• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Who guards the Constitution?

Contrarian

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
259
Location
Seattle,WA, , USA

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
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.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
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.
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
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.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
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.
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
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?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top