• 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 said:
Why would government or a government official give any orders if government is the guilty party?

Do you think the founders considered government policing itself?

So what happens when the peoples request gets a buzz off which is the most likely outcome?

Consider: Part of the constitution is a bill of rights. Whose rights are those?
Click to expand...

If the election process does not work and it gets that bad, the people, armed with guns, enforce the Constitution.
 
calamity said:
...or the USA, now that the Trumpy minions voted in a bunch of assholes who are pissing on our great country.

If "the people" elect buffoons who ignore the constitution, we lose the constitution. That should be obvious by now.
Click to expand...

If the Fourth Amendment has been nullified over 10 years ago, if Habeas was effectively suspended 5 years ago, it's pretty damn obvious that the constitution has already been lost. Wake up and smell the napalm.
 
apdst said:
You don't seem to mind when The Constitution is ignored, when it fits your agenda.
Click to expand...

He is trying to say if other people do not value and defend the constitution, gun control wins and the constitution no longer applies as the defenceless cannot defend a constitution in any way at all.

That is absolutely correct. A constitution that is not valued by citizens or protected by citizens is an open invitation to tyranny with nothing to stop it. There are 262 million people dead so for the last century who proved that conclusively. Only armed people have any hope of stopping government.

All gun control is doing now is reducing the number of armed people by whatever means it can. Right now firearm owners are unwittingly helping due to ignorance, apathy, idiocy and indoctrination. The sad part is firearm organisation for the most part are promoting sport, gun sales membership, recreation, gun safety, training or collaboration. Few are helping firearm owners understand this is their fight and they need to help put an end to gun control propaganda and lies.
 
BretJ said:
If the election process does not work and it gets that bad, the people, armed with guns, enforce the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The people always enforce the constitution, correct. They may petition government, they may may gather and demonstrate their opposition, the may hold meetings to gather strength and by a show of force and number request governments attention. The may vote out government and install a new government or if they must as a last resort use arms to remove government.

It is far better not to use blood shed and realise that governments attempt to reduce and determine who has guns are not aimed at any peaceful solution. It is far easier to prevent rather than cure. Realise that this is what gun control is doing with government aid. Little by little it is convincing the public to give up the only right that can stop government.

Or as Sir Winston Churchill so eloquently expressed it.

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
 
Thoreau72 said:
I guess it all comes down to the naïve assumption that there are a few good and conscientious men in government who honor their oath of office? I feel very strongly that there are a few good men in government, but these days they are mostly whistleblowers, prosecuted and crushed by the wicked men in power, and those who follow with "obedience to authority" as defined and described by Stanley Milgram.

Some, perhaps most, humans will do as they are told by authority figures, even when it means physically harming other humans. Ditto the Lucifer Effect as documented by Philip Zimbardo.

Are there more good men in government than wicked? I don't know, but it doesn't look good for the good guys.
Click to expand...

Gun control is the wake up call
 
calamity said:
...or the USA, now that the Trumpy minions voted in a bunch of assholes who are pissing on our great country.

If "the people" elect buffoons who ignore the constitution, we lose the constitution. That should be obvious by now.
Click to expand...

Look how well that silly notion has turning out.

Germany, USSR, Cambodia, Rwanda, China, Turkey............
 
Crimefree said:
The people always enforce the constitution, correct. They may petition government, they may may gather and demonstrate their opposition, the may hold meetings to gather strength and by a show of force and number request governments attention. The may vote out government and install a new government or if they must as a last resort use arms to remove government.

It is far better not to use blood shed and realise that governments attempt to reduce and determine who has guns are not aimed at any peaceful solution. It is far easier to prevent rather than cure. Realise that this is what gun control is doing with government aid. Little by little it is convincing the public to give up the only right that can stop government.

Or as Sir Winston Churchill so eloquently expressed it.

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Click to expand...

As Thomas Jefferson noted, jury power is the best means yet devised by men to keep government within its lawful boundaries.

The jury box is far more effective a tool to control government than is the ballot box. By way of Sparf, the judiciary has worked to suppress the jury power by keeping juries in the dark and uninformed about their powers and obligations. There is a method to the madness of the judiciary, a reason for their undemocratic actions.
 
Crimefree said:
The people always enforce the constitution, correct. They may petition government, they may may gather and demonstrate their opposition, the may hold meetings to gather strength and by a show of force and number request governments attention. The may vote out government and install a new government or if they must as a last resort use arms to remove government.

It is far better not to use blood shed and realise that governments attempt to reduce and determine who has guns are not aimed at any peaceful solution. It is far easier to prevent rather than cure. Realise that this is what gun control is doing with government aid. Little by little it is convincing the public to give up the only right that can stop government.

Or as Sir Winston Churchill so eloquently expressed it.

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Click to expand...

Most people do not realize that all laws are enforced through a threat of force.
 
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...

It was intended by the U.S. Constitution that the federal government have no power not designated by that Constitution. And it was clear at the time of its ratification that the Congress was given the sole power at the federal level to make laws subject to the signature or veto of the President. The President was given no power to make laws but was charged to implement/applicate/enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by himself. And in matters of dispute of implementation and application, the court would settle what the intent of the law was. The court was given no authority to negate laws or make laws.

In my opinion, the Founders would see a law declared unconstitutional by the court as the responsibility of CONGRESS--the elected representatives of the people--to overturn or amend and that would not be a power given to the Court to do.

As it is now, the court has 100% power over the President and Congress to make the law into anything the judge or judges want it to be.

And that is very wrong and a very dangerous situation for we the people.
 
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...

All 3 branches of federal govt of course. The executive branch can execute his authority to oversee the constitution, and can also direct those same agencies to violate it as well as sign laws that violate it. Congress can hold committies and can vote laws that the president signs.

The executive branch has the granted power to rule on a laws constitutionality, and to interperet the constitution in the process of doing their job, but were never granted the power to interperet the constitution itself directly. Congress holds the power to impeach judges who violate their oath to uphold the constitution, and can also impeach the president.

It is a round and round circle called checks and balances, each branch can affect the other, and the branches are kept seperate. It is not perfect but imagine how corrupt this country would be without checks and balances?
 
apdst said:
Example? (Watch how you **** this up)
Click to expand...

Mexican Round up, Muslim Ban, Foreign payments to Trump firms....all within less than two months.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It was intended by the U.S. Constitution that the federal government have no power not designated by that Constitution. And it was clear at the time of its ratification that the Congress was given the sole power at the federal level to make laws subject to the signature or veto of the President. The President was given no power to make laws but was charged to implement/applicate/enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by himself. And in matters of dispute of implementation and application, the court would settle what the intent of the law was. The court was given no authority to negate laws or make laws.

In my opinion, the Founders would see a law declared unconstitutional by the court as the responsibility of CONGRESS--the elected representatives of the people--to overturn or amend and that would not be a power given to the Court to do.

As it is now, the court has 100% power over the President and Congress to make the law into anything the judge or judges want it to be.

And that is very wrong and a very dangerous situation for we the people.
Click to expand...

The Court has that power only because we allow it. The Constitution provides several means to trim the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. More people should learn that those means are available and start insisting that their elected members of Congress use them. Do they think, for example, that the part of Article III which gives Congress power to make "exceptions" to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court--i.e. to limit the Court's power even to hear the cases that come before it--was just put there for decoration? Or do they really imagine that by giving Congress the power to create lower federal courts as and when it sees fit, the Constitution did not also give Congress the power to dissolve those courts, and by necessary implication, to limit their jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions, as Justice Scalia pointedly noted in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell. It must rely on both the Executive Branch and on the states to enforce them, and if they should decline to do that, there is not a thing the Court can do about it.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
It was intended by the U.S. Constitution that the federal government have no power not designated by that Constitution. And it was clear at the time of its ratification that the Congress was given the sole power at the federal level to make laws subject to the signature or veto of the President. The President was given no power to make laws but was charged to implement/applicate/enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by himself. And in matters of dispute of implementation and application, the court would settle what the intent of the law was. The court was given no authority to negate laws or make laws.

In my opinion, the Founders would see a law declared unconstitutional by the court as the responsibility of CONGRESS--the elected representatives of the people--to overturn or amend and that would not be a power given to the Court to do.

As it is now, the court has 100% power over the President and Congress to make the law into anything the judge or judges want it to be.

And that is very wrong and a very dangerous situation for we the people.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say there, but your claim that the judiciary can make the law into anything it wants it to be is not correct. Yes, the judiciary can critique legislation and declare it constitutional or not, but it cannot "make it into anything it wants it to be". Well, maybe excepting the ACA when the court declared it to be a tax. ;)

But the power to strike or approve a law is what the judiciary is all about, isn't it?

It's been years since I've studied the law, but I did take some courses years ago, and as I recall, every statute gets a blessing as being 'constitutional'. It's never thoroughly judged until someone gets it to court.
 
apdst said:
I told you you would **** it up. :lamo
Click to expand...

I told you the other side doesn't care about their boi ****ting on the Constitution. Thanks for confirming it.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I agree with much of what you say there, but your claim that the judiciary can make the law into anything it wants it to be is not correct. Yes, the judiciary can critique legislation and declare it constitutional or not, but it cannot "make it into anything it wants it to be". Well, maybe excepting the ACA when the court declared it to be a tax. ;)

But the power to strike or approve a law is what the judiciary is all about, isn't it?

It's been years since I've studied the law, but I did take some courses years ago, and as I recall, every statute gets a blessing as being 'constitutional'. It's never thoroughly judged until someone gets it to court.
Click to expand...

The courts may only police the laws government makes. The courts cannot police the constitution.
 
calamity said:
The one Trump and his team promised the haters that they all now pretend isn't a Muslim ban. :roll:
Click to expand...

Right alongside the guns Hilliary promised to ban
 
calamity said:
The one Trump and his team promised the haters that they all now pretend isn't a Muslim ban. :roll:
Click to expand...

I think you are mixed up, "the haters" are those who live in fear of guns.
 
Crimefree said:
I think you are mixed up, "the haters" are those who live in fear of guns.
Click to expand...

You must have meant to write "those who live in fear of Muslims."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom