• 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.
DAKitty said:
"Unconstitutional", as a legal term, is something that runs contrary to the constitution.
The constitution itself cannot run contrary to the constitution and so cannot be unconstitutional

The problem here is that you rest your argument on 4 principles that are not part of the constitution; as they are not part of the constitution, violating these principles does not - indeed, can not - make anything unconstitutional as "unconstitutional" is a legal term is something that runs contrary to the constitution.

Now it might be that something in the constitution might conflict with something else in the constitution, but that is not the case now, and since the only way the constitution might be changed to create such a conflict is by amendment, the amendment will supercede the previously existing clauses and eliminate any conflict.

Sorry - regardless of your ideology, them's the facts.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Nothing in the Constitution can be unconstitutional. An amendment can be introduced and passed by the normal process to change anything in it and become part of the Constitution.
 
James madsion father of the u.s. constitution , report of the Virginia resolutions 1800

That this State having, by its Convention, which ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared that, among other essential rights, 'the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States;' and, from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambition, having, with other States, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other."

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

shrubnose said:
The founding fathers are all dead and buried and have no control over what we do now.

Anyone who is foolish enough to try to overthrow the elected government of the USA will pay a heavy price for their treason.
Click to expand...

Red herring - no one is indicating that the founders themselves are exerting any control over what we do now. In fact the Constitution is exerting that control over what we do now, and at any time, and is deliberately intended to do so, with those founder's deaths being irrelevant nonsense.

Contrary to some beliefs, the Constitution does not elevate the government some absolute authority, but rather establishes only those individual unalienable freedoms as absolute, and the States the only sovereigns, with the government being only a servant, not any sort of master.

The government of the USA is only legitimized by adherence to the Constitution, and not made so by any election, and in fact that government now is guilty of treason, as it is engaging a thus far bloodless coup, and overthrow of that Constitution, and everyone participating in this is due the most severe penalty possible.

Not only does this country not subscribe to your own foreign Marxist populist ideology, but it is deliberately prohibited by that Constitution, and those founders, which you evidently have no real regard for, but a predilection to abuse, even in the grave.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
Red herring - no one is indicating that the founders themselves are exerting any control over what we do now. In fact the Constitution is exerting that control over what we do now, and at any time, and is deliberately intended to do so, with those founder's deaths being irrelevant nonsense.

Contrary to some beliefs, the Constitution does not elevate the government some absolute authority, but rather establishes only those individual unalienable freedoms as absolute, and the States the only sovereigns, with the government being only a servant, not any sort of master.

The government of the USA is only legitimized by adherence to the Constitution, and not made so by any election, and in fact that government now is guilty of treason, as it is engaging a thus far bloodless coup, and overthrow of that Constitution, and everyone participating in this is due the most severe penalty possible.

Not only does this country not subscribe to your own foreign Marxist populist ideology, but it is deliberately prohibited by that Constitution, and those founders, which you evidently have no real regard for, but a predilection to abuse, even in the grave.
Click to expand...




I tried running your incoherent drivel through the Online Ebonics Translator, and the output made less sense than the input.

I guess that I'll just put your treasonous posts on ignore.

Have a nice millisecond.
 
Trip said:
"Unconstitutional" is a term that defines that recognizes the law of the land, an extra-legal document, as being in conflict with the the Constitution.
Click to expand...
This is false.
Does something conflict with or violate a provision of the constituion? Yes? Unconstitutional.
Does it not? Then it is not.
Nothing in the constitution conflicts with or violates part of the constitution, and therefore none of the constitution is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution is founded on certain principles....
Click to expand...
These principles are not part of the constitution and therefore cannot casue part of the constitution to be unconstitutional.

End of story.
 
Trip said:
There is no coincidence that Americans are arming themselves in record numbers to deny the government's intrusion on these rights, but also deny the government its repeated intention to deny the right to keep and bear those arms.
Click to expand...

The fact that there are more right wing extremists active today than in the last few decades is perhaps true. As a percentage of the population it probably pales to the first few decades of the last century when the Klan marched in the streets of Washington and could murder openly.
 
haymarket said:
The fact that there are more right wing extremists active today than in the last few decades is perhaps true. As a percentage of the population it probably pales to the first few decades of the last century when the Klan marched in the streets of Washington and could murder openly.
Click to expand...

The Klan's mentality is far closer to the authoritarian control freak lefties than any libertarian
 
captainawesome said:
Neo Confederates and libertarians share many ideals and members.
Click to expand...

and the racist klan and the subtle racism of affirmative action, criminal enabling liberal minds have much in common as well

The Klan saw blacks as inferiors as do many rich elitist liberal whites

libertarians never supported bondage and slavery.
 
captainawesome said:
Neo Confederates and libertarians share many ideals and members.
Click to expand...

Neo Confederates?....what is that.......

neo conservatives are imperialist mined, and like big government, dont care about the nanny state, but love big government intervention in peoples personal life's.
 
DAKitty said:
This is false.
Does something conflict with or violate a provision of the constituion? Yes? Unconstitutional.
Does it not? Then it is not.
Nothing in the constitution conflicts with or violates part of the constitution, and therefore none of the constitution is unconstitutional.


These principles are not part of the constitution and therefore cannot casue part of the constitution to be unconstitutional.

End of story.
Click to expand...


We'll start slow.

The federal government has no authority to enact laws applicable to the states, and is specifically limited to its legislative authority by that Constitution.

While it may have given itself authority in the 14th Amendment to compel states to recognize the rights of blacks, which seems legitimate to everyone, they never amended the Constitution to create any authority to legislate over those states, much less the citizens therein. Such legislation is not granted by the federal government, given the fact that Article 1, Section 8, does not allow the federal government any authority over the state territories.

Also the further expansion of the 14th Amendment to legislate to the states, creating such things as civil rights laws that are compelled upon private individuals and private institutions, turning rights into "on-demand licenses"enforced by the federal government, is in no way even supported by even the 14th Amendment, and is in conflict with the Bill of Rights, as well as those rights that are NOT therein enumerated but are referenced by the 9th Amendment, making these federal actions even more thoroughly unconstitutional. This also applies to ObamaCare, which abrogates a full 80% of the Bill of Rights, while the federal government claims de facto ownership over each individual citizen, but has not even the slightest constitutional authority to do so.

This all entirely invalidates everything from the Boy Scouts of America being compelled to accept gays, to federal environmental regulations, to "hate crimes", to dictates to religious institutions, to federal criminal statues which supersede state laws and penalties, to the aforementioned ObamaCare.

In short, everything in the Constitution conflicts with the current agendas being executed by the federal government, making them entirely unconstitutional, in addition to being clearly despotic.
 
haymarket said:
The fact that there are more right wing extremists active today than in the last few decades is perhaps true. As a percentage of the population it probably pales to the first few decades of the last century when the Klan marched in the streets of Washington and could murder openly.
Click to expand...


Right wing extremists?

The last time you were asked to provide evidence of these right-wingers being at all extreme, you fell on your face trying to prove that local authorities have a right to bankrupt local governments, ultimately denying their citizenry every public service, all because of populist election, ignoring the fact that none of those voters cast their vote to allow the resulting anarchy and lack of basic services, and also that fiscal responsibility is not at all any sort of sign indicating "right wing extremism."

If only you could spook everyone into believing those hooded klansmen were under each and every bed, but eventually people will wake up and recognize those hooded klansmen and other scare tactics were the tool of the Democratic party in order to keep blacks in line with the Democratic party's political dictate after emancipation.

And to this day, any black to leave the Democratic Plantation is branded a "Tom", and traitor to their race, as well as other demeaning epithets. The Democrats have taken the country from Feudalism under a King, and slavery, to Neo-feudalistic government dictate known as Progressivism, and enslavement without chains, and no real change. Now that's progress!

SocialismChains2-s.jpg​


.
 
Last edited:
Trip said:
The federal government has no authority to enact laws applicable to the states, and is specifically limited to its legislative authority by that Constitution.
Click to expand...
All federal laws apply to the states. Supremacy clause.

While it may have given itself authority in the 14th Amendment..
Click to expand...
Thus making such compulsions constitutional, especially given that the 14th specificlally gives Congress the power to pass laws to enforce its provisions.

As it depends on an invalid standard, your point fails in every meaningful way.
The constitution, because of the definition of the word, can never be unconstitutional.
 
DAKitty said:
All federal laws apply to the states. Supremacy clause.


Thus making such compulsions constitutional, especially given that the 14th specificlally gives Congress the power to pass laws to enforce its provisions.

As it depends on an invalid standard, your point fails in every meaningful way.
The constitution, because of the definition of the word, can never be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


becuase we have federalism, a separation of powers between states and the federal government, there are certain times when both powers...of the states and the federal government can come into conflict with each other, and when that happens, THEN federal law is supreme.
 
DAKitty said:
All federal laws apply to the states. Supremacy clause.


Thus making such compulsions constitutional, especially given that the 14th specificlally gives Congress the power to pass laws to enforce its provisions.

As it depends on an invalid standard, your point fails in every meaningful way.
The constitution, because of the definition of the word, can never be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


The Supremacy Clause only indicates that the Constitution is supreme. For any law to be the law of the land, and itself supreme, it must be "pursuant to" the Constitution.


The Constituton only provides the Federal government authority to write laws applicable to U.S. soil in 4 areas:

1) a 10x10 mile territory we know today ans District of Columbia,
2) Forts, Arsenals and military bases.
3) other Federal Lands, such as national parks.
4) territories that are prospective states.

That's it!

There's no constitutional authority for a slate of laws above and beyond state laws with more severe federal penalties and incarceration in federal prison, nor for environmental legislation in the states, nor for "hate crime" legislation, nor to police rights in the several states, nor to dictate that private indivoduals and private organizations must recognize rights, nor to extend "interstate Commerce" clause legislation to apply to people growing whatever crops in any State, and much, much more.

It's all an abuse of authority - unconstitutional.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

The purpose of an Amendment is to take an issue that is presently unconstitutional and make it Constitutional. By definition.

I mean, DUH!!!
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

radcen said:
The purpose of an Amendment is to take an issue that is presently unconstitutional and make it Constitutional. By definition.

I mean, DUH!!!
Click to expand...

That sloppy rhetoric does not begin to cover sloppy logic.


If an issue is fundamentally unconstitutional, and contrary to the Constitution, then adding it to the Constitution will not make it any more congruent with that Constitution. Nowhere is it the authority of the Constitution to grant or alter what is the people's rights, but rather only to limit the terms of the government itself.

Neither 1) the people's unalienable rights, nor 2) the sovereign States authorities, are on the table able to be altered, not even by amendment.

The perspective you argue, ignores that the Constitution has any underlying rationale and intent, which is the perspective always adopted by those who have no constitutional regard, and it is an enormous "duh".
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
Non sequitur, only by today's so-called "liberal" ideology, which is not liberal at all, but rather didactic Marxist Progressive fascism
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but your spittle just hit me in the eye.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Andalublue said:
Excuse me, but your spittle just hit me in the eye.
Click to expand...

I can understand why you would prefer drool to spittle, as it is less of a hazard when getting in all personal and dictating every aspect of everyone's life. I'll leave the drool to you.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
I can understand why you would prefer drool to spittle, as it is less of a hazard when getting in all personal and dictating every aspect of everyone's life. I'll leave the drool to you.
Click to expand...

Could anyone translate that into English for me?
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Trip said:
That sloppy rhetoric does not begin to cover sloppy logic.


If an issue is fundamentally unconstitutional, and contrary to the Constitution, then adding it to the Constitution will not make it any more congruent with that Constitution. Nowhere is it the authority of the Constitution to grant or alter what is the people's rights, but rather only to limit the terms of the government itself.

Neither 1) the people's unalienable rights, nor 2) the sovereign States authorities, are on the table able to be altered, not even by amendment.

The perspective you argue, ignores that the Constitution has any underlying rationale and intent, which is the perspective always adopted by those who have no constitutional regard, and it is an enormous "duh".
Click to expand...

You're over-thinking this.
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Lakryte said:
Those amendments may go against the original intent of the Constitution, but they are amendments--that's the point. They make changes to the constitution. So you can say the amendments are bad because they go against the original constitution, but nothing more.
Click to expand...

The constitution was not just a piece of paper that suited that time only. It is the culmination of 800 years of struggle, philosophy and ideas that were built upon as universal, timeless truths about the nature of men and gov't. While there were certain issues that could not be dealt with at the time of our union (or there would have been no union), and would indeed require additions to the bill of rights, but it must be in keeping with the philosophy, sacrifice and blood given in centuries before to make that document even possible.

It's what transformed political philosophy into political science.

The paths to tyranny do not change with time. The fuels of ambition do not change with time. The desire for men to be free does not change with time.

The idea that the constitution was the whim of a few score of men and just popped into existence is to shine a blinding light of ignorance upon it's true history and reason for being.

Good thread Trip!
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Occam's Razor said:
The constitution was not just a piece of paper that suited that time only. It is the culmination of 800 years of struggle, philosophy and ideas that were built upon as universal, timeless truths about the nature of men and gov't. While there were certain issues that could not be dealt with at the time of our union (or there would have been no union), and would indeed require additions to the bill of rights, but it must be in keeping with the philosophy, sacrifice and blood given in centuries before to make that document even possible.

It's what transformed political philosophy into political science.

The paths to tyranny do not change with time. The fuels of ambition do not change with time. The desire for men to be free does not change with time.

The idea that the constitution was the whim of a few score of men and just popped into existence is to shine a blinding light of ignorance upon it's true history and reason for being.

Good thread Trip!
Click to expand...
Ok. But the Constitution still can't be unconstitutional, unless you conflate unconstitutional with "against the original intent of the constitution."
 
Re: 18th Amendment - Prohibition of Alcohol

Lakryte said:
Ok. But the Constitution still can't be unconstitutional, unless you conflate unconstitutional with "against the original intent of the constitution."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom