, etc. )
Preferential tax treatment of the poor ? ( progressive income tax )

Click to expand...

for each individual issue there can be found some loophole or technicality to be used as justification for government's infringement on the rights of the individual. it has all been cloaked in obscure language that is all too easily misinterpreted or twisted for the benefit of those in power. each and every decision made by our legislators should be examined by an independent body to see that it meets the standards of the spirit of the constitution, but they seldom are. that is what it comes down to, not the letter but the spirit of the law. legislation is a legal procedure and the first question asked is "what can we get away with?" instead of determining what is in the best interest of the future of the nation.

the simple answer is that there is nothing specifically forbidding the above examples of government overstepping its bounds. the more complex issue is that they start the ball rolling down a rather dark and winding path toward government's meddling in matters that are none of their concern. instead of first determining whether these regulations infringe on the rights of the individual, our representatives' priorities seem to be in forming an homogeneous whole and their own popularity (not necessarily in that order). each step that penalizes or restricts the individual is used as justification for the next, each failure as an excuse to pump even more resources into the programs that caused that failure. our answer to everything is to throw more money at it, but there just isn't enough money in the entire world to right every wrong or to save everyone.

UTI, Do you believe that the SCOTUS decisions in interpreting and striking down law has been too liberal, or not enough court challenges brought as a check on congressional or executive power ?

Man o' the green said:

UTI, Do you believe that the SCOTUS decisions in interpreting and striking down law has been too liberal, or not enough court challenges brought as a check on congressional or executive power ?

Click to expand...

of course i think they have been too liberal. maybe not liberal, but leaning toward the totalitarian philosophies of what we see today as liberalism. i think that the idea of appointing activist judges to scotus is a sure way to change the very landscape of this nation's ethos and damage the individualism that has brought us so far. radicalism is important in the shaping of our society, but the court's duty is to interpret the constitution and to see where legislation fits into that scheme. their duty is not to change the meaning the document to fit within a given agenda nor is it to play the political games of social engineering. scotus should be the most conservative branch of our government, the balance that keeps popularity driven politicians from bowing to the pressures of the mob and steadies us on this country's chosen path. those justices are the individual's last line of defense against the control of the majority.

it seems that the major flaw is that the court is not active enough in the early stages of legislation, only engaging in the debate after the damage has already been done. every decision made by the other branches of government should be examined by the court for the sort of abuses that lead to authoritarian control over the individual.