View Poll Results: Do you care?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • The government should never violate the Constitution

    47 85.45%
  • I don't care as long as I like the results of the violation

    2 3.64%
  • It should be only violated in exterme emgerancies

    4 7.27%
  • The constitution is outdated and should be thrown away

    2 3.64%
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 130

Thread: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

  1. #101
    Sporadic insanity normal.



    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,021

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpgrad08 View Post
    Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?
    That is not a simple question.

    I tend to think it's a bad idea for a government that claims to operate under the rule of law to violate their own laws. There are probably a few specific circumstances where it would be reasonable to do so, but even if so, is highly questionable and requires very strict oversight.

    It also depends who is defining the violation. Many people have very different views on what constitutes a constitutional violation than the legal system does.

    Not saying either are right, necessarily.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #102
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    03-12-17 @ 09:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    848

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nilly View Post
    Flaw 1: It was written during a different cultural and socioeconomic times.
    Flaw 2: Wording can be ambiguous.

    Both are absolutely crippling flaws for any legal document.
    As a progressive, I would think you would love the ambiguity??

    Without ambiguous and tortured interpretations of the Constitution the FedGov wouldn't have any involvement in education, health care, housing, transportation, policing, drugs, etc... Those are all things near and dear to the hearts of progressives, are they not??

  3. #103
    stb
    Nilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Beantown
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:08 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,472

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Luftwaffe View Post
    Flaw 1: And? And we amend it to keep it relevant in current times.

    For example, slavery was OK and the constitution didn't do **** about it, then we thought for a little and said "**** slavery," and lo and behold, the constitution, in accordance with the times, was amended to showcase this.

    Flaw 2: ambiguity is subjective, but I can't necessarily disagree with you either, so I'll just leave it at that.
    Amendments would be great if we actually did amend it to reflect current times. But we don't.

    I'm very much a proponent of a living constitution.
    "Education is the only thing you can do that will change society. Everything else is just a band-aid." - Jacqueline de Chollet
    "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education" - FDR

  4. #104
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,333

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You presented nothing but your own skewed words.

    Present my posts and show how you refuted them.
    ok i am back ....and now we will get right to it, in the following link, haymarket calls my views on the constitution an extremist interpretation because i had stated the government was no longer really a "mixed government"as federalist 40 says it is, and because of that the federal government has expanded and usurped state powers #90 so he sought to use hamilton's Report on Manufactures for his argument ......because it is one of the document from the founders which some on LEFT use to justify government actions.

    now as anyone who knows haymarkets's arguments ARE on government, he believes the government's view on the general welfare means government can spend money for the welfare of the people which can encompass things WHICH ARE NOT in the constitution

    using Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures haymarket posted the report, which shows in the very last paragraph,........which of course does not follow haymarkets ideas of government and justification for spending on things outside of the constitution under the name of the general welfare.

    so in effect.....haymarket ruined his own argument with his own post.

    Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

    5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
    A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

    It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

    The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

    No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-con...-172-a-12.html
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-01-15 at 08:29 PM.

  5. #105
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 03:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Whose interpretation of the constitution? Yours? Mine? Some bloggers? What about a blowhard on TV? I don't care if the government violates any laymen's interpretation of the constitution. I do care if the government violates the federal court system's interpretation of the constitution as that is the only one that really matters.
    Whose interpretation? No offense but, definitely not yours.
    Last edited by EdwinWillers; 06-01-15 at 08:35 PM.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  6. #106
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,333

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    number #2

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-co...efense-22.html

    haymarket has before asserted that the founders intention was that firearms be regulated by the federal government...he's cited the commerce clause and the 2nd amendment for his argument.

    so in responding to him. i have stated how is it possible for the founders to have intended for the federal government to regulate firearms. since:

    the federal government could not regulate anything inside of a state until 1942, when in the case of Wickard v. Filburn ..the federal government was then granted that power by the USSC of regulation of commerce in of states.

    Haymarket never responded to this statement of mine....and avoided it by posting gibberish.

    also to note........ the USSC stated in the 1873 slaughterhouse case, that the u.s. federal government had NO STATE POLICING POWERS......IE....the power to regulate.


    1873 slaughterhouse

    The state justified the law under the “police powers” of the state. Those were powers that historically had fallen within the sovereign powers of government. The police-powers concept, which stretched back into English and European history, of course didn’t apply to the federal government because the federal government had no sovereign powers — its powers were limited to those enumerated within the Constitution. But the concept still applied to the states.
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-01-15 at 08:44 PM.

  7. #107
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    84,252

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    ok i am back ....and now we will get right to it, in the following link, haymarket calls my views on the constitution an extremist interpretation because i had stated the government was no longer really a "mixed government"as federalist 40 says it is, and because of that the federal government has expanded and usurped state powers #90 so he sought to use hamilton's Report on Manufactures for his argument ......because it is one of the document from the founders which some on LEFT use to justify government actions.

    now as anyone who knows haymarkets's arguments ARE on government, he believes the government's view on the general welfare means government can spend money for the welfare of the people which can encompass things WHICH ARE NOT in the constitution

    using Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures haymarket posted the report, which shows in the very last paragraph,........which of course does not follow haymarkets ideas of government and justification for spending on things outside of the constitution under the name of the general welfare.

    so in effect.....haymarket ruined his own argument with his own post.

    Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

    5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
    A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

    It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

    The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

    No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-con...-172-a-12.html
    I have absolutely no idea what all that unadulterated manure means or what I have to do with it.

    CLUE #1 - if you ascribe me a belief - QUOTE ME or go away and keep your opinion to yourself.

    CLUE #2 - see clue #1.

    I knew you had jack and you just verified that suspicion.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    84,252

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    number #2

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-co...efense-22.html

    haymarket has before asserted that the founders intention was that firearms be regulated by the federal government...he's cited the commerce clause and the 2nd amendment for his argument.

    so in responding to him. i have stated how is it possible for the founders to have intended for the federal government to regulate firearms. since:

    the federal government could not regulate anything inside of a state until 1942, when in the case of Wickard v. Filburn ..the federal government was then granted that power by the USSC of regulation of commerce in of states.

    Haymarket never responded to this statement of mine....and avoided it by posting gibberish.

    also to note........ the USSC stated in the 1873 slaughterhouse case, that the u.s. federal government had NO STATE POLICING POWERS......IE....the power to regulate.
    QUOTE ME FOR HEAVENS SAKE. If you can't do that - screw it cause I do not care to dignify your crap that comes out of your own mouth.
    Last edited by haymarket; 06-01-15 at 08:45 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #109
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,333

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    That is only your opinion and not proof of anything.

    I knew you would come up with jack.
    sorry wrong, as stated the federal government could not regulate commerce inside of states until after Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, and the USSC stated in 1873 the federal government had no state policing powers to regulate inside of states.

    so your assertion that the founders intended the federal government to regulate firearms, is REFUTED AS WRONG!

  10. #110
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,333

    Re: Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    quote me for heavens sake. If you can't do that - screw it cause i do not care to dignify your crap that comes out of your own mouth.
    no iam going to post the links, i not going to post tons and tons of information...which you will just say .."its irrelevant"...links are provided....

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •