The Constitution of the United States

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 13 2006, 12:00 AM) [snapback]254590[/snapback]</div>

Thank you.

I think you've answered a question posed on another thread I.E. "What rights have you lost?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 11 2006, 03:56 PM) [snapback]253679[/snapback]</div>

You kind of have to look at that in a different context. Many constitutional scholars tend to think that the second amendment did not necessarily mean that any Joe Sixpack could own a machine gun, rather that the individual states in the Union have a right to keep a militia in order to protect themselves from the federal government. Remember that the constitution was written by people that wanted a very limited federal government, with most powers being reserved by the state (and by state, I mean Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, etc.). The 'people' in this case, are the states, and not the individuals like Joe Sixpack. The militia, in this case, is each state's individual national guard, which is under the direct control of their respective governor. One could make a point that by putting national guard troops in Iraq, Bush is actually violating the second amendment by effectively denying the states the ability to keep and bear arms. That's probably a stretch (even for a liberal democrat!), but becomes interesting to think about!

As stated above, I submit to you that the second amendment actually guarantees an individual state's right to form and maintain a state national guard under the control of the state governor/government. I further submit that the second amendment has nothing to do with rights of a specific citizen to own weapons.

Does this mean that people shouldn't be able to own guns? Hey, I grew up in Michigan... deer hunting is practically a religion. I'm a strong believer that people should be able to own guns for sporting purposes. Frankly, though, there really doesn't seem to be a constitutional right that individuals can create their own private armies within the states, and therefore no inherent right that citizens can own weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing other people. Does that mean that it should be illegal to own handguns, machine guns, and other weapons which are designed for use on people? Not necessarily... it just means that the constitution doesn't really grant you that right.

Personally, I believe each state legislature should be allowed to tackle this issue in whatever manner they choose, without interference either way by the federal government. If it makes sense for the safety of the citizens of a particular state to ban guns, then the state should be able to do that, provided that their legislators (elected by the people) make the decision. I'd probably extend that all the way to cities and towns, too, as allowed by the states. If Los Angeles wanted to make it a felony to have a handgun, they should have that ability.

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 13 2006, 03:44 PM) [snapback]254820[/snapback]</div>

You actually raise a valid point, and one that has been considered in some states. Namely, that the Bush administration violated the rights of individual states to maintain control of their own militias by sending the National Guard to Iraq. I have heard that some state legislatures (I forget which states) were considering bringing suit against the federal government. I don't know that any of these suits were actually brought forward, and I doubt that any would be given favorable consideration in a federal court. But I do believe that our state national guard forces belong at home to protect the homeland and to serve in the event of disasters (e.g., Katrina); not in Iraq.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 13 2006, 04:12 PM) [snapback]254832[/snapback]</div>

During Katrina, I believe Bush asked the Governor of Louisana to transfer direct control of that state's national guard to him (or to the authority of the U.S. military). The governor considered it, but declined. I can't remember exactly where I heard this report, but know I heard it somewhere... if anyone has a reference, please post it. The governor essentially declined because it would have essentially federalized the Louisiana National Guard. This is a difficult position for a governor to be put in, because one can't give up control of your states troops, one can only 'loan' them out.

Interestingly enough, legal control of national guard troops will probably be in the news sometime in the next couple of days anyway. Bush is considering sending national guard troops to protect the borders from illegal immigrants. California Governor Swartzenegger criticized Bush because Bush wants to send the guard there, but doesn't want to control or pay for it. Legally, Bush can't control the national guard in this manner, because doing so would mean that a federally control police force was operating within the U.S. borders, which is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This essentially prevents the federal military from acting domestically in a police capacity. The National Guard can, though, as long as they are under the direct control of the state governor... not the federal government. So, Bush could never call out federal troops to enforce the border (by arresting illegals after they've crossed the border... there is a distinction) without an act of Congress or a specific constitutional amendment authorizing it.

WikiPedia - Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

Oh, worth noting that the act does not prevent the individual states from using their respective national guards as a police force... that is completely legal and happens pretty often.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 12 2006, 11:47 PM) [snapback]254558[/snapback]</div>

I'd like to see Democrats push to have it posted in public schools and government buildings as much as Republicans push the posting of the Ten Commandments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Subversive @ May 13 2006, 06:43 PM) [snapback]254925[/snapback]</div>

At my last school we had a very nice set of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence laminated on plaques posted in the hall to the library.

I am the librarian at another school now. I'm working on the library environment. I have posted photos of all our our government representatives from Fed, State, City and school level with contact information available. I'd love to have a beautiful set of plaques for our library, but they were vintage gifts from the Kiwanis or Rotary or something and I don't know who I would hit up for a donation. We have NO MONEY to buy anything like that. I don't even have money to buy new books for the library. I had to do FUND RAISING to earn free books.

Thank you Mr. Bush and Mr. Schwarzenegger.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 13 2006, 11:32 PM) [snapback]255026[/snapback]</div>

After Congress passed the Patriot Act, I led efforts (unfortunately, not successful) in my town an my state to attempt to get them to pass resolutions in defense of civil liberties. I gave talks on the subject and came to know librarians as the people who were leading the fight to preserve the Constitution and our rights to free expression. Librarians are heroes in my book (no pun intended)!

And there is indeed something wrong with this country when Congress will authorize millions of dollars to build bridges to nowhere, but libraries can't afford to buy books.

 

"I'm the deciderer" ergo f@#k you!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 13 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]254820[/snapback]</div>

I think you're incorrect, at least in the image you've given of "many constitutional scholars" thinking that the 2nd Amendment devolves rights to the state governments only. The supreme court has never thought that (although some of the looney left circuit courts have sent decisions their way that say that).

The phrase "the people" does not mean "the states". Otherwise, the 10th Amendment is redundent:

Joe Sixpack is indeed guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, with over 200 years of history supporting that, including supreme court decisions. You may want to change that, but at least try to do it the prescribed way, with a constititional amendment. Doing it by redefining the terms is scandelous, and a path to tyranny.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ May 12 2006, 09:48 PM) [snapback]254523[/snapback]</div>

So, where have you seen this guy? Has it been in the "news" that the public is exposed to on a daily basis. Has it been on the late night talk shows where the liberal writers use comedy as a tool to create distortion of our government? Is it in newspaper articles written by other liberals that use sensationalism to sell their newspapers. When you receive the information from these sources do you do so with a predetermined belief that because he may have different opinions and beliefs than your own that he is stupid? Remember, he made better grades at Yale than Gore made at Harvard. He has to have something on the ball. Also, remember you are looking at him through the eyes of thousands of biased media employees. If you knew him, you would respect him. Well, actually, since he is the President of the United States of America and is the leader of the free world, you should respect him in any event. I didn't like his predecessor, but I respected the fact that he was our President and would never do anything to denegrate him, or his administration because we should all be on the same team regardless of who our captain is. This political crap that we all have to endure where everybody that wants a Democrat to be President (presumably Hilary) has something bad to say about the President, his administration, and every person that is not a Democrat should just go in one ear and out the other. You are obviously an intelligent person because you are in the chat room of people that are making decisions about their transportation that can actually change the future, but please have respect for our elected officials. You can vote however you want to, but it serves no purpose to demean our government other than to make you feel better. Each time the elections are over, we should all be on the same side until the campaigns heat up again and even then we should just go vote our mind and live with the results. The majority can't rule if the majority don't vote. Thanks for taking the time to read this. I didn't mean for it to be so long. Don't be ruled by the media. They control too much already. Your opinion is valuable, and respected, I just question how you came about it. It is easy to be swayed by others.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Texas Prius 06 @ May 16 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]256286[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Texas Prius 06 @ May 16 2006, 12:03 PM) [snapback]256286[/snapback]</div>

First of all, Texas Prius- welcome to PriusChat!
It's too bad that your first post is in defense of President Bush, but I understand; you're from Texas (just a joke :lol: )
But in all seriousness, some of us are outraged with this President because of the direction he has taken this country- and in my case, I would say it's because of how he has flouted the Constitution- a document that I happen to hold in pretty high regard.
And, although they might like to throw around the term "liberal media bias" on Fox, I don't see how anyone could accuse the mainstream media of having a liberal bias (for instance, go back and read Judith Miller's articles in the NY Times prior to the Iraq war.) If anything, the media is biased toward anything that will make them money.
But as I said, welcome- and don't worry, you will find people of all political persuasions here!

 

Our liberal, socialist, society has completely forgotten what the Constitution allows and denies. The Constitution is a command of limited and restricted, representative government. The Bill of Rights are really not amendments to the Constitution since that document petains only to what government is permitted to do. The Bill of Rights are a series of Proclamations that command government to not 'infringe upon the Rights' of the citizens; and no one else!

Woo Hoo more cut and paste: As I lack ideas...

Liberals Fear The Constitution As Written
Joe Bell

The American left has long been on a collision course with reality. The Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito are the most recent stage on which the drama has unfolded. In that public forum the Democrats demonstrated their fear of the Constitution, reaffirmed their insignificance and continued to expose liberalism as a fraud.

That Alito is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court is beyond doubt. His record and answers to the hundreds of questions that were hurled his way verify his ability. Consequently, it is not Alito’s credentials that are in question but the competency and credibility of the left. Those who have watched the hearings saw Alito articulately explain the role of a judge and remain composed while Democrats pummeled him with condescending remarks. At one point Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., tried to trap Alito into revealing how he would rule on a future, hypothetical abortion case. Schumer asked, “Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?â€

Alito responded, “Certainly it does. That’s in the First Amendment.â€

Then Schumer launched his ambush by asking, “So why can’t you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way…?â€

Alito calmly said, “Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can’t be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.â€

The issue of free speech is clearly addressed in the Constitution. The word abortion appears nowhere in the document. That is one reason why Democrats fear both the Constitution and judges who issue rulings based upon the law and not upon unbalanced interpretations of the law.

Senator Richard Durbin, D-Ill., tried to lure Alito into committing himself on the abortion issue. Following up on Schumer’s questioning, Durbin said, “…I listened carefully as Senator Schumer asked you yesterday about Roe v. Wade. And I couldn’t understand your answer.â€

(Why it is difficult for Durbin to comprehend that the word “abortion†is not in the Constitution is a mystery.)

Durbin expressed concern that a 1985 memo written by Alito indicated he did not believe the right to an abortion was constitutionally protected. Alito wrote the statement as part of an application for an assistant attorney general position in the Reagan Administration. He wrote he was proud of his contributions in cases where the government argued “that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.â€

Alito said, “The things I said in the 1985 memo were a true expression of my views at the time from my vantage point as an attorney in the Solicitor General’s office.â€

An attorney’s job is to argue a case for a client. If his client is trying to make the case that abortion is a constitutional right it is the attorney’s duty to make that case. If the client wishes to make the case that abortion is not a constitutional right, the attorney is bound to make that argument. A judge’s duty is to rule on what the law says, regardless of personal opinion.

Alito at one point explained, “When I became a judge I stopped being a practicing attorney. That was a big change in role. The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand. But a judge can’t think that way. A judge can’t have an agenda.â€

Senators do have agendas and the Democrats’ agenda includes ensuring that the badly formed law that permits abortion remains intact. They know their goal is only achievable if America’s courts are periodically fertilized with liberal judges who care more about ideology than law. Alito cares about the law, which makes him a threat to the left. A judge who honors the Constitution when ruling on the abortion issue will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justice Antonin Scalia (who will soon be a colleague of Judge Alito) sharply made that point in his dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000. Nebraska had passed a law banning partial birth abortion except in those cases where the procedure was “necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury…â€

Partial birth abortion is a procedure in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers a living unborn child before killing the child and then completes the delivery. The majority of the Court said the Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it abolished the procedure as an option, “thereby unduly burdening the right to choose abortion itself.â€

Scalia’s dissent turned to the Constitution to shred the majority’s unfounded opinion. He wrote, “The notion that the Constitution of the United States, designed, among other things, ‘to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, … and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,’ prohibits the states from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd.â€

The left engaged in outrageous semantic gyrations to invent and now preserve the imaginary right to an abortion. Fortunately the liberal’s lock on the judiciary is evaporating.

A news analysis that appeared January 10 in the Baltimore Sun illustrated, perhaps unintentionally, how the judiciary hearing process has become a farce. The article mused that Alito “refused to be pinned down, parrying the senators’ questions with bland statements of fact or basic civics lessons.â€

Judges deal with facts, bland though they may be. It is Alito’s obligation to help the senators understand his judicial philosophy – not spice up the hearings up by playing guessing games about cases that may come before the Supreme Court and then try to conjecture how the proceedings would progress.

Schumer at one point pondered, “We know very little more about Judge Alito now than we knew when the hearings began.â€

That is because the Democrats on the committee have been wasting time posturing and puffing themselves up for their liberal base. All the evidence required to know whether Alito is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court rests with the decisions he has rendered for the past 15 years as a judge on the Third Circuit. Within those writings are the threads that, when woven together, reveal his judicial philosophy. A judge worthy of the title reads the text of the law – a poor judge reads into the text. If a law is unclear the judge investigates to see if support for an asserted right exists in America’s legal or historical traditions. In the book, “Scalia Dissents,†Kevin Ring wrote, “Scalia has used the lack of textual and historical support to oppose recognition of, among others, the ‘right’ to abortion and the ‘right’ to die.â€

That is as it should be.

Democrats fear the Constitution because, when properly read, it does not provide for many of the extreme rights they have used to appease and activate their political base. They are afraid Judge Alito will interpret law; not fabricate rights. They are right. That is a judge’s duty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Texas Prius 06 @ May 16 2006, 12:03 PM) [snapback]256286[/snapback]</div>

Oh, Lord. The ol' "It's all the media's fault" discussion.

To answer your first question, I have gotten my opinion of him by watching him on television, yes, but not always through the goggles of others. I watch C-Span. I watch Fox. I watch CNN. I watch MSNBC. And, whenever he makes a speech, I watch him.

While I didn't vote for him, I was okay with him being Prez even though I never bought his "compassionate conservatism" line. What happened at the start of his presidency is that he surrounded himself with those much smarter than himself who could, in effect, run the country. I've got no beef with that, either. Even his predecessor had those kinds of folks around. And, immediately in the aftermath of 9/11, I was pleasantly surprised at his leadership and inspiration, and began to have high hopes for his administration.

My low opinion of him began around December of 2002, when discussions about a pending war in Iraq started being thrown about. I looked to him for a voice of reason; for him to say "Give me proof, not conjecture and speculation, before I spend billions to get Hussein out of office." He didn't. The media didn't have to tell me he didn't; his speeches and actions did, beginning with the State of the Union address in Jan., 2003.

And I thought that was a low point. It wasn't.
*Mission accomplished
*Patriot Act
*Rummy
*"I have I looked into his heart..."
*Valerie Plame
*No child left behind
*Constitutional amendment (you gotta be kidding me) outlawing gay marriage
*Harriet Myers
*Katrina

I could list at least 15 more things that he himself has enacted or said (with no filter, no opinion, no commentary) that flies in the face of "compassionate conservatism" or even "competent conservatism." He has done so much to polarize our country through his use of wedge issues...all under the guise of being a great "uniter." (His words, again.)

Don't get me wrong--I've had huge issues with the Republican party in the past few years as well, most of which were not directly connected to him. However, he is part and parcel of the entire Republican regime, so can be blamed for the incendiary debates that have occurred over stem cell research, abortion rights, gay rights, education, the budget (or, under this regime, "what budget?"), free trade, health care, welfare systems, national responses to natural disasters, etc.

And, btw, I don't want Hillary to be our next President. Bush has been enough of a divider, but she has a real knack for polarization. Don't get me wrong; she's smart and totally capable, but I don't think she could unite this terribly divided country...

I look at the competence of a President simply by this question: is the country better off (or at least on an even keel) as it was when he took office?
Carter: No
Reagan: Yes
Bush, Sr.: Maybe
Clinton: Yes
Bush: No

And, it is my right in a free speech society to denigrate as necessary. Even Dubya recognizes that, much to his obvious chagrin.

Welcome to PriusChat!

 

Here's a question that I've been wondering about recently. The Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War . . ."

Then, how is Bush allowed to justify things like holding prisoners without due process at Guantanamo or tapping phones without a warrant by saying, "We're at war." Since the Congress hasn't declared War on "Terror," doesn't that mean that it's not a "War on Terror" but just a "Military Action on Terror?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 16 2006, 03:06 PM) [snapback]256407[/snapback]</div>

Bush asked Congress for war-making powers to disarm Iraq in October of 2002. And they overwhelmingly gave those powers to him.

Without congressional support, it would have been a military action. With congressional support, it is a war. But you and I know that it is a war on Iraq itself (Hussen), not terror. If we were fighting a war on terror, I would think that bin Laden would've been located by now...

 

Coming in kinda late to the thread, I don't think it's worth the effort to read the Constitution anymore.

No matter what you see there, nine (or so) Supreme Count justices will tell you what it really means. Like magic, old decisions can be washed away...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ May 16 2006, 04:10 PM) [snapback]256463[/snapback]</div>

Really? Congress declared War on Iraq? Bush (as the Commander in Chief) can commit the military forces to action, but I thought that he just went to Congress to show that he had their "support." Can you point me toward the congressional act where they declared war?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 16 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]256528[/snapback]</div>

War hasn't been declared by Congress itself since 1941. Instead, they have granted the President "war-making powers," allowing him to use military force as he deems necessary.

So, is Congress handing over their ability and letting the Prez be the "de facto" Congress in these instances? Call it want you want...Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and now Iraq have all been a result of the same type of power-handing-off to the President. Or, in the case of Truman and Korea, just taking the power.

The very few dissenting voices in the Congress (Robert Byrd, who is truly a Constitutional scholar) said that it was giving the president unchecked powers.

So, I guess your original argument, that it is a military action on terror, is true. However, giving "war powers" has long been a standing practice of our Congress.

I blame both for the quagmire...

Sadly, it seems we've reached the point where the Constitution is no longer relevant on matters of a president's war-making powers. Presidents, the Congress and the courts have made going to war, once a serious constitutional issue, and a purely political question.

As a result, in the last half century, the war powers clause of the Constitution has become a nullity, if not a quaint relic. While conservatives often insist on following the letter of the Constitution on most issues, on matters of war they ignore it.

That's a disgrace, because the Framers of the Constitution carefully laid out the decision-making process for war. Pursuant to the document, war is a decision to be made exclusively by the representatives of the people -- the Congress. Only Congress is authorized to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make the rules for these armed forces. There is nothing vague or unclear about the language in Article I, ¤ 8, clauses 11-16. Taken from CNN, August 30, '02

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 16 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]256407[/snapback]</div>

Congress rushed to give the President authority, limited in term, after 9/11 in a bill overwhelmingly approved by the House and Senate called the "Patriot Act". Some of the Patriot Act has just been renewed, but not all of the provisions.

Both invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had specific, empowering laws passed by Congress prior to commencement. Invasions of Grenada and Panama during President Reagan's administration did not, if I remember correctly, but were done under the provisions of the War Powers Act, where the President can act first, and then report to Congress for continuing authority after a certain number of days (30? 45?).

I've forgotten the exact count of wars and how many had official declarations of war by congress, but if I remember correctly, over half had no official declaration. Instead, Congress passes a law that authorizes the President to act, describes the extent of the action he can take in pretty broad terms, and leaves it to the Executive to organize and initiate action, if required. Congress also holds the purse strings, so they can cut off funding for an action at any time.

The constitution does not require a parchment document to be drawn up declaring war; it gives Congress the authority to declare war, yet has the Executive as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress retains its power under the Constitution, but also authorizes the Executive to act on its behalf.