• 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.

OC as First Amendment Right

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
All I am saying with this is that over the past 219 years, the Bill of Rights has been watered down, twisted, ignored, disdained, and interpreted to the point that most people now just take it for granted that there are things in there that in reality are not, and things that are not in there which somehow are found to be there. For example the phrase, "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution but in the second half of the 20th century we know what happened with that one.

When we allow insidious evil to creep into these hallowed documents and pretend concepts in there don't exist, we might as well just burn the things are have the courage of our convictions to say the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are meaningless and therefore are dead.

I often wonder how people believe that there is some Divine or true intent of the Constitution that was laid out by the Founding Fathers; and that there is some true interpretation and application of the Constitution. This idea that the Constitution has been "twisted, ignored...," is nothing more than a bunch of political, and ideological hoopla. Do you realize that although you might not agree with a SCOTUS finding, it is possible that the finding is Constitutional?

Unless you are stating that a SCOTUS finding you do not agree with is therefor unConstitutional, while a SCOTUS finding you do agree with is Constitutional?...how convenient is that.

Your "insidious evil" comment is nonsense. What is insidious evil? "Convictions," a cute little term that has no true meaning behind it other than what an individual, group, or society hold as some general concept of what constitutes "convictions."
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Did you read my entire post? The First Amendment says nothing about the "freedom of expression". However the Ninth Amendment leaves open freedoms which are the property of the People. Check out the Ninth Amendment.

The First Amendment is merely an affirmation of a fundamental right, but not a fundamental right in of itself, meaning, by including it in the First Amendment, and as part of the Constitution it does not make it any more or less a fundamental right. The First Amendment is a concept, and that concept is interpreted by SCOTUS, and SCOTUS makes a finding. Verbal protest is an expression, it is a verbal expression. When I verbalize my discontent to the Government, I am expressing it through my speech.

I should point out that the Constitution serving as an affirmation of 'fundamental rights' is contradictory to the Ninth Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution,"

What enumeration? Why not enumerations? "Enumerate" seems to be contingent of the number...not as the totality of the document (Constitution). So, the enumeration of the Constitution is determined by those who are in a position to deemed each Amendment to fall under "enumeration."

"...of certain rights,..."

But not all rights? This portion validates my assertion that enumeration does not include all Constitutional Amendments. Of "certain rights?" So, these Rights are merely rights? These so-called "fundamental ((R)(r))ights," or "affirmation of fundamental ((R)(r))ights appear to be dependent of some sort of valuation--some are valued as being Rights, while others are valued at being rights, but 'fundamental' none-the-less. If "rights" are deemed to be "Rights" then they are Rights, but if not, they are "rights." Are Rights any more fundamental than rights? Or are they both fundamental? Rights (and rights) are contingent on whether they are deemed to be fundamental based on ideological factors which impose a value on each instance of what is considered to constitute a Right/right and if deemed fundamental they are included in the framework of the Constitution. Seems like a living breathing document to me.

"...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

LOL, Constitutional Amendment to make marriage between one male and one female?...would that be unConstitutional! Funny. Back on topic, sorry about that...

"Disparage others retained by the people."

So, 'Rights' shall not be used to "deny or disparage" other types of rights which have been valued as 'rights.' rights are retained by the people. How do "the people" retain those rights? And who are the "people?" Are they the majority, minority? SCOTUS seem to make findings of whether a law is Constitutional or not-Constitutional, and of the extent to which the Amendments of the Constitution are applicable to the everyday lives of the people, well, and the Government.

"The enumeration [(number)] in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others [(rights)] retained [(first "deemed," then "held")] by the people."

So, the rights that have been deemed as the peoples rights shall not be used to "deny or disparage" other rights that might be included as the peoples "rights."

There is no thing simple about the Constitution. The document appears superficially to be a congruent document, one that "affirms" some thing(s). But does it? It is merely a constructed framework that is used as an emblem (in-flux) of some notion of personal freedom, of a free society. Is the document necessary to a cohesive society, yes...because the alternative would be worse. Is the document definitive, HELL NO....but it makes for a good document to argue over its meaning until your blue in the face.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I often wonder how people believe that there is some Divine or true intent of the Constitution that was laid out by the Founding Fathers; and that there is some true interpretation and application of the Constitution. This idea that the Constitution has been "twisted, ignored...," is nothing more than a bunch of political, and ideological hoopla. Do you realize that although you might not agree with a SCOTUS finding, it is possible that the finding is Constitutional?

Unless you are stating that a SCOTUS finding you do not agree with is therefor unConstitutional, while a SCOTUS finding you do agree with is Constitutional?...how convenient is that.

Your "insidious evil" comment is nonsense. What is insidious evil? "Convictions," a cute little term that has no true meaning behind it other than what an individual, group, or society hold as some general concept of what constitutes "convictions."

Not once did I offer my opinion with what I posted, only facts as in verbiage appearing in these documents. I deliberately chose not to give an opinion because I was not of a mind to enter into any heated discussions or arguments. I did infer opinions with the corruption of the Founders writings and will freely and with much vigor concur with those remarks.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's a-- what anyone on this site or anywhere else thinks when they get a little testy with others. The day I start caring about such things is the day I will have lost any measure of my self respect.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The word "speech" defines communication which is spoken. As I just mentioned, and posted prior, it is the Ninth Amendment where the concept of "freedom of expression" might be drawn, not the First Amendment. It says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Basically this amendment is a catch all, a continuation if you will for rights which while not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, are still retained by the People and are therefore not to be tread upon by government.

All I am saying with this is that over the past 219 years, the Bill of Rights has been watered down, twisted, ignored, disdained, and interpreted to the point that most people now just take it for granted that there are things in there that in reality are not, and things that are not in there which somehow are found to be there. For example the phrase, "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution but in the second half of the 20th century we know what happened with that one.

When we allow insidious evil to creep into these hallowed documents and pretend concepts in there don't exist, we might as well just burn the things are have the courage of our convictions to say the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are meaningless and therefore are dead.

I got were you are coming from I never thought about it like that. I am definitely from the school of thought the constitution isn't up for interpretation. What was being laid out was basic human rights our government is to recognize and should never impair.

Berettalady, it isn't a matter of convenience when SCOTUS is right I agree when they are wrong I don't. What disturbs me is even when right it usually is usually narrowly by one vote. The men in black have made many disturbing decisions one glaring example is their stupid decision on the "commerce clause", any body with half a brain can tell what the intent of that law is, yet they have drastically increased Federal Power in areas it shouldn't be.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I got were you are coming from I never thought about it like that. I am definitely from the school of thought the constitution isn't up for interpretation. What was being laid out was basic human rights our government is to recognize and should never impair.

Berettalady, it isn't a matter of convenience when SCOTUS is right I agree when they are wrong I don't. What disturbs me is even when right it usually is usually narrowly by one vote. The men in black have made many disturbing decisions one glaring example is their stupid decision on the "commerce clause", any body with half a brain can tell what the intent of that law is, yet they have drastically increased Federal Power in areas it shouldn't be.

"The men in black have made many disturbing decisions one glaring example is their stupid decision on the "commerce clause", any body with half a brain can tell what the intent of that law is, yet they have drastically increased Federal Power in areas it shouldn't be."

Yes, and this is a prime example of what I meant by the creep of insidious evil. The Bill of Rights was not intended to be malleable by at least two of the Founding Fathers. Its recognition of rights which pre-exist their appearance in the Bill of Rights was believed to be so basic and so fundamental to individual freedom that they should be exempt from any alteration and therefore not capable of being amended. How else do those with less than honorable intentions carve up the noble experiment but to twist its foundation into that which it was never intended?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Not once did I offer my opinion with what I posted, only facts as in verbiage appearing in these documents. I deliberately chose not to give an opinion because I was not of a mind to enter into any heated discussions or arguments. I did infer opinions with the corruption of the Founders writings and will freely and with much vigor concur with those remarks.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's a-- what anyone on this site or anywhere else thinks when they get a little testy with others. The day I start caring about such things is the day I will have lost any measure of my self respect.

Please, don't misunderstand me, I am not attacking you. I am also not attempting to incite an argument, well, some feel that I do :rolleyes:...promise, I am not.

This doesn't have to lead to a heated discussion or argument by offering your opinion. Much of my response is to your opinions regarding what has been done to the Constitution, and what that act represents.

Engaging in a discussion that is absent you caring what others think is actually one of the more constructive forms of discussion, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Berettalady, it isn't a matter of convenience when SCOTUS is right I agree when they are wrong I don't. What disturbs me is even when right it usually is usually narrowly by one vote. The men in black have made many disturbing decisions one glaring example is their stupid decision on the "commerce clause", any body with half a brain can tell what the intent of that law is, yet they have drastically increased Federal Power in areas it shouldn't be.

I am merely pointing out that your assertion of the constitutionality of any law has no effect on whether it is actually constitutional or not. What does have an effect on the law is what the finding of the Justices is, and who shares the majority opinion. You can believe whatever you want about the constitutionality of any thing. This is a great example of the Constitution being interpretive, and not some fixed concept that is viewed the same exact way, through the same lens, by each Justice.

SCOTUS findings (based on interpretation) are law, and are Constitutional. They are the highest court in the land, they determine constitutionality.

What makes their "Commerce Clause" finding stupid? Are you asserting that the Justices (at least the majority who made the finding) have less than a half a brain?
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Please, don't misunderstand me, I am not attacking you. I am also not attempting to incite an argument, well, some feel that I do :rolleyes:...promise, I am not.

This doesn't have to lead to a heated discussion or argument by offering your opinion. Much of my response is to your opinions regarding what has been done to the Constitution, and what that act represents.

Engaging in a discussion that is absent you caring what others think is actually one of the more constructive forms of discussion, IMO.

Ok, I'll go with that. As I had mentioned, I had deliberately avoided giving an opinion in my early posts on this. I did include an inference or two, but chose not to include opinions. I was only pointing out what the document says.

Of course, like anyone else, I do have opinions on these matters and for what it's worth, they tend to fall along the lines of the Founders' original intent.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I am merely pointing out that your assertion of the constitutionality of any law has no effect on whether it is actually constitutional or not. What does have an effect on the law is what the finding of the Justices is, and who shares the majority opinion. You can believe whatever you want about the constitutionality of any thing. This is a great example of the Constitution being interpretive, and not some fixed concept that is viewed the same exact way, through the same lens, by each Justice.

SCOTUS findings (based on interpretation) are law, and are Constitutional. They are the highest court in the land, they determine constitutionality.

What makes their "Commerce Clause" finding stupid? Are you asserting that the Justices (at least the majority who made the finding) have less than a half a brain?

You see, this gets to the heart of the matter. SCOTUS is made up of people who have been selected by a president to sit on that court. Obviously, this introduces a bias. And during the senate confirmation hearings, we see those biases and more come out in spades (recall the Bork hearings and Kennedy's grilling of that candidate).

While we might think that SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of issues brought before them, if we really look at that, we will see that their charge is not to do so via interpretation but rather by using the lens of the Constitution as the passage way (yes, I know.... isn't this just another way of saying "interpretation"?). When the Founders wrote the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, they did not believe the document to be a "living document". They believed it was to be the supreme law of the land (not some humans running around in long robes). They weren't stupid. In fact, they were a whole lot more knowledgeable and worldly than the 535 people who sit in congress and the nine who sit on the supreme court. I much prefer putting my faith in those men than in the examples we see today.

The bastardization of the commerce clause is one of the best examples of wholesale interpretation gone awry (more like gone wild or crazy). Another is the First Amendment. And this is where we always get ourselves in trouble. Veering off into areas of fantasy and pretend, getting away from the steady course laid out in the Constitution, has nearly always resulted in a degradation of liberty and further removal of what it means to be American.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I am merely pointing out that your assertion of the constitutionality of any law has no effect on whether it is actually constitutional or not. What does have an effect on the law is what the finding of the Justices is, and who shares the majority opinion. You can believe whatever you want about the constitutionality of any thing. This is a great example of the Constitution being interpretive, and not some fixed concept that is viewed the same exact way, through the same lens, by each Justice.

SCOTUS findings (based on interpretation) are law, and are Constitutional. They are the highest court in the land, they determine constitutionality.

What makes their "Commerce Clause" finding stupid? Are you asserting that the Justices (at least the majority who made the finding) have less than a half a brain?

I understand they wont' exactly see it the same way, what is disturbing is that they are to rule in favor of the people and they are not to find "other" meanings and are not supposed to "interpret" the constitution. The constitution is pretty straight forward, they do interpret how it would apply to a modern situation, and when in doubt are supposed to be the relief of the people and side with what would be a reprieve of government intrusion.

I am asserting the exact opposite they are not dumb, they are very smart and know what they are doing. They have turned into statist and politicians and not always justices. The Commerce clause is obvious to anyone who reads it that it is not to apply to what a person or a state does within the boundaries of his own state. Yet they have purposefully twisted that reasoning into everything everybody does affects interstate commerce. So that the Federal government now has a lot more power than intended.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
You see, this gets to the heart of the matter. SCOTUS is made up of people who have been selected by a president to sit on that court. Obviously, this introduces a bias. And during the senate confirmation hearings, we see those biases and more come out in spades (recall the Bork hearings and Kennedy's grilling of that candidate).

Then what method of "benching" a Justice do you recommend? Part of the argument for the lifetime appointment of the Justice is so that they are no swayed (forced to be bias) in order to retain their seat that is being fought through election.

While we might think that SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of issues brought before them, if we really look at that, we will see that their charge is not to do so via interpretation but rather by using the lens of the Constitution as the passage way (yes, I know.... isn't this just another way of saying "interpretation"?). When the Founders wrote the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, they did not believe the document to be a "living document". They believed it was to be the supreme law of the land (not some humans running around in long robes). They weren't stupid. In fact, they were a whole lot more knowledgeable and worldly than the 535 people who sit in congress and the nine who sit on the supreme court. I much prefer putting my faith in those men than in the examples we see today.
"The lens of the Constitution," is another way of terming it as interpretation. A human is examining the law via the document (as you say they should).

The Founding Fathers are all dead. I would like for you to please show me where it indicates that the Founding Fathers meant for the document to not be a living breathing document. You can first describe to me what constitutes a "living breathing document," and what, other than it being a living breathing document, could the Constitution be. If the Constitution is intended to be read(e) a specific way, please provide a reference.


The bastardization of the commerce clause is one of the best examples of wholesale interpretation gone awry (more like gone wild or crazy). Another is the First Amendment.
You assert that this bastardization of the commerce clause is some sort of "wholesale interpretation gone awry," you are going to have to be more specific. What findings related to the commerce clause are you referring to?

And this is where we always get ourselves in trouble. Veering off into areas of fantasy and pretend, getting away from the steady course laid out in the Constitution, has nearly always resulted in a degradation of liberty and further removal of what it means to be American.
What steady course was laid out in the Constitution? Have you or anyone else on here who has ever shared a discussion with me concerning the Constitution ever heard of the term "linguistics?" Words mean something, but only in the context in which the words are being used.

With regard to "Liberty":

Liberty is not absolute. I find it alarming that people do not realize that Liberty is not some notion that is or can be some thing absolute.
 
Last edited:
Top