conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
-
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.
-
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.
The U.S. Constitution
- Thread starter conservative85
- Start date
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
I remember it clearly. I was in High School. I was one of 32 kids in a Government class. The teacher was an idiot who was also anti gun. I was the one and only person in the class who understood the constitution. Every single other student in the class thought I was some sort of nerd for going out of my way to understand these things. This was about 7 years ago. If children are the future, we're in trouble.
I remember it clearly. I was in High School. I was one of 32 kids in a Government class. The teacher was an idiot who was also anti gun. I was the one and only person in the class who understood the constitution. Every single other student in the class thought I was some sort of nerd for going out of my way to understand these things. This was about 7 years ago. If children are the future, we're in trouble.
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
My govt. teacher had a Dr. in front of his name, & his name should have been Dr. Liberal. Now I admit i did not know alot bout the const. at that time but that proves my point. I do recall 7th grade in the south learning the bill of rights in class. but that was at the onset of the dumming down, and the south thank god was behind the trend then.
My govt. teacher had a Dr. in front of his name, & his name should have been Dr. Liberal. Now I admit i did not know alot bout the const. at that time but that proves my point. I do recall 7th grade in the south learning the bill of rights in class. but that was at the onset of the dumming down, and the south thank god was behind the trend then.
Hcidem
Regular Member
imported post
The State of Michigan does require both a civics class and a government class in government schools. They have had this requirement for a long time. However, as I remember, these two classes only reinforced the lessons I learned over the full 12 years of my own government school education.
Most of my knowledge of our constitution and government was spread over studies and classes we called "history" or "social studies." Even our English studies reinforced the terminology necessary to understand the basis of our freedoms.
This idea hit me this morning as some ultra-liberal was discussing the "right" of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony. Grammar and vocabulary lessons are tedious, but it is essential that Americans understand the acute difference between rights and privileges.
We have lost so much ground in this area. How can we even begin to discuss our Constitution without the benefit of a common language? Its a daunting task, and should be taken from the realm of our failed government education system as soon as possible.
The State of Michigan does require both a civics class and a government class in government schools. They have had this requirement for a long time. However, as I remember, these two classes only reinforced the lessons I learned over the full 12 years of my own government school education.
Most of my knowledge of our constitution and government was spread over studies and classes we called "history" or "social studies." Even our English studies reinforced the terminology necessary to understand the basis of our freedoms.
This idea hit me this morning as some ultra-liberal was discussing the "right" of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony. Grammar and vocabulary lessons are tedious, but it is essential that Americans understand the acute difference between rights and privileges.
We have lost so much ground in this area. How can we even begin to discuss our Constitution without the benefit of a common language? Its a daunting task, and should be taken from the realm of our failed government education system as soon as possible.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
conservative85 wrote:
This isn't to contradict. It is to suggest seeking another analogy.
Lysander Spooner had this to say about it in 1870 or so:
[align=justify]Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have signed it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the Constitution. <fn3> The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution --- from an instrument that nobody ever signed --- would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication.[/align]
[align=justify]Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered.[/align]
[align=justify]No Treason, #6, The Constitution of No Authority, Section IV [/align]
[align=justify]http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm[/align]
conservative85 wrote:
This isn't to contradict. It is to suggest seeking another analogy.
Lysander Spooner had this to say about it in 1870 or so:
[align=justify]Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have signed it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the Constitution. <fn3> The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution --- from an instrument that nobody ever signed --- would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication.[/align]
[align=justify]Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered.[/align]
[align=justify]No Treason, #6, The Constitution of No Authority, Section IV [/align]
[align=justify]http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm[/align]
Hcidem
Regular Member
imported post
conservative85 wrote:
However, as the federal government sought to remove states from the agreement in lieu of a direct relationship with their citizens, the federal government essentially broke the terms of the contract. Although this does not nullify the Constitution itself, it certainly gives no standing to the myriad of laws placed upon the populace by the federal government.
conservative85 wrote:
In terms of it being a contract, it could only be considered a contract between the states that ratified it since it was never submitted to a popular referendum. By extension, states created from the expanding territories of the U.S. could also be considered parties of the "contract" as a precondition of their accepting statehood.
However, as the federal government sought to remove states from the agreement in lieu of a direct relationship with their citizens, the federal government essentially broke the terms of the contract. Although this does not nullify the Constitution itself, it certainly gives no standing to the myriad of laws placed upon the populace by the federal government.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Hcidem wrote:
In fact, one sovereign nation did indeed submit the Constitution to public referendum--Rhode Island!
And, it was REJECTED. The ratio was something like 10-1 against.
Hcidem wrote:
Thanks for reminding me!
In fact, one sovereign nation did indeed submit the Constitution to public referendum--Rhode Island!
And, it was REJECTED. The ratio was something like 10-1 against.
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and later ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People"; it has since been amended twenty-seven times, the first ten amendments being known as the Bill of Rights
My point was that the const. is not a living breathing item, actually it is a piece of paper, signed by our forefathers, and eventually ratifiedby the states which is what was required. The Northwest Ord. made territoriessubject to the constitution in order to become states
It was signed and delivered, it is what structures orgovernment and is supreme law of the land.All the documents of this constitution are valid The Northwest Ord., The Bill of Rights, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers & once upon a time the Articles of Confederation. But if you want to go your way on the signing and delivering we may as well turn in our guns now and give up more taxes to the Federal Govt.
Citizen wrote:
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and later ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People"; it has since been amended twenty-seven times, the first ten amendments being known as the Bill of Rights
My point was that the const. is not a living breathing item, actually it is a piece of paper, signed by our forefathers, and eventually ratifiedby the states which is what was required. The Northwest Ord. made territoriessubject to the constitution in order to become states
It was signed and delivered, it is what structures orgovernment and is supreme law of the land.All the documents of this constitution are valid The Northwest Ord., The Bill of Rights, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers & once upon a time the Articles of Confederation. But if you want to go your way on the signing and delivering we may as well turn in our guns now and give up more taxes to the Federal Govt.
Hcidem
Regular Member
imported post
conservative85 wrote:
I see you listed the Federalist Papers amongst your list of valid Constitutional "documents." Are you aware that The Federalist Papers were merely a collection of essays written in support of the Constitution at the time its ratification was being considered by the several states? They make good reading, but they consitute a running commentary rather than a legally binding set of statutes.
conservative85 wrote:
Please do not think I was denying the legality or relevance of the Constitution. I merely want to state that it was ratified by the states on behalf of their citizens. The point I was trying to make about it not being submitted to a popular referendum was that citizens are neither bound nor limited by the Constitution (if it were to be considered a "contract"). Rather it is the federal government which is bound and limited in its authority by the Constitution.
I see you listed the Federalist Papers amongst your list of valid Constitutional "documents." Are you aware that The Federalist Papers were merely a collection of essays written in support of the Constitution at the time its ratification was being considered by the several states? They make good reading, but they consitute a running commentary rather than a legally binding set of statutes.
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
Hcidem wrote:
Hcidem wrote:
I got your point on the ratification, and I agree that the Const./Bill of Rights limit Govt.& empower the People. I thought that may be where you were going with the sign & deliver, as long as we both agree the People are in charge regardless of what the Feds think. As to the Federalist papers& even the Articles of Confederation they are truly good reads, I like to use them as talking points as to which directionsome of our forefathers were headed in their political view,& the differences btw the confederation & federation.
Hcidem
Regular Member
imported post
Sounds like we're on the same page...
That's quite an exceptional feat on this forum. :lol:
Sounds like we're on the same page...
That's quite an exceptional feat on this forum. :lol:
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
Hcidem wrote:
I heard a man speak once, he was President of the Motion Picture somthing or other, and as leary of Hollywood as I am I was amazed at what he had to say about the Bill of Rights.
Tho he was using it in the context of free speech, what he said was that the B.o.R was written to enable/entitle the people & limit Govt.,all the Amend. except for the 16th, are written to entitle people to certain rights& to keep Govt. from running over the top of us. The right for women to vote, the right of people to practice religion, speech, the right to trials& due process etc.It was truly a eye opening moment for me.
I feel that with/without a Const. the peplehave dominion over the Govt. & that the peoplewe hire to represent us in D.C has been put on notice as to not screw with us, We are in charge,& thatwe have not only a right but an obligation to give any level of Govt. an attitude adjustment if they get out of line or as they used to say back in the day Tyranical. Oops am I rattl'in on again!
I was once called a Radical, I replied; If you mean like George Washington then I say to you Thankyou!
Hcidem wrote:
Sounds like same page,I think most of the posthere are fairly square headed.
I heard a man speak once, he was President of the Motion Picture somthing or other, and as leary of Hollywood as I am I was amazed at what he had to say about the Bill of Rights.
Tho he was using it in the context of free speech, what he said was that the B.o.R was written to enable/entitle the people & limit Govt.,all the Amend. except for the 16th, are written to entitle people to certain rights& to keep Govt. from running over the top of us. The right for women to vote, the right of people to practice religion, speech, the right to trials& due process etc.It was truly a eye opening moment for me.
I feel that with/without a Const. the peplehave dominion over the Govt. & that the peoplewe hire to represent us in D.C has been put on notice as to not screw with us, We are in charge,& thatwe have not only a right but an obligation to give any level of Govt. an attitude adjustment if they get out of line or as they used to say back in the day Tyranical. Oops am I rattl'in on again!
I was once called a Radical, I replied; If you mean like George Washington then I say to you Thankyou!