• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

Do you care?


  • Total voters
    55

cpgrad08

American
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
5,681
Reaction score
3,023
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?
 
Bait thread alert!
 
Not really, just asking a question.

The point is our government at various levels violates the Constitution already in a multitude of ways. No matter how you answer the question, it is all voided by the point of view on the power of the Constitution as a government limitation device. It is no longer such a document, as such the better question is the Constitution relevant any longer?
 
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?

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.
 
Yes, although that doesn't matter at this point in my life.
 
Yes I do. But most outcries of constitutional violations are nothing more than partisan nonsense. Real violations are much more complicated and arcane than a talk radio soundbyte.
 
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.

Well, the problem with that though is - the people sitting on our courts have themselves been indoctrinated into the same leftist worldviews that dominate our society. As such, almost everyone, including the people working in our courts and institutions, believe that government is, and should be, a positive force for "good".

Once certain phrases and interpretations of the Constitution cleared the way for the government to do almost anything it wanted, unaccountable to anyone, our fate was sealed. Once "... promote the general welfare" became an empowering clause; and, "... necessary and proper" came to mean Dept's and agencies can make law; and the "...commerce clause" was expanded to give the FedGov almost dictatorial power over all commerce and business in the country; et al...

Our Founding Fathers crafted a negative document that was intended to empower the FedGov with certain enumerated powers, and all other matters and concerns were to fall under the authority of the states and the people themselves. They warned that if the constrictive nature of the document were subverted or overwritten, as it has been today, that liberty will not last long thereafter.

If we don't have the Constitution, i.e. the rule of law, to protect us from the government - then what does protect us from the government?? If the government can simply pass The Patriot Act, and render the 4th Amendment completely null and void - how is any citizen actually safe from such an unconstrained, unaccountable government??

The lesson of government throughout history is - that governments will always, eventually come to terrorize and subjugate its citizens. We're well on to that condition now.
 
Well, the problem with that though is - the people sitting on our courts have themselves been indoctrinated into the same leftist worldviews that dominate our society. As such, almost everyone, including the people working in our courts and institutions, believe that government is, and should be, a positive force for "good".

Once certain phrases and interpretations of the Constitution cleared the way for the government to do almost anything it wanted, unaccountable to anyone, our fate was sealed. Once "... promote the general welfare" became an empowering clause; and, "... necessary and proper" came to mean Dept's and agencies can make law; and the "...commerce clause" was expanded to give the FedGov almost dictatorial power over all commerce and business in the country; et al...

Our Founding Fathers crafted a negative document that was intended to empower the FedGov with certain enumerated powers, and all other matters and concerns were to fall under the authority of the states and the people themselves. They warned that if the constrictive nature of the document were subverted or overwritten, as it has been today, that liberty will not last long thereafter.

If we don't have the Constitution, i.e. the rule of law, to protect us from the government - then what does protect us from the government?? If the government can simply pass The Patriot Act, and render the 4th Amendment completely null and void - how is any citizen actually safe from such an unconstrained, unaccountable government??

The lesson of government throughout history is - that governments will always, eventually come to terrorize and subjugate its citizens. We're well on to that condition now.
I wish i could click on ( like) but it disappeared. If the people will get organized we can still break off in the govs. backsides.
 
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.

yup.. the people don't matter.. the only thing that matters is government.

that's pretty common outlook in this country anymore.
 
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?

I voted "...should never..."

I don't worry too much about it. Don't play gotcha games over it. With our checks and balances, we're fairly protected.
 
well the constitution has be blatantly violated, and not even the USSC could not say it has not.

before the 17th amendment to the constitution was ever even created, some states were already directly electing senators from their states by the people...which directly contradicts the constitution.

texas for example elected its first senator by direct election in 1906, seven years before the 17th.
 
It is violated on a daily basis by people, businesses and the government... and that won't ever change.
 
yup.. the people don't matter.. the only thing that matters is government.

that's pretty common outlook in this country anymore.

Constitutional Law 101: The ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional is the federal courts.

If you don't accept that, then you don't accept the constitution.
 
Constitutional Law 101: The ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional is the federal courts.

If you don't accept that, then you don't accept the constitution.

that's true.. the judicial is the final arbiter.

which brings me to a question.... if the "laymens" interpretation doesn't matter... how does a Constitutional question ever make it in front of the court?... and why do they allow the plaintiff to present an argument?
 
that's true.. the judiciual is hte final arbiter.

which brings me to a question.... if the "laymens" interpretation doesn't matter... how does a Constitutional question ever make it in front of the court?... and why do they allow the plaintiff to present an argument?

They hire a lawyer that's how. A laymen could hire a lawyer and challenge just about anything, it doesn't mean there is any merit to his case. The fact is people make all sorts of absurd claims about the constitution and everyone of them are irrelevant unless the federal court system agrees with them.
 
James Madison- The States, in their sovereign capacity, are the parties to the constitutional compact; and are thus the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution. There can be no tribunal above the authority of the States to decide whether the compact made by them has been violated by the federal government.....

That if, when the federal government usurps power, the States don’t stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding.. ...

That the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, the Sovereign States have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches. ...

That all 3 Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of the States. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed....

So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact. Otherwise, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of the judicial branch with the other branches in usurping powers, would subvert the Constitution forever....
 
They hire a lawyer that's how. A laymen could hire a lawyer and challenge just about anything, it doesn't mean there is any merit to his case. The fact is people make all sorts of absurd claims about the constitution and everyone of them are irrelevant unless the federal court system agrees with them.

I think you are missing the point here....these cases don't magically appear.... all of them are based in the interpretations of the plaintiffs.
....you know, the interpretations you say don't matter.

it's absurd to argue their interpretations do not matter... they are at the very root of constitutional cases.
they very well may end up being wrong... but those interpretations are absolutely imperative to our system.... as the courts do not review laws upon passage, those claims you find to "not matter" represent the entire basis for our federal courts.
 
I think you are missing the point here....these cases don't magically appear.... all of them are based in the interpretations of the plaintiffs.
....you know, the interpretations you say don't matter.

it's absurd to argue their interpretations do not matter... they are at the very root of constitutional cases.
they very well may end up being wrong... but those interpretations are absolutely imperative to our system.... as the courts do not review laws upon passage, those claims you find to "not matter" represent the entire basis for our federal courts.

And their opinion only matters when the courts agree to hear the case.
 
Ehhh...I went with it shouldn't, since you can both make and enforce law and at the same time be breaking those laws (while expecting everyone else to follow them, or other laws you make). Also agree that I'll defer to the courts in making the decisions if the government is or isn't violating the constitution.

I do think a rewrite should probably be at least looked at, considering it's around 228 years old, and a hell of a lot changes in that time. It works well enough now though that it isn't anything I'd worry about though, plus our politics are so divided and corrupted, a new constitution would probably end up being pretty awful so the original will do.
 
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.

Only those who do not agree with what Constitution clearly and unambiguously says, and do not wish for it to be obeyed, claim that there is any argument about “interpretations” of it.
 
Last edited:
I voted "...should never..."

I don't worry too much about it. Don't play gotcha games over it. With our checks and balances, we're fairly protected.

Except that we're not.

The various separated powers that are supposed to act as a check on one another, and stop any violation of our Constitutional rights, much too often instead collude against us, conspiring to commit these violations.
 
Constitutional Law 101: The ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional is the federal courts.

If you don't accept that, then you don't accept the constitution.

The Constitution does not give this power to the federal courts. In fact, Jefferson warned against this abuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom