HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I can't find in US Consti...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 06:34 PM

I can't find in US Constitution where it says...

"homosexuals have less rights than heterosexuals", can you?

I canít find in US Constitution where it says "non-Christians have less rights than Christians", can you?

I canít find in US Constitution where it says "America is a Christian Nation", can you?

I canít find in US Constitution where it says "Corporations are people", can you?

I canít find in US Constitution where it says "Government cannot create jobs", can you?

I canít find in US Constitution where it says "Government IS the Problem", can you?


Anyone want to add to the list? Twitter #NotinConstitution.

58 replies, 7082 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply I can't find in US Constitution where it says... (Original post)
Viva_Daddy Sep 2012 OP
truedelphi Sep 2012 #1
LiberalFighter Sep 2012 #30
Vincardog Sep 2012 #2
freshwest Sep 2012 #4
Vincardog Sep 2012 #42
freshwest Sep 2012 #43
avebury Sep 2012 #3
hughee99 Sep 2012 #5
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #6
hughee99 Sep 2012 #8
jberryhill Sep 2012 #27
hughee99 Sep 2012 #32
truedelphi Sep 2012 #13
Viva_Daddy Sep 2012 #7
tama Sep 2012 #9
truedelphi Sep 2012 #14
tama Sep 2012 #22
jonesgirl Oct 2012 #47
truedelphi Oct 2012 #49
eallen Sep 2012 #44
Viva_Daddy Sep 2012 #10
sl8 Sep 2012 #11
truedelphi Sep 2012 #12
sl8 Sep 2012 #17
truedelphi Oct 2012 #45
sl8 Oct 2012 #48
truedelphi Oct 2012 #57
sl8 Oct 2012 #58
truedelphi Sep 2012 #15
existentialist Sep 2012 #18
existentialist Sep 2012 #16
Igel Sep 2012 #36
existentialist Sep 2012 #39
ErikJ Sep 2012 #19
Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #24
Swede Atlanta Sep 2012 #34
tama Sep 2012 #26
ErikJ Sep 2012 #35
George II Sep 2012 #20
sarge43 Oct 2012 #53
meow2u3 Sep 2012 #21
CheapShotArtist Sep 2012 #23
Kindly Refrain Sep 2012 #25
Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #28
socialist_n_TN Sep 2012 #40
RandiFan1290 Oct 2012 #46
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #29
Viva_Daddy Sep 2012 #31
WinkyDink Oct 2012 #56
DavidDvorkin Sep 2012 #33
Jim Lane Sep 2012 #37
fizzgig Sep 2012 #38
Jack Sprat Sep 2012 #41
Tanuki Oct 2012 #50
Stuart G Oct 2012 #51
hobbit709 Oct 2012 #52
Flashmann Oct 2012 #54
valerief Oct 2012 #55

Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 06:52 PM

1. Totally agree. And some religious experts point out that

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality at all. Although he did make references to his disapproval for divorce.

Problem with most American "Christians" is how they are fixated on the Old Testament. Jesus Christ brought forth a new system of religion, and the focus of that religion was supposed to be "love for " and honoring of, other people.

So in a nutshell - the Constitution doesn't take a stand on anyone's religious beliefs, other than to say "Hands off. This is a land where you are free to believe, or not believe, as you choose." And Jesus himself would be stumped as to why today's current "Christians" are so backwards in their beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:05 PM

30. Let's see now...

Jesus was never a Christian. And Christians base their religion on a Jewish religion.

Religious nutcases, teabaggers, etc, are fanatics about the Constitution of which they don't understand but the Jesus or his Jewish ancestors didn't have a Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 06:53 PM

2. I canít find in US Constitution where it says "The SCOTUS can enact LAWS", can you?

I canít find in US Constitution where it says "The SCOTUS can rule on the constitutionality of LAWS", can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:24 PM

4. Um, try this to see how it fits in, but it seems to say they can rule on all laws, not enact them:

United States Constitution:

Article III, Section 1, mandates the creation of a Supreme Court and commissioning of Justices:


The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Article III, Section 2, of the US Constitution explicitly spells out the responsibility of the Court:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states; --between a state and citizens of another state ;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Other legislation (the Judiciary Act of 1789, Title 28 of the U.S. Code, etc.) and case law (beginning with Marbury v. Madison, (1803)) also establishes that the Supreme Court may review (with a few exceptions) any civil or criminal "cases and controversies" arising from questions of constitutional or federal law, or from US treaties, including cases in which the High Court determines Congress has passed unconstitutional legislation (thus, nullifying the law).

Article III, Section 2 also allocates to the US Supreme Court original jurisdiction over a limited class of cases:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

The Court's original jurisdiction was later changed slightly by the 11th Amendment:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Article II, Section 2, (Paragraph 2) establishes the President's right to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court with the "advice and consent" of Congress:

" shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Article_of_the_Constitution_established_the_US_Supreme_Court

Another source.. perhaps one could intrepret enacting a law as ordaining and establishing through the supremacy clause:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

WINGNUT version, pardon the source:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316376/posts

Most likely where the fundies get their ideas and the idea that the USSC enacts laws, if I remember correctly, is a right wing term. In what way do you see the USSC enacting laws?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:26 AM

42. In what way do you see the USSC enacting laws? Corporate "personhood"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:26 PM

43. That was an intrepretation, not law making or enforcing. They interpreted the 14th Amendment:

Their reading (interpretation, not enacting) of the Constitution is what is often called by defenders and accusers, liberal or conservatives as either from a 'strict constructionist'] or 'activist'view of the US Constitution as ratified originally.

What most of us, myself included, find offensive is when we see a spirit of equality and respect for individual rights demanded by the Constitution between all parties, denied in these rulings. The Founding Fathers and President Lincoln spoke of 'a more perfect union' which liberals feel means improvement above the original circumstances under which the Constitution was ratified, such as the 3/5ths clause which was included in order to get the southern states to sign on it. The 14th addressed this offense to human dignity here:

It counts all residents for apportionment, overriding Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which counted only three-fifths of each state's slave population.


There is a lot of history in this amendment in the Wikipedia that is deeply disturbing to the modern mind and heart. The 14th and other amendments are part of the process of making it 'more perfect,' as the cases you can see below decided under the 14th are deeply offensive to the human spirit and national unity. When we had a preonderance of 'liberal' justices, the US Constitution seemed to have gone more in our direction, such as Roe v. Wade and the Miranda ruling.

Enacting laws is not possible by the USSC under the three branches of government, AFAIK. Rather, they can declare a law not be enforced, not enact a law to be enforced, except when they deny to hear a case, such as a death penalty case or a lawsuit. I am perhaps more narrow in my view of the word 'enact' than you are being using it here. In my recollection, the word enact regarding courts has been used to slam liberals, like the term 'activist' judges to smear Roe v. Wade, in which the USSC ruled that the:

Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_wade

In another case of a man who was eventually convicted, but was the end of the endless and torturous interrogations by law to break down suspects (the way they do in movies, so many people think that is legal, and others think that bleeding heart liberal judges are letting criminals go free when this procedure isn't followed), in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the USSC ruled:

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Now to the Citizens United case and the USSC ruled that the Federal Election Board rules were unconstitutional. This is a sorry ruling, almost as bad in the long term and short term as the hideous Dred Scott ruling, which is part of the reason the 14th had to be added to the Constitution to get away from it.

States citizens, congressmen and senators are trying to get an amendment to overturn it, but the chances of that happening are very, very low, unless public opinion changes. While many of us hate Citizens United, too many believe it is the definition of free speech. The Koch brothers are long-term actors, are working to disassemble the government of the United States from the office of dog catcher up the USSC. Getting around them will require grassroots effort, not just a ruling, as the placement of these conservatives on the court came through the election of Republicans.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that had held that black people could not be citizens of the United States.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses d
ealing with the Confederacy and its officials.

Text

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

From the above, the USSC interpreted the text above to rule in the cases below that answer your question of enacting laws. They did not enact laws, only the executive branch of the federal or states can do so. I'm sure you're thinking of at least one of these lawsuits the USSC overturned:

Corporate personhood

* 1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

* 2010: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

I don't know if that answered you, but I feel that I have done my best and it's still up to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:03 PM

3. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:29 PM

5. I couldn't find where the government can require you to buy a product

from a private company either, but according to the "final arbiters" of the constitution, it's in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:31 PM

6. You are no more required to buy insurance than you

are required to buy a home with a mortgage.

But if you buy either one, you can avoid a tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:40 PM

8. You are not avoiding a tax by buying a house

Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:17 PM - Edit history (2)

You're getting a tax deduction. You pay the same as before, and then you get some back. If you were "avoiding a tax" buy buying health insurance then the government would have raised everyone's taxes by the amount of the fine, and then giving you back your money IF you have insurance. The government COULD have done this and likely avoided the supreme court altogether simply by creating 1 new deduction and raising everyone's taxes. That's not what they did.

If you don't buy insurance, which is not offered to most people except through a private company, you pay an additional tax (penalty) that you were not paying before. If you don't buy a house, you pay the same taxes as before, you just don't money back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:27 PM

27. Uh, no, you are avoiding property tax

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:17 PM

32. You're avoiding a tax by not buying a house,

your not "avoiding a tax" by buying one, you're getting a deduction on taxes you (may) have already paid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:11 PM

13. When we have ourselves a Supreme Court un-beholden to the

Largest Corporate Entities, your understanding of the Constitution will come back into play. Until then, we are SH** out of luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:36 PM

7. I canít find in US Constitution where it says "money is speech", can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:50 PM

9. A promise is speach and money is a promise.

 

A promise that is fraudulent does not enjoy 1st amendment protection. Federal Reserve is a Ponzi Scheme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:17 PM

14. No, The Federal Reserve is theft.

A Ponzi scheme is a scheme that allows people to buy into it - equally. As long as they pony up the money, they are part of the scheme. Those who are smart enough to jump out of the scheme early on are winners. But most people stay in and end up in trouble.

The Federal Reserve doesn't demand that AIG, Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan, or dozens of other financial firms pony up anything at all. It simply hands them out huge bundles of cash, in a digitized form. it gets away with this on account of the fact that most people in the US public are too stupid to understand this fact of its operation.

If people understood this fact, then we wouldn't be in a situation where we are now: where the candidates on both sides of the aisle are all staunch supporters of the Federal Reserve.

People in Iceland, Ireland, and judging from events of a few days ago, Madrid, understand all this and more about centralized banks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #14)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:50 PM

22. To my understanding

 

Ponzi scheme is a form of theft and FIAT currencies meet the criteria of Ponzi scheme, as they are dependent from continuous exponential growth of the monetary system of debt and interest and collapse as they meet the limits of growth - which in this case are on planetary scale. Elsewhere Ponzi scheme's are called Pyramid schemes, which gives better geometrical idea of this form of theft. And the "Illuminati" joke is to make the Pyramid scheme so obviously visible that hardly anybody sees it:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 08:51 AM

47. Hey truedelphi...I resent your remark about the "US public are too stupid to understand". Let me

tell you something, I'm not stupid about anything and neither are most US public! Don't you know the difference between stupidity and not knowing? Just because someone doesn't know what's going on, or they don't understand it completely, does NOT mean they are stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonesgirl (Reply #47)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:19 AM

49. Okay, but here's the thing - you may be unaware of certain things,

And that's fine. I mean, no one knows everything.

But let's face it - there is a huge segment of the American public who "doesn't have time for politics." They have plenty of time to get their nails done, or to watch TV reality shows, or to stare at their navel. But they are uninformed about anything politically. It just doesn't concern them, they will explain.

If a person is uninformed about politics because of needing to work three jobs, or they are busy raising their kids, I understand that. But a lot of people don't care to be informed.

I feel it is rather nonsensical to live your life without an interest in politics, now more than ever. I suspect you feel that way also, or you wouldn't be on this political discussion forum.

If we as a nation are going to retain a decent educational system, and the environmental standards that need to be re-worked so that someone in my neighborhood putting out bird seed doesn't pay more in fines than the natural gas company that is destroying drinking water across the nation with the fracking activities, etc, it is going to take a lot more people putting their boots on the ground and applying their minds and their backs to the problem.

Each day of the week, the One Percent is taking away more and more aspects of American middle class life. It is going to take a hundred thousand times the numbers of people that are now attempting to stop them in order to accomplish what needs to happen. Hopefully people will start to become involved, and not wait until it is no longer possible to have decent drinking water, or to send kids to school, or to envision decent paying jobs ever again existing inside this country. We also need to ensure that the Elite doesn't gobble up Social Security or MediCare, as they seem very determined to do over the next two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:48 PM

44. I can't find that in any SCOTUS decision, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:52 PM

10. I canít find in US Constitution where it says "the rich are allowed to buy politicians and elections

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:01 PM

11. Are very many people claiming that the Constitution does say those things?

Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't recall ever hearing someone claim that the items you listed are right or wrong, legal or illegal because they're not in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a very short document; there are an infinite number of things not mentioned in it. Is it your intent to inflict an infinite number of tweets on the world or ???

The Constitution doesn't say that murder is prohibited or illegal. It is.

The Constitution doesn't say that dogs have fewer rights than humans. They do.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:10 PM

12. In my household, the cats rule. I am not sure what part of the

Constitution guarantees that rulership, but they insist on it none the less.

However, they do have the same findings that you have regarding dogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:31 PM

17. Ah, you underestimate me.

And that is quite a feat.

Choosing to use dogs instead of cats in my example was deliberate. The feline lobby is not to be trifled with.

I fear I've said too much already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 04:48 AM

45. sl8, sl8

I have heard that on the internet, no one can hear you if you scream, but in reading yr reply, I thought I detected a most human sound of horror, and then some fierce "Meows!"

Are you there, sl8?

Come in, sl8... Sl8 !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #45)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 09:54 AM

48. Quiet, you fool!

It's not safe to spea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #48)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:12 PM

57. I'd type, LOL, but

It's not nice to laugh at another human's distress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #57)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:21 PM

58. IZ OK NAO.

DIS AR SL8

NEVERMIND BEFORE

IM RLY SL8

I HAZ CHEEZBURGER 2 EAT NAO

BAI BAI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:20 PM

15. You might enjoy this quote from Mark Twain:

A Christian is a person who will give up great things in a real life, for mediocre things in an imaginary life. More importantly, they expect you to do the same. - Mark Twain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:33 PM

18. "Man is the only animal with the true religion.

"several of them."

Mark Twain

I say this, and yet I'm a Christian, but in Ghandi's sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:31 PM

16. At least three of the things you can't find are not only not there

The contrary is there.

First, in the Preamble, one of the purposes is "to promote the general welfare." I say that includes creating jobs. It probably also contradicts the notion that government isthe problem, but in fairness there much in the Federalist papers if not the Constitution itself about limiting the scope of government . . .

Second, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or respecting the free exercise thereof . . ."

The Constitution absolutely did not establish a Christian Nation, and absolutely was intended to guarantee non-Christians equal rights.

(But you knew all this and I'm just a doofus right?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to existentialist (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:53 PM

36. Promoting the general welfare is one of the purposes of the Constitution.

If you don't think that the Constitution as written promotes the general welfare, then you don't think that it's a good Constitution. The writers thought that it was sufficient for the three goals listed.

"To promote the general welfare" isn't one of the powers authorized under the Constitution. If one of the powers under the Constitution is to create jobs, they should have been a bit clearer.

The Constitution didn't establish any religion and, in fact, banned the establishment of a federal religion, simply because there were state religions. To establish a federal religion would interfere with states' rights. Jefferson was quite clear to the Dansbury Baptists: Even establishing a national day of thanksgiving would exceed the powers given to him by Congress, and if Congress were to give him such powers they would exceed their authority. It shows how great was the shift in thinking in that 4 score and 7 that it was deemed acceptable for Lincoln to do what Jefferson said he could not. Now people argue over the constitutionality of a private group's placing something religious on public property when the federal government itself has decreed that there is a day of Thanksgiving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #36)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:51 AM

39. You are trying to argue with

someone who agrees with you.

I'm sorry if my prior post was unclear, but on what you've stated, and on what I meant to state we have no fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:41 PM

19. Cant find the word "Capitalism" anywhere in the Constitution

or God or Jesus or Christ or Holy Trinity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:22 PM

24. It mentions "Our Lord".

"Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:41 PM

34. That is evidence of nothing.......

 

That was the common reference to the calendar at the time. Today that has been replaced in many cases by "C.E." or "common era".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:25 PM

26. Or "private property"

 

among the unalienable Rights of Declaration of Independence. Just Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:32 PM

35. Interesting point nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:44 PM

20. I think the Constitution says (or implies) exactly the opposite for your points 2 and 3.

As a matter of fact, "GOD" isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, and the only reference to "religion" is in the 1st amendment:

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:41 AM

53. No, there are two references

Article VI(3) forbids a religious test for any public office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:47 PM

21. I don't see anything in the Constitution that states

that corporations are people and women are property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:51 PM

23. I can't find the part in the Constitution

where it says that it's acceptable to make it more inconvenient for people to utilize their right to vote. We're supposed to have a system where we encourage everyone to vote so more voices can be heard. These Republicans tout the message of so-called "freedom", yet here they are trying to shrink the freedom of millions to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:23 PM

25. I can't find the capitalism anywhere in the US Constitution.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kindly Refrain (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:40 PM

28. I can't find socialism there either (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:58 AM

40. Wouldn't the part in the Preamble referring to.......

the general welfare socialistic sounding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #28)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 05:29 AM

46. So cute. You are trying so hard.

Wish I had a cookie for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:54 PM

29. I could appreciate this more with the article "the."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:16 PM

31. I was practicing for Twitter. Whated to promote #NotinConstitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 09:21 AM

56. Re-read above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:17 PM

33. You're not supposed to look for those in the REAL Constitution!

Look in the Constitution that resides in the imagination of rightwingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:31 AM

37. Don't demand unreasonable specificity in a constitution.

I can't find in the U.S. Constitution where it says "Congress can provide by law that a little neighborhood barbecue place in the back streets of Birmingham must serve black people." Nevertheless, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is constitutional.

I can't find in the U.S. Constitution where it says "Government may establish a single-payer health care system for some or all of the citizens." Nevertheless, Medicare is constitutional, and so would be a universal single-payer system.

Incidentally, my guess is that the Framers would have been flabbergasted at each of these exercises of federal power.

The takeaways are: (1) The Constitution uses broad, general terms. Otherwise, it could be 500 pages long and still not cover everything. Its broad, general terms must necessarily be interpreted, and sometimes there will be room for reasonable disagreement about the correct interpretation. (2) The interpretation can change over time as society changes.

To take one of your examples, about Christians and non-Christians: Is it constitutional for a government entity to provide maps for use in Catholic schools? Does the First Amendment prohibit that use of tax dollars (some of which come from us non-Christians)? It's not spelled out, either way. ("NotinConstitution" would include both the authorization and the prohibition.)

That prompts me to add a third takeaway: (3) Constitutional law can get complicated, and hard cases are not resolved by sloganeering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:47 AM

38. i can't find where is says my uterus is someone else's domain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:09 AM

41. Modern era Repubs don't care.

 

They want to write new rules and stack the courts with conservatives who interpret laws to their liking. The constitution has no relevance for them if it disagrees or interferes with their agenda. The Teabag Repubs have their own idea of government that only works for them and their fantasies of how people should live and die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:31 AM

50. I can't find where it says you have to show a photo ID to vote! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:40 AM

51. k & r thanks for posting...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:43 AM

52. The people that believe that have their own version of the Constitution

Just like they have their own version of the book they're always so fond of citing for their beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:52 AM

54. Every bit of that is in

The uhmerkin Constitution......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 09:18 AM

55. You're not reading the Teahadist What-Our-Forefathers-Meant-Not-What-They-Said

Constitution, I gather. You have to read the Revised-To-Suit-The-Coup-Agenda version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread