View Poll Results: Can The Constitution Be UnConstitutional?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the Constitution can, and has been unconstitutional.

    3 11.54%
  • No, the claim is ridiculous. The Constitution is inherently constitutional.

    19 73.08%
  • Aspects of some alterations may be questionable constitutionality.

    4 15.38%
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 141

Thread: Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

  1. #11
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Non sequitur, only by today's so-called "liberal" ideology, which is not liberal at all, but rather didactic Marxist Progressive fascism intending to corrupt the constitution to achieve its agendas at any cost.

    It seems pretty clear and "sequitous" that if anything gets into the Constitution, and is able to alter the Constitution's fundamental principle, then the Constitution is really no longer based on those fundamental principles, such as unalienable individual rights, sovereign state authority, and government limited to only enumerated powers.

    Also, as a corollary of this, if the Constitution is subject to multiple deliberate "interpretations", then things might be ascribed to the Constitution so as to corrupt its principles, and to no surprise, they have been.

    And given the two above recognitions, it is no surprise that certain legislation, such as ObamaCare, has succeeded in turning constitutional principle on its ear, by its presumed constitutionality, while being flagrantly unconstitutional, fundamentally changing the relationship between citizen and government, and allowing government to fabricate rights, such as "health care", and then compel the citizens into servitude of the government and other citizens, to meet the rights of those other citizens and the obligations of the government itself.

    If you find this clear and straightforward dissection to be "non-sequitous", then the problem is not the argument itself, but rather your own inability, or perhaps more aptly refusal, to follow along. That's your own ideological agenda, and not a problem with my argument.

    In truth, there's nothing "random-ass" about the Constitution's structure and design.
    It is Constitutional to amend the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended in a way that changes its original intent. Good or bad, that's the way it works. So you may have problems with certain amendments, perhaps rightfully so, but they are still constitutional. The fact that you argue they are tyrannical amendments doesn't change that.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  2. #12
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    I did not say that if something is in the Constitution it can't in any way be tyrannous. Strawman. If its in the Constitution its constitutional, tyrannous or not. The Constitution can be amended towards more liberty or less. Legal and constitutional does not mean good. It seems to me you are conflating "unconstitutional" with "tyrannous."
    THe only way anthing in the Constitution might be inherently constitutional, is if we entirely disregard the fact that the Constitution is founded on principles of protecting individual rights, and limiting government to strictly enumerated powers, and turn the Constitution into a purposeless contact dictating the terms of society, no longer a compact between sovereign states, to create the fiction that is the federal government.

    This is not just amending the Constitution to "less liberty" but rather the overturn of the entire principles of the constitution, and each time doing so under some false cover of societal benefit, such as only taxing those cruel corporations and evil rich (16th Amendment), or only ensuring rights of the victimized blacks that are guaranteed to all citizens (14th Amendment).

    In fact these corruptions to the Constitution, and corrupt manipulations of original intent, have gone on to such a degree that NO AMENDMENT is even necessary to overturn freedoms and promote whatever illegitimate tyrannous government agenda. Witness ObamaCare.

    IN each of these corruptions to the Constitution, the constitution has been taken from a general "form" of government, to being dictating the details of government, or providing the authority to dictate previously denied details of government, and change the very form of government itself.

    Claiming that the alterations to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, and inherently tyrannous, is nothing but a fools paradise, accepting the appearance of legitimate government, in name only, rather than the actual fact of legitimate government by accepted terms, and is why Americans deserve the enslavement they are about to undergo.
    Last edited by Trip; 06-24-13 at 02:41 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  3. #13
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    It is Constitutional to amend the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended in a way that changes its original intent. Good or bad, that's the way it works. So you may have problems with certain amendments, perhaps rightfully so, but they are still constitutional. The fact that you argue they are tyrannical amendments doesn't change that.
    It is Constitutional to amend the constitution in areas that are pursuant to its original intent.

    It is not Constitutional to amend the Constitution so as to subvert that original intent, nor is it made constitutional by mere ratification of those amendments.

    The way it actually works is no amendment can actually be made to the constitution that actually withdraws, unalienable rights nowhere provisions of that Constitution. Yet with amendments like the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 18th actually withdrew rights to the individual citizens, or their collective bodies, the sovereign states, and corrupted these rights. And it is no surprise these Amendments actually came in a surge of the original Progressivism, enabling government tyranny.

    The fact that they are Amendments does not change the fact that they are inherently tyrannical and in conflict with those unalienable rights, and incompatible with and not pursuant to the Constitution - unconstitutional.

    The difference between what the founders rejected in the Revolutionary War, and what we face today, is that they had no guarantee of the rights they recognized as unalienable , not even any precedent for those rights, yet they acted nonetheless, but we do have precedent, and guarantee, and those rights are the only acceptable basis to legitimacy in our form of government.


    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever ANY FORM of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    The first sentence above clearly states the primary purpose of government - to secure these rights, and the government is not only no longer doing so, but also is actually a direct threat to those rights.
    Last edited by Trip; 06-24-13 at 02:51 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  4. #14
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    THe only way anthing in the Constitution might be inherently constitutional, is if we entirely disregard the fact that the Constitution is founded on principles of protecting individual rights, and limiting government to strictly enumerated powers, and turn the Constitution into a purposeless contact dictating the terms of society, no longer a compact between sovereign states, to create the fiction that is the federal government.

    This is not just amending the Constitution to "less liberty" but rather the overturn of the entire principles of the constitution, and each time doing so under some false cover of societal benefit, such as only taxing those cruel corporations and evil rich (16th Amendment), or only ensuring rights of the victimized blacks that are guaranteed to all citizens (14th Amendment).

    In fact these corruptions to the Constitution, and corrupt manipulations of original intent, have gone on to such a degree that NO AMENDMENT is even necessary to overturn freedoms and promote whatever illegitimate tyrannous government agenda. Witness ObamaCare.

    IN each of these corruptions to the Constitution, the constitution has been taken from a general "form" of government, to being dictating the details of government, or providing the authority to dictate previously denied details of government, and change the very form of government itself.

    Claiming that the alterations to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, and inherently tyrannous, is nothing but a fools paradise, accepting the appearance of legitimate government, in name only, rather than the actual fact of legitimate government by accepted terms, and is why Americans deserve the enslavement they are about to undergo.
    The Constitution can be interpreted in ways that are arguably unconstitutional, such as the instances you provide. But the constitution and its amendments cannot be unconstitutional. Alterations to the constitution are going to change the constitution from what it originally intended no matter what. That doesn't make amendments unconstitutional. That's what amendments do.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  5. #15
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    The only conceivable away that part of the Constitution could be considered unconstitutional would be if there was an explicit, irreconcilable contradiction. An example would be that if one part says only women can vote and another part says that only men can vote. I would presume that the SCOTUS would deem that the more recent amendment repeals the earlier one in that extremely unlikely scenario.

  6. #16
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    It is Constitutional to amend the constitution in areas that are pursuant to its original intent.

    It is not Constitutional to amend the Constitution so as to subvert that original intent, nor is it made constitutional by mere ratification of those amendments.

    The way it actually works is no amendment can actually be made to the constitution that actually withdraws, unalienable rights nowhere provisions of that Constitution. Yet with amendments like the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 18th actually withdrew rights to the individual citizens, or their collective bodies, the sovereign states, and corrupted these rights. And it is no surprise these Amendments actually came in a surge of the original Progressivism, enabling government tyranny.

    The fact that they are Amendments does not change the fact that they are inherently tyrannical and in conflict with those unalienable rights, and incompatible with and not pursuant to the Constitution - unconstitutional.

    The difference between what the founders rejected in the Revolutionary War, and what we face today, is that they had no guarantee of the rights they recognized as unalienable , not even any precedent for those rights, yet they acted nonetheless, but we do have precedent, and guarantee, and those rights are the only acceptable basis to legitimacy in our form of government.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever ANY FORM of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    The first sentence above clearly states the primary purpose of government - to secure these rights, and the government is not only no longer doing so, but also is actually a direct threat to those rights.
    They are still constitutional. Again, all you can argue is that they go against the original intent of the constitution or that they are bad and tyrannical amendments. But that doesn't change the fact that they are still constitutional. Again, you are conflating tyrannical with unconstitutional.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  7. #17
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    They are still constitutional. Again, all you can argue is that they go against the original intent of the constitution or that they are bad and tyrannical amendments. But that doesn't change the fact that they are still constitutional. Again, you are conflating tyrannical with unconstitutional.
    They are against the constitution - unconstitutional.

    And it is not just a matter of "original intent", which is entirely irrelevant, when that original intent which might involve intending one branch of government to operate by one method, but rather another method was actually instituted. That is not the case here.

    In these considerations the entire principle of the Constitution itself has been corrupted - those unalienable rights.

    One example - Direct Tax
    : we have been so habituated and inculcated that a tax on personal income is acceptable for government, and part of our responsibility to bear as citizens, but a direct tax on personal income was deliberately prohibited by the founders for real cause, because it enabled the government to engage any agenda whatsoever against the populace, or sections of the populace, so as to enact whatever social design it might choose. And this is why the Founders indicated that any such direct tax must be applied to each state according to the census, and not directly to the individuals enumerated in that census, thereby prohibiting their targeting.

    The founders knew that a direct tax on personal income must be prohibited because of its inherently despotic nature,. Yet the courts and legislature would have us believe that personal income is not and never was included in direct tax, and have even characterized it as an excise, or event tax, which goes against the fact and simple truth. Our working 40 hours a week is an equal exchange of labor for payment, and not any sort of event tax, such as purchasing gasoline, or buying widgets. Furthermore, direct taxation is immediately undermining industry and initiative, by the theft of the equal payment for that industry, and a form of involuntary servitude.

    The Pennsylvania Ratification convention specifically addressed direct taxation and recognized income from "trades and occupations" in the primary definition, Yet what we've been led today as the definition of direct tax, is income from property, and rents, and dividends, which is only the secondary definition of direct tax.

    Regarding direct tax, that PA Ratification Convention indicated:

    This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in it collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments.

    These facts and principles were not changed by the ratification of the 16th, but rather only the Constitution was corrupted in principle, enabling the tyrannous, despotic agendas we see today. The 16th Amendment did not suddenly make direct taxation legitimate, and compatible with those individual rights.

    Direct taxation was not just haphazardly prohibited as an irrelevant matter, but it is the very fabric of the Constitution itself, and it remains entirely in conflict with the Constitution - unconstitutional - by its violation of individual rights and freedoms.

    This is not a matter of just "interpreting" the Constitution in a way that is unconstitutional but rather directly corrupting the Constitution so that it is no longer compatible with its principle, foundation, and no longer pursuant to its purpose, but rather entirely at odds with that purpose.

    In short, these Amendments remain in direct conflict with the Constitution, despite their ratification and inclusion therein. The problem is not my argument, but rather your own believe the Constitution is some haphazard, loosely defined product that might change the terms to the people, when the Constitution only provides the terms that government might be allowed to exist, so as to protect the people's freedoms.
    Last edited by Trip; 06-24-13 at 04:06 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  8. #18
    Educator
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Arkansas, but I am Texan.
    Last Seen
    01-01-17 @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    699

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Those amendments may go against the original intent of the Constitution, but they are amendments--that's the point. They make changes to the constitution. So you can say the amendments are bad because they go against the original constitution, but nothing more.
    Perhaps if we had a better understanding of the 1787 Constitution, as worded, then we would understand the purpose of an Amendment.

  9. #19
    Educator
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Arkansas, but I am Texan.
    Last Seen
    01-01-17 @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    699

    Re: Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    CAN THE CONSTITUTION BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
    Of course not!

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    07-16-13 @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,568

    Re: Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

    The Constitution can not be unconstitutional.

    Like the bible cant be unbiblical.

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •