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 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 141

Thread: Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

  1. #1
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 06:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

    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.

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

    ~ James Madison

  2. #2
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 06:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol


    The United States Constitution does not grant people rights, nor deny rights. The Constitution does ONLY create the fiction of the federal government and define its boundaries, both by positive definition of its enumerated powers, and by the negative prohibition of certain powers to the states.

    Nowhere do the people's rights have any business being indicated or reduced by the Constitution.

    If the right to consume alcohol is indeed "a right", then it cannot be altered by the Constitution's amendment to deny that right, as again, rights are not provided by the Constitution, nor taken by it. Apparently those amending the Constitution thought the consumption of alcohol was indeed some sort of right for mankind, otherwise they would not have made an amendment to the Constitution, and instead would have sought to enact a federal statute prohibiting alcohol. Indeed, mankind has been drinking alcohol since the infancy of our civilization, back to ancient Sumeria.

    If the consumption of alcohol is not a right, then it still has no business being in the Constitution, as the Constitution's intent is solely to constitute the federal government, and establish that federal government's relationship between the states, and foreign nations, and not to limit the actions of the people by that law of the land. Nowhere <else> does the Constitution indicate any sort of "negative right" to the people. What the 18th Amendment prohibition on alcohol was, was actually the grasp of unsupported federal authority, nowhere an authority provided unto the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.


    The 18th Amendment Prohibition on the consumption of alcohol is the earliest evidence of Progressive Social Engineering dictate in this country, and is nowhere the business of the federal government, nor the Constitution itself, and nowhere an authority granted the federal government by that Constitution.


    By these facts, the 18th Amendment had no business whatsoever being in the Constitution, and is intrinsically contrary to that document's structure and purpose in every respect - thereby thoroughly unconstitutional, and grossly so.

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

    ~ James Madison

  3. #3
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    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.
    "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."

  4. #4
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 06:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    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.

    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.

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

    ~ James Madison

  5. #5
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    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.
    A majority vote among the states and Congress is not purely democratic, since that requires a vote from the people themselves. The Constitution would not be an ideal tool to unbridled tyranny, because it is not that easy to get amendments passed. The ideal tool would be no Constitution.

    But as far as the gist of your other general points are, yes. Most of the stuff the government does is not inline with the Constitution. Just look at the NSA. A piece of paper does not actually protect our rights.
    "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."

  6. #6
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-14-17 @ 04:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,882

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    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.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #7
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-14-17 @ 04:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,882

    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.
    You're just drawing random-ass conclusions. Everything you've said here is a complete non-sequitur.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  8. #8
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 06:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    You're just drawing random-ass conclusions. Everything you've said here is a complete non-sequitur.
    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.

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

    ~ James Madison

  9. #9
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 06:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    A majority vote among the states and Congress is not purely democratic, since that requires a vote from the people themselves. The Constitution would not be an ideal tool to unbridled tyranny, because it is not that easy to get amendments passed. The ideal tool would be no Constitution.

    But as far as the gist of your other general points are, yes. Most of the stuff the government does is not inline with the Constitution. Just look at the NSA. A piece of paper does not actually protect our rights.
    Woah, it's a good thing that a majority vote among the States and Congress is not democratic, and was not at all pursing any agendas in conflict with that Constitution after the Civil War, such as instituting puppet governments under martial law, compelling the ratification of amendments to the Constitution in conflict with its principles, and fabricating powers nowhere among the enumerated powers in the Constitution, but rather deliberately prohibited thereby.

    By these corrupt fabrications, the federal government might then reference something like the 14th Amendment, and dictate and legislate unto the states despite such federal dictate and legislation to the states being deliberately denied the federal government by the Constitution,and then use this to police rights and compel things like integration, busing and compliance with rights by private individuals and private institutions, in violation of individual's guarantee of freedom of association in the 1st Amendment and other rights, and fabricate the fiction of "birthright citizen" anchor babies from the corruption of the "jurisdiction", resulting an abrogation of national sovereignty by the federal government, and failure to fulfill the federal government's responsibility in the two-way compact that is citizenship.

    But since it's in the Constitution, it's cannot possibly be in any way tyrannous, and that document is in no way being abused to institute that tyranny under the presumption of constitutionality! Thank heavens!

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

    ~ James Madison

  10. #10
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Woah, it's a good thing that a majority vote among the States and Congress is not democratic, and was not at all pursing any agendas in conflict with that Constitution after the Civil War, such as instituting puppet governments under martial law, compelling the ratification of amendments to the Constitution in conflict with its principles, and fabricating powers nowhere among the enumerated powers in the Constitution, but rather deliberately prohibited thereby.

    By these corrupt fabrications, the federal government might then reference something like the 14th Amendment, and dictate and legislate unto the states despite such federal dictate and legislation to the states being deliberately denied the federal government by the Constitution,and then use this to police rights and compel things like integration, busing and compliance with rights by private individuals and private institutions, in violation of individual's guarantee of freedom of association in the 1st Amendment and other rights, and fabricate the fiction of "birthright citizen" anchor babies from the corruption of the "jurisdiction", resulting an abrogation of national sovereignty by the federal government, and failure to fulfill the federal government's responsibility in the two-way compact that is citizenship.

    But since it's in the Constitution, it's cannot possibly be in any way tyrannous, and that document is in no way being abused to institute that tyranny under the presumption of constitutionality! Thank heavens!
    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."
    "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."

Page 1 of 15 12311 ... 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
  •