Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

[Lakryte]

Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Perhaps, yet sections of the constitution can certainly be unconstitutional. Again, the constitution does not exist on it's own. It is underpinned by the DOI, which is underpinned by centuries of struggle for recognition of very specific rights for very specific reasons. For example, an amendment calling for the lifetime appointment of a king may suit the whims of a future generation, but would stand in conflict with all that came before.

Ok, but if the Constitution is changed in that way then such an amendment would indeed be Constitutional. It would also stand in conflict with all that came before, but again saying because of that it is unconstitutional is a conflation of terms.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Ok, but if the Constitution is changed in that way then such an amendment would indeed be Constitutional. It would also stand in conflict with all that came before, but again saying because of that it is unconstitutional is a conflation of terms.

Right, so there is no underlying philosophy or spirit of the constitution, it's just anything goes...

I'll say again, the constitution does not exist in isolation. There comes a point, as in the appointment of a king, that the entire thing must be scrapped and begun again to accomodate this new whim. The core of the constitution enumerates the type of government, it's powers, checks and balances of that power, etc. Passing an amendment to appoint a king would either nullify the document in whole, or the amendment must be nullified.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Right, so there is no underlying philosophy or spirit of the constitution, it's just anything goes...

I'll say again, the constitution does not exist in isolation. There comes a point, as in the appointment of a king, that the entire thing must be scrapped and begun again to accomodate this new whim. The core of the constitution enumerates the type of government, it's powers, checks and balances of that power, etc. Passing an amendment to appoint a king would either nullify the document in whole, or the amendment must be nullified.

There is a spirit, but it can be amended.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

CAN THE CONSTITUTION BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

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

Every part of the Constitution which you've described as unConstitutional is nothing more than subsequent amendments that you believe violate the original intent of the Constitution.

The amendment process is there to allow for the alteration of the Constitution. A valid amendment can't be unConstitutional any more than a new Federal law can violate an older Federal law -- newer laws, where they contradict laws of the same type, merely supersede the older law.

Violating the Constitution's original intent isn't the same as being unConstitutional.

 

[radcen]

Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Ok. But the Constitution still can't be unconstitutional, unless you conflate unconstitutional with "against the original intent of the constitution."

What does that even mean if the Constitution itself allows for amendment?

Quite simply, it means nothing is carved in stone. It was meant to change over time.

 

[John Liberty]

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.

The Constitution as a whole simply cannot be unconstitutional. Saying that the constitution is unconstitutional is circular logic. Yes Trip, you do you have a point certain amendments can be unconstitutional; going against the original intentions of the constitution. But the Constitution as a whole cannot be unconstitutional, because if the whole constitution is unconstitutional then it's still constitutional!

 

[Trip]

Every part of the Constitution which you've described as unConstitutional is nothing more than subsequent amendments that you believe violate the original intent of the Constitution.

The amendment process is there to allow for the alteration of the Constitution. A valid amendment can't be unConstitutional any more than a new Federal law can violate an older Federal law -- newer laws, where they contradict laws of the same type, merely supersede the older law.

Violating the Constitution's original intent isn't the same as being unConstitutional.

The Amendment process is there to allow for the adoption of the terms of government, to constraint government, and not to constrain individuals (Prohibition), nor to deny them rights that are nowhere provided in the Constitution, nor to infringe upon individual State sovereignty, with both individual rights and State sovereignty being immutable and unalienable.

The Constitution cannot attempt to alter any one of these, without being in conflict with itself, and our form of government. Article V is not there to provide the amendment process to alter our form of government, but rather only to alter the terms by which the federal government may legitimately operate.

 

[Master PO]

The Constitution as a whole simply cannot be unconstitutional. Saying that the constitution is unconstitutional is circular logic. Yes Trip, you do you have a point certain amendments can be unconstitutional; going against the original intentions of the constitution. But the Constitution as a whole cannot be unconstitutional, because if the whole constitution is unconstitutional then it's still constitutional!

i see you are new, welcome aboard!

 

[Trip]

The Constitution as a whole simply cannot be unconstitutional. Saying that the constitution is unconstitutional is circular logic. Yes Trip, you do you have a point certain amendments can be unconstitutional; going against the original intentions of the constitution. But the Constitution as a whole cannot be unconstitutional, because if the whole constitution is unconstitutional then it's still constitutional!

You're making a distinction without any real difference.

The terms of the Constitution are taken as a whole, inclusive of its underpinning philosophy, and applied to government as a whole.

Amendments to the Constitution don't just alter that Amendment, but affect the application and interpretation of other terms of the Constitution as well.

Thus, the corrupt interpretation of the "Interstate Commerce clause" to apply to within the states themselves, and allow prohibition of farmers growing their own grain for their own cattle to use, is a disregard for the fact that Congress was denied legislative authority over the territory that involves the states themselves.

Similarly, the award by the 14th Amendment to the federal government of the authority to police rights, corrupts those rights that are recognized in the BOR, as specifically applying to the federal government, and the prohibits rights-demands being applied to private industry, and private business, as employed by Title II and Title VII of the '64 Civil Rights Act.

The limitation of the terms of federal government, and protection of individual rights and state sovereignty, are integral to the Constitution as a whole, and not just applied in part(s).

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The Amendment process is there to allow for the adoption of the terms of government, to constraint government, and not to constrain individuals (Prohibition), nor to deny them rights that are nowhere provided in the Constitution, nor to infringe upon individual State sovereignty, with both individual rights and State sovereignty being immutable and unalienable.

The Constitution cannot attempt to alter any one of these, without being in conflict with itself, and our form of government. Article V is not there to provide the amendment process to alter our form of government, but rather only to alter the terms by which the federal government may legitimately operate.

It doesn't matter what it was intended for any more than the original intent matters, those are mere matters of opinion. When an amendment is ratified, it is by definition Constitutional.

 

[John Liberty]

i see you are new, welcome aboard!

Thank you very much ernst. I like seeing a wide variety of political associations, rather than just Conservatives and Liberals on this forum.

 

[John Liberty]

You're making a distinction without any real difference.

The terms of the Constitution are taken as a whole, inclusive of its underpinning philosophy, and applied to government as a whole.

Amendments to the Constitution don't just alter that Amendment, but affect the application and interpretation of other terms of the Constitution as well.

Thus, the corrupt interpretation of the "Interstate Commerce clause" to apply to within the states themselves, and allow prohibition of farmers growing their own grain for their own cattle to use, is a disregard for the fact that Congress was denied legislative authority over the territory that involves the states themselves.

Similarly, the award by the 14th Amendment to the federal government of the authority to police rights, corrupts those rights that are recognized in the BOR, as specifically applying to the federal government, and the prohibits rights-demands being applied to private industry, and private business, as employed by Title II and Title VII of the '64 Civil Rights Act.

The limitation of the terms of federal government, and protection of individual rights and state sovereignty, are integral to the Constitution as a whole, and not just applied in part(s).

Again, I agree with you. In fact you pretty much just repeated what I said back to me. Amendments don't just affect the amendment in question, they affect the whole constitution. That is correct. However since the whole of the constitution is changed with each respective amendment, the direction and interpretation of the constitution changes as well, thus changing the definition of "constitutional" along with it.

 

[Trip]

It doesn't matter what it was intended for any more than the original intent matters, those are mere matters of opinion. When an amendment is ratified, it is by definition Constitutional.

The ONLY thing that matters is that original intent. Everything else is nonsense, corruption of the Constitution, which was written deliberately and clearly to prohibit manifold interpretations.

The idea that the Constitution might mean things that the original signers did not intend, and the people themselves did not agree to, is an ideology that welcomes the corruption of the Constitution and beckons tyrannous government by whatever terms.


When an amendment is ratified, it is must either be congruent with the constitution, or in conflict with it. The 14th Amendment is entirely in conflict with the Constitution, and the entire purpose of rights themselves, which are the cornerstone of everything in the Constitution.

 

[Trip]

Again, I agree with you. In fact you pretty much just repeated what I said back to me. Amendments don't just affect the amendment in question, they affect the whole constitution. That is correct. However since the whole of the constitution is changed with each respective amendment, the direction and interpretation of the constitution changes as well, thus changing the definition of "constitutional" along with it.

The whole of the Constitution cannot be changed with Amendments.

The Sovereignty of states cannot be changed with amendments.

Those unalienable individual rights cannot be changed with Amendments, and themselves are not grants by the Constitution.

Thus, things like the 14th Amendment itself is in violation of the Constitution, putting the government in charge of policing rights in the states, when the federal government has no authority to create laws over those states.

And the subsequent furtherance of that 14th Amendments corruption, into compelling private individuals and private organizations to recognize rights, is a violation of those rights on two counts.

Neither of these corruptions can in any way be congruent with the Constitution, and represent the federal government usurping authority it is deliberately denied and cannot every legitimately exercise.

 

[John Liberty]

The whole of the Constitution cannot be changed with Amendments.

The Sovereignty of states cannot be changed with amendments.

Those unalienable individual rights cannot be changed with Amendments, and themselves are not grants by the Constitution.

Thus, things like the 14th Amendment itself is in violation of the Constitution, putting the government in charge of policing rights in the states, when the federal government has no authority to create laws over those states.

And the subsequent furtherance of that 14th Amendments corruption, into compelling private individuals and private organizations to recognize rights, is a violation of those rights on two counts.

