Who enforces the constitution?

[Thoreau72]

Is anything fair and just?

Excellent point. Because of random occurrence, some things are fair and just.

The hypocrisy comes when our government tells us it is an agent of justice. After all, we have a Department of Justice that for 30 years now has overseen the highest per capita rate of imprisonment in the world, probably more than 30 years.

So I guess I'm being cynical and thinking too much of the hypocrisy displayed by the government in the Land Of The Free & Home Of The Brave....

I know lip service when I see it.

 

[haymarket]

He clearly does not get it.

Obviously since he cannot answer a simple question raised by his own thread.

 

[calamity]

Obviously since he cannot answer a simple question raised by his own thread.

Funny thing is I always thought we all knew the basics here. It is, after all, taught in high school.

The constitution is upheld by our elected representatives who all take an oath to abide by it. Those representatives appoint and confirm judges who serve as a check and balance on the other two branches of government. The people also have the right to replace those representatives and even the constitution itself, should they deem it necessary and have the votes in enough states to order a Constitutional Convention.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Nothing could be more true than the people get the government they deserve.

But criminals have rights organisations
Woman have rights organisations
Gays have rights organisations
Workers have rights organisations
......

And firearm owners who really need at least one bull dog with a pair of balls to challenge gun control propaganda and the smearing of the good name and record firearm owners have have what? The NRA that can be found mostly in bed with government and gun control or sleeping on the job sending out lawyers to do their fighting. It's the clean hands approach and the dumbest way of fighting there is costing huge sums of money for little or no gain. That dumbest sets the example others follow.

Firearm owners without leadership, sound strategy to take back their good name and record and gain public acceptance instead of being the whipping boy are simply doomed as has been the case of every other country that has fallen for gun control madness. US citizen may think they are different but they are not. Their apathy is the same and their firearm organisations are equally toothless, incompetent and uncaring.

You have nothing to fear from President Trump when it comes to Second Amendment rights or hopefully any other of our rights. You DO have plenty to fear from the left should they succeed in destroying President Trump and regain control. I suggest that all of us who embrace the vision that the President has offered us and who is trying to achieve it should get behind him.

Do you see what the left is doing? On every single news blip, they are rushing to get a thread up with an anti-Trump thread title or other negative message in the thread title before any of us who want the President to succeed can start one. And they are in all threads en mass to disrupt, deflect, and make sure no positive message is allowed any chance to get legs.

It is hateful, deliberately malicious, and inevitable these days. I don't want any of us to be single issue focused or to get discouraged in getting honest information out there. If any issue on gun control surfaces from this administration, I will be right there defending the Second Amendment as I am trying to defend the rest of the Constitution now.

 

[Thoreau72]

Good grief that is what I have just said. "Is it constitutional? Did the people object as they should have? Until they do it will be LEGAL."



If you want to look for iniquity try the IRS and many other branches of government. While government can dazzle people with handout and false promises government can usurp what it wants. Government does not owe people education on its tricks and ways of gaining power. That is the peoples job

Yessir, we have both pointed out that we agree as to the legality of various laws.

The point I was trying to make is that THOSE WHO WRITE THE LAW are more often than not acting on behalf of special interests. They are NOT acting on behalf of the people, they are acting on behalf of those who lobby well and contribute well to political campaigns.

 

[calamity]

Yessir, we have both pointed out that we agree as to the legality of various laws.

The point I was trying to make is that THOSE WHO WRITE THE LAW are more often than not acting on behalf of special interests. They are NOT acting on behalf of the people, they are acting on behalf of those who lobby well and contribute well to political campaigns.

From what I have read, some of those laws are actually written by the lobbyists. Chew on that. :lol:

 

[Thoreau72]

From what I have read, some of those laws are actually written by the lobbyists. Chew on that. :lol:

Too true! As Obamacare was being written, Dennis Kucinich and others noted that the insurance companies were pretty much writing the law.

 

[calamity]

What Crimefree is missing here, or maybe he just does not want to deal with it in this context, is that we reelect something like 90% of our various representatives even though the Congress itself has an approval rating slightly above that of finding cockroaches in our salad. In state legislatures and governorships, the winning percentages for the incumbents are probably even higher.

So, if he or anyone else is unhappy with how the constitution is being enforced or upheld, he has only himself and the other voters to blame.

 

[calamity]

Too true! As Obamacare was being written, Dennis Kucinich and others noted that the insurance companies were pretty much writing the law.

The ACA sure reads that way.

 

[Crimefree]

Article 1 through 3 should do. It's too long to quote, but it does lay out exactly how the constitution is enforced. Articles 4 through 6 are helpful too. A 7, not so much.

Here
http://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

read

No you made a claim that this was where it could be found. Now you quote from that document where it backs up your claim. Stop with the damn avoidance and deflection or just admit like usual you are wrong. I'm not looking for what is not there. Nor will I accept a whole document as a reasonable response.

 

[calamity]

No you made a claim that this was where it could be found. Now you quote from that document where it backs up your claim. Stop with the damn avoidance and deflection or just admit like usual you are wrong. I'm not looking for what is not there. Nor will I accept a whole document as a reasonable response.

Dude, what you seek is very clearly explained in Articles 1 through 6. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Crimefree]

You may believe they are, but they are being enforced and have been upheld. Hence, they are constitutional, for now at least.

Being enforce and upheld means they are LEGAL and no more. Prove they are constitutional?

 

[calamity]

Being enforce and upheld means they are LEGAL and no more. Prove they are constitutional?

Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of opinion, usually judicial opinion. However, if you can muster up enough support, it can also be determined by voter opinion--especially via the amendment process, although it is usually just changed by electing new representatives who hold similar opinions as yours, which is what we see happening today, in fact--but that takes much more time.

 

[Crimefree]

Dude, what you seek is very clearly explained in Articles 1 through 6. What part of that do you not understand?

Then you will have no problem quoting the exact words that extend the power to who you claim. Should be no more than one sentence. I cannot be 6 articles. That is asinine. Stop with your Bull****.

 

[calamity]

Then you will have no problem quoting the exact words that extend the power to who you claim. Should be no more than one sentence. I cannot be 6 articles. That is asinine. Stop with your Bull****.

Uh, the constitution does not boil down to a 30-second soundbite or 140 character quote. Read the damned thing. OK?

 

[Crimefree]

From what I have read, some of those laws are actually written by the lobbyists. Chew on that. :lol:

There are a few ways to prevent a law being passed. The very best is simply to make it hugely unpopular by pointing out the defects/problems/impact.... and ensuring people are not only willing to vocally object but to make it a media topic of discussion.

There are some first principles of politics that people ignore. No politician wants to be voted out. No political party wants to be voted out over a silly law no matter how important it is to government. The people were given the power to oppose government in every way and the constitution ensure the people retain that power by freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to petition government, the right to vote and the right to dispose of government. None of these rights force citizens to spend huge sums of money fighting in the courts. Of course the lawyers love that as does government for very good reason. Government owns the courts. What better way to win than take peoples power from them by not educating them.

Perhaps one of the worst cases that set the US on a spiral downward is the Federal Reserve Act. 30 years it took the bankers to get that act passed in the most dubious way possible. Written entirely by the bankers.

But if there are no whistle blowers, and people willing to inform citizens what such acts mean or leaders to lead citizens in their fight. It becomes law and everyone gets to suffer because of it. Laws which are not challenged are accepted by the people as valid laws. That does not mean they are Constitutional in any way at all.

 

[calamity]

There are a few ways to prevent a law being passed. The very best is simply to make it hugely unpopular by pointing out the defects/problems/impact.... and ensuring people are not only willing to vocally object but to make it a media topic of discussion.

There are some first principles of politics that people ignore. No politician wants to be voted out. No political party wants to be voted out over a silly law no matter how important it is to government. The people were given the power to oppose government in every way and the constitution ensure the people retain that power by freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to petition government, the right to vote and the right to dispose of government. None of these rights force citizens to spend huge sums of money fighting in the courts. Of course the lawyers love that as does government for very good reason. Government owns the courts. What better way to win than take peoples power from them by not educating them.

Perhaps one of the worst cases that set the US on a spiral downward is the Federal Reserve Act. 30 years it took the bankers to get that act passed in the most dubious way possible. Written entirely by the bankers.

But if there are no whistle blowers, and people willing to inform citizens what such acts mean or leaders to lead citizens in their fight. It becomes law and everyone gets to suffer because of it. Laws which are not challenged are accepted by the people as valid laws. That does not mean they are Constitutional in any way at all.

What is or is not constitutional is a matter of opinion, usually judicial opinion. However, if you can muster up enough support, it can also be determined by voter opinion--especially via the amendment process, although it is usually just changed by electing new representatives who hold similar opinions as yours, which is what we see happening today, in fact--but that takes much more time.

If someone cannot sway the voting public to their side---let's pick the Democrats right now, since their voters are not getting enough representatives elected to stop Republicans from making laws and putting in the judges to uphold them---then their opinion on what is or is not constitutional becomes less relevant. That can change, of course, just like it did when the Republicans were on the outside looking in as Obamacare was passed and upheld by the court. Same can be said for Roe v Wade, which is something the Right can now change, if they have enough judges in place to overturn or cripple the Roe decision.

 

[Crimefree]

What is or is not constitutional is a matter of opinion, usually judicial opinion. However, if you can muster up enough support, it can also be determined by voter opinion--especially via the amendment process, although it is usually just changed by electing new representatives who hold similar opinions as yours, which is what we see happening today, in fact--but that takes much more time.

If someone cannot sway the voting public to their side---let's pick the Democrats right now, since their voters are not getting enough representatives elected to stop Republicans from making laws and putting in the judges to uphold them---then their opinion on what is or is not constitutional becomes less relevant. That can change, of course, just like it did when the Republicans were on the outside looking in as Obamacare was passed and upheld by the court. Same can be said for Roe v Wade, which is something the Right can now change, if they have enough judges in place to overturn or cripple the Roe decision.

You are talking politics. The constitution does not determine our rights. It is a AFFIRMATION of our rights. The constitution is the laws given to GOVERNMENT to OBEY. Our rights cannot be changed by the people or government. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? You may want to start there in understanding this is not governments property and government is not the master.

Now the simple question is who enforces the Constitution which is the law government must obey. Quite obviously it cannot be government. I have told you this before. Try and let it sink in this time.

 

[Crimefree]

What Crimefree is missing here, or maybe he just does not want to deal with it in this context, is that we reelect something like 90% of our various representatives even though the Congress itself has an approval rating slightly above that of finding cockroaches in our salad. In state legislatures and governorships, the winning percentages for the incumbents are probably even higher.

So, if he or anyone else is unhappy with how the constitution is being enforced or upheld, he has only himself and the other voters to blame.

What of it governments laws must be written in accordance with the constitution. Do you agree with that?

The people via their representative may amend the constitution as it is our guide line for government to act. A contract between servant and master. Do you agree with that?

Then who enforces the constitution? Who makes sure government acts in accordance with the constitution? Who decides if governments amendments are valid or not. It simply cannot be government so why are you so fixated on trying to make it government. What are you missing or do not want to recognise as fact?

 

[Crimefree]

Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of opinion, usually judicial opinion. However, if you can muster up enough support, it can also be determined by voter opinion--especially via the amendment process, although it is usually just changed by electing new representatives who hold similar opinions as yours, which is what we see happening today, in fact--but that takes much more time.

That is the political process which is as already stated part of the available means of ensuring government governs in accordance with the constitution. The constitution was written to keep who in check? To delegate power to who? To prohibit who from doing what they liked?
Does the intent and use of the original document tell you nothing?

 

[Crimefree]

Obviously since he cannot answer a simple question raised by his own thread.

Only a fool would ask the same question the thread seeks to explore. Just how dumb is that?

 

[Crimefree]

Funny thing is I always thought we all knew the basics here. It is, after all, taught in high school.

The constitution is upheld by our elected representatives who all take an oath to abide by it. Those representatives appoint and confirm judges who serve as a check and balance on the other two branches of government. The people also have the right to replace those representatives and even the constitution itself, should they deem it necessary and have the votes in enough states to order a Constitutional Convention.

If they take an oath to abide by it then clearly do not control it. The people are not beholden to government and our rights may not be changed. The constitutions bill of rights is not the play thing of government. It says so in the document. "may not make laws" "shall not be infringed". What do you think that means?

Have you actually read it with a dictionary and magnifying glass so you can see the words and look them up. Did they teach you how government may change the bill of rights in school? Please explain the process. Some of us went to some really funny schools or possibly along the way they found a completely insane charismatic movement.

 

[Crimefree]

What is or is not constitutional is a matter of opinion, usually judicial opinion. However, if you can muster up enough support, it can also be determined by voter opinion--especially via the amendment process, although it is usually just changed by electing new representatives who hold similar opinions as yours, which is what we see happening today, in fact--but that takes much more time.

If someone cannot sway the voting public to their side---let's pick the Democrats right now, since their voters are not getting enough representatives elected to stop Republicans from making laws and putting in the judges to uphold them---then their opinion on what is or is not constitutional becomes less relevant. That can change, of course, just like it did when the Republicans were on the outside looking in as Obamacare was passed and upheld by the court. Same can be said for Roe v Wade, which is something the Right can now change, if they have enough judges in place to overturn or cripple the Roe decision.

Again you did not understand.

But if there are no whistle blowers, and people willing to inform citizens what such acts mean or leaders to lead citizens in their fight. It becomes law and everyone gets to suffer because of it. Laws which are not challenged are accepted by the people as valid laws. That does not mean they are Constitutional in any way at all.

I'll add for clarity our rights are not up for grabs. That cannot be changed by any process.

 

[calamity]

Again you did not understand.

But if there are no whistle blowers, and people willing to inform citizens what such acts mean or leaders to lead citizens in their fight. It becomes law and everyone gets to suffer because of it. Laws which are not challenged are accepted by the people as valid laws. That does not mean they are Constitutional in any way at all.

I'll add for clarity our rights are not up for grabs. That cannot be changed by any process.

lol...that's a rather naive view of the process.

 

[Crimefree]

He clearly does not get it.

Idiotic response it is a discussion point. If he wants to know which he obviously does not then look it up and post. I do not do his research for him.

Have you got that?