The U.S Constitution.

[SirYeen]

Hi,
My name is Ian, and it's been a while since I've been on this forum. Been a busy period and it still is. In matter of fact this is kindof my way of procrastinating at the moment. Anyway, I came here to ask a question.

I haven't read the U.S constitution but I probably should and will but I would ask you people (especially the american ones). What is so special about it. I mean your politician's constantly refer to the U.S constitution as a piece of imbreachable dogma. It's not just about reserving the rights of citizens, it's about defending the constitution. I hope you get where I'm coming from. Now like I said I'm not trying to criticize the U.S constitution. I haven't had time to read it yet. However I am fascinated by it. Why are you peeps so zealous about it. What factor's play a role in this state of mind ?

Thank you

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Hi,
My name is Ian, and it's been a while since I've been on this forum. Been a busy period and it still is. In matter of fact this is kindof my way of procrastinating at the moment. Anyway, I came here to ask a question.

I haven't read the U.S constitution but I probably should and will but I would ask you people (especially the american ones). What is so special about it. I mean your politician's constantly refer to the U.S constitution as a piece of imbreachable dogma. It's not just about reserving the rights of citizens, it's about defending the constitution. I hope you get where I'm coming from. Now like I said I'm not trying to criticize the U.S constitution. I haven't had time to read it yet. However I am fascinated by it. Why are you peeps so zealous about it. What factor's play a role in this state of mind ?

Thank you

Well, it is the entire basis of the US Government, Additionally, not to put too fine a point on it, it is the basis of Americanism along with the Declaration of Independence.

We Americans have race myth, no millennial traditions and history, no monarchy, nothing we can really point to and say "this is what it means to be American" other than these documents.

They're also, if I do say so myself, damned fine principals to operate under (I'm including the Bill of Rights in this.) Not as perfect as some Americans would like to suggest, but for being 200 years old and the first ever such attempt at wholesale government construction and codification, surprisingly well done and relevant.

 

[bluejatheist]

Hi,
My name is Ian, and it's been a while since I've been on this forum. Been a busy period and it still is. In matter of fact this is kindof my way of procrastinating at the moment. Anyway, I came here to ask a question.

I haven't read the U.S constitution but I probably should and will but I would ask you people (especially the american ones). What is so special about it. I mean your politician's constantly refer to the U.S constitution as a piece of imbreachable dogma. It's not just about reserving the rights of citizens, it's about defending the constitution. I hope you get where I'm coming from. Now like I said I'm not trying to criticize the U.S constitution. I haven't had time to read it yet. However I am fascinated by it. Why are you peeps so zealous about it. What factor's play a role in this state of mind ?

Thank you

The structure of the United States government is defined by the Constitution. It says exactly what the branches of government can and cannot do. It defines the rights of citizens. It's the "supreme law." Changing it through amendments is a big deal, as it can make such major changes for the country as allowing women to vote, outlawing slavery, ending segregation, etc. Groups that want major changes made to U.S. law will generally try to do so through amending the constitution.

Perhaps it's easier just to answer you question by question, if you still care to ask any by now.

 

[tuxbox]

What is so special about it. I mean your politician's constantly refer to the U.S constitution as a piece of imbreachable dogma.

*emphasis mine*

They do but the over whelming majority of our politicians ignore the Constitution and only bring it up when it suites their agenda. They will bitch about the health care law being unconstitutional (which it is) in one breath and then vote for the National Defense Authorization Act (which is very unconstitutional) with the next. They are all pretty much hypocritical bastards.

 

[KittenKoder]

I hate to use a rather annoying dogmatic sounding suggestion, but you have admitted to it first, please read it.

Other posts do a very good job of explaining why the documents are so important to us. But when you read it, even without the amendments, it's pretty solid and all inclusive considering how short it is. Amendments are suppose to be more like fine tuning it (won't get into a debate on why I don't approve of a lot of them now), but without them it pretty much says the same thing. The only real problem is the mentality of "interpretation," the only real remnant of christianity in our government.

 

[GeologyJack]

The resolve of my fellow American's defense of these documents is quite admirable, but to emphasize that the documents should be the eternal guiding doctrine of the United States is a little like saying that those of the Christian faith should eternally follow every word and utterance of the old testament.

The Constitution is pretty darn good, but it is not without flaw. The first eight sections of the First Article are pretty darn strong, establishing how the order of the Congress should be. They are fairly simple, and in that regard, eloquent and powerful. The ninth introduces some elements that may be up for question, some parts of this section are archaic, but I guess they have historical value.

Other Articles start bringing in controversy. I personally do not agree with the concept of the electoral college, maybe I am still a bit butthurt after the 2000 elections, or the 2004 elections, I still do not think that the electoral college, nor the idea of delegates at conventions are entirely fair on us as citizens. The second article also concerns the powers of the president and the commander in chief of the armed forces, as well as other powers, there are people out there that I know this does not sit well with...

Having been involved in governmental bodies, having a basis for the proceedings and how issues are dealt with is extremely important, but to say that any particular constitution is ideal and infalible displays an extreme lack of skepticism and an over-zealous faith. The Constitution starts out wiht "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." Through wording there is an emphasis on the phrase "more perfect," this emphasis to point that we can always embrace change, even in our fundamental values to achieve levels that are even closer to perfection, but it admits that it is not perfect yet, not by a long shot.

 

[National Acrobat]

Hi,
My name is Ian, and it's been a while since I've been on this forum. Been a busy period and it still is. In matter of fact this is kindof my way of procrastinating at the moment. Anyway, I came here to ask a question.

I haven't read the U.S constitution but I probably should and will but I would ask you people (especially the american ones). What is so special about it. I mean your politician's constantly refer to the U.S constitution as a piece of imbreachable dogma. It's not just about reserving the rights of citizens, it's about defending the constitution. I hope you get where I'm coming from. Now like I said I'm not trying to criticize the U.S constitution. I haven't had time to read it yet. However I am fascinated by it. Why are you peeps so zealous about it. What factor's play a role in this state of mind ?

Thank you

It's just a relic. The majority of our governing officials are no longer expected to actually abide by it. I challenge anyone to give evidence of the contrary. I think most of the "peeps" who were so zealous about it maybe 5 years ago were the ones who advocated for a more effective border patrol around our southern states and for our immigration policies to be more inforced in general. However since there are no longer any jobs in America, not even for the illegal immigrants, zealousness for the constitution or whether or not the next presidential candidates pretend to hold it in high regard will have little to do with whoever is voted to be our next president.

Our government is entirely made up of people who wish to "lord it over their neighbor" and whoever says the best bullshit wins. One candidate says some kind of bullshit like "Im going to bring jobs back to America!" and some people go gaga. Another candidate says "Im going to lower the cost of fuel!" and hopes more people start wacking off.

The only real difference between US and European politics is in the US our candidates try to pretend that they are not idiots and in Europe they seem almost proud to be idiots.

The "greatness" of America has nothing to do with the constitution. Its has to do with the people.

 

[bluejatheist]

Hi,
My name is Ian, and it's been a while since I've been on this forum. Been a busy period and it still is. In matter of fact this is kindof my way of procrastinating at the moment. Anyway, I came here to ask a question.

I haven't read the U.S constitution but I probably should and will but I would ask you people (especially the american ones). What is so special about it. I mean your politician's constantly refer to the U.S constitution as a piece of imbreachable dogma. It's not just about reserving the rights of citizens, it's about defending the constitution. I hope you get where I'm coming from. Now like I said I'm not trying to criticize the U.S constitution. I haven't had time to read it yet. However I am fascinated by it. Why are you peeps so zealous about it. What factor's play a role in this state of mind ?

Thank you

It's just a relic. The majority of our governing officials are no longer expected to actually abide by it. I challenge anyone to give evidence of the contrary.

Your assertion, your burden of proof. Have a nice day!

 

[National Acrobat]

Higher governing authorities are almost never held accountable when they order other branches of government to behave unconstitutionally.

Has any official, in the past 100 years, ever been arrested for violating the constitution?

 

[bluejatheist]

Higher governing authorities are almost never held accountable when they order other branches of government to behave unconstitutionally.

Has any official, in the past 100 years, ever been arrested for violating the constitution?

Arrested?

I don't think you even understand how the Constitution works.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States

 

[National Acrobat]

Arrested?

I don't think you even understand how the Constitution works.

:lol:

 

[bluejatheist]

Being able to laugh at one's own shortcomings is healthy

 

[National Acrobat]

Impeachment, so what? The worst that happens is that they lose a job that they obviously were never qualified for in the first place.

Do you have any real point to make? Your first link led me to the following statement made by a certain former U.S District Judge and current member of the U.S House of Assclowns.

"There ain't no rules around here, we're trying to accomplish something." And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make them up as we go along."

Wtf? Is this supposed to be some kind of joke?


I would like to ask BlueJay if he could remind me again, please, what was it I was supposed to prove. Talk slowly...please...we're a little confused.

 

[atheisthistorian]

Has any official, in the past 100 years, ever been arrested for violating the constitution?

No, because the Constitution doesn't deal in criminal law. You can be incarcerated for violating the Constitution, you can be recalled, or censured, or impeached, but that's that doesn't fall under the purview of criminal punishment. Laws or actions that violate the Constitution come under judicial review by the Supreme Court, which can take action to fix the violation. The action they take depends on the court. Some decisions are sweeping (Brown v. Board of Education) others are much more limited (U.S. v. Lopez). There is no reason to expect that violators of the Constitution would go to jail. Do you arrest Congress for overstepping the Commerce Clause? On what charge? Does the President get arrested for making a sweeping pardon (ala Jimmy Carter)? Should we arrest Presidents for appointing tzars, or asserting executive privilege? None of these things are in the Constitution, but are nevertheless done all the time. The Constitution only describes one crime, treason, and only to make prosecuting someone for treason extremely difficult to prove.

The founders set up the system of impeachment specifically so that politicians could not use the threat of arrest against other branches of government as a weapon. Imagine if the Justice Department, a branch of the Executive could arrest Congress every time they perceived them overstepping their authority. You'd have a dictatorship in no time.
Now if a "high crime or misdemeanor" is committed, an official can be impeached and then arrested. There have been many, many cases of politicians behaving badly and ending up in jail for it. Look at Spiro Agnew for instance, or Jim Traficant, or Duke Cunningham.

Your argument is a non sequitur. Just because nobody has been arrested for violating the Constitution does not make it any less important to the functioning of government. It's cited in case law every day, it's the organizing document for all three federal branches of government, it gives sovereignty to the legislatures to make their own rules. Just because it is doesn't encapsulate criminal or civil law, does not make it worthless.

 

[tuxbox]

No, because the Constitution doesn't deal in criminal law. You can be incarcerated for violating the Constitution, you can be recalled, or censured, or impeached, but that's that doesn't fall under the purview of criminal punishment. Laws or actions that violate the Constitution come under judicial review by the Supreme Court, which can take action to fix the violation. The action they take depends on the court. Some decisions are sweeping (Brown v. Board of Education) others are much more limited (U.S. v. Lopez). There is no reason to expect that violators of the Constitution would go to jail. Do you arrest Congress for overstepping the Commerce Clause? On what charge? Does the President get arrested for making a sweeping pardon (ala Jimmy Carter)? Should we arrest Presidents for appointing tzars, or asserting executive privilege? None of these things are in the Constitution, but are nevertheless done all the time. The Constitution only describes one crime, treason, and only to make prosecuting someone for treason extremely difficult to prove.

The founders set up the system of impeachment specifically so that politicians could not use the threat of arrest against other branches of government as a weapon. Imagine if the Justice Department, a branch of the Executive could arrest Congress every time they perceived them overstepping their authority. You'd have a dictatorship in no time.
Now if a "high crime or misdemeanor" is committed, an official can be impeached and then arrested. There have been many, many cases of politicians behaving badly and ending up in jail for it. Look at Spiro Agnew for instance, or Jim Traficant, or Duke Cunningham.

Your argument is a non sequitur. Just because nobody has been arrested for violating the Constitution does not make it any less important to the functioning of government. It's cited in case law every day, it's the organizing document for all three federal branches of government, it gives sovereignty to the legislatures to make their own rules. Just because it is doesn't encapsulate criminal or civil law, does not make it worthless.

Well said!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The only "Law" with a punishment outlined in the Constitution is Treason - which requires a conviction by Congress and the penalty of death.

Find me another law/punishment outlined in the Constitution, and I'll eat my shoe.

 

[atheisthistorian]

I haven't read the U.S constitution but I probably should and will but I would ask you people (especially the american ones). What is so special about it. I mean your politician's constantly refer to the U.S constitution as a piece of imbreachable dogma. It's not just about reserving the rights of citizens, it's about defending the constitution. I hope you get where I'm coming from. Now like I said I'm not trying to criticize the U.S constitution. I haven't had time to read it yet. However I am fascinated by it. Why are you peeps so zealous about it. What factor's play a role in this state of mind ?

The Constitution does two basic things. First, it broadly lays out the structure and function of the federal government (each state has their own constitutions for state governments). It tells us, for instance that we have two houses in Congress, what each house's basic function is, how old you have to be to be elected, how long you serve, etc. It also explains the relationship of the federal government to the states and the states to each other. More importantly however, the Constitution spells out the limits of government power, while at the same time, being vague about the powers it does have. An example of this is the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." On the one hand that language is fairly firm. It's designed to strictly limit the government's ability to throw people in jail for political opinion. On the other, leaves the question of what speech is and what it entails open. In subsequent Supreme Court cases we have determined that speech includes symbols, tee-shirts, certain acts (like flag burning), and donating to political campaigns. We've also had challenges to the idea. For instance, does the first amendment include attacking the government in time of war (we've had numerous sedition acts passed over our history that have all eventually been struck down), does it involve inciting panic, or fighting words, or libelous and slanderous language (no, no and no)? The framers did not want to provide a comprehensive list of what constituted speech because a. that would make the Constitution exceedingly long, and b. it would render it an obsolete document as soon as we found a form of speech they hadn't thought of.

This has led us to two competing interpretations of the Constitution. On the one hand you have the so-called Strict Constructionists (though I can't think of a single person who is actually a strict constructionist in every sense). These people argue that the government should be limited to the expressed powers in the Constitution, i.e. what it actually says the government can do. The other side is the living, breathing document folks, who argue that the Constitution implies numerous government powers (such as sending grants to local school districts) without actually stating them. Both sides zealously quote lines from the Constitution at each other in order to prove the other side wrong. In many ways, the Constitution is like the Bible for modern politicians (save for the fact that it's better written, and more relevant). It's an interpretive document, so the different factions of the American government try to stretch the text to make it say whatever fits their political agenda. Luckily, the Constitution will only stretch so far, after that we enter violations territory and the Supreme Court gets invoked to sort the thing out. Sometimes the Court gets it right (Brown v. Board), sometimes they make stupid mistakes (Citizens United) but at least it provides an interpretation that the government has to follow. Worst case scenario, we can amend the Constitution, through a long process, to fix what the Court says, or add additional rights as we interpret them (see for instance Amendments 13, 14, 15, and 19).

As for the notion of defending the Constitution, that comes from the Constitution itself. It lays out the oath of office, which demands that officials uphold the law of the land and the Constitution. It's a safeguard designed to prevent government officials from disregarding the document and starting their own little tyrannies.

 

[National Acrobat]

Has any official, in the past 100 years, ever been arrested for violating the constitution?

No, because the Constitution doesn't deal in criminal law. You can be incarcerated for violating the Constitution, you can be recalled, or censured, or impeached, but that's that doesn't fall under the purview of criminal punishment. Laws or actions that violate the Constitution come under judicial review by the Supreme Court, which can take action to fix the violation. The action they take depends on the court. Some decisions are sweeping (Brown v. Board of Education) others are much more limited (U.S. v. Lopez). There is no reason to expect that violators of the Constitution would go to jail. Do you arrest Congress for overstepping the Commerce Clause? On what charge? Does the President get arrested for making a sweeping pardon (ala Jimmy Carter)? Should we arrest Presidents for appointing tzars, or asserting executive privilege? None of these things are in the Constitution, but are nevertheless done all the time. The Constitution only describes one crime, treason, and only to make prosecuting someone for treason extremely difficult to prove.

Where is the "yawn" smiley?

The founders set up the system of impeachment specifically so that politicians could not use the threat of arrest against other branches of government as a weapon. Imagine if the Justice Department, a branch of the Executive could arrest Congress every time they perceived them overstepping their authority. You'd have a dictatorship in no time.

Right! That's a great point! But if the Justice Department and Congress were both held to the same level of accountabilty then this wouldn't happen. As of now members of either branch can never really expect to be held accountable for anything.

Now if a "high crime or misdemeanor" is committed, an official can be impeached and then arrested.

So what? Anybody can be arrested for high crimes or misdemeanors. That is as it should be.

Your argument is a non sequitur.

No, your wrong.I assert that the constitution, whether in its current or original form, is not a document which we can actually expect our governing officials to abide by and then I point to the fact that there are no real serious consequences even for officials who even boast about willfully violating it.

 

[atheisthistorian]

Where is the "yawn" smiley?

No idea what you're talking about

Right! That's a great point! But if the Justice Department and Congress were both held to the same level of accountabilty then this wouldn't happen. As of now members of either branch can never really expect to be held accountable for anything.

They are held to the same level of accountability. Members of the Justice Department and the Congress are both subject to penalties under the criminal and civil laws of the country. Both can be held accountable for ethics violations. Neither of those are part of the Constitution, which serves only to organize the government and limit the government's power. As I've already said, disputes over Constitutional power are handled by the Courts, who can nullify laws if they violate the limitations the Constitution sets out. This has happened multiple times in our country. Look up U.S. v. Nixon for instance or Boumediene v. Bush, in which Presidents over-stepping their authority have been slapped back by the Courts and made to comply with demands of Congress or the Judiciary.

So what? Anybody can be arrested for high crimes or misdemeanors. That is as it should be.

I'm not sure you understand what impeachment is. Yes everybody is held accountable, but Supreme Court Justices and the President cannot be arrested or convicted of them except through a specific process. This is, as I said before, designed to prevent using the threat of arrest as a means of dominating other branches of government.

No, your wrong.I assert that the constitution, whether in its current or original form, is not a document which we can actually expect our governing officials to abide by and then I point to the fact that there are no real serious consequences even for officials who even boast about willfully violating it.

Considering that our government is sill organized along Constitutional lines I really don't understand how you can say that. The President does not make legislation, the Congress does not get to enforce it. The House still initiates taxation law, the Senate still confirms judicial nominees. While different factions and parties have different opinions of extent of power that the Constitution gives to government, the Constitution is still the basis by which we run our government. The consequence of not following the Constitution is the breakdown of the American system of government, that not good enough for you? I really suggest you read up on how judicial review works, and how Constitutional disputes are handled in this country, rather than simply spout blanket assertions. Perhaps then you could provide some specific examples of Constitutional violations to discuss.

 

[National Acrobat]

Where is the "yawn" smiley?

No idea what you're talking about

Right! That's a great point! But if the Justice Department and Congress were both held to the same level of accountabilty then this wouldn't happen. As of now members of either branch can never really expect to be held accountable for anything.

They are held to the same level of accountability. Members of the Justice Department and the Congress are both subject to penalties under the criminal and civil laws of the country. Both can be held accountable for ethics violations. Neither of those are part of the Constitution, which serves only to organize the government and limit the government's power. As I've already said, disputes over Constitutional power are handled by the Courts, who can nullify laws if they violate the limitations the Constitution sets out. This has happened multiple times in our country. Look up U.S. v. Nixon for instance or Boumediene v. Bush, in which Presidents over-stepping their authority have been slapped back by the Courts and made to comply with demands of Congress or the Judiciary.

So what? Anybody can be arrested for high crimes or misdemeanors. That is as it should be.

I'm not sure you understand what impeachment is. Yes everybody is held accountable, but Supreme Court Justices and the President cannot be arrested or convicted of them except through a specific process. This is, as I said before, designed to prevent using the threat of arrest as a means of dominating other branches of government.

No, your wrong.I assert that the constitution, whether in its current or original form, is not a document which we can actually expect our governing officials to abide by and then I point to the fact that there are no real serious consequences even for officials who even boast about willfully violating it.

Considering that our government is sill organized along Constitutional lines I really don't understand how you can say that. The President does not make legislation, the Congress does not get to enforce it. The House still initiates taxation law, the Senate still confirms judicial nominees. While different factions and parties have different opinions of extent of power that the Constitution gives to government, the Constitution is still the basis by which we run our government. The consequence of not following the Constitution is the breakdown of the American system of government, that not good enough for you? I really suggest you read up on how judicial review works, and how Constitutional disputes are handled in this country, rather than simply spout blanket assertions. Perhaps then you could provide some specific examples of Constitutional violations to discuss.

Yeah I kinda let my emotions get me carried away. I see now that I'm kinda making the wrong argument. Thank you to all who tried to point that out to me. I'll do a little bit more studying and rethinking before I decide to add anything else to this thread.