Neither of these corruptions can in any way be congruent with the Constitution, and represent the federal government usurping authority it is deliberately denied and cannot every legitimately exercise.

The constitution is, unfortunately, able to be changed to an extent with due process.

Actually in some ways it can be changed without due process by public opinion. Like the bible, the constitution is so old that the original writers of the document are dead so it is up to us to interpret it. So if the whole country started to interpret it differently, the original goal of the constitution would change thus changing the meaning of the word "constitutional".

 

[John Liberty]

The whole of the Constitution cannot be changed with Amendments.

The Sovereignty of states cannot be changed with amendments.

Those unalienable individual rights cannot be changed with Amendments, and themselves are not grants by the Constitution.

Thus, things like the 14th Amendment itself is in violation of the Constitution, putting the government in charge of policing rights in the states, when the federal government has no authority to create laws over those states.

And the subsequent furtherance of that 14th Amendments corruption, into compelling private individuals and private organizations to recognize rights, is a violation of those rights on two counts.

Neither of these corruptions can in any way be congruent with the Constitution, and represent the federal government usurping authority it is deliberately denied and cannot every legitimately exercise.

You are producing a paradox perhaps more baffling then the "paradox of doubles" commonly found in time travel movies. If the constitution defines constitutional, how can the constitution be unconstitutional. Certain add-ons can be against the original purpose of the constitution but the constitution as a whole cannot be unconstitutional.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The ONLY thing that matters is that original intent. Everything else is nonsense, corruption of the Constitution, which was written deliberately and clearly to prohibit manifold interpretations.

The idea that the Constitution might mean things that the original signers did not intend, and the people themselves did not agree to, is an ideology that welcomes the corruption of the Constitution and beckons tyrannous government by whatever terms.


When an amendment is ratified, it is must either be congruent with the constitution, or in conflict with it. The 14th Amendment is entirely in conflict with the Constitution, and the entire purpose of rights themselves, which are the cornerstone of everything in the Constitution.

Oh. Okay. So then I guess slavery should still be legal, and only white men should be allowed to vote, yeah?

 

[Trip]

The constitution is, unfortunately, able to be changed to an extent with due process.

Actually in some ways it can be changed without due process by public opinion. Like the bible, the constitution is so old that the original writers of the document are dead so it is up to us to interpret it. So if the whole country started to interpret it differently, the original goal of the constitution would change thus changing the meaning of the word "constitutional".

The age of the Constitution is irrelevant. The fact that it got so old was a result of its form and substance being still as vital to freedom as the day it was written. And the terms of that Constitution are known and deliberate, so it does not involve any sort of 'interpretation'.

The Constitution is not law, but it is law of the land.

The Constitution is form of government, but it is not the detail of that government.

Nowhere would it be legitimate to change the Constitution to "any extent" with due process.

The Bill of Rights are not grants by the Constitution, but rather only a "listing of particulars" that are nowhere provided from the Constitution itself.

Therefore it would be entirely illegitimate to try and alter any of the Bill of Rights, either directly or indirectly, by another Amendment, much less mere statute. The 2nd Amendment cannot be altered or denied by another amendment. Freedom of religion cannot be altered by any law or amendment intending to prohibit in any fashion the free exercise thereof.

 

[John Liberty]

I never said that the Bill of Rights could be altered in the traditional sense of Law and Order. I said that peoples' perspective and interpretation could change, thus changing the constitution in an indirect way. You can twist anything you want to suit your purposes, just look at pop culture magazines. The constitution just simply cannot be unconstitutional. It is too deep a paradox. I repeat: If the constitution defines constitutional, then the constitution cannot be unconstitutional!

 

[John Liberty]

I never said that the Bill of Rights could be altered in the traditional sense of Law and Order. I said that peoples' perspective and interpretation could change, thus changing the constitution in an indirect way. You can twist anything you want to suit your purposes, just look at pop culture magazines. The constitution just simply cannot be unconstitutional. It is too deep a paradox. I repeat: If the constitution defines constitutional, then the constitution cannot be unconstitutional!

The age of the Constitution is irrelevant. The fact that it got so old was a result of its form and substance being still as vital to freedom as the day it was written. And the terms of that Constitution are known and deliberate, so it does not involve any sort of 'interpretation'.

The Constitution is not law, but it is law of the land.

The Constitution is form of government, but it is not the detail of that government.

Nowhere would it be legitimate to change the Constitution to "any extent" with due process.

The Bill of Rights are not grants by the Constitution, but rather only a "listing of particulars" that are nowhere provided from the Constitution itself.

Therefore it would be entirely illegitimate to try and alter any of the Bill of Rights, either directly or indirectly, by another Amendment, much less mere statute. The 2nd Amendment cannot be altered or denied by another amendment. Freedom of religion cannot be altered by any law or amendment intending to prohibit in any fashion the free exercise thereof.

I never said that the Bill of Rights could be altered in the traditional sense of Law and Order. I said that peoples' perspective and interpretation could change, thus changing the constitution in an indirect way. You can twist anything you want to suit your purposes, just look at pop culture magazines. The constitution just simply cannot be unconstitutional. It is too deep a paradox. I repeat: If the constitution defines constitutional, then the constitution cannot be unconstitutional!

 

[Trip]

I never said that the Bill of Rights could be altered in the traditional sense of Law and Order. I said that peoples' perspective and interpretation could change, thus changing the constitution in an indirect way. You can twist anything you want to suit your purposes, just look at pop culture magazines. The constitution just simply cannot be unconstitutional. It is too deep a paradox. I repeat: If the constitution defines constitutional, then the constitution cannot be unconstitutional!

Kindly direct me to any section and clause of the Constitution that in any way implies its application is contingent upon the people's perspective and interpretation.


I don't have to twist anything in any way. The Constitution is an established document, with known meaning and intent, and even under Constitutional Law under a principle known as "Contemporaneous Construction" the Federalist papers are specifically indicated as a valid indication of that intent.

Nowhere in that Contemporaneous Construction is "pop culture" any sort of valid reference, but rather one inherently rejected thereby.


The Constitution undeniably has been, and is, in conflict with the Constitution, entirely antithetical to its purpose, and thereby unconstitutional.

It's only a paradox to those who would deny that the Constitution has any inherent, underlying principles upon which it is based, and those who refuse to recognize this, are the same ones who think nothing of disregarding that Constitution, and only giving lip-service thereto when convenient.

 

[radcen]

The ONLY thing that matters is that original intent. Everything else is nonsense, corruption of the Constitution, which was written deliberately and clearly to prohibit manifold interpretations.

The idea that the Constitution might mean things that the original signers did not intend, and the people themselves did not agree to, is an ideology that welcomes the corruption of the Constitution and beckons tyrannous government by whatever terms.

When an amendment is ratified, it is must either be congruent with the constitution, or in conflict with it. The 14th Amendment is entirely in conflict with the Constitution, and the entire purpose of rights themselves, which are the cornerstone of everything in the Constitution.

You're simply flat-out wrong on this issue. If a proposed idea is congruent with the Constitution, then the concept is Constitutional and doesn't need an amendment. All that is needed is a law. On the flip side, the purpose of an amendment is precisely to transition something from being unconstitutional to being Constitutional.

 

[radcen]

Thank you very much ernst. I like seeing a wide variety of political associations, rather than just Conservatives and Liberals on this forum.

Every forum has a few nimrods, but overall this is a good forum. I welcome you, also. From what I have seen so far, you have posted some good and thoughtful stuff.

 

[John Liberty]

Kindly direct me to any section and clause of the Constitution that in any way implies its application is contingent upon the people's perspective and interpretation.


I don't have to twist anything in any way. The Constitution is an established document, with known meaning and intent, and even under Constitutional Law under a principle known as "Contemporaneous Construction" the Federalist papers are specifically indicated as a valid indication of that intent.

Nowhere in that Contemporaneous Construction is "pop culture" any sort of valid reference, but rather one inherently rejected thereby.


The Constitution undeniably has been, and is, in conflict with the Constitution, entirely antithetical to its purpose, and thereby unconstitutional.

It's only a paradox to those who would deny that the Constitution has any inherent, underlying principles upon which it is based, and those who refuse to recognize this, are the same ones who think nothing of disregarding that Constitution, and only giving lip-service thereto when convenient.

I never said there was a clause saying people could have different opinions on the constitution. Nor did I say the constitution can change based on public opinion. However, everyone interprets the constitution differently on some level. Our experiences and our memories color our opinion and judgement. You and I would not be thinking the same thing when reading....say Gone with the Wind. Different words and statements would stimulate memories unconsciously and color your judgement on the book as an entirety.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The ONLY thing that matters is that original intent. Everything else is nonsense, corruption of the Constitution, which was written deliberately and clearly to prohibit manifold interpretations.

The idea that the Constitution might mean things that the original signers did not intend, and the people themselves did not agree to, is an ideology that welcomes the corruption of the Constitution and beckons tyrannous government by whatever terms.


When an amendment is ratified, it is must either be congruent with the constitution, or in conflict with it. The 14th Amendment is entirely in conflict with the Constitution, and the entire purpose of rights themselves, which are the cornerstone of everything in the Constitution.

Oh. Okay. So then I guess slavery should still be legal, and only white men should be allowed to vote, yeah?

Hey Trip, you seem to have skipped my post by accident. Any response?