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 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 141

Thread: Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

  1. #21
    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 Trip View Post
    So by this logic, anything that gets into the Constitution, by majority vote among the states and Congress, is inherently valid, and we're actually in fact a Democracy, despite every intention to prohibit that, and our rights are actually provided by government, at its whim, despite the fact that rights were deliberately recognized to prevent that?

    Overall, this makes the Constitution nothing but a self-validating document, in service of the majority demand and socialism, and the ideal tool unbridled tyranny.

    I'm pretty certain this is not at all what the founders intended.

    Such a belief leaves only two options for any freedom at all, with nothing in between:

    ... either we relent put the government shackles on ourselves,
    ... or take up arms and start shooting.
    Nonsense, no law enforces itself!

  2. #22
    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 StillBallin75 View Post
    I think it can be unconstitutional, but not necessarily in the sense that you're framing the discussion to be. Changes to the Constitution are part of the Amendment process, which delineates what exactly is the constitutional method for implementing said amendments.

    It can be argued that the Constitution itself was unconstitutional because the way it was ratified was specifically breached the existing framework of the Articles of Confederation.
    Anything can be argued, as well demonstrated on this board. Upon ratification of the Constitution the States gave up the power to make Treaties and consigned that power to the new federal government replacing the Article of Confederation. However, the new federal government relieved the States of their Treaty obligations and assumed the responsibility of fulfilling them.

    So, the Article of Confederation was done away with but not entirely breached. Valid obligations were fulfilled.

  3. #23
    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
    It seems to me you are conflating "unconstitutional" with "tyrannous."
    On purpose trying to downgrade the Constitution and uphold the government that violates it.

  4. #24
    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 AllanHampton View Post
    Nonsense, no law enforces itself!
    I'm uncertain what you're actually rejecting.

    1) The presumption that the Constitution might validate itself in whatever form, by its new alterations validating themselves, which I profoundly reject, as this only results in ever expanding government authority under the <false> color of constitutionality.

    2) Or the idea that the country is based on certain unalterable principles as the basis of that Compact that created the government, founded on the unalienable individual rights, and the sovereignty of the several States, which the government and Constitution itself are now in violation of. The principles described in the Declaration, and its inclusion in U.S. Code as the organic law of this country, would strongly confirm this as the legitimate truth.


    If you're rejecting #2, then you're rejecting the principles of this country, and embracing the idea of an ever-expanding tyrannous government that has given itself a false legitimacy by the alterations to the Constitution made under false assurances, and inaccurate representations to the people.

    The issue is not one of "enforcing", but rather of self "validating". Our failure to enforce the unalterable terms of the Constitution, has allowed government to corrupt it by initial misrepresentation of those alterations, and violate those original terms which allowed the government to exist, now under the false color of constitutionality.

    Apparently you believe that the document cannot limit <enforce> itself to original terms, but do believe that the document can validate itself, in disregard to those unalienable original principles, which is a belief that really prohibits holding this country forth as any sort of ideal of freedom.

    How do you imagine that the government might give itself the authority to pervert the very "rights" recognized in the Bill of Rights, into being something the government polices,and thereby grants, and even to use them as an on-demand "license" against other private citizens, when these are in extreme conflict with the purpose and nature of rights?
    Last edited by Trip; 06-24-13 at 02:47 PM.

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

    ~ James Madison

  5. #25
    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 StillBallin75 View Post
    I think it can be unconstitutional, but not necessarily in the sense that you're framing the discussion to be. Changes to the Constitution are part of the Amendment process, which delineates what exactly is the constitutional method for implementing said amendments.
    The constitution only creates the fiction that is the federal government. It does not create rights, nor grant them. It does not forfeit sovereignty of the states, but only empowers the federal government to act as proxy for the interests of the cumulative states.

    Nowhere can the Constitution diminish the unalienable rights of the citizens.

    Nowhere can the Constitution diminish that sovereignty of the states, yet that it what some intend the Constitution to have done by amendment, and corruption. Even as recognized by the supreme court in Pollard's Lessee, that sovereignty cannot be forfeit by even the state's own willful act. In this regard the state sovereignty, the representation of the cumulative citizens within, is much like the unalienable rights of individuals.

    If individuals and states cannot even willfully give up their own sovereign authority and unalienable rights, then how is it possible that these Amendments might be valid under the Constitution?

    It is not possible, and the Constitution does not 'self-validate" as constitutional anything that is incorporated within it.

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    It can be argued that the Constitution itself was unconstitutional because the way it was ratified was specifically breached the existing framework of the Articles of Confederation.
    The "way it was ratified" has no bearing on the corruptions to the Constitution being unconstitutional. I'm definitely not indicating that the Constitution as a whole is unconstitutional.

    What I am actually indicating is that the alterations to the Constitution and the interpretation of those alterations, are corruptions to the unalterable principle of the Constitution, and thereby themselves unconstitutional.

    For instance:
    >> The government cannot give itself the authority to police rights, because those rights are specifically recognized to prevent the government's alteration of them.

    >> The government cannot give itself the authority to tax individual income, not even by amendment <16th>, nor by the corrupt re-definition of "direct tax" and reclassification of personal income as a "excise" event tax, which it clearly is not. The reason is that an individual has no net gain from employment, no profit, is a result of the fact that employment is the equal exchange of labor for remuneration. No one, not even the furthest left Communist union members, would claim that an individual's labor is without worth, but that is what the government is saying in taxing payment for that labor.

    Article 1, Section 9, "Limits to Congress: "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

    This is reason for the very existence of the constitutional mandate that EVERY direct tax must be distributed to the state itself according to the census of enumeration, paid by some other collection means, and not applied directly to the individual making the income because, as recognized by this nation's founders, direct taxation is nothing but the tool of despots, enabling the government to wield agendas against individuals. "This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments."

    No amendment, nor redefining employment income to be an "excise tax", can change this fact.

    >> The government cannot give itself the ability to fabricate rights, such as health care, because the ability to create rights, is also the ability to deny real, fundamental rights, and that is precisely what we see with ObamaCare and the abrogation of 80% of the Bill of Rights.

    All of these, and more, are illegitimate and unconstitutional, because "that which is unchangeable" (Individual rights & State Sovereignty) cannot be changed merely by following the the process detailed in Article V of the Constitution.

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

    ~ James Madison

  6. #26
    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
    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.
    Its a shame your long winded post is irrelevant. The amendments are still constitutional. All you are doing is arguing that they are bad amendments.
    "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. #27
    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 seems to me you are conflating "unconstitutional" with "tyrannous."
    While we recognize that government outside that the Constitution's terms as being tyrannous <most of us do anyway>...


    ... that does not mean that what is incorporated into the Constitution is thereby no longer tyrannous.

    This is a notorious flaw of argumentation known as affirming the consequent, or reversing the consequent.

    The government policing, granting and fabricating rights, is still tyrannous, despite the corruption of the 14th Amendment allowing the government to do so, which is itself inherently unconstitutional.

    It is no surprise that 14th Amendment occurred after the Civil War, when government stole authority that it was deliberately prohibited, and was operating in entirely extra-constitutional manners, instituting martial law, deposing duly elected state governments, emplacing puppet governments, making edicts after the fact, initiating suits by those puppet governments and heard by the unconstitutional federal government while pretending those suits were decided under the terms of the Constitution, and dictating to sovereign states that they must ratify amendments to be recognized - all actions flagrantly outside the Constitution - unconstitutional.

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

    ~ James Madison

  8. #28
    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
    Its a shame your long winded post is irrelevant. The amendments are still constitutional. All you are doing is arguing that they are bad amendments.
    No, "bad amendments" are just a matter of opinion.

    Unconstitutional, which is what they are, involves terms that are not pursuant to the Constitution, and that includes fundamental constitutional principle.

    "Rights" as established by the Constitution, and involved in the very declaration that brought this country into existence, are what the individual is guaranteed specifically from government denial, and government alteration.

    Rights ARE NOT "on demand licenses" to use against private individuals or private organizations, under the wrongful force of government, but rather specifically to prohibit government action and dictate!

    Thus, the indication by the 14th Amendment that the federal government can police these rights in the sovereign States, and later expanded to empower the federal government to impose the ideal of "integration", while denying the individual freedom of association guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, is entirely UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegitimate, tyrannous action by the federal government!

    No amendment can legitimately give the federal government this authority and not be FLAGRANTLY in violation of the Constitution.

    By allowing these amendments we have in fact become, no longer a government founded on rights, or even having any regard for real rights, but rather a government founded on federal dictate according to whatever subjective value system might be in power at the moment.

    This volatile condition explains why our government is in such dire straights right now, and no businesses are growing or hiring, and citizens that recognize the threat to freedom are arming themselves so heavily --- or did the underlying cause of these overall facts escape you?

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

    ~ James Madison

  9. #29
    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
    No, "bad amendments" are just a matter of opinion.

    Unconstitutional, which is what they are, involves terms that are not pursuant to the Constitution, and that includes fundamental constitutional principle.

    "Rights" as established by the Constitution, and involved in the very declaration that brought this country into existence, are what the individual is guaranteed specifically from government denial, and government alteration.

    Rights ARE NOT "on demand licenses" to use against private individuals or private organizations, under the wrongful force of government, but rather specifically to prohibit government action and dictate!

    Thus, the indication by the 14th Amendment that the federal government can police these rights in the sovereign States, and later expanded to empower the federal government to impose the ideal of "integration", while denying the individual freedom of association guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, is entirely UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegitimate, tyrannous action by the federal government!

    No amendment can legitimately give the federal government this authority and not be FLAGRANTLY in violation of the Constitution.

    By allowing these amendments we have in fact become, no longer a government founded on rights, or even having any regard for real rights, but rather a government founded on federal dictate according to whatever subjective value system might be in power at the moment.

    This volatile condition explains why our government is in such dire straights right now, and no businesses are growing or hiring, and citizens that recognize the threat to freedom are arming themselves so heavily --- or did the underlying cause of these overall facts escape you?
    Amendments are pursuant to the Constitution because they are part of the Constitution. The meaning of what is constitutional changes as amendments are added. What was once unconstitutional can become constitutional.
    "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."

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,850

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Amending away something like...let's say "Free Speech"...is not an indication that "Government gives us rights" rather than "rights being inalienable". Rather, it's an indication that the people are ceeding the protection against the government intrusion upon that particular right as part of our social contract. Just as in nature, we have the "right" to take whatever we want if we have the power to do so, but we allow for that right to be infringed in exchange for protection of other rights on the part of the government.

    The constitution doesn't GRANT rights...it stakes out the limits as to what the government can do in terms of the rights we already have. How they can infringe upon some, and how they CAN'T infringe upon some. Allowing further infringement wouldn't be an example of the government giving us constitutional rights anymore than the original document did.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •