Article 4, Section 2:
Article 1, Section 2:
Abatis, the problem is that unlike the Declaration of Independence (which however inspiring doesn’t have any legal force), the Constitution does not, except very briefly in it’s preamble, set forth any general theory of government or society. It’s a pretty utilitarian listing of how the Federal government is to be set up, without speaking much to any larger theory. It’s a fascinating question whether the Constitution should have been explicitly written around an expounded political philosophy, but as currently written it doesn’t.
(missed edit window)
Another thing to consider is that the federal government as originally planned was NOT directly democratic. The Senators were appointed by the state governments, the President chosen by an electoral college (which only respects a popular vote by unwritten tradition), the Supreme Court chosen by the President and the Senate. As originally written the Constitution simply presumes that democracy flows from the states, because that’s where popular suffrage took place. The deliberately “republican” rather than directly “democratic” (in the technical sense of the words) nature of the Federal government was one reason a Bill of Rights was insisted upon; it was feared the fed had too little accountability to the people.
What “fundamental principles of equal rights and equal standing”? Neither “equal rights” nor “equal standing” is mentioned in the Constitution or the first ten amendments. “Equal protection” didn’t crop up until the passage of the 14th amendment.
You argue your beliefs quite eloquently, but your beliefs are nutty.
Well, that would include me. I think you’re wrong. The early sections of the Constitution are not unchangeable. The people who wrote the Constitution clearly intended that it be subject to amendment - including the parts that they wrote.
If a new amendment is added, then it’s every bit as valid as the original. And if the new amendment explicitly repeals a part of the original, then that’s valid also. If we enacted a constitutional amendment replacing the Presidency with a hereditary Monarchy, then it would be constitutional.
Abatis, you are simply behaving as if your opinion is fact. Give us a cite from any legal scholar from, let’s say, the last century or so, that agrees with you. I would bet that there is not a single poster here who agrees with you.
I hope Scumpup can return to respond to this directly, but perhaps you can tell from his posts that he is among the more passionate among those who believe in a right to be armed. Yet even Scumpup acknowledges that the constitution could be amended to eliminate the right to bear arms in post #375.
The right to own anther human being (if it could ever be argued to exist) could not be maintained under the Constitution.
The inalienable right to not be a slave won out.
And the right to resist becoming a slave has been sustained.
When the tenets and words of the Declaration of Independence are elevated to the opinion of the Court those principles and words certainly become law that can be cited. The fundamental principles stated in the DoI and the DoI itself certainly continue through the Constitution and SCOTUS has affirmed this many times by quoting the DoI and using the familiar “truths” noted in the DoI to decide Constitutional issues.
Without a doubt. The framers detested democracy and endeavored to forestall any opportunity for one to ever infect the United Sates.
Add in the Constitution’s guarantee to every state to forever provide a republican form of government and it is clear that the simple desire of the majority to change things is not of primary concern . . . In reality, the will of the majority was something to be diluted and crippled under the Constitution. Understand this reality means the federal government is empowered to enforce the republicanism of the Constitution’s founding as well (i.e., founding principles").
You didn’t answer the question.
[INDENT]How does the principle of inalienable rights mesh with what you are advocating?[/INDENT]
I have cited plenty of authorities. Not a single person has rebutted any of my analysis of Marbury and my claim that its explanation of unchangeable principles guiding the decision of what is constitutional, speaks to this question.
Why would you qualify acceptable citations to just the last century?
Puzzling to say the least.
Are you saying the fundamental nature of the Constitution has changed since 1911? Was my position correct in 1910 and before?
My question remains unanswered:
How does the principle of inalienable rights mesh with what you are advocating?
No, the North won the Civil War using abolition as a rallying cry for support. The death of the institution of slavery was won on the battlefield, and in debates inside and outside the Congress, and it was necessary to amend the constitution to give legal force to this new reality.
I’ll repeat my earlier question – please give us a cite of some legal scholarship (newer than the founding of the republic please) that supports the concept that certain portions of the constitutions can’t be amended.
Also, which are fundamental rights and which are not?
Haven’t any of you read Locke?
The equality in rights and in standing before government is elementary. It is the opposite of doctrines that stood on the proposition that certain humans were picked by God to rule and no Earthy questioning of that authority was permitted.
If you forgot, that was what we declared independence from and fought a war to escape from.
The social compact theory embraced by the founders / framers stated that all men were equal and possessed equal powers and rights. Humans come together to form society, all surrendering certain powers and rights to form governments for mutual benefit, with the primary benefit being to protect their rights.
The doctrine of equality the framers embraced said that no man was above another, unless a man allows one to govern him and then, only to the point that it benefits him. This flowed into equal standing; as unequal in as many ways as humans may actually be, no one human enjoys superiority over another human in regard to their rights against government action . . . All are equal in the eyes of government.
If we are to the point where you all deny these are the founding principles of this nation and were included in the social compact known as the Constitution of the United States of America, then I will just leave you all and decry the horrid state of civics instruction and cry for the future of this nation, for all is lost.
My question still stands
I’ve read Locke, and I agree that those are some of the founding principles of the nation and were included in the Constitution. I don’t know that anyone denies that. All people are saying is that the Constitution provides a legal way to amend it; almost all of it, actually, with the exception of granting states equal representation in the Senate, and that it would be possible (although certainly a bad idea) to, using the amendment power of the Constitution to change those fundamental principles, and that such an amendment would be perfectly legal (regardless of how you feel about the moral import of such amendment).
YOUR analysis, YOUR claim. So, you can’t find any other source than your own opinion, and some two hundred year old writing that somehow DIDN’T get cited in the constitution.
Marbury was about striking down LAWS passed by Congress that conflicted with the constitution. It says nothing whatsoever about amending the constitution to change the powers of the government, and therefor change what laws may now be written, which would have been found unconstitutional in the past, but could be found to be perfectly constitutional afterward.
Let me suggest one current movement to revise the constitution – a proposed amendment to limit the legal concept of “personhood” as it applies to corporations. In the case commonly call Citizen’s United the court found that corporate rights are broader than was previously understood.
If this amendment proceeds, and succeeds, the Supreme Court decision will effectively be made null and void, and the Court surely understands this, and surely will not interfere with the process of amendment, which is the purview of a different branch of government.
There are NO inalienable rights in the constitution. There is no inalienable Right to Life – the state can execute you. There is no unalienable Right to Liberty – the state can imprison you. I can’t really say whether there’s an inalienable Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, as the phrase is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. But the state can certainly limit your pursuit of pleasures and the nature of the pleasures you are allowed.
The Rights laid out in the constitution limit what laws the government will pass. Change the constitution, and one consequence will be to change the nature of the laws that government may make.
I gave up on him after he killed Jacob.
Abatis. I agree with what you are getting at but you are framing it wrong. An amendment which took away basic rights would certainly be constitutional by its very definition.
However, that would then likely make our constitution no longer the grand document that it is which protects natural rights. Perhaps it would be our “right and duty” as Jefferson said, to do another 1776 and find new leaders who will protect those fundamental rights.
It’s a no brainer. Assume that, by some weird set of circumstance, the US passes an amendment allowing Congress to regulate, even ban, firearms. Congress then passes a law banning handguns. What are you going to do when the cops come and arrest you for owning one? Claim that the court has no authority to enforce the law? You still end up in jail.
Now, we can argue about where the tipping point for revolution is, but that’s entirely different debate.
I’ve read plenty of Locke. The fact that he said things doesn’t mean they are part of the Constitution. While the founders had a vague notion that all men were equal, they notably did not see fit to write it into the Constitution. You can’t just go around claiming that things are in the Constitution when they aren’t.
I think jtgain’s post correctly characterizes the fundamental disconnect between your views and reality: while the denial of certain rights via constitutional amendment might spur people to rebellion, that doesn’t mean you could just ignore such an amendment. After all, if an amendment passes, it must be assumed that it had massive popular support anyway.
It was, to a large degree, a polite fiction thrown up to justify rebellion against Britain, but not made a reality until quite recently. Some might argue the reality even today, but I’d say it’s close enough for government work.
The Constitution, obviously, can be ammended. It has been ammended several times.
Once that document is ammended, things that were previously legal may no longer be, and that which was once illegal can now be legal. Those words mean only that a given action is in compliance with the law or in violation of it. They do not speak to what is right or wrong.
Sometimes, that which is illegal is also morally wrong. Slavery comes to mind as an example that required action at the Constitutional level. Sometimes, that which is illegal is not morally wrong. Again, at the Constitutional level, the whole Prohibition debacle is an example.
If The Constitution were ammended to remove the 2nd Ammendment’s recognition of my right to be armed, and bans were enacted as a result, I would view this as something that has been made illegal but that is not morally wrong. I would have no moral qualms about staying armed in defiance of such laws. Not obeying them is no more than civil disobedience.
Just out of curiosity, would you say someone who sold drugs in defiance of federal law was engaging in civil disobedience?