A Brief Primer on the US Constitution, for Essence and Others

Let me clear up some misconceptions about the US Constitution. First, it is NOT a “Living” document. It was written with express meanings. Secondly, there is no Constitutional compliance with the “spirit” of the Constitution. It was written and passed to be the Supreme Law of the Land. Theoretically, any law enacted which is not in compliance with the clear intent of the Constitution is null and void. As Justice John Marshall said, “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.” Justice Marshall also debunks the idea of a “living” constitution thusly:


The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.


Essentially, Marshall says a “living” constitution is no constitution.


Let's make this clear. The Constitution was written and adopted by the states for one overriding purpose: TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE WITH A PERSON'S BASIC NATURAL RIGHTS. Rights which DO NOT come from government. Government does not grant rights, it can only interfere with them. The Constitution was written to limit, not abolish, but limit the ability of government to interfere with people's lives. To limit the ability of government to take or injure a person's right to life, liberty or property.


That's why the safeguards are there, in the Bill of Rights. We know what they meant, it's in their writings. And it is particularly telling that the Founder's revered liberty so much, that they required that law enforcement get a search warrant based on probable cause and reviewed by a judge before they can enter your house. They revered liberty so much, that they adopted a legal system based on the maxim that it is better to let the guilty go free than to imprison the innocent. That is why the government in a criminal case MUST prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.


It was also designed to limit the power of a majority to inflict its will on a minority in abrogation of that person's natural rights. It was designed to move slowly and cautiously. Each law was to pass the People's house, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, representing the individual states. This would naturally require that bills be thought out and seriously considered. Government would not be able mandate unfunded programs for the states. The right of each state to govern itself according to its unique geographic and cultural distinctions would be preserved. The idea was that the government closest to the people would have the most influence over them. This would allow the people a greater say in what government does in their community.


Needless to say, we have strayed far from this ideal. I doubt we shall ever go back. But this is why I love the Constitution. I wish we had paid attention to it.

Let's address the obvious flaws in the Constitution. That is, the application of these principals to women and slavery. These were not flaws in the enumeration of rights, but in their application. It was the 18th century, the world was different. Britain had only recently abolished slavery, at least for the most part. It was still tolerated in parts of the Empire. The United States eventually went to war over the issue of slavery. After that war, the rights enumerated in the Constitution were applied to former slaves.

Women won the right to vote in the US in 1920, although some states had already recognized that right. It wasn't recognized in Britain until 1928.

The world of our Founders was different than our world, but in their wisdom, they created a document that could grow with the times. They included the process of amendment. A slow, but sure way to keep the Constitution current.

We have abandoned these principals over the years, and that is why America is in decline. We have allowed the government to overstep the clear boundaries of the Constitution, so that the government is now the grantor of rights, rather than their defender.

If we do not get back to where we were, we will not remain the "shining city on the hill". Our attempt at self-government will fall on the ash heap of history, to be trampled on by tyrants.

And so it goes.

I'm reading Mark Levin's "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America". If you haven't read it, you should. It explains in detail how the justices ignore the Constitution and make rulings based on international law and popular opinion.

Levin's book explains William O Douglas' majority opinion in Griswold v Connecticut. His pretzel logic in finding a general right to privacy, based on "penumbras and emanations," was a desparate attempt to rationalize a completely obvious activist ruling.

Half the justices in the last fifty years believed that ruling based on original intent was ridiculous.

I think my case is proven that some people put the constitution on the same pedastal as the bible.

At least the bible is sometimes called the living bible.

I'm reading Mark Levin's "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America". If you haven't read it, you should. It explains in detail how the justices ignore the Constitution and make rulings based on international law and popular opinion.

Levin's book explains William O Douglas' majority opinion in Griswold v Connecticut. His pretzel logic in finding a general right to privacy, based on "penumbras and emanations," was a desparate attempt to rationalize a completely obvious activist ruling.

Half the justices in the last fifty years believed that ruling based on original intent was ridiculous. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Marc Levin is an snake oil salesman...that said , the SC has always made rulings based on popular opinion. That is how we justified slavery . The Supremes are a reflection of society, not the law. WE like to think that is wtf they do but if is just their version of the law.

I hate that this is my only source of political information and that my political opinions are now being shaped by some guy named "WTF" - Where have I gone wrong?!?!

I hate that this is my only source of political information and that my political opinions are now being shaped by some guy named "WTF" - Where have I gone wrong?!?! Originally Posted by Ed Highlight

It could be worse. At least your opinions are not being shaped by AF Freakin. You should read some of his old posts.

Yes, you have good reason to be worried about Freakin, I think he was the crazy guy who was an AIDs denier, and because of him I came across this forum and started contributing to correct all the other misinformation here. In the best possible taste.

And history will tell us that Roberts likely swaped his Arizona immigration vote with Kennedy to get his vote on Obamacare.

Vote swaping in the SCOTUS is not uncommon; but one would think it to be deploreable.

And history will tell us that Roberts likely swaped his Arizona immigration vote with Kennedy to get his vote on Obamacare.

Vote swaping in the SCOTUS is not uncommon; but one would think it to be deploreable. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The old adage about, not watching the law being written, or sausage being made, probably applies to judicial review too.

Beware of those pompous fools posing as teachers speaking of things they know not.

They are frauds standing on podiums merely expressing their own particular views or something they heard.

. . . The very fundamentals of the subject matter escapes them, but nevertheless they intend to "teach" you lost in their ignorance for it feeds their hungry ego.


The Constitution

Today the United States Constitution is followed using a 'living-document' view. The term is used when a constitution or statute is interpreted by its ability to grow and change. The opposing 'bedrock' view suggest that the constitution be followed word for word and that it be a permanent law to be followed for all time. In the 'living-document' view, the goal is to reach a point where the law is perfect, but not without the future ability to be interpreted and expanded on with the changing of the times. With the changes made to the constitution in the last century, the government has strengthened its abilities to protect the inalienable rights of the citizens of the United States.

A "living constitution" as you describe, or rather, whoever you copied and pasted that from, is effectively "no constitution." Which is how you want it. Fine.

Huhaahuaaa. Laugh now fuckers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=587Yp...eature=related. It won't be so funny later. Remember this Smarty Pants...

The founding fathers were very wise men with uncommon wisdom.

If a Constitution is to endure it must live and it must adapt to changing times.

A Constitution is like the foundation of a house.

. . . Provision must be built-in to permit future growth or it will stagnate.

Where is that provision in the Constitution, FastGoon. Please point it out to me. Thank you in advance.