There are some foundational ideals that were brilliantly written in the constitution.
While far from perfect the United States is world’s greatest empires since Ancient Rome. We achieved feats that our ancestors would only dream (putting a man on the moon, incredible innovations and advances in technology). We saved the world from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during WW2.
While we do have an ugly past of slavery and prejudice the actual ideals in the constitution were a work in progress to be fulfilled. Even former slave turned statesman Frederick Douglas acknowledged that.
Anyway getting back to the pandemic. Some conditional powers might be waved in a time of a national emergency. But covid while still a serious problem itis NOT a f*cking national emergency in the second half 2021. We understand the disease better, we now have widely available effective vaccines and over half our population is now vaccinated. I also do NOT believe the USA is leading the world in fatalities. I think China is grossly lying about their numbers (they say they still have less than 8000 covid deaths. Bullshit times a million).
If we are going to start using the government to impede on people’s basic rights (yes it is a right to turn down the vaccine) than we are going down a very dangerous slippery slope here. It’s already happening in Australia. I say this while being vaccinated by the way.
Checks and balances was the more prominent grounding to our American Revolution. The constitution is more how to express that grounding. The focus on admiring the process then the end result in of itself is the proper mental framework.
Take a look at the 3ed ammendment
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
It sounds like the weird odd duck compared to today. Solders just want to crash at my place? and then add the forth ammendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We understand this most common in police searches in our vehicles. But who are the police and where are they searching things? The solders had the role of modern police and commonly fucked over people quartering in your house and digging up your books because they can and maybe plant evidence and get a promotion.
History dosen't repeat but it rhymes. As time goes on we need to re translate the original document and argue to our government the modern understanding of these classical rhymes. As much as Shakespeare translating old English on the other page.
The constitution is still legally binding and the checks and balances are the better grounding then old rhymes taken as a perfect prophecy.
When it comes to a pandemic even our founding fathers were fine with overriding it when it came to that. They were all dealing with smallpox back then and Washington mandated his soldiers all be inoculated to combat it. He was losing more men to disease than the fighting itself. Jefferson looked into tactics as well when it come to what he was trying to set up in Monticello.
What freedoms laid out in the constitution have been overridden by the pandemic?
By their logic fire codes would be an infringement of the first amendment.
They're willing to die for those freedoms but we're willing to kill for the freedom to live in a safe society :)
Too much values put into the constitution. The constitution is just a stupid peace of parchment with words on it meant to convey the feelings of a specific mindset. This mindset used to be prevalent but these days we can’t even agree on what a man and woman is.
Let’s look at today. Women get abortions at record numbers but don’t use contraception. Men complain women are sluts then sleep with every woman they can get with.
I used to have such hope for a happy life with a good family. Never have I considered that I would be alone and never love anyone or be loved by anyone. Ide never have considered maybe humanities just a disgusting breed of animal that can rationalize every god damn argument ever even murder. These days we aren’t close. We don’t trust each other. Hell ide go as far as say we hate each other. Instead of creating a country to benefit our children we’d rather kill them or selfishly focus on our own personal desires.
It was never the constitution we called but the foundation it was written to describe. That foundations gone now. We’re divided, hateful, selfish, hypocritical, and terrible. I predict a long time of great suffering in the world…
And piece.
Except no... both pregnancies and abortions have dropped down in frequency over the last few decades.
I fully agree with the men's double standards for women having sex though (insert standard #notallmen here).
Course you would Bree your a fucking feminist. I hate the lot of you because we’ll never see eye to eye. The rules you push for limit me further when I’m already struggling so keep up the good fight because I’ll never respect a feminist.
@VanillaSalt Back in your mudhole worm!
I would say go to Afghanistan where the ruling regime's views are on par with yours but Afghan women have enough shit to deal with.
I dont hate you for your hate, I just pity you for clutching to it. I'll continue to be happy and you can continue to misrepresent information and I'll be there to correct you when I see it.
It isn't really a fight when you aren't putting up much of one. I'm not looking for your respect, I'm just stopping your misinformation campaigns.
Also it is is Bri, not Bree. I would assume basically reading skills are within your wheelhouse.
@gotc147 We aren't a serious society because the American Right can't realize that when autocrats fear monger to expand state power, their boogeyman is either a foreign country (i. e China) or a subversive movement (i. e. BLM) versus a force of nature. However, downplaying the severity of a force of nature has a long history of being used to expand private power (disaster capitalism).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqNAEx1lm4&t=198s
@Ad_Quid_Orator The fear monger accuses me of fear mongering... Are you familiar with the term "projection" in the psychology world?
@gotc147 I mean if you want to be insulting I am more than ok embarrassing you, but ill give you a chance to switch to being more civil if you just want to debate.
The point wasn't that it was just the military, it was that the founding fathers were perfectly fine with the idea of bypassing the the constitution for the sake of a major public health risk. The Supreme Court has judged on this as well.
Want a non pandemic related example? Try yelling bomb on a plane. Try yelling fire in a movie theater. Those are not covered by free speech because the public safety is more important than the rights of an individual.
@Ad_Quid_Orator The entire left wing platform is based on fear. Everything is "with need to pass every leftist agenda item or we're all going to die!" We don't pass the green new deal the sun monster is going to kill us all. We cut taxes people will die, if you don't live in paralyzing fear of the whu flu we're all going to die...
Meanwhile conservatives are going about their business and asking to be left alone.
You very much are the fear monger, you're just too blind and dumb to realize it.
Oh man, the racism is strong in this one.
Conservatives, by the way, definitely not looking to be left alone. They just have different boogeymen. If they want to be left alone I just ask that they extend the same courtesy to women and lgbt. We really don't need or want their attention.
There is no such thing as debate with a leftist, as soon as they get cornered they start crying racist or some other inane bullshit.
You don't know much about military service do you? Soldiers are considered property in the military, no different than a helicopter, a humvee, a chair or a roll of toilet paper. Property has no rights, people who join the military understand this going in.
I love this asinine example of a limit on free speech. The whole point of free speech is to prevent persecution for a person's opinions, a Democrat cannot have a Republican arrested because the Republican stated they disagreed with the Democrats tax policy for example. It was never about making threats or incitement, you'd know this if you actually knew anything about the founding fathers.
Now please, embaress yourself and fool yourself into thinking you got me, the floor is yours.
Good thing I am not a leftist so move on to your next point.
Let's see, my grandfather, great grandfather, both parents, several aunts and uncles all served in the military. I live in a major military city. I did four years of rotc myself and was set to join the Navy until an injury disqualified me from enlisting.
Nope. No idea how the military works. 🙄
I am curious if you intentionally have limited reading comprehension and only try to pick a combination of words to pounce upon or if our education system has just failed you overall, and given a lot of response here I am going with the latter. I am fully aware the military is a different beast than civilian life. The point is that the founding fathers were ok bypassing it. Do a little research into it. I gave one example but it is far from the only one. Feel free to look up Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson's ideas and thoughts on it too.
The whole point of free speech was for the government to be unable to come after you for what you said. I can still come after you civilly in a lawsuit if what you say to me is slanderous. You can still be fired for saying something stupid or posting something stupid on social media and you can't claim first amendment rights. Even given that, it isn't all encompassing. For example hate speech can still get you in trouble. I promise you, my education and level of research is going to outclass you by miles. I'd be glad to give you a master class on how it works, but based on YOUR post history, I have serious doubts you'd be able to keep up.
Conservatives do leave women alone.
Well, I guess you could make an argument that we don't leave people who want to expose children to adult themes or want children to be engaged in sexual activity. This has only been a widely supported line in modern society since the dawn of modern society so yes we're supportive of continuing that normalcy. That you are not says much more about you than it does us.
No they don't or there wouldn't be an attack on womens rights to abortion or other medical access. What adult themes are you talking about? Me walking around with my wife in the store? At best I might quickly kiss her but most times we just mind our own business. The only difference between us in a her couple is that we are both women. It doesn't make it more adult.
Also, no, a majority of the US supports lgbt rights now so even your argument there isn't correct.
No you do not have a right to kill your children you sick barbarian, if you didn't want kids you should have kept your legs closed or at least made him wrap it up. Actions have consequences.
I'm talking about having small children dancing on runways at strip clubs, having toddlers surrounded by gay men wearing their fetish leather/latex clothes, mutilating their genitals and making them undergo sex reassignment surgery... You know, the stuff no sane person wants children exposed to.
Well, when they become actual viable children or men start carrying them instead then you can get an actual say in the matter. Also, not much can be done when a man forces himself between those legs now can it?
Nobody makes anyone go through gender reassignment surgery. In fact the only thing forced on children which is truly sick is the mutilation known as circumcision. Go get your ass up in arms about that and not an elective surgery that the decision is made by the person receiving the surgery.
Oh but I do have a say in the matter, got lawsuits on the march as we speak, buckle up.
Children can't make their own choices from a legal standpoint, no three year old wants to change their sex unless their mind has been poisoned by adults.
No comment about kids performing at strip clubs or at kink parties?
"if you don't live in paralyzing fear of the whu flu we're all going to die..."
www.contagionlive.com/.../analysis-spanish-flu-pandemic-proves-social-distancing-works
They've had them for years and keep getting rejected.
I can't stress this enough... you can't have gender reassignment surgery performed on a three year old. The CLOSEST you can even get to that is a child who is born intersexed and the parents make a decision on how they want to raise that child. I personally hate that it is even an option because it takes the choice out of the child's hand on what to do with their own body. It is why I hate the idea of circumcision for that matter. It isn't their body to have that say. A three year old child can't just walk up and say "hey I feel like a girl today" and just get surgery done. There are years and years of therapy done. When they get to puberty they get put on blockers to stop any sort of puberty from happening and then after the child is legally old enough to make their own decisions they can be moved to an hrt regimen and later start getting surgical options.
Do I need to comment about it? Obviously no kids should be performing at a strip club or kink party. That doesn't make being lgbt wrong. It just means the adults in those rooms need to not be around children.
Until last year the makeup of the Judiciary favored rejection of the lawsuits, things are different now.
So you just made a conservative argument for me, appreciate it.
Why is there a big fight happening in Statehouses nationwide about banning such surgery for children if it's already banned? And why are the Democrats against banning it?
Also I noticed a comment from you that I didn't see earlier, a long one talking about your family allegedly being military and such, so here's my response to that: it's nice to see you recognize the difference between a civilian and a Servicemember, but yet you made the argument about inoculation during the Revolution anyway, were you just hoping *I* didn't recognize the difference or what?
You also seem to be very confused on what "bypassing" means. Like I said, freedom of speech was meant to protect the people from persecution for their opinions, it was never at any point intended to be any kind of blank check to say anything and everything at any time in any environment. There were laws against obscenity for example very early on in the colonial era. A law against posting a picture of a naked person in the public square was never considered a violation of free speech, because that wasn't what free speech was about. You claim to be educated but you don't grasp this very simple concept.
Last point: I'm well aware that each individual founding father had their own opinions on how things should be done, Thomas Jefferson thought the Comstitution should be revised every 19 years as one example. Just because founding father A though X should be done doesn't mean X was put in the Constitution. What matters is what WAS put in the Constitution. Each founding father can exercise their free speech by writing about X, Y and Z and how it should be in the Constitution and why, but it isn't, so it's ultimately just noise and meaningless.
Well, I'm a centrist so I favor both liberal and conservative ideas, but not about this. You are supposed to be the party of small government so act like it and stop trying to legislate our bodies.
There is a fight because as I said, conservatives need a boogeyman. It is a fight to drum up a distraction for something that isn't even a thing. Both sides do this constantly. For claiming liberals are blind that sure is the pot calling the kettle black.
I made AN example of how the founding fathers were for it. There are plenty more that don't involve service members that I've already told you to research but sure let's just focus on that word because you can't grasp larger concepts.
The constitution was also meant as a guideline which is why amendments were even added to begin with. It is why we can still add to them today if this country could ever get its head out of its ass about being partisan and owning the other side.
Nobody is legislating your body, that's absurd propaganda, we're saying you can't kill babies, the concept is very simple and has wide support among the electorate.
Conservatives most definitely do not need a boogeyman, Biden along with several Democrat Governor's are providing plenty of ammunition to make the case to vote for Republicans.
No founding father was in favor of violating the Constitution in any way. There may have been cases of them interpreting it incorrectly, or crossing a line during a political spat with another politician (Marbury v Madison for example). But there is NO case of a founding father saying anything along the lines of "this is unconstitutional but we need to do it anyway because reasons" and the Constitution is NOT a "guideline", it is the supreme law of the land, the document that all other laws stand or fall by. Yes it can be changed, that doesn't make it any less legally binding.
@Ad_Quid_Orator "willing to kill"? Sounds almost like a threat. I'm sure they're shaking in their combat boots. =)
Except no...
A total of 77% say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe, but within that there's a lot of nuance — 26% say they would like to see it remain in place, but with more restrictions added; 21% want to see Roe expanded to establish the right to abortion under any circumstance; 16% want to keep it the way it is; and 14% want to see some of the restrictions allowed under Roe reduced. Just 13% overall say it should be overturned.
So no, you don't have wide support. Republicans have ALWAYS needed a boogeyman. Illegals, masks, lgbt, abortion, election fraud, minorities... the list goes on and on. They have very little ground to stand on so they drum up some imaginary fear to bring out their electorate. You know what happens when the REAL electorate comes out? Republicans lose. There are actually way more centrists and liberals than there are conservatives. A prime example of this was the threat of four more years of dealing with Trump and has clown show. You have any normal republican like Kinzinger or Cheney out there and that blue turnout isn't as strong. Republicans thrive on fear mongering. Everyone else finally got a taste of this election and did something about it.
Did you just accuse the guys who wrote the thing as misinterpreting it? More accurately they all had different ideas of what this country and the constitution should even look like.
As for what they believe Franklin, in the matter of smallpox for example, believe in inoculation. He was a man of science above all else.
Jefferson not only inoculated his own person against smallpox, but his enslaved people and residents of Charlottesville. He was awarded a commendation from the Royal Jennarian Society (of Edward Jenner fame) for his creation of a smallpox vaccine in Virginia.
Here is a link for John and Abigail Adams story in dealing with it.
www.washingtonpost.com/.../
Time and time again they understood that the public health risk was greater than the constitution. If we are all dead from a pandemic there is no nation to defend. It really is common sense.
@BlackAndBlueBalls Nope, in the rascal scooters that they stole from Walmart :)
It meant something when it was first penned but thousands of laws and rights have been passed since then. It's now just an historic document waved to make Americans feel patriotic. I also think it slows down natural social progress as we fight over everything and argue if it's constitutional.
Opinion
34Opinion
"For the greater good," "in times of emergency," and "for your safety and security" are how governments and nations undermine themselves. It's exactly the kind of thing that the Supreme Court specifically was meant to prevent, and the entire checks and balances system is supposed to stall out.
It's nothing new though; one could argue that this has been commonplace at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson's presidency, and individual attempts to circumvent the constitution can likely be identified much further back. It's actually remarkable that it has taken a full century to finally reach the point where it seems as if the very document that outlines and legitimizes the government seems to not matter.
This is a very good question. And this is why history in school is so important in the 50s the 60s and 70s that generation brought the Constitution to life people might say it was a bunch of hippies but those hippies are the ones who put insight into it and where we are headed and they band together they became one to fight for change. We have seen to Lost That motivation we're like a bunch of sheep right now headed toward Slaughter we allow ourselves to be manipulated. From the people that we hired to do the right thing for us. But they're going to take us down the slippery slope because they know that we're not going to do anything about it. Until we are backed all the way into the corner. And you are 100% right our constitution has been being bent over for a long time and slowly but surely there are things taking place to override it which is just totally wrong. But nothing will change.. not unless us the little people change it
Yes and no. Obviously its just a piece of paper so its not going to defend itself, on the other hand it grants the people the authority to refuse direct violations of the constitution itself. This won't stop the corrupt government and police who enforce these illegal "laws", but it does create a moral standing and legal standing to resist these changes. But that only works if americans actually bother to defend the constitution which is why our school systems have slowly eradicated any knowledge and understanding of it (statistically speaking. According to data college/university students actually knew less about civics (the way our government works and the constitution) AFTER graduating then before they entered it. I personally believe this is intentional to make us less aware of our nations history, how our government functions and WHY it functions the way it does.).
The Constitution has as much power as citizens choose to give it. Much like every aspect of any given government the real source of power is the citizens of the government. It's the citizens job to keep their governments power in check and push their government back when it oversteps its bounds. Abraham Lincoln made this very clear when he said ‘A government of the people, by the people, for the people’ Once the citizens stop doing their job it becomes ‘A government of the government, by the government, for the government’ the type of government we have had for several generations is the above.
This is the reason why the entire point of politics is to keep people fighting each other, fighting each other and keep people distracted. It has allowed the government and a group of insiders to throwing the Constitution out of the window generations ago and reap the benefits of their misuse of their power. It's not hard to see this. One has to be willing to take their blinders off.
Thats why I asked this a few days ago
Why are so many US citizens in such a hurry to give up their Constitution and Bill Of Rights?
No. That’s the problem particularly with leftists. They like to say the Constitution is a flexible and living and breathing document. They do this to include what they’d like under it and discard what they don’t like. The Constitution says what it says. It’s not flexible. It’s not living and breathing. The founding fathers were wise enough to include processes to add to it or subtract from it. Unless I’m mistaken, Amendments can be changed added or repealed by first having such changes either proposed by 2/3rds of the state legislature or by 2/3rds of the House of Reps and the Senate. Then 3/4ths of the states must vote in favor of the change.
That is the process for altering the Constitution.
It wasn't written us. It was written for them to keep their ass in check. Haven't you ever heard them say, "the constitution doesn't apply here" . They operate under the UCC codes. The flow of commerce. The created a fictional entity with our name in ALL CAPS called your strawman, a dummy corporation you unwittingly represent in the courtroom. They had to create it bc only fictions can contract with other fictions. Look up the act of 1871. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. He who is deceived, let him.
The thing that kills me about the Supreme Court is that its decisions are split along party ideology.
The Constitution says what it says.
All nine Justices see the same cases...
Either the question before the court is if it is Constitutional or not.
5-4 splits based on ideology devalues what is written in the Constitution.
historically, everything we decided to have a case where it's "ok" to partially or fully suspend the constitution for a sort of "emergency", that "emergency" was always used to spiral society into shit exactly like hitler, stalin or pretty much every historically significant fascist did.
we're in the middle of that happening on a global scale right now. which to me as a german seems 10 times more scary than hitler himself to be honest...
Politicians today really would like to erode the US Constitution to a meaningless scrap of parchment which is wrong and against their oath of office. IMHO, any politician who submit a bill that reduces the impact of the US Constitution should be arrested and tried for High Treason.
The constitution is supposed to safe guard peoples rights. If the people feel the need to amend it, they should. Otherwise it would be no different than a theocracy blindly placing all of its ideas on some religious text from the past.
The Constitution is more important than ever ! Politicians just treat it as a historical document. The Constitution is very important but politicians keep trying to destroy it. Yet they take a oath to it. We need to start putting them on notice and it's time for the supreme court to start doing their job
You mean the Founding Fathers were mistaken when they set down a process by which the Constitution could be amended?
So how does one disregard the Constitution? You mean me as an employer can't fire someone for something they said?
:D
So what is an example?
So during the Influenza outbreak when over 50,000,000 people died, you would be complaining about your right to assemble on your way to the cemetery?
Let's test your concern over the "constitution".
Which body has the sole right to declare war as granted by the Constitution?
How is it tangential? You asked about the Constitution. So the point is you don't care about the Constitution. You care about politics regarding Covid.
That's all I wanted to point out.
So stop being disingenuous. If people used the Constitution as toilet paper, you could not raise an eyebrow.
I will leave you to yourself to discuss semantics. Any person capable of reading English will see a question about the United States Constitution. And any person can see you do not care about the United States Constitution. You care about your politics.
GEE! You mean like rationalizing 'exceptions' to the Ten Commandments?
It does, so does any law. It protects weaker, at least in a way. Better then a blatant "land of giants".
OK, where's this coming from?
Your comment is worthless unless you give an example.
All rights are limited and none are absolute. One reason for this is that rights between parties may conflict. That's what the judicial system is partly for: to determine the limits of rights and whose have a higher priority.
As for the right to peaceably assemble, yes, you have that right. However, the purpose of the federal government is spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So, what falls out of that is that a significant part of the directive of government is to keep people from safe and not killing each other.
The government has a right to protect its people and if that means temporarily restricting their movements in the interests of safety or national security, it can... and it's been doing so for 245 years. Try peacefully assembling in Area 51, for example.
Your quote does indeed indicate that one of the jobs of government is to keep people safe (to an extent), but no where does it state that it can infringe on people's constitutional rights. You state "the government has a right to protect its people and if that means temporarily restricting their movements in the interests of safety or national security, it can..." Firstly, I'm not sure government has "rights" in this regard. They especially don't have a right that says "we have the right to keep people safe." They might have the job to keep people safe, but they don't have "the right" to. Secondly, you claim the government has that right to but don't tell me how, why, or where it states such. Saying "it's been doing so for 245 years" is not telling me that they have the right to, it's telling me that they have been doing so.
So when the constitution says "you can do X" and a law says "you can't do X" where does it explicitly state which supercedes the other, and what makes that legitimate?
(Response continued in the following comment)
Right now a lawmaker could assert that "laws do not apply to me," simply saying it or writing it down does not give it legitimacy. Regarding your remark about how the government has historically disregarded the constitution, I've ran many stop signs, as have many lawmakers. That doesn't mean it is legitimate for lawmakers or most other government officials to disregard stop signs.
Regarding your "they said they have to protect us, thus, they have to do that even if that means infringing on people's constitutional rights" comment (paraphrased), according to what? And again, what makes it legitimate?
As for your remark about Area 51, I'd argue that's an issue with the wording of our constitution (of which I believe is in dire need of being significantly updated and modernized). The answer of which isn't "let's just disregard the constitution when we want," instead, it should be "we need to reword the constitution so that it better applies to our modern times."
Not to mention, what president are we setting here? What percentage of tyrannical governments believed "we can break our laws, rules, etc, when we want to"?
And do you truly have any rights when the government can simply ignore them when they want to?
" no where does it state that it can infringe on people's constitutional rights."
It says so in Marbury v. Madison, the unanimously decided US Supreme Court case that dictates that the US Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is Constituional and what is not. It also agrees with you in a sense - that Congress cannot pass laws that are unconstitutional... but it's up to the court system to decide what is constitutional or not with the ultimate decision belonging to the US Supreme Court.
Per the commentary about the case in Justia:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U. S. 137 (1803)
"The Supreme Court uses its own understanding of the Constitution in reviewing the legitimacy of acts by other branches of the government, even though this power is not apparent from the plain text of the document. This case established the legitimacy of judicial review as well as the primacy of the Constitution over any other source of law. Many legal scholars of both [Chief Justice John] Marshall's period and the contemporary era found the opinion's logic strained, basing a sweeping conclusion on relatively little textual support. Still, the concept of judicial review has long been accepted without challenge."
========
So, again, the bottom line is that governments may attempt to pass laws that are unconstitutional, but, in the event a law is challenged, it is up to the judicial branch to determine the actual constitutionality of that law.
(more)
Just as a for-instance, Missouri recently passed the "Second Amendment Preservation Act" which goes into enforcement in 2 days (28 AUG 2021).
Here's where the meat of the law is:
"This act declares as invalid all federal laws (*) that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. Some laws declared invalid under this act include certain taxes, certain registration and tracking laws, certain prohibitions on the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a specific type of firearm, and confiscation orders as provided in the act."
(*) That statement makes the law blatantly unconstitutional because that statement is a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution. The law will be challenged in court. This is the Supremacy Clause:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So, what's happening is that the Missouri legislature and Governor have decided that they get to decide what's Constitutional or not and, worse, are saying their law is above the laws of the Federal Goverment.
It will get shot down. If the GOP in Missouri wanted to do things the right way, they'd challenge in Federal District Court any laws that they feel are unconstitutional. But they didn't. Why? Political theater to garner votes.
Anyway, my point in all of this is that the Judicial Branch determines what is constitutional or not and it weighs each situation balancing the rights of the parties involved.
I forgot to include a link to the Missouri law...
www.senate.mo.gov/.../bill.aspx
I want to make sure we're on the same page and that we understand each other, so in your quote of me saying "no where does it state that it can infringe on people's constitutional rights," I was referring to your quote and how it doesn't state that, not whatever your quote was regarding. The full context of what I said would be "your quote does indeed indicate that one of the jobs of government is to keep people safe (to an extent), but no where does it state that it can infringe on people's constitutional rights." But I do appreciate you elaborating on your initial statement.
And to be explicitly clear, I am not indicating your response was invalid by any means. They are relevant and they do address portions of my response. But it seems like you're showing me that the Supreme Court asserts they can interpret the constitution. And needless to say, while there's room for exploitation or flaw, it does not indicate they can disregard the constitution. Their job is to interpret it. For example, if someone is to interpret the a foreign language, their job isn't to disregard what the foreigner said and make up whatever they want, their job is to interpret what the foreigner DID say. Similarly, if the Supreme Court has the power to interpret, but are disregarding it, it's still wrong and not their place to do so.
It doesn't mean anything because the American people have demonstrated that they are unwilling to enforce it upon the demented sickos in our society.
No law means anything if the enforcers pretend it isn't there.
The constitution is not law because there is no means of enforcement nor any penalty for violating it. A law against bank robbery with no penalty nor means of enforcement is no law at all because it would not at all deter bank robberies.
No, it becomes a piece of paper that used to mean something.
Depressingly, it doesn't mean much. We need to get back to Constitutional principles. It's the only way to save this country.
It is outdated. There is a lot in the constitution which should be updated. Having a constitution which can't be revised with common sense is just as dangerous as having a book like the bible or the Koran
I'm fully in agreement. I'm not saying it should be amended or updated, I'm saying it certainly should not ever be disregarded. The constitution is a literal piece of paper, not some hulking war machine that can force its rules onto others. The constitution protects us only as long as we enforce and protect it.
shouldn't* not "should"
It does. We have to be reminded what must be done to restore it.
I think we should adhere to it. But our government has basically used it as toilet paper for close to 150 years now.
With whiny boomer giant babies - nothing written means anything at all.
You can smack them or scare them - or get smacked or frightened by them
You don't really love the U. S. Constitution, you'd cheat on it with some Eastern European or Asian legal code if you were drunk
Only a oppositional enemy would consider this as an option.
Government is always on some shady shit
Nope; it really doesn't mean shit.
Yes of course it does
Thats the Democratic for sure
Amendments
what precedents?
Nope
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
