RavenHawk Posted March 22, 2017 #1 Share Posted March 22, 2017 What does saying "something is Contitutional" mean? Is it strictly what is found in the document titled "United States Constitution"? Or is it more? Does it include what we call the Founding Documents? I would consider that to not only be the Constitution but also the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and at the very lease the Federalist Papers (and anti-Federalist). But does it end there? Shouldn't it also include the US Code of law as well as foreign treaties? Why or why not? Of course, this is an immense amount of documented law. In some situations, one can find law that contradicts some other law (at least on the surface). So one has to rely on intent. And that's where understanding what the Founding Fathers thought is important. And even then, it's not always clear. But I don't think that the Constitution was intended to stand alone sans understading of intent. Without that, it would be too easy to morph the document such that in time it would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers. The term "Living Document" is also used to describe the Constitution. Some think that means that it should be modified with the prevailing winds. It is designed to be amended but not for light and transient causes which means that the process should be used sparingly. While others believe that the wisdom found there is as pertinant today as it was then because it is free of technological restriction and focuses on Human Nature. That is why it is a living document. Because it encapsulates that unchangeable bastion. There are those like Gollum that seem to cherry pick the laws and meanings to fit his limited understanding. Does that always make them wrong or just misguided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatecraft Posted March 22, 2017 #2 Share Posted March 22, 2017 It isn't a "living document". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted March 22, 2017 #3 Share Posted March 22, 2017 The fact that we are having this discussion means that it is up for more interpretation than most would like. Some would say it is just the Constitution itself. Others would say it includes all the laws that passed the litmus test of the Supreme Court. Some would say it was what their interpretation of what the founding fathers meant, whereas others would say it was what their interpretation of the founding fathers meant. And finally still others would say that the founding fathers have been dead for 200 years and people should quit putting their words in their mouths. Heck, people still don't know if the Constitution applies to everyone or just Americans in America. Or if rights are granted by the state or inherent. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted March 22, 2017 #4 Share Posted March 22, 2017 The Constitution is a framework of rules designed to nurture freedom in this country. It was written carefully by very thoughtful, widely and deeply educated men. Modern references to whether a law is "Constitutional" may have as many meanings as there are people to say it. The truth is that any law that can be said to conflict with that document, should fail to gain approval. The founders were in agreement (according to Jefferson): "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these ... States have NO authority to grant rights. Those are God-given. States' only purpose is to defend their people and to the extent possible without harming the citizenry, to provide for tranquility among the population. NOTHING ELSE. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 23, 2017 #5 Share Posted March 23, 2017 9 hours ago, RavenHawk said: What does saying "something is Contitutional" mean? It's following the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution. When the Constitution says something, you follow it otherwise you're outside the law. Don't like it, change it in the Constitutional process like it's been changed many times before. Can't change it? Move somewhere else where you're more happy with the freedom of movement you also enjoy. 4 hours ago, and then said: States have NO authority to grant rights. Those are God-given. States' only purpose is to defend their people and to the extent possible without harming the citizenry, to provide for tranquility among the population. NOTHING ELSE. You defile our Constitution saying this kind of heresy. This is one of the worst posts I've ever read on UM bar none. People don't even know it, but my most cutting remarks are from the Tenth Amendment on my right hip and the Ninth Amendment on my left. I suggest you pick up a copy today and read them so you know what you're always getting hit with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 23, 2017 #6 Share Posted March 23, 2017 7 hours ago, hatecraft said: It isn't a "living document". Really? How many Amendments are there? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnchorSteam Posted March 23, 2017 #7 Share Posted March 23, 2017 7 hours ago, Gromdor said: Heck, people still don't know if the Constitution applies to everyone or just Americans in America. Or if rights are granted by the state or inherent. I blame 60 years of decline and decay in the Education system for that one. 1- it only applies to Americans and the United States. No Govt has the ability or the right to set terms for every other nation on earth... yet. 2- The rights are most certainly NOT granted by the State, and therefore can't be taken away by it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted March 23, 2017 #8 Share Posted March 23, 2017 6 hours ago, and then said: States' only purpose is to defend their people and to the extent possible without harming the citizenry, to provide for tranquility among the population. NOTHING ELSE. That seems pretty open to interpretation. Tranquility seems like a pretty loose term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 23, 2017 #9 Share Posted March 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said: I blame 60 years of decline and decay in the Education system for that one. 1- it only applies to Americans and the United States. No Govt has the ability or the right to set terms for every other nation on earth... yet. 2- The rights are most certainly NOT granted by the State, and therefore can't be taken away by it. The theoretical power of the States is unlimited, and the rights of our people are too. You can subtract any finite number you want from infinity, it's still infinity. When you're trouncing on the rights of Americans to continue their work with good foreigners with visas, or for American families to be visited by their loved ones, you get crushed in court for it because it's unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted March 23, 2017 Author #10 Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Yamato said: It's following the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution. When the Constitution says something, you follow it otherwise you're outside the law. Don't like it, change it in the Constitutional process like it's been changed many times before. Can't change it? Move somewhere else where you're more happy with the freedom of movement you also enjoy. Well, then I'm glad you think that way. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of the laws of the United States. In other words, these 52 titles of the code are Constitutional. So if there is a law that allows the President to legally discriminate to defend this nation, that is then Constitutional. Case in point, USC 8 Section 1182(f) gives the President the Constitutional right to discriminate. Title 8 USC Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” That is pretty clear. Anyone that opposes that is being unConstitutional. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnchorSteam Posted March 23, 2017 #11 Share Posted March 23, 2017 50 minutes ago, Yamato said: The theoretical power of the States is unlimited, and the rights of our people are too. You can subtract any finite number you want from infinity, it's still infinity. That does not make any sense to me. The more power the Governing class has over everyone else, the more the people are diminished. And vice versa... what are you talking about? 50 minutes ago, Yamato said: When you're trouncing on the rights of Americans to continue their work with good foreigners with visas, or for American families to be visited by their loved ones, you get crushed in court for it because it's unconstitutional. Actually, immigration control is one of the few powers that is indisputably in the hands of the Federal Government. The more the States try to take over that power, the more imminent the demise of the concept of a United States becomes. And the more corrupt the Courts become, the more Political their rulings will become. Like the long-despised Political General, we now have Political Judges. The H1-ect. visas are a terrible thing; they not only allow mega-Corporations to hire foreign workers at much reduced wages (leaveng American Grads out of work and in debt) but they also introduce an element of servitude; the foreign worker dare not complain or ask for better conditions. If he does, straight back he goes to wherever he came from. A bad deal all around, except for Wall Street scumbags. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 23, 2017 #12 Share Posted March 23, 2017 5 hours ago, RavenHawk said: Well, then I'm glad you think that way. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of the laws of the United States. In other words, these 52 titles of the code are Constitutional. So if there is a law that allows the President to legally discriminate to defend this nation, that is then Constitutional. Case in point, USC 8 Section 1182(f) gives the President the Constitutional right to discriminate. Title 8 USC Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” That is pretty clear. Anyone that opposes that is being unConstitutional. Either you haven't read the Refugees thread or you're just playing dumb. I'm tired of answering the same ignorance over and over again. 1182(f) is statute, and so is the inability to discriminate on nationality. 1182(f) has no power to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. You're not going to tread all over the most protected rights in our land. The courts interpret our laws and people who can't understand the US Constitution have no right to complain about it. This thread is one of the most anti-Constitutional threads we've had in a while, congratulations. Sick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 23, 2017 #13 Share Posted March 23, 2017 5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said: That does not make any sense to me. The more power the Governing class has over everyone else, the more the people are diminished. And vice versa... what are you talking about? Actually, immigration control is one of the few powers that is indisputably in the hands of the Federal Government. The more the States try to take over that power, the more imminent the demise of the concept of a United States becomes. And the more corrupt the Courts become, the more Political their rulings will become. Like the long-despised Political General, we now have Political Judges. The H1-ect. visas are a terrible thing; they not only allow mega-Corporations to hire foreign workers at much reduced wages (leaveng American Grads out of work and in debt) but they also introduce an element of servitude; the foreign worker dare not complain or ask for better conditions. If he does, straight back he goes to wherever he came from. A bad deal all around, except for Wall Street scumbags. Nonsense. The courts disputed the hell out of it. Reality. Sometimes it's not to our political liking. Relying on a bunch of central planners from Washington DC and p***ing on the US Constitution. Statism Ho! Drop the anchors? Nope, that's never going to happen. That's worth bearing arms and killing for if motivated individuals can't listen and learn to the reality all around them. This is more important than defending our country from made up enemies still hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. The military is sworn to defend the Constitution, not your opinions or my opinions about politics. You statists have been spanked severely in recent weeks and some need more whippings to get the message apparently. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted March 23, 2017 #14 Share Posted March 23, 2017 12 hours ago, AnchorSteam said: I blame 60 years of decline and decay in the Education system for that one. 1- it only applies to Americans and the United States. No Govt has the ability or the right to set terms for every other nation on earth... yet. 2- The rights are most certainly NOT granted by the State, and therefore can't be taken away by it. You realized you just said two mutually exclusive things right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnchorSteam Posted March 23, 2017 #15 Share Posted March 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Gromdor said: You realized you just said two mutually exclusive things right here. Not if you believe that "We the People" means something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnchorSteam Posted March 23, 2017 #16 Share Posted March 23, 2017 10 hours ago, Yamato said: You statists have been spanked severely in recent weeks and some need more whippings to get the message apparently. "You Statist"? Try reading that again. Oh, and BTW, I'm not in favor the destroying the US. I leave that to the Neo-Marxists to salivate about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted March 23, 2017 #17 Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 hour ago, AnchorSteam said: Not if you believe that "We the People" means something. We the people of America have rights that aren't granted by the state, but no one else? That is the two mutually exclusive things in your ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted March 24, 2017 Author #18 Share Posted March 24, 2017 The Constitution only applies to and protects American citizens. Everyone has natural rights. It is not the US's responsibility to protect those rights of non-citizens or put those rights above its citizens. That responsibility goes to the individual or their country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted March 24, 2017 Author #19 Share Posted March 24, 2017 The US Constitution doesn't grant our rights, it protects them. James Madison wrote: “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 24, 2017 #20 Share Posted March 24, 2017 5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said: "You Statist"? Nope, you misquoted me. It was plural. Quote Try reading that again. Exactly. Quote Oh, and BTW, I'm not in favor the destroying the US. I leave that to the Neo-Marxists to salivate about. The big govt spenders are no problem at all though. Better to make up fake enemies and endlessly whine about them while the crooks get away with murder again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 24, 2017 #21 Share Posted March 24, 2017 1 hour ago, RavenHawk said: It is not the US's responsibility to protect those rights of non-citizens or put those rights above its citizens. That responsibility goes to the individual or their country. Then duh, stop intervening in the affairs of foreigners! You preach this stuff while advocating the exact opposite in policy and you don't even know it (don't even care). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnchorSteam Posted March 24, 2017 #22 Share Posted March 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Yamato said: The big govt spenders are no problem at all though. Better to make up fake enemies and endlessly whine about them while the crooks get away with murder again. Okay, back to brass tacks; Yes, the creatures in the Deep State ... I'm pretty sure that means the appointed Bureaucrats that have become the new Aristocrats of America.... are by far our worst enemy. And it isn't just because they are flushing our future down the drain, it is because they can't actually be convinced that their corruption, their treachery and their abusiveness is even a problem! They can't be made to see the light, and this has always been the case; The French rulership of the 1780s, the Czar's courtiers a century ago, The last of the Ottomans or the Austro-Hungarians or Chaing's Nationalists.... every damned one of them kept right on being self-righteous and stubbornly selfish until well after it no longer mattered. There is only one proven method for changing the mind of an Aristocrat; a bullet through the brain. Period. However, back in the day, they didn't have access to Thermonuclear arsenals. Sure gets complicated these days, don't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted March 24, 2017 Author #23 Share Posted March 24, 2017 The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: "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." There is nothing about Refugees, Illegals, or any other non-citizen living here - PERIOD!!! However, I remember a civics course I took back in jr high. One of the lessons that has stuck with me is that the Constitution applies to US Citzens or wards of the United States. So I was curious as to what was meant by "ward" and brought that up in discussion in class because the term ward does not appear anywhere in the 14th. The following definition that I just pulled from wikipedia was basically what that discussion came up with all those many years ago. "In law, a ward is someone placed under the protection of a legal guardian. A court may take responsibility for the legal protection of an individual, usually either a child or incapacitated person, in which case the ward is known as a ward of the court or a ward of the state." In this case it was anyone living here that is not a citizen is under the protection of this nation. But the discussion didn't go much further. What do you expect from jr highers as far as following up on a question?? I still didn't know where the phrase came from. I just acepted it. I think that the instructor was liberal and misread the Citizenship clause. But that has always bothered me. In the intervening years, I have run across the following three excerpts from three different letters written by George Washington. I think that if you read and try to understand the meanings of these three excerpts, they will give us a better understanding of what a ward of the United States is. In his December 02, 1783 “Address to the Members of the Volunteer Association and Other Inhabitants”, he states: “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” Then in a letter “From George Washington to Tench Tilghman, 24 March 1784”, he says: “I would not confine you to Palatines. If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christian of any Sect—or they may be Athiests—I woud however prefer middle aged, to young men. and those who have good countenances & good characters on ship board, to others who have neither of these to recommend them—altho, after all, the proof of the pudding must be in the eating.”. And Finally in a August 21, 1790 “Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport”, he says: “ The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” As I had said earlier, you need to focus on the bolded phrases in the messages above. As much as I believed the concept of 'ward' is so much BS initially, I now believe that perhaps there had been some merrit to this thought. The whole key to who is a ward and therefore entitled to the protections of the Constitution are those who willingly reject the old ways and full emersion into abiding by the laws of this nation. Total and complete denial of the old sensibilities in favor of the new matrix. For those on Hijrah aren’t interested in those things. There is no impetus to assimilate and abide by our laws. You can’t assume that any of them really want to be here. You can also get a similar effect when you bring in too many immigrants and refugees such that the infrastructure cannot absorb that many. In either case, it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. It’s better that they are inconvenienced than the citizen is. So to keep it simple, only those non-citizens that want to abide by our laws should be considered as wards. That leaves out those on Hijrah or those that seek to establish Sharia law in this nation and those already citizens that seek the same should be charged with sedition. And how can you tell before a terrorist attack might happen who might be invovled? Other than asking some direct questions and having them take an oath of loyalty, it's best to error on the side of doubt and have the President be extremely discriminatory. The perspective immigant needs to show by decency and propriety of conduct and have good countenances & good characters should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted March 24, 2017 Author #24 Share Posted March 24, 2017 3 hours ago, Yamato said: Then duh, stop intervening in the affairs of foreigners! You preach this stuff while advocating the exact opposite in policy and you don't even know it (don't even care). Where am I intervening in the affairs of foreigners??? I don't preach this and advocate the other. With that said, you need to take a step back and try to understand that. Once you think you have it then come back and share. But consider this a correction, so please don't show more of your ignorance by repeating the same mistake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted March 24, 2017 Author #25 Share Posted March 24, 2017 On 3/23/2017 at 4:49 AM, Yamato said: Either you haven't read the Refugees thread or you're just playing dumb. I'm tired of answering the same ignorance over and over again. Well, the rest of us are tired of answering the same ignorance. That thread has 77 pages. You'll need to be a bit more specific as to what you are referring to?? But I have the feeling that I may have shot you down with my "ward" post. 1182(f) is statute, and so is the inability to discriminate on nationality. 1182 gives the President the power to discriminate based on nationality. Do spend some time and read the law. 1182(f) has no power to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. No it doesn't. 1182 conserns itself with immigration, BoR concerns itself with an enumeration of rights of American citizens that are protected. Two totally different things. You're not going to tread all over the most protected rights in our land. I have no intention to. But I do expect the President to use every law at his disposal to protect the American citizen from foriegners. The courts interpret our laws and people who can't understand the US Constitution have no right to complain about it. This thread is one of the most anti-Constitutional threads we've had in a while, congratulations. Sick. And you have just shown why you are clueless as to what is and what isn't Contitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now