Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Who guards the Constitution?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle,WA, , USA
    Posts
    266

    Exclamation Who guards the Constitution?

    "Sadly, we seem to have forgotten that protecting constitutional rights the foundation of our democracy is the mission of our police. "

    -Sue Rahr is director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, overseeing the state-wide police academy. She is the former King County sheriff.

    Article: http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion...licexxxml.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Contrarian View Post
    In a republic that honors the core of democracy the greatest amount of power is given to those called Guardians. Only those with the most impeccable character are chosen to bear the responsibility of protecting the democracy. Plato
    See Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies which index lists 40 pages under Republic and 16 pages under guardians. Popper's thesis begins with a strong critique of the translation of Plato's Republic and continues to damn Platonism as the source of modern ills via Hegel and Marx and contemporary use of the dialectic.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Cops are not tasked to guard the constitution. Cops are tasked to catch bad guys. It would be nice if some cops did not disregard the constitution.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Cops are not tasked to guard the constitution. Cops are tasked to catch bad guys. It would be nice if some cops did not disregard the constitution.
    Exactly, it's not the police. military, or government. It is the citizens of the United States that enforces the constitution.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The constitution was a compact between the states. It is really up to the states. Nullification and secession are great tools. Yet the Feds have a history of violent unconstitutional reaction to those.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Seriona View Post
    Exactly, it's not the police. military, or government. It is the citizens of the United States that enforces the constitution.
    +1

    This is why we are the Militia and have a perfect right to 1) disobey any unconstitutional law and 2) defend ourselves against any resulting crime against us. I do not say anarchy by any means. I say and mean holding ourselves to the very same constitution we demand government at every level abide by.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    [ ... ] I say and mean holding ourselves to the very same constitution we demand government at every level abide by.
    Where in the Constitution as it was originally ratified are the people bound to anything?

    Constitutions in general are merely the tyrants edicts. The Constitution of the United States was unique in all of history for binding the tyrant government. Unfortunately we have loosed the bonds and opened Pandora's Box of horrors.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Where in the Constitution as it was originally ratified are the people bound to anything?

    Constitutions in general are merely the tyrants edicts. The Constitution of the United States was unique in all of history for binding the tyrant government. Unfortunately we have loosed the bonds and opened Pandora's Box of horrors.
    All able bodied men age 17 to 45 I believe are part of the unorganised Millitia. (10 U.S. Code 311) While not the Constitution itself there is the fact it was designed to limit government power and maximise the power of the people. Therefore if the power isnt in the government, it must be with the people.

    I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
    (George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment)

    And speaking of the Second Amendment, that gives another clue.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
    We the people are the militia and it is we the militia who are necessary to the security of a free state. Doubt it? What about the cop that scared a lady and her kids senseless recently or the youtube video of the MI cop who threatened an innocent mans life for bearing arms? I asked about the progress of that fairly recently. And what about all these illegal checkpoints? All these things prove what happens when We The People fail to do our job. In fact all these gun 'laws' are our fault. We failed to take a stand right at the beginning and the greedy government stole more and more freedom. Just look at California, New York, Illinois and Connecticut.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The constitution was a compact between the states. It is really up to the states. Nullification and secession are great tools. Yet the Feds have a history of violent unconstitutional reaction to those.
    Actually if you read it correctly, it is a compact that tells the government what it cannot do.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Seriona View Post
    Actually if you read it correctly, it is a compact that tells the government what it cannot do.
    A compact of shall and shall nots. A compact between the states. The states are the principles the fed is the agent.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Who guards the Constitution?

    I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seriona View Post
    Exactly, it's not the police. military, or government. It is the citizens of the United States that enforces the constitution.
    We Have a Winner!! Citizenship is a Verb. An Action word.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Who guards the Constitution?

    I do.


    We Have a Winner!! Citizenship is a Verb. An Action word.
    Therefore submission to anything other than what is lawful under the Constitution is willing subjugation. Kinda relates to the slavery thread, which got far too long for me to follow with the minimal time I have free.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  13. #13
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    A compact of shall and shall nots. A compact between the states. The states are the principles the fed is the agent.
    A compact that articulated the rights of the states and the government. Not a compact between the states.
    Mack The Knife sends.

    "Laech cach fer co bas" (Gaelic- "Everyman a warrior until death")
    "Bas no beatha" (McLean war cry- "Death or life")

  14. #14
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by MackTheKnife View Post
    A compact that articulated the rights of the states and the government. Not a compact between the states.
    A binding directive, by the states (and, therefore, by the people thereof), on the enumerated powers, ex nihilo (thus, the only powers), of the federal government.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MackTheKnife View Post
    A compact that articulated the rights of the states and the government. Not a compact between the states.
    No it had little to do with rights. It was a compact between the states to form a federal government with few and defined powers.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    No it had little to do with rights. It was a compact between the states to form a federal government with few and defined powers.
    Yes and no. While in the end, the states can trump federal government in rights, it also basically tells the government what it cannot do. As under traditional British law, everything that is not declared illegal is automatically legal. Which basically is how I read the constitution and it makes it easier to understand and enforce.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Seriona View Post
    Yes and no. While in the end, the states can trump federal government in rights, it also basically tells the government what it cannot do. As under traditional British law, everything that is not declared illegal is automatically legal. Which basically is how I read the constitution and it makes it easier to understand and enforce.
    It is a Union of states, with limited powers. It has no authority other than that granted to it or surrendered by the states.

    It was never meant to be a top down situation where the Feds is the top then the states then the people.

    It was meant to be the people at the top who formed states to protect their rights, the states who formed a union for mutual defense and a free trade zone.

    What you say applies to the states not to the feds, since the feds have enumerated powers that they have to remain in. So even if they prohibit you from wearing a blue shirt since it isn't part of the enumerated powers that prohibition isn't supposed to exist.

    So when it comes to drug laws, gun laws, schools, medicine, etc......the feds are supposed to have no business saying yay or nay.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Who guards the Constitution?

    I do.

    http://cdn.nomblog.com/wp-content/up.../11/SCOTUS.jpg

    Don't look now, but you've been usurped by these folks who claim to do the same thing.
    Last edited by Custodian; 08-30-2014 at 09:00 AM.
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Custodian View Post
    http://cdn.nomblog.com/wp-content/up.../11/SCOTUS.jpg

    Don't look now, but you've been usurped by these folks who claim to do the same thing.
    They do "claim" to Guard the Document. Too often they want to "modify" the Document to fit the political climate or their own twisted views.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    They do "claim" to Guard the Document. Too often they want to "modify" the Document to fit the political climate or their own twisted views.
    +1 They convince people its "a living breathing document". One of the biggest lies.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    150
    The point I am making is that the Federal government should not have the amount of power as they do. Because we see it a lot of issues arguing what should be left to the 10th. Should states or federal get the law abiding choice?

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Seriona View Post
    The point I am making is that the Federal government should not have the amount of power as they do. Because we see it a lot of issues arguing what should be left to the 10th. Should states or federal get the law abiding choice?

    Yes and part of having limited power is not to believe the federal can do what it wants as long as its not prohibited. That applies to the people not to governments.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yes and part of having limited power is not to believe the federal can do what it wants as long as its not prohibited. That applies to the people not to governments.
    Which clearly people are not getting that part because they are indoctrinated or stupid.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    We the people have seceded our power to the feds via the state governments. A carefull study of how the constitution came about is what must be considered. The constitution was ratified by only 13 states, the other 44 states had no say in the matter. If there is any remedy to federal over reach it must come from the 57 states and their state houses. Unfortunately there are few willing to be bothered by the feds and their tyranny unless/until the check stops being delivered.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    We the people have seceded our power to the feds via the state governments. A careful study of how the constitution came about is what must be considered. The constitution was ratified by only 13 states, the other 44 states had no say in the matter. If there is any remedy to federal over reach it must come from the 57 states and their state houses. Unfortunately there are few willing to be bothered by the feds and their tyranny unless/until the check stops being delivered.
    Consider this, if the constitution were put to the states today would it be ratified? Would the BoR look as it looks today? Would there be 10 amendments in the BoR?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •