• 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!

Our Lost Constitution

Master PO said:
incorrect!

the federal government in making many Enabling laws have recognized the principles of the DOI, the last time was 1959.

the federal government was created by the states, and they delegated the federal government to only powers which are enumerated in the constitution, the 10th amendment supports that and defines federalism.

the central government under the AOC had very little power to solve problems among the states, the constitution granted them more powers to solve those problems, but those powers were limited, they never had powers to get back
Click to expand...

Just to keep things in perspective, with the Patriot Act the government usurped the power to nullify the Fourth Amendment, FYI.

With the several NDAA amendments, the government has usurped the power to nullify Habeas Corpus and falsely prop up the specious notion of the Unitary Executive.
 
thinkagain said:
On the note of "little substance". The principles on which the Constitution was to be interpreted (as written in the DOI) were thrown under the bus a long time ago.

SCOTUS should all be fired for gross dereliction of duty.

The founders created a system in which Gov't power was to be limited (skill testing question - Limited to what?)

For over 200 years the Gov't has been trying to get that power back .. and they have succeeded.
Click to expand...

How could they be trying to get that power back? They were formed without that power that you allude to, to begin with.
 
Kal'Stang said:
How could they be trying to get that power back? They were formed without that power that you allude to, to begin with.
Click to expand...

One of the basic principles on which the US was founded was that individual rights and freedoms/liberty was put above the legitimate power/authority of Gov't.

In fact, the Gov't is not to make "Any" law outside that legitimate purview of it's own accord but, especially laws that would in any way restrict individual liberty.


The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
Click to expand...

Without getting into a long diatribe about classical liberalism (not to be confused with the modern usage of the term liberal) and the meaning of the social contract -the purview of Gov't (the power that we the people gave them in relation to law - and the ability to punish breakers of this law) extended only to acts of direct harm .. one on another (rape, murder theft and so on).

So the idea that the Gov't was not given power is false. The question is what was this power that "we the people" gave the Gov't limited to.

The Gov't is supposed to appeal to "we the people" if it wants to make any law outside these limitations. "Especially" If it is something that relates to individual liberty. The bar for this appeal is the same as is assumed under the social contract = "Overwhelming majority/Supermajority". A simple majority was considered "Tyranny of the Majority" - and this would render the act of putting individual liberty "above" the power of Gov't pointless as every Gov't has an assumed 50+1 mandate.

In our Gov't a Super Majority is either 2/3rds or 75% when matters of the constitution are being considered.
 
thinkagain said:
One of the basic principles on which the US was founded was that individual rights and freedoms/liberty was put above the legitimate power/authority of Gov't.
.
Click to expand...

I'm not really seeing that in most state constitutions at the time. While Virginia had its Declaration of Religious Freedom, most states had some infringement on religious freedom and other individual liberties.
 
pinqy said:
I'm not really seeing that in most state constitutions at the time. While Virginia had its Declaration of Religious Freedom, most states had some infringement on religious freedom and other individual liberties.
Click to expand...

That is not from the Constitution. It is from the Declaration of Independence. "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness - endowed by creator"

So these rights put "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The whole point was to separate Church and state. The founders were operating on the basis of enlightenment ideas - Classical liberalism, Social Contract - a justification for the authority of Gov't other than "Divine Right/God".

The authority of Gov't then does not come from God. It comes from "we the people"
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88 ) , from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258
Click to expand...


The founders were not big fans of Theocracy (fusion of Church and State or laws on the basis of religious belief)

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
Click to expand...

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
Click to expand...
 
thinkagain said:
One of the basic principles on which the US was founded was that individual rights and freedoms/liberty was put above the legitimate power/authority of Gov't.

In fact, the Gov't is not to make "Any" law outside that legitimate purview of it's own accord but, especially laws that would in any way restrict individual liberty.




Without getting into a long diatribe about classical liberalism (not to be confused with the modern usage of the term liberal) and the meaning of the social contract -the purview of Gov't (the power that we the people gave them in relation to law - and the ability to punish breakers of this law) extended only to acts of direct harm .. one on another (rape, murder theft and so on).

So the idea that the Gov't was not given power is false. The question is what was this power that "we the people" gave the Gov't limited to.

The Gov't is supposed to appeal to "we the people" if it wants to make any law outside these limitations. "Especially" If it is something that relates to individual liberty. The bar for this appeal is the same as is assumed under the social contract = "Overwhelming majority/Supermajority". A simple majority was considered "Tyranny of the Majority" - and this would render the act of putting individual liberty "above" the power of Gov't pointless as every Gov't has an assumed 50+1 mandate.

In our Gov't a Super Majority is either 2/3rds or 75% when matters of the constitution are being considered.
Click to expand...

I actually know all this. I'm not disputing that we have a limited govt. I'm disputing your use of words which alludes to them having the kind of power that you alluded to in your post that I responded to. Which was that the federal government is trying to take back power. It cannot take back power that it never had to begin with. It can only take back power that was taken away from it. Something which has never happened in our entire history as a country. It has however imo taken more power from We The People than it originally (*and should have) had. For example the Commerce Clause was never intended to regulate how much food a farmer grows, particularly if that farmer is only growing extra food to feed his/her cows. Yet SCOTUS ruled that it can. Which is BS.
 
DianaWe said:
It tells the stories about the founders debates etc. for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4lV1yEUu7g
Click to expand...

I disagree with Mike Lee. I think the founder's did want a 'wall of separation'...and there's plenty of evidence to suggest they did besides a letter from T. Jefferson. IE: God is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution or BoR. Article VI says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The first amendment restricts the government from establishing a national religion...but it could also be interpreted as protecting the government from religion....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."​

And there are quotes about the 'wall of separation' from other founders besides just Jefferson...

James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention


Religion-and-Government.jpg


So what are your thoughts about the wall of separation, Diana?
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
I actually know all this. I'm not disputing that we have a limited govt. I'm disputing your use of words which alludes to them having the kind of power that you alluded to in your post that I responded to. Which was that the federal government is trying to take back power. It cannot take back power that it never had to begin with. It can only take back power that was taken away from it. Something which has never happened in our entire history as a country. It has however imo taken more power from We The People than it originally (*and should have) had. For example the Commerce Clause was never intended to regulate how much food a farmer grows, particularly if that farmer is only growing extra food to feed his/her cows. Yet SCOTUS ruled that it can. Which is BS.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers wanted a society in which the Gov't had limited power ... as opposed the previous Gov't (the British) and Gov't in general.
 
Well put. The founding fathers feared having a national government establish one particular religion forced on the people. This doesn't mean that they wanted to establish a NON-religion which can infringe on the religious people's freedom. In other words, while theoretically the "wall of separation" may click, on a practical level it has lead to less religious freedom for the religious guy for example, prayer in public school..

Moot said:
I disagree with Mike Lee. I think the founder's did want a 'wall of separation'...and there's plenty of evidence to suggest they did besides a letter from T. Jefferson. IE: God is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution or BoR. Article VI says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The first amendment restricts the government from establishing a national religion...but it could also be interpreted as protecting the government from religion....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."​

And there are quotes about the 'wall of separation' from other founders besides just Jefferson...

James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention


Religion-and-Government.jpg


So what are your thoughts about the wall of separation, Diana?
Click to expand...
 
DianaWe said:
Well put. The founding fathers feared having a national government establish one particular religion forced on the people. This doesn't mean that they wanted to establish a NON-religion which can infringe on the religious people's freedom. In other words, while theoretically the "wall of separation" may click, on a practical level it has lead to less religious freedom for the religious guy for example, prayer in public school..
Click to expand...

in the constitution of the founders the federal government was to make no LAW, meaning an act of legislation, the government however did make proclamations concerning religion, and while the founders placed the 1st amendment restriction on the federal government from making any such law, that same restriction from the 1st amendment did not apply to states and they were free to make the laws they choose based on their own state constitution.

the founders in writing the constitution did not grant the federal government ANY powers concerning the peoples personal lives liberty or property, [federalist 45 and 84], and when the USSC applied the BOR to the states, this opened the door and made it possible for violations of rights of the people by the federal government.
 
DianaWe said:
Well put. The founding fathers feared having a national government establish one particular religion forced on the people. This doesn't mean that they wanted to establish a NON-religion which can infringe on the religious people's freedom. In other words, while theoretically the "wall of separation" may click, on a practical level it has lead to less religious freedom for the religious guy for example, prayer in public school..
Click to expand...
How do you figure there is less religious freedom to pray in school? Students and teachers certainly have the right to pray, and the right to not pray. The right to join with others in prayer, and the right to not listen to others' prayers. Teachers cannot use their authority for or against religion.
 
danielpalos said:
we could be lowering our Tax burden by not enforcing purely religious laws.
Click to expand...

...and we could honor the spirit and letter of the Constitution by doing so.
 
I have read that whenever an important vote was held on the Constitution that many of the "Founding Fathers" had to be summoned from local brothels and saloons, and that some were too drunk to know what they were voting on. Can anyone substantiate this?
 
SmartCat said:
I have read that whenever an important vote was held on the Constitution that many of the "Founding Fathers" had to be summoned from local brothels and saloons, and that some were too drunk to know what they were voting on. Can anyone substantiate this?
Click to expand...

Many of the framers were drunk, most or part of the time. It was socially acceptable to be drunk, but not out of control per se. Booze was actually safer than water in that era depending on your location.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Many of the framers were drunk, most or part of the time. It was socially acceptable to be drunk, but not out of control per se. Booze was actually safer than water in that era depending on your location.
Click to expand...

;)....water was not safe specially in areas of population, so the people drank weak alcohol beer /ale
 
RetiredUSN said:
Many of the framers were drunk, most or part of the time. It was socially acceptable to be drunk, but not out of control per se. Booze was actually safer than water in that era depending on your location.
Click to expand...

time to supply the current crop of politicians with whatever spirits the framers were drinking. Maybe a good stiff shot of the stuff will drive the treasonous proclivities out of the lot of them
 
DianaWe said:
Has anybody read the book "Our Lost Constitution" by Mike Lee?
I'm a millennial and found the stories intriguing. Honestly, I never thought I'd finish a book on the Constitution..
Respond to this thread or follow me on Twitter to continue this discussion

https://mobile.twitter.com/Constitstories
Click to expand...

What did you find enlightening about the book ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom