• 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!

Who enforces the constitution?

Crimefree

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I never though I would have to ask these questions but it is obvious there is some doubt.

Who's laws is the constitution?

Who polices the constitution?

Who enforces the constitution?

Now all of these are required to make a law and keep it in place.
 
Crimefree said:
I never though I would have to ask these questions but it is obvious there is some doubt.

Who's laws is the constitution?

Who polices the constitution?

Who enforces the constitution?

Now all of these are required to make a law and keep it in place.
Click to expand...

In a broad sense - we all do to some extent or another. But in a narrower sense, those who have legal standing to raise certain issues have a more direct role of enforcement. A good example would be the state and federal courts which recently struck down parts of the Trump Executive travel order at the request of state officials whoo took the feds to court.
 
haymarket said:
In a broad sense - we all do to some extent or another. But in a narrower sense, those who have legal standing to raise certain issues have a more direct role of enforcement. A good example would be the state and federal courts which recently struck down parts of the Trump Executive travel order at the request of state officials whoo took the feds to court.
Click to expand...

That is an example of the state policing and enforcing the state on the state.

Bart hits me {Or creates a bad law} I take him to court and Bart is punished {the bad law is tossed} at no time was my law nor could I have changed it.
The court simply used the constitution as a basis of determination. It neither policed the constitution or owns it. It was enforced only because the courts are bound to obey it. What happens when the courts do not obey?
 
Crimefree said:
I never though I would have to ask these questions but it is obvious there is some doubt.

Who's laws is the constitution?

Who polices the constitution?

Who enforces the constitution?

Now all of these are required to make a law and keep it in place.
Click to expand...


:confused:
 
Crimefree said:
That is an example of the state policing and enforcing the state on the state.

Bart hits me {Or creates a bad law} I take him to court and Bart is punished {the bad law is tossed} at no time was my law nor could I have changed it.
The court simply used the constitution as a basis of determination. It neither policed the constitution or owns it. It was enforced only because the courts are bound to obey it. What happens when the courts do not obey?
Click to expand...

Its a matter of semantics then.

forget it and learn elsewhere.
 
chuckiechan said:
The meaning and intent of the constitution is ultimately decided by the Supremes.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that government determines what is constitutional? What is to stop government using its courts and its paid judges to usurp the constitution?

Do you think the founding fathers made it easy for government to take control. You do realise government is not in control don't you?
 
haymarket said:
Its a matter of semantics then.

forget it and learn elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You going to show some evidence of that assertion or not?

No it is a matter of vested power no more no less. Live and learn. It maybe a new experience.
 
Master PO said:
:confused:
Click to expand...

There are three questions they must have answers. A law is not a law without policing and enforcement.

Who's law is the Schools gun free Act?
Who polices this law?
Who enforces this law?

So those questions are perfectly valid and must have an answer because the constitution is law.
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
Who's laws is the constitution?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand that question. Do you mean who “owns” it, who is it to protect or who is subject to it to? The first two would be the people of the US, the latter the US (and in part, State) government.
Crimefree said:
Who polices the constitution? Who enforces the constitution?
Click to expand...
The same individuals and organisations that police and enforce all of your laws. You Constitution is one of the core foundations of all of your laws as much as laws in itself. Nobody is arrested for breaking the Constitution. Laws, regulations or polices are ruled to be in breach of it and requiring change.
 
Crimefree said:
I never though I would have to ask these questions but it is obvious there is some doubt.

Who's laws is the constitution?

Who polices the constitution?

Who enforces the constitution?

Now all of these are required to make a law and keep it in place.
Click to expand...
Federal laws are written by the Legislative Branch, enforced by the Executive Branch and adjudicated by the Judicial. We the people elect the first two, the EB appoints the third.

Most people find this really easy to understand.
 
Crimefree said:
You going to show some evidence of that assertion or not?

No it is a matter of vested power no more no less. Live and learn. It maybe a new experience.
Click to expand...

Your reply made it clear you are not here to discuss anything. I was simply trying to help you. To be brutally honest with you, I did not notice your screen name when I replied the first time.

You enjoy yourself.
 
calamity said:
Federal laws are written by the Legislative Branch, enforced by the Executive Branch and adjudicated by the Judicial. We the people elect the first two, the EB appoints the third.

Most people find this really easy to understand.
Click to expand...

The discussion is not about federal law and that is clear from the questions. Why is reading and comprehension so difficult for you?
 
haymarket said:
Your reply made it clear you are not here to discuss anything. I was simply trying to help you. To be brutally honest with you, I did not notice your screen name when I replied the first time.

You enjoy yourself.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes again Haymarket. Your crap got shut down and you posted nothing to discuss. It is idiotic to expect that I want to discuss what is clearly wrong and not even related.

So you resort to your stock in trade insults and venting your spleen. I see you have not changed. I've been grateful not to have to read your crap. The only person you can help is yourself. The sooner you start the better.
 
HonestJoe said:
I don’t understand that question. Do you mean who “owns” it, who is it to protect or who is subject to it to? The first two would be the people of the US, the latter the US (and in part, State) government.
The same individuals and organisations that police and enforce all of your laws. You Constitution is one of the core foundations of all of your laws as much as laws in itself. Nobody is arrested for breaking the Constitution. Laws, regulations or polices are ruled to be in breach of it and requiring change.
Click to expand...

Clearly government "the state" cannot own the constitution or it could change it at will. Is that not the case? Was the constitution not given to the "state" to obey?

The police cannot arrest for breaking the constitution because it is not part of their duty. Would that be a more correct statement? In which case who enforces the constitution? It is law, it must be obeyed, so there has to be an answer.
 
spud_meister said:
Whose. Goddamit! Whose
Click to expand...

Eat my shorts. I'd like to see how well you do with dyslexia.

To answer your question, the Constitution is enforced by the people,
Click to expand...

I would think that looks like the right answer as only the people may change it. That would imply ownership and control.

through their elected representatives
Click to expand...

I guess asking you elected servants to correct their mistake may be looked upon like that but not the way I would word it.

and policed by the courts. So yes, the government.
Click to expand...

Now I am at a total loss how you arrived at this conclusion. I cannot see that an entity that must obey the constitution can own, police or enforce. How does that work? That really is putting the fox in charge of the hen-house.
 
Crimefree said:
Sour grapes again Haymarket.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes about what? Trying to have a rational discussion with you? I realize that is impossible but it involves no sour grapes.
 
haymarket said:
Sour grapes about what? Trying to have a rational discussion with you? I realize that is impossible but it involves no sour grapes.
Click to expand...

Then post something other than your agenda that is worthy of discussion. So far all I see from you is you government is king ideology you are trying to sell again in you usual foul way. Deal with facts.

Can government, the state pass a law that hinders or impedes in any way an arm the may be kept and born?

Who prevents government from doing that?

Who polices that law which prevents government from doing that?

It is asinine to suggest the state or government owns. polices or enforces such a law that it must obey without question.

Now do you have an answer that is worthy of discussion other than the idiotic and impossible, it is the state.
 
Crimefree said:
Clearly government "the state" cannot own the constitution or it could change it at will. Is that not the case? Was the constitution not given to the "state" to obey?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s why I said the people own it and the government is subject to it. The answer was dependant on the intended meaning of your poorly worded question.

Crimefree said:
The police cannot arrest for breaking the constitution because it is not part of their duty. Would that be a more correct statement? In which case who enforces the constitution? It is law, it must be obeyed, so there has to be an answer.
Click to expand...
No, you’re wrong. The constitution is not a simple law to be obeyed or not, it’s a set of fundamental principles on which laws are based. The constitution doesn’t apply directly to citizens, it applies to the laws, regulations and policies people follow.

If the rules are constitutional and someone subject to them does something unconstitutional, they’ll be punished for breaking the rules in the same way they would for breaking rules without a constitutional element. If the rules are unconstitutional, the rules themselves can be taken through the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, to be invalidated, forcing the relevant government officials to rewrite them in line with the constitution. Nobody gets directly punished for that though. Employed officials may get sacked for making the mistake and elected officials may not get re-elected (though sometimes being unconstitutional is popular!) but that’s not a direct punishment for breaking the constitution.

I’m getting the impression you have answers to these questions in your mind that I’m somehow contradicting. Maybe you should explain what they are.
 
Crimefree said:
The discussion is not about federal law and that is clear from the questions. Why is reading and comprehension so difficult for you?
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
haymarket said:
In a broad sense - we all do to some extent or another. But in a narrower sense, those who have legal standing to raise certain issues have a more direct role of enforcement. A good example would be the state and federal courts which recently struck down parts of the Trump Executive travel order at the request of state officials whoo took the feds to court.
Click to expand...

That was not an example of enforcing the Constitution, but rather of violating it. The lower federal courts involved flatly ignored the Supreme Court's clear and long-established rules about the power to exclude aliens. The President would have been well within his authority to have ignored the rulings and enforced the order.
 
matchlight said:
That was not an example of enforcing the Constitution, but rather of violating it. The lower federal courts involved flatly ignored the Supreme Court's clear and long-established rules about the power to exclude aliens. The President would have been well within his authority to have ignored the rulings and enforced the order.
Click to expand...

That is merely a difference of opinion based on perspective.
 
HonestJoe said:
Yes, that’s why I said the people own it and the government is subject to it. The answer was dependant on the intended meaning of your poorly worded question.

No, you’re wrong. The constitution is not a simple law to be obeyed or not, it’s a set of fundamental principles on which laws are based. The constitution doesn’t apply directly to citizens, it applies to the laws, regulations and policies people follow.

If the rules are constitutional and someone subject to them does something unconstitutional, they’ll be punished for breaking the rules in the same way they would for breaking rules without a constitutional element. If the rules are unconstitutional, the rules themselves can be taken through the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, to be invalidated, forcing the relevant government officials to rewrite them in line with the constitution. Nobody gets directly punished for that though. Employed officials may get sacked for making the mistake and elected officials may not get re-elected (though sometimes being unconstitutional is popular!) but that’s not a direct punishment for breaking the constitution.

I’m getting the impression you have answers to these questions in your mind that I’m somehow contradicting. Maybe you should explain what they are.
Click to expand...

I don't think so you are trying to equate the laws of the government to the constitution. That is clearly wrong. Government polices and enforces only the law it creates to the point of ensuring they do not breech the constitution.

What I am trying to point out that there must be a clear path, chain of command if you wish that handles the situation when government for whatever reason neglects to ensure law are constitutional. The founders were not foolish enough to place correction in the hands of governments courts. What happens when governments courts obey government which they always do.

Quite clearly government selects and pays the courts. They are governments courts not the peoples court and history shows this is so very true. Governments court may not police or enforce the constitution. It may only police or enforce laws made UNDER the constitution.

Put another way are you saying if the governments appointed supreme courts says it is constitutional that is the end of the path and only government may be appealed to? ie government owns and controls the constitution?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom