SmarterthanYou
rebel
what does the preamble start with?
The supreme court cannot assume a power not given to them, therefore they do not determine what the Constitution means.
you've now been proven wrong.
Trump as a constitutional originalist
- Thread starter Truth Detector
- Start date
The supreme court cannot assume a power not given to them, therefore they do not determine what the Constitution means.
you've now been proven wrong.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The Preamble states 'we the people'. Via the peoples representatives, the Constitution was put forward and ratified with, and by, the support of we the people. Therefore, we the people wrote the Constitution and we the people ultimately determine what it means, through various means. Now, the States were represented as well and via we the people, the States surrendered some of their powers to the new federal government. Once the 17th Amendment was ratified, the States pretty much lost their representation.
So, for the umpteenth time, you are saying if it isn’t in the Constitution, it is not allowed, so privacy is a nonexistent, private property illegal, no one has the right to a trial by there peers, the Air Force is unconstitutional, etc., etc, etc. correct?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you really like to ignore basic concepts, don't you?
If it isn't in the Constitution, the GOVERNMENT can't do it. Something most leftists have a hard time understanding is that the Constitution doesn't give citizens what their rights and privileges are, but what powers the government has and that anything not specifically prescribed to the government, they have no power or authority over.
No, not ignoring basic concepts, rather it is you avoiding questions you know prove you wrong, so once again, if none of it is in the Constitution, is “privacy nonexistent, private property illegal, no one has the right to a trial by there peers, the Air Force is unconstitutional, etc., etc, etc?”
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The Constitution does not tell the citizenry what it can and cannot do, but what government can and cannot do. Your question is invalid on it's face.
Just answer the question
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I already did. stop being willfully ignorant because you know you're wrong
Into the Night
Contributor
James Madison and Governor Morris wrote the Constitution of the United States.
The representatives took that document to the people to be ratified in each colony. The people of each colony ratified it, and that vote was brought forward by those same representatives. There were no States before the creation of the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution created the federal government, and converted the Colonies into the States of the United States of America.
Therefore, the States created it. The States own it. The States are the only ones that can destroy it. Each State acts on the will of the people withing that State, since each State is also a republic.
Hence, the United States is a federated republic. It always was. It was never anything else.
The Constitution of the United States created two Houses. The House of Representatives represents the people, using elected officers in designated districts that have little to do with State boundaries; and the Senate, representing the State governments themselves, and elected by the legislatures of those States (which are in turn elected by the people of that State).
The 17th amendment removed the representation of State governments as governments, converting the Senate into just another House of Representatives, but elected along State lines instead of Districts.
I believe the 17th amendment should be repealed. State governments should have representation as governments.
I believe the Senate has violated the Constitution of the United States by requiring a supermajority vote to pass anything according to Article I, Sections 3 and 5. It is time for the 'supermajority' rule to end, and to return to simple majority, except for those cases specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
You are correct that no court owns the Constitution and has no say in modifying it, 'interpreting' it, or to create any law.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (and now various lower courts) have done EXACTLY this.
Into the Night
Contributor
He never said any such thing, anchovies.
The Constitution only applies to the federal government and to the States. It does not apply to individuals, or private companies.
The purpose of any constitution is to create a government, and to give it certain powers and authorities, and to describe how officers of that government are to be elected, and describes their term of service. It also describes how that same document is to be amended by the same authority that created it.
In the case of the constitutions of the various States, that authority is the people of that State.
In the case of the Constitution of the United States, that authority is the States.
The word 'privacy' does not appear in the Constitution of the United States.
The phrase 'private property' appears in the 5th Amendment and nowhere else in the Constitution of the United States.
The word 'peer' does not appear in the Constitution of the United States.
The Air Force is constitutional. It is created by Congress with the authority given them. A kind of 'navy of the air'.
The Space Force is constitutional. It is created by Congress with the authority given them. A kind of 'navy of space'.
A navy is a fleet of ships. NOTHING specifies that those ships must be the kind that float on water.
Into the Night
Contributor
This is correct.
HOWEVER; Congress DOES have pretty broad authority. It can create armies and navies (including navies of the air and navies of space). It can lay and collect taxes, so long as said taxes are applied equally. ('Tax the Rich' schemes put forward by Democrats are unconstitutional, since they violate the 14th and 16th amendments.)
You are absolutely correct that rights do not come from the Constitution or any other piece of paper.
The rights of people are inherent as people. Some are mentioned in the Constitution, others are not; but those rights are NOT enumerated by the Constitution.
Into the Night
Contributor
RQAA.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're taking things entirely too literal in regards to who wrote the Constitution. It was penned by Madison and Morris, but again, the Preamble states 'we the people'. we the people ratified it so we the people wrote it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, “we the People” decide everything and the Constitution was written to protect the people from the Government, same oversimplified adolescent generalizations employed to avoid questions you can’t answer, got it
As I said, reminiscent of the first question in the Baltimore catechism,”Why did God make me? Good made me because He loved me.”
NEXT
Oh, well then you define for us what is a strict constructionist? He, as well as many MAGA, define themselves as strict constructionists, so, tell us, exactly what is a strict constructionist?
So of it doesn’t apply to private companies how then did the Robert’s Court, the ultra conservative Robert’s, come up with their Citizens United decision?
“It was created by Congress,” so textualism is fiction? The Constitution can be interpreted
Into the Night
Contributor
Nope. It was penned by Madison and Morris. They wrote the Constitution.
Not quite. The people not only ratified it, they ordained it. The people did not write it.
Into the Night
Contributor
The United States is not a democracy, anchovies. It never was.
You still have no idea what a constitution even is, do you?
Into the Night
Contributor
One who follows a set of plans to the letter.
MAGA is not a person. RQAA.
Few companies are strict constructionists. This flexibility allows them to change with the market.
A person is not created by Congress, not even strict constructionists.
The Constitution can be interpreted. It is available in several languages.
Do you even know what you are talking about, anchovies??
Hey pal, not my comment, rather your boy “smartwhatever,” and the US is a democratic republic, a representative government inwhich the citizenry elect their representatives democratically
Yes, always have
“Plans,” no, rules and framework, yes, and your short reply still doesn’t answer the question, what is a strict constructionist?
Been there, done that
“few companies are strict constructionist?” Above you told us the Constitution does not apply to private companies, so I asked then how did the conservative Robert’s Court come up with Citizens United and your answer is “few companies are strict constructionists?” No need to go any further with you on this thread
You do not “know what you are talking about”