• 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!

Can The Constitution Be Un-Constitutional?

Can The Constitution Be UnConstitutional?

  • Yes, the Constitution can, and has been unconstitutional.

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • No, the claim is ridiculous. The Constitution is inherently constitutional.

    Votes: 19 73.1%

  • Aspects of some alterations may be questionable constitutionality.

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • Total voters
    26
Status
Not open for further replies.
Occam's Razor said:
Maybe it's just too late and I should be sleeping... but I totally didn't follow that
Click to expand...


Carter didn't have the gravitas and the commitment to convince the world that he would act on his convictions. In fact Carter's convictions furthered his wishy-washy, feckless reputation.

Meanwhile Reagan had been out of the California Governor's office for 5 or 6 years, and he had no direct ties in Washington, having never been a Congressman. And yet Reagan's character and commitment managed to leverage a deal to release the hostages. Despite this, the indication that the deal was entirely on Reagan's terms, and the release at a the time of his choosing, is well beyond any sort of reasonable assertion.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
... or take up arms and start shooting.
Click to expand...

That's for the Goy!

The citizenry is the highest authority, and Enforcer, of the Constitution (Oath of Office) on government Officials. The citizenry is not obligated by any Amendment.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Gawd, I'm so sick of this myopic and ignorant strawman argument.

You have one chance to realize the dream of eight centuries of struggle to found a free, self-determining nation on a pristine land and build a coalition, a union of individual colonies... or forever be relegated to the whims of a single monarch... do you try to tackle every issue pertaining to freedom for all people at the outset and guarantee no union will ever be formed? Or do you find union where you can and construct a framework that guides future generations in tackling those issues after union and freedom are achieved.

The brilliance of the founders was that they understood that all men are fallible and corrupt-able... including themselves. This idea that voting rights and slavery should have been dealt with in the fragile hours of a new nation is asking to remain a british subject of the king. The king's property.
Click to expand...

What this argument and Trip's argument neglect to take into account is the simple fact that while there were framers involved in the process who were against slavery, there were also framers (some of whom had slaves of their own) and states that were for it. That's the entire reason why compromises had to be written into the original Constitution in order to get it ratified.

The only reason I can think of for ignoring this simple, inescapable truth is that it makes 100% strict Constitutionalism impossible -- at least in the way Trip has been calling for it. You cannot, after all, back the original document as written unless you're okay with slavery and have a problem with equal rights.

As far as I'm concerned, embracing the Constitution wholeheartedly means embracing the fact that it wasn't perfect and that the framers weren't divinely inspired. Admitting that its writers and those who debated its content had faults, and therefore that the document itself has faults, doesn't open it up to being thrown out wholesale. It simply means we can't treat it like scripture and have to admit that not only can it be changed but that it should be changed.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Then you don't understand the meaning of the word patriot. It's quite specific. And I never said you had to agree with everything, they didn't.

Patriot: root "patri" father, meaning quite literally "OF THE FATHERS".

Patriotism is NOT flag waiving, it's not being proud of your country, it's not serving in the military... it's being a student of the founders... pure and simple. While those other things may make you a good American, they do not make you a patriot.
Click to expand...

That may be the root of the term, but that's not the only definition. It's not even the commonly-accepted definition.
 
Trip said:
This country's principles outlined by those framers define what is patriotism.
Click to expand...

Trip said:
You see, dissent is only patriotic when the dissenter is first a patriot -- standing for the well-being of the country.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that your first statement and your last contradict one another -- one could argue that standing for the well-being of the country in some cases means standing against some of what the framers held dear.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
What this argument and Trip's argument neglect to take into account is the simple fact that while there were framers involved in the process who were against slavery, there were also framers (some of whom had slaves of their own) and states that were for it. That's the entire reason why compromises had to be written into the original Constitution in order to get it ratified.

The only reason I can think of for ignoring this simple, inescapable truth is that it makes 100% strict Constitutionalism impossible -- at least in the way Trip has been calling for it. You cannot, after all, back the original document as written unless you're okay with slavery and have a problem with equal rights.

As far as I'm concerned, embracing the Constitution wholeheartedly means embracing the fact that it wasn't perfect and that the framers weren't divinely inspired. Admitting that its writers and those who debated its content had faults, and therefore that the document itself has faults, doesn't open it up to being thrown out wholesale. It simply means we can't treat it like scripture and have to admit that not only can it be changed but that it should be changed.
Click to expand...
Right. A lot of people don't know that the Constitution has never been a document of strict idealism. There were indeed many comprises.
 
Trip said:
Carter didn't have the gravitas and the commitment to convince the world that he would act on his convictions. In fact Carter's convictions furthered his wishy-washy, feckless reputation.

Meanwhile Reagan had been out of the California Governor's office for 5 or 6 years, and he had no direct ties in Washington, having never been a Congressman. And yet Reagan's character and commitment managed to leverage a deal to release the hostages. Despite this, the indication that the deal was entirely on Reagan's terms, and the release at a the time of his choosing, is well beyond any sort of reasonable assertion.
Click to expand...

Well, I respect you, as far as I know you, as a poster and a patriot... However, we will have to disagree here.
First of all, Ronnie was not without significant and powerful connections. You don't run for president without them. If what you say was true, that would be even more worrying because you don't win an election without them. But he had them... Cheney, Rumsfeld, Casey. Wolfowitz, Brzezinski and... GHW Bush, former head of the CIA. However, Reagan wasn't really president, he was hired to play the president while a familiar group of men consolidated their power behind the scenes... It wasn't about getting Reagan elected, it was about getting the men behind the scenes back in power. Reagan is a red herring.

Let's look instead at GHW Bush...

Bush, as head spook, had every connection and contact necessary to orchestrate a delay of release. The CIA was heavily imbedded in Iran at that time, and is the reason for the hostages being taken in the first place, CIA meddling in Iranian internal affairs... if you can call assassination and installation of a tin pot puppet dictator meddling.

So... we have motive
we have oceans of opportunity
... what about means? And maybe some solid evidence... Something new...

Asked if knowledge that Casey had traveled to Madrid might have changed the task force’s dismissive October Surprise conclusion, Hamilton said yes, because the question of the Madrid trip was key to the task force’s investigation. “If the White House knew that Casey was there, they certainly should have shared it with us,” Hamilton said, adding that “you have to rely on people” in authority to comply with information requests.

The document revealing White House knowledge of Casey’s Madrid trip was among records released to me by the archivists at the George H.W. Bush library in College Station, Texas. The U.S. Embassy’s confirmation of Casey’s trip was passed along by State Department legal adviser Edwin D. Williamson to Associate White House Counsel Chester Paul Beach Jr. in early November 1991, just as the October Surprise inquiry was taking shape.
Click to expand...
Second Thoughts on October Surprise | Consortiumnews

Lastly, even if this wasn't the case, which it appears now it clearly is, only a fraction of fault lies with Carter and the majority with the Iranian demands that constantly changed once Carter agreed to them. I think the "October Surprise" committee thought that the demands were so outrageous, so inflammatory that Carter would never agree to all of them.

While the connections to the Paris meetings between Salem bin Laden (acting for Bush), US and Iranian emissaries has never been proven, it's looking pretty likely, more than ever.

So... as I said before, Carter worked every day with HONEST effort and concern to get their immediate release, even accepting a condition of apology for the coup and the Shah... While the future Team B crew finagled the noble lie (their specialty) to regain power and execute their long dreamed of plan to collapse the soviet empire in an arms race and secure sole super power status for the USA.

Motive
Means
Opportunity
Evidence
And Proof

I rest my case
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
What this argument and Trip's argument neglect to take into account is the simple fact that while there were framers involved in the process who were against slavery, there were also framers (some of whom had slaves of their own) and states that were for it. That's the entire reason why compromises had to be written into the original Constitution in order to get it ratified.
Click to expand...

HEY!!!! PAY ATTENTION!!!

Nothing was ignored or otherwise. As I said, the issues of granting rights to everyone straight away was a deal (union) killer. IMPLYING CLEARLY THAT COMPROMISE WAS NECESSARY FOR THE UNION AND IT"S COMMON DEFENSE. However, nowhere in the constitution does it condone the ownership of slaves, instead, it leaves this entirely open to future generations to decide... with the hope that the country will grow and unite before those divisive issues can rip the union apart. That was the brilliance of the founders. And changing that part of the constitution IS in keeping with the DOI in that all men are created equal.

Either pay attention or stop wasting my time.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It seems to me that your first statement and your last contradict one another -- one could argue that standing for the well-being of the country in some cases means standing against some of what the framers held dear.
Click to expand...


One might try to argue that, but it would be based on false presumptions.

Nowhere what the framers held dear, and imbued in the Constitution, involved any support for slavery, nor any other nonsense.

This discussion has already been held <recently> in this constitution forum, but the reality is that there would be no Constitution, and no government founded on unalienable individual rights, had there been no compromise.

Furthermore, had the founders dictated the freeing of all slaves in the Constitution, they would have created the very form of government that they had just escaped, and won freedom from -- with the ability to dictate the terms of society, and engaging in Social Engineering dictate. That would have been extremely foolish of them to do, given what state of freedom they wanted to create.

The reality at the time of this nation's founding was that the idea of "rights" not being grants from government, but innate to the every individual was a novel one, and nowhere in place in the world. Even those "white guys" themselves were not free in those times, being viewed as being born into a society of limited status, and oblige to nobles above and below them. This is why Article 1 Section 9 prohibits the grant by Congress of any title of nobility, so as to prohibit any sort of "entitled" class. Unfortunately some in government believe that title of nobility is conveyed by "Representative", or "Senator", but it is not.


The overall point here is you're barking up the wrong tree, and doing so as a result of you having projected your present-day valuations and expectations on the past, when these are really irrelevant to the facts of that time.
 
Be careful with compromises. Whatever compromises there were in the initial wording of the 1787 Constitution it did not change the final wording; the final wording is the Supreme Law of the land; Article VI clause 2.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Well, I respect you, as far as I know you, as a poster and a patriot... However, we will have to disagree here.
First of all, Ronnie was not without significant and powerful connections. You don't run for president without them. If what you say was true, that would be even more worrying because you don't win an election without them. But he had them... Cheney, Rumsfeld, Casey. Wolfowitz, Brzezinski and... GHW Bush, former head of the CIA. However, Reagan wasn't really president, he was hired to play the president while a familiar group of men consolidated their power behind the scenes... It wasn't about getting Reagan elected, it was about getting the men behind the scenes back in power. Reagan is a red herring.

Let's look instead at GHW Bush...

Bush, as head spook, had every connection and contact necessary to orchestrate a delay of release. The CIA was heavily imbedded in Iran at that time, and is the reason for the hostages being taken in the first place, CIA meddling in Iranian internal affairs... if you can call assassination and installation of a tin pot puppet dictator meddling.

So... we have motive
we have oceans of opportunity
... what about means? And maybe some solid evidence... Something new...


Second Thoughts on October Surprise | Consortiumnews

Lastly, even if this wasn't the case, which it appears now it clearly is, only a fraction of fault lies with Carter and the majority with the Iranian demands that constantly changed once Carter agreed to them. I think the "October Surprise" committee thought that the demands were so outrageous, so inflammatory that Carter would never agree to all of them.

While the connections to the Paris meetings between Salem bin Laden (acting for Bush), US and Iranian emissaries has never been proven, it's looking pretty likely, more than ever.

So... as I said before, Carter worked every day with HONEST effort and concern to get their immediate release, even accepting a condition of apology for the coup and the Shah... While the future Team B crew finagled the noble lie (their specialty) to regain power and execute their long dreamed of plan to collapse the soviet empire in an arms race and secure sole super power status for the USA.

Motive
Means
Opportunity
Evidence
And Proof

I rest my case
Click to expand...


While its obviously impossible to deny Reagan had connections at play before he was in office, I think that it's equally impossible to deny that Carter's feckless, spineless reputation itself did not work to discourage respect for him and his administration, not only in the Middle East but all around the world. I happened to be in London while Carter was President, and even bartenders there were commenting about Carter, and asking how we Americans could have elected him. Despite being President, Carter was unable to find the leverage to work the release of the hostage, and this was largely as a result of his bearing and incompetence, and one cannot fault Reagan for that. Carter simply did not have anyone's respect.

As far as "Patriot", I would never characterize myself as a patriot, and only hope that sometime after I'm gone some would be able to do so, by my acts and not just words, but thank you.
 
Last edited:
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

The ratified 1789 U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and does not enforce itself. A law does not prevent crime.
 
I was typing up a response, but there's no point. The OP is insanity.

Someone who may lean libertarian found a website and copy/pasted some portion of it it because it sounded fine. It's a bizarre discourse that tries to bootstrap itself into legitimacy by unproven claims of "natural rights" followed but broad assertions without citation.




"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. "

And if the Supreme Court has rendered hundreds and hundreds of decisions contradicting that statement, what's your answer then? It's wrong because you found the word "inalienable" in the Declaration of Independence?





One really only needs to stop here:

Trip said:
The constitution is not just a self-validating document
Click to expand...


Well, yeah. It has words, and those words only have an effect on reality if we, persons existing in reality, act as if those words must be followed.

The only way I've seen anyone try to get around that is when a "libertarian" claims that there are "natural rights" that are objectively real, but somehow, not predicted by the laws of physics, not measurable, not testable. In other words, that there is a God or Gods who enforce these "rights", therefore, invoking them makes whatever you say something better than self-validating.

/facepalm.
 
Last edited:
.
Trip said:
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.

...


► 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.
Click to expand...

Hat tip for providing a great platform of topics.

I would say well considered, well covered/described, nicely served platter for thought. Plus I agree. In many areas. One, there was a basic yet delicate balance upset with the 17th Amendment. Not a small thing, its a little concerning as, if our good common goal is fine tuning towards a better future, well, We can say that We did try this direct election thing and, well, truthfully it just gives central planning too easy a job of it against the newer We... cause We, you know, sometimes, thick headed as We at times are, actually can learn lessons.

Looking back, clearly was a much better balance when the Feds had their true jobs clearly enumerated. Not, you know, not ones from the ever changing penumbra, can I get an amen on that brothers, ha ha...Shudder, more Constitutionally allowable jobs...which at times they did better [ confirmation that focus can help ]...sometimes worse, tho, so keep our eyes wide open.

My area pf focus at the moment is the 14th. To me one of the more suspiciously under reported and, well the real, a telling event of our history. It, this glowing pulsating living blob [not human] has expanded itself immensely, illegitimately, allowing for unfathomable federal assertions of power. Overreach would be to understate,.. Intriguing, Closely viewed the case against the idea that this should actually remain considered an amendment, Ha. To my mind, it is a debate without fault. Its nigh bullet proof..hell, proves itself by itself on so many separate counts. 14th's a fraud, no joke, ha ha. On us.

No joke. Not that you aren't already familiar.

After truly no less than fierce, a bloody body slam given the states, by each other to each other, vast swaths of physical destruction across the South, near total annihilation of ideology, vestiges yet hanging on...but then another strut seized from the states powers inventories.

Too far. Greedy actually. The American way, if I may presume for a least a portion of us, is to compromise understanding that the compromise will lean towards the stronger party's direction, winning having earned its prerogative
 
Imagine an amendment that made slavery legal again. Perhaps the original XIII Amendment, the Corwin Amendment gets accidentally ratified! Silly of course, but it still illustrates the point well enough. Fact is, slavery can be constitutional. Of course, according to our sense of natural law, the enslaved people would have the natural right to revolt to free themselves from intolerable oppression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom