• 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!

Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

Can The Constitution Be UnConstitutional?

  • Yes, the Constitution can, and has been unconstitutional.

    Votes: 3 11.5%

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

    Votes: 19 73.1%

  • Aspects of some alterations may be questionable constitutionality.

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • Total voters
    26
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Lakryte said:
It seems to me you are conflating "unconstitutional" with "tyrannous."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Lakryte said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Lakryte said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, they are not pursuant to the Constitution, because they violate other portions thereof, such as state sovereignty, or the those pesky individual rights, or the enumerated powers. The 14th Amendment's provision of the authority to police the emancipation of freed slaves, and the guarantee of privileges and immunities to those freed slaves by the federal government, is nowhere enumerated among the powers in Article 1, Section 8.

Let me ask you something. If an amendment were inserted into the Constitution to deny one of the Bill of Rights, such as denying the 2nd Amendment right to both keep and bear arms, would you consider that amendment valid, and constitutional?

The fact is those rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, not grants by the Constitution, but rather the recognition of principles in a "list of particulars" that are entirely outside the Constitution, and unable to be altered by it.

The 14th Amendment is violation of those rights, and thereby inherently unconstitutional, as is the 16th Amendment.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
No, they are not pursuant to the Constitution, because they violate other portions thereof, such as state sovereignty, or the those pesky individual rights, or the enumerated powers. The 14th Amendment's provision of the authority to police the emancipation of freed slaves, and the guarantee of privileges and immunities to those freed slaves by the federal government, is nowhere enumerated among the powers in Article 1, Section 8.

Let me ask you something. If an amendment were inserted into the Constitution to deny one of the Bill of Rights, such as denying the 2nd Amendment right to both keep and bear arms, would you consider that amendment valid, and constitutional?

The fact is those rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, not grants by the Constitution, but rather the recognition of principles in a "list of particulars" that are entirely outside the Constitution, and unable to be altered by it.

The 14th Amendment is violation of those rights, and thereby inherently unconstitutional, as is the 16th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Of course. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. Amendments change the constitution.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

As to the bolded portion...woah.. ouch!

These rights are recognized to be "unalienable' precisely because the cannot be taken, nor given, away, nor traded, as part of anything.

The infringement of any right, cannot be made as part of ANY social contract, and the government cannot GIVE, what it does not possess! What you're decribing is that some people imagining they can sacrifice their rights, and rights of others, to receive the theft of others property that the government has stolen....AND NONE OF THAT IS IN ANY WAY LEGITIMATE!

While the word "infringe" is only used in application to the 2nd Amendment, ALL of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and all those are un-enumerated but generally referenced in the 9th Amendment, can not be infringed upon nor denied in any portion, by the government, or any other part of the Constitution!

Even the States themselves have sovereignty which is unalienable, and cannot be denied even by those states willfully giving up there authority, or soil to the federal government in some agreement -- even as adjudged by the Supreme Court itself!

The Court case Pollard's Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama of ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama. The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands. Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. As the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States. The Court resolved:


"To Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights."

"Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits ... to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states ... to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them."
​


Notice the first cited paragraph involves not only a recognition of Alabama's sovereignty, but as with "unalienable" rights, that state sovereignty is also unalienable, and cannot by changed even by agreement ("compact") by the state itself! This is undiminished by the fact that Alabama was originally a territory, entirely subject to congressional control.

"No compact that might be made between [any state] and the United States could diminish these rights", .... which would include admission into the union.

Also as a function of the Pollard's Lessee holding, the Court indicated that each and every state that joined subsequent to the Revolution, has the same rights as the original states.... and that No state could have rights recognized that are not shared equally with other states. Therefore the federal government cannot reduce the rights of any state, even if that state was originally a territory that was subject to congressional legislation, and in no way sovereign at that time.

The states have had their sovereignty reduced by the 17the Amendment's popular election of Senators, now unable to recall those Senators at the will of the legislature when they no longer represent the states interest, with the 17th Amendment instead creating the most criminal and unanswerable body of the entire federal government.

I have to say, I cannot recall such a poor, corrupt understanding of "unalienable" as I've seen in this post. It's not just

 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Lakryte said:
Of course. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. Amendments change the constitution.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, regarding the 18th Amendment in the OP, if the government and Progressives imagined that the consumption of alcohol were actually a "right", which the apparently did, given their need to institute an amendment, rather than a statute, then they should have realized that no Amendment can chance the rights either eunmerated or un-enumerated by the Constitution.

In fact the Constitution itself is NOWHERE for dictating the rights of individuals, "the people", but rather for only limiiting and defining government itself.

But this is even more fascinating: nowhere does the Constitution allow the federal government to enact laws that are applicable to the States soil. Nowhere! The only areas that the federal government can enact legislation regarding is 1) a 10x10 square mile area of District of Columbia, 2) territory specifically designated as federal territory, such as national parks, 3) forts, arsenals, and military bases and, 4) territories that are prospective future states.

Not only is there no authority for federal laws dictating to the states over and above the laws the have themselves, but there isn't even an attempt to create such authority in the Constitution via amendment! It was just usurped after the Civil War, by a federal government that needs to have its legs removed. This is likely why the progressive fascists at the start of the 20th century went for an amendment, because they imagine that the federal government has the authority to dictate and grant rights, and to no surprise this is what we see from them yet again with ObamaCare. Every single person that voted in support of ObamaCare should be tried and convicted for conspiracy to deny rights under the color of law, U.S.C Title 18 § 241 & 242, and sentenced to the full penalty that this statute allows when life has been denied and take, which itself is life.



Amendments cannot legitimately change rights, and cannot change the principle of the Constitution; they can only change the way the existing authority of the federal government is exercised, and not expand that authority to infringe upon state or individual guarantees.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
As I pointed out, regarding the 18th Amendment in the OP, if the government and Progressives imagined that the consumption of alcohol were actually a "right", which the apparently did, given their need to institute an amendment, rather than a statute, then they should have realized that no Amendment can chance the rights either eunmerated or un-enumerated by the Constitution.

In fact the Constitution itself is NOWHERE for dictating the rights of individuals, "the people", but rather for only limiiting and defining government itself.

But this is even more fascinating: nowhere does the Constitution allow the federal government to enact laws that are applicable to the States soil. Nowhere! The only areas that the federal government can enact legislation regarding is 1) a 10x10 square mile area of District of Columbia, 2) territory specifically designated as federal territory, such as national parks, 3) forts, arsenals, and military bases and, 4) territories that are prospective future states.

Not only is there no authority for federal laws dictating to the states over and above the laws the have themselves, but there isn't even an attempt to create such authority in the Constitution via amendment! It was just usurped after the Civil War, by a federal government that needs to have its legs removed. This is likely why the progressive fascists at the start of the 20th century went for an amendment, because they imagine that the federal government has the authority to dictate and grant rights, and to no surprise this is what we see from them yet again with ObamaCare. Every single person that voted in support of ObamaCare should be tried and convicted for conspiracy to deny rights under the color of law, U.S.C Title 18 § 241 & 242, and sentenced to the full penalty that this statute allows when life has been denied and take, which itself is life.



Amendments cannot legitimately change rights, and cannot change the principle of the Constitution; they can only change the way the existing authority of the federal government is exercised, and not expand that authority to infringe upon state or individual guarantees.
Click to expand...
The constitution cannot be unconstitutional. You are just upset that the constitution has changed, so you are calling changes to the constitution you don't like unconstitutional. And despite the obvious absurdity in doing so, nothing anyone says seems to be reaching you. You are repeating the same nonsense. So I'm done playing, time for this topic to die as it should. Good bye.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

A much higher percentage of Republicans put the 18th into law. Check when Kansas finally repealed all parts of the 18th. Urban Democrats were the drinkers.
Trip said:
As I pointed out, regarding the 18th Amendment in the OP, if the government and Progressives imagined that the consumption of alcohol were actually a "right", which the apparently did, given their need to institute an amendment, rather than a statute, then they should have realized that no Amendment can chance the rights either eunmerated or un-enumerated by the Constitution.

In fact the Constitution itself is NOWHERE for dictating the rights of individuals, "the people", but rather for only limiiting and defining government itself.

But this is even more fascinating: nowhere does the Constitution allow the federal government to enact laws that are applicable to the States soil. Nowhere! The only areas that the federal government can enact legislation regarding is 1) a 10x10 square mile area of District of Columbia, 2) territory specifically designated as federal territory, such as national parks, 3) forts, arsenals, and military bases and, 4) territories that are prospective future states.

Not only is there no authority for federal laws dictating to the states over and above the laws the have themselves, but there isn't even an attempt to create such authority in the Constitution via amendment! It was just usurped after the Civil War, by a federal government that needs to have its legs removed. This is likely why the progressive fascists at the start of the 20th century went for an amendment, because they imagine that the federal government has the authority to dictate and grant rights, and to no surprise this is what we see from them yet again with ObamaCare. Every single person that voted in support of ObamaCare should be tried and convicted for conspiracy to deny rights under the color of law, U.S.C Title 18 § 241 & 242, and sentenced to the full penalty that this statute allows when life has been denied and take, which itself is life.



Amendments cannot legitimately change rights, and cannot change the principle of the Constitution; they can only change the way the existing authority of the federal government is exercised, and not expand that authority to infringe upon state or individual guarantees.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Excellent reply. I'm sure you won't agree with another amendment that needs to be put to rest for the ages, the bloody civil war 10th.
Lakryte said:
The constitution cannot be unconstitutional. You are just upset that the constitution has changed, so you are calling changes to the constitution you don't like unconstitutional. And despite the obvious absurdity in doing so, nothing anyone says seems to be reaching you. You are repeating the same nonsense. So I'm done playing, time for this topic to die as it should. Good bye.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

NIMBY said:
A much higher percentage of Republicans put the 18th into law. Check when Kansas finally repealed all parts of the 18th. Urban Democrats were the drinkers.
Click to expand...

I question that fact, but beyodn that "Progressive does not translate to "Democrats". Progressive didn't translate to Democrats in the early 20th century, and it doesn't now.

I know families who were liquor runners, in the north, and the south, and all of them are extremely wealthy, and none of them are Democrats.

But to no surprise, the ever-present unintended consequence of Progressive fascist dictate, always comes and bites them in the ass, and with Prohibition it was the promulgation of fully automatic machine guns, and lead flying in the streats, for which they had to deny lawful citizens the right to fully automatic rifles. And the same happened with the progressive ideal that food prices must be kept slow by controlling agriculture production, "for the rights of the people", and thereby denying people the right to grow their own grain.

Social engineering dictate never works, and the little fascists need to be cut off at the knees before they deny our every freedom and destroy this country.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
Social engineering dictate never works, and the little fascists need to be cut off at the knees before they deny our every freedom and destroy this country.
Click to expand...

Social engineering dictates restriction of freedom like when people try to pass things of the sort of the Federal Marriage Amendment or laws in the context DOMA are in and of themeselves social engineering.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

winston53660 said:
Social engineering dictates restriction of freedom like when people try to pass things of the sort of the Federal Marriage Amendment or laws in the context DOMA are in and of themeselves social engineering.
Click to expand...

Utter malarkey!

No, the recognition of marriage in DOMA, was not any sort of re-definition of marriage, but was only a recognition of what was, and had been, so as to prohibit Social Engineering, and abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause to have one state's abuse of the definition be forced upon each and every state against their will.


DOMA did not dictate the terms of marriage to the several states.

DOMA did not prohibit states from coming up with their own definition for marriage, just prevented that definition from being compelled upon other states.

The only thing that DOMA did was prohibit the corrupt Social Engineering of various state legislatures and judiciaries from being compelled upon other states, thereby preventing the abuse of the Constitution for Social Engineering designs.

DOMA is entirely constitutional, and thoroughly against Social Engineering, nowhere involving it.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
Utter malarkey!

No, the recognition of marriage in DOMA, was not any sort of re-definition of marriage, but was only a recognition of what was, and had been, so as to prohibit Social Engineering, and abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause to have one state's abuse of the definition be forced upon each and every state against their will.


DOMA did not dictate the terms of marriage to the several states.

DOMA did not prohibit states from coming up with their own definition for marriage, just prevented that definition from being compelled upon other states.

The only thing that DOMA did was prohibit the corrupt Social Engineering of various state legislatures and judiciaries from being compelled upon other states, thereby preventing the abuse of the Constitution for Social Engineering designs.

DOMA is entirely constitutional, and thoroughly against Social Engineering, nowhere involving it.
Click to expand...

LOL DOMA is nothing more than a vain last grasp attempt at social engineering dictating the federal government wil only recognize heterosexual marriage.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

winston53660 said:
LOL DOMA is nothing more than a vain last grasp attempt at social engineering dictating the federal government wil only recognize heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

Nope. it is the refusal to allow the Constituition to be abused by Social Engineers to compel everyone in all States to recognize the abuse of Marriage that only one state might create by judicial and legislative fiat.
 
Trip said:
Nope. it is the refusal to allow the Constituition to be abused by Social Engineers to compel everyone in all States to recognize the abuse of Marriage that only one state might create by judicial and legislative fiat.
Click to expand...

Oh so you want the state to enforce your religion.

Hey Mr. Taliban.
 
DAKitty said:
If it is in the Constitution, it is Constitutional.
Click to expand...

By this 'logic', the Constitution is only a document founded on itself, a self-validating document,...

... and not at all a document founded UNALIENABLE individual rights specifically protected from government interference, and not involving inviolable state SOVEREIGNTY, but rather only a tool for ever-expanding tyranny.

Someone needs to actually contact the Congress, and have them remove the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Northwest Ordinance from their listing in the U.S. Code as the "Organic Law" of the United States, this country's founding, indelible principle, as they are no longer recognized as such.

And you call yourself a libertarian? Really?
 
Trip said:
CAN THE CONSTITUTION BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

YES, actually there is in fact such a thing as the constitutionality of the Constitution.

The constitution is not just a self-validating document, which would ultimately make it a tool of unbridled tyranny (even as we see illegitimately being exercised today). Rather the Constitution is a document licensing government, and dictating the terms of that government, and doing so by a certain and unalterable philosophy.

It is because of the undeniable and immutable nature of this philosophy that we are able to recognize documents such as the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance as the Organic Law of this country, its founding principle, rather than just recognizing this country's "principle" as whatever it might be at the current point in time.

Among the foundational principles and philosophies of the Constitution are these immutable principles:

1) The Constitution is based on unalienable individual rights, with these rights not being provided by the Constitution itself, nor grants from the federal nor state governments, but only recognized in the Constitution, solely a "listing of particulars", even as affirmed by the 9th Amendment and the reference to other rights beyond those specifically enumerated. These rights are specifically recognized to prohibit the federal government itself acting to alter, interfere, or deny these rights in any fashion. Given this, by the terms of the Constitution itself, these rights are not any sort of "demand license" to be used against private citizens, or private organizations.

2) The Constitution does not dictate the terms of society, nor dictate how people might or shall live their lives, much less give federal government any authority to write statutes involving these details, as the only legitimate soil over which the Congress and federal government may legislate is a 10x10 mile square area known today as the District of Columbia; forts, arsenals, designated federal lands, and territories which are prospective states.

3) The Constitution only constitutes the fiction that is the federal government itself, by a positive detail and enumeration of its legitimate authority, and by the negative specific listing of those powers that no longer are to remain with the various states, as well as establishing the authority the federal government has with foreign nations.

4) The Constitution is founded on unalterable State sovereignty, even as recognized by the Supreme Court itself, with the federal government only being a proxy for the collective State sovereignty when the individual States themselves cannot reasonably each exercise that sovereign authority independently.
​


ANY and ALL violations of these terms represent violations of the Constitutional principle, and when incorporated into the Constitution, the corrupted and failed constitutionality of the Constitution itself.

► As such, the 18th Amendment and the Prohibition of the consumption of alcohol is inherently unconstitutional having violated #1, #2, and #4.

► As such, the 14th Amendment is inherently unconstitutional, given that it puts the federal in the position of policing rights in the sovereign states, and by this selective policing, in the position of fabricating rights and denial of real, with this violating principle #1, #2, #3 and #4.

► As such, the 17th Amendment establishing the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote, is of highly questionable constitutionality, as it reduces the unalterable sovereignty of the States themselves, and does so in an area where the State governments can, and have, legitimately exercised their independent authority and influence, with this being in conflict with principle #1, #3, and #4.

► As such, any hypothetical amendment intending to alter or abolish any of the Bill of Rights, inclusive of the 2nd Amendment, even if successfully being added to the Constitution by processes detailed in Article V thereof, would be flagrantly and undeniably unconstitutional, given #1, #2, #3, and #4.

In fact these means of introducing unconstitutionality into the Constitution, are invariably attempts to alter our form and principle of government, by surreptitious means, often under the cover of some societal benefice, but which itself is in conflict with the principles of the Constitution, and history has shown results in the gross illegitimate expansion of federal authority, even beyond what might have the quasi-legitimate limited terms originally intended. This is seen particularly and conspicuously with the 14th Amendment itself, originally only intended to ensure blacks the equal rights, privileges and immunities to which they were entitled by the Constitution, as every other citizen, but then fabricating the fallacy of "birthright citizenship" 30 years afterwards from a distortion of "jurisdiction", creating anchor babies by judicial fiat. There is not legitimately any such "birthright citizenship" resulting from mere birth on U.S. soil, which obviates the federal government's constitutional obligation to the two-way contract of allegiance, which is integral to citizenship itself.
Click to expand...




No, the United States Constitution can't be unconstitutional, but a lot of losers on the far right have some wacky, unconstitutional ideas which will never happen.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...




The founding fathers are all dead and buried and have no control over what we do now.

Anyone who is foolish enough to try to overthrow the elected government of the USA will pay a heavy price for their treason.
 
Trip said:
By this 'logic', the Constitution is only a document founded on itself, a self-validating document,...
Click to expand...
"Unconstitutional", as a legal term, is something that runs contrary to the constitution.
The constitution itself cannot run contrary to the constitution and so cannot be unconstitutional

The problem here is that you rest your argument on 4 principles that are not part of the constitution; as they are not part of the constitution, violating these principles does not - indeed, can not - make anything unconstitutional as "unconstitutional" is a legal term is something that runs contrary to the constitution.

Now it might be that something in the constitution might conflict with something else in the constitution, but that is not the case now, and since the only way the constitution might be changed to create such a conflict is by amendment, the amendment will supercede the previously existing clauses and eliminate any conflict.

Sorry - regardless of your ideology, them's the facts.
 
Last edited:
captainawesome said:
Oh so you want the state to enforce your religion.

Hey Mr. Taliban.
Click to expand...


Nothing about marriage, nor its definition, comes from Marriage, or even involves religion!

Marriage was only made a sacrament of the church long after marriage's existence. Even the ancient Sumerians recognized marriage, long before Christianity, or even Judaism.

But that's "awesome" Baiting/Flaming/Trolling there!
 
DAKitty said:
"Unconstitutional", as a legal term, is something that runs contrary to the constitution.
The constitution itself cannot run contrary to the constitution and so cannot be unconstitutional

The problem here is that you rest your argument on 4 principles that are not part of the constitution; as they are not part of the constitution, violating these principles does not make anything in the constitution unconstitutional as "unconstitutional" is a legal term is something that runs contrary to the constitution.

Now it might be that something in the constitution might conflict with something else in the constitution, but that is not the case now, and since the only way the constitution might be changed to create such a conflict is by amendment, the amendment will supercede the previously existing clauses and eliminate any conflict.

Sorry - regardless of your ideology, them's the facts.
Click to expand...


"Unconstitutional" is a term that defines that recognizes the law of the land, an extra-legal document, as being in conflict with the the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is founded on certain principles, among which are that rights are innate to the individual, unalienable, and specifically recognized to prohibit those rights being affected by the government itself, not for any other reason, therefore an Amendment that might give government power to police, recognize, punish, and make laws to be applied in the states regarding those rights, when there is no constitutional authority for federal laws to be applied to the States, is at least a two-fold violation of the Constitution, and inherently UN-Constitutional.

As provided by the Constitution, federal laws may only be applied to U.S. soil in the specific areas of 1) a 10x10 square mile area we know today as District of Columbia, 2) lands designated as federal lands, such as national parks, 3) forts, arsenals and military bases, and 4) territories that are future prospective states. All other federal laws are not applicable to U.S. soil itself, and no federal laws are legitimately applied to the states themselves, not even "interstate Commerce" laws, which apply by definition to the trade between the states. Thus a slate of federal laws applied in the states that are above and beyond state law, are illegitimate. This also applies to "hate crimes", and mandatory integration, environmental dictate, and others. All of these are illegitimate under the Constitution, flagrantly unconstitutional, and undeniable indicators of a tyrannous government.

Nothing can "supersede" these principles, and as shown above, corrupt attempts to disregard those principles invariably results in conflicts with other areas of the Constitution, such as the legitimate areas in which Congress can apply federal statutory dictate.

Not only can the Constitution be in conflict with the Constitution, but that is repeatedly the case now.

There is no coincidence that Americans are arming themselves in record numbers to deny the government's intrusion on these rights, but also deny the government its repeated intention to deny the right to keep and bear those arms.

Those are the harsh facts, and until you recognize the terms of the Constitution, you'll be at a loss to understand the real cause of what is going on all around you.

I'm incredulous that one can identify themselves as libertarian when they actually disregard those unalienable individual rights, and imagine that the government can do whatever it will to those rights, provided it is a corruption added to the Constitution. Im curious how such a libertarian views something like ObamaCare, which not only profoundly alters the relationship between citizen and government by the unsupported means of a mere statute, but abrogates a full 80% of the Bill of Rights which cannot even be altered by amendment, and yet has been validated by the Supreme Court. Perhaps it is okay for the government to violate those rights, which are not grants by the Constitution, and even do so by a means that does not alter the Constitution itself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom