Is the US govt. abiding by the Constitution?

Great Debates
1

In a previous thread I asserted that “no one really follows the Constitution, anyway.” 2Sense challenged this assertion with “Can you give any examples of those who ‘get by with ignoring the Constitution’? Do you understand that others can honestly interpret that document differently than you?”

I understand that different interpretations are possible, but some are more accurate than others. When the Constitution is interpreted to mean the opposite of what it really means, that is no longer a question of interpretation but of redefinition.

It is blatantly obvious to me that the federal goverment continually ignores and violates the Constitution. Before I list my own examples, I ask the reader: What present laws can you think of that are unconstitutional?

For me the most glaring example is gun control. By any reasonable definition of “infringe,” every gun control law on the books infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms – something that is explicitly prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Another example is President Bush’s war against Iraq. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but not to redelegate its powers. The founders were interested in separation of powers.

Yet another example is drug laws. There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate drugs. In fact, they needed a constitutional amendment in order to prohibit alcohol – something they haven’t bothered to obtain in the drug war.

The ninth and tenth amendments might as well not exist for all the attention they get.

I could go on, but I’d like to hear examples from other people, too.

Obviously some of these issues named above are worthy of their own thread, and so if you want to flame me for just one of them, please spawn a new thread. Use this thread to throw out more examples of unconstitutional behavior, or to rebut multiple examples, or if you want to argue the meaning of “interpretation.”

2

I have no desire to flame you our say you are wrong. In point of fact as to you question about FEDERAL drug laws I have to admit I don’t have an answer. The only power granted to the Legislative that seems to fit would be the “Provide for the general welfare” clause. While I think it is certainly an issue that could be open for debate, I suspect that drug laws would be subject to the “Rational Basis” level of scrutiny. If that is the case, then they are probably constitutional.

Concerning your thoughts on Gun Control, (I own several, pistols, rifles and shotguns) I do not agree that the second amendment is as clear cut as you claim.

While I certainly do not claim to dictate which interpretation of the language is correct, I feel that the above text of the second amendment is intentionally vague. An argument can be made that the right to bear arms is limited to a “Well regulated malitia”. I do not suggest that this is the case but merely offer it as an example that it is not such a clear cut issue.

you said:

While I to am vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq, I do not understand what you are suggesting in the above quote.

3

He’s arguing that while George W. Bush had support of Congress in the war against Iraq (which is something only people that revel in a dictator murdering 500,000 innocent civilians would oppose, or are extremely isolationist/geopolitically selfish) he did not get the Senate to officially declare war. So the Senate basically gave Bush the “trigger” to start the war.

I don’t think it is necessarily detracting from the Constitution. The Constitution just says that only the Senate can declare War, it doesn’t say that the President cannot use the military to attack whenever he wants. Although with the War Powers Act there are greater limitations than there were prior to Vietnam.

4

The fact that you can find a few instances where you think the constiution is not being followed does not equal “no one really follows the constitution”. I’m a stauch originalist when it comes to the consitution, but I believe you are blinded by a few examples where problem exist. It’s not possible to enumerate the number of times that the constituion is followed. But I’m condident that that is the case **much ** more often than not.

5

I think there is a possibility that if the framers of the Constitution were still alive they would still be arguing among themselves about what it “really” means in some places. But I am not an historian. Neither am I well-read on Constitutional Law.

I would think that the 2nd Amendment means that you may (see malitia argument above) have the right to arm yourselves with muskets and other arms of that period but not with nuclear weapons. Where specifically the line is drawn in 21st Century America is, of necessity, at the very least a matter of interpretation.

I’m not hear to argue the 2nd Amendment, however. But that is where I disagree with at least part of your premise.

I think that the government breaks the law anytime that it mints a coin that says, “In God We Trust” or opens the Senate with a prayer on taxpayers time. (I think the Supreme Court disagrees with me at present. And I am not overly concerned.

When I was given a rough time at work (as a public school teacher) when I requested Ash Wednesday and All Saints’ Day off for religious reasons – and was told that these were not “acceptable religious rites” – THAT crossed the line for me. I had to jump through hoops of fire every year, but I did take those days and I was not docked for them.

6

Christ, I am trying not to be offensive, but I am really offended. you said

In other words you are saying you managed to steal my tax dollars to pay for your personal day off based on your personal religious beliefs. I want a refund!

7

Then your quarrel is with the School District, who from that post I deduce do have a policy to allow paid days off for religious reasons, BUT wanted to discriminate against Zoe’s particular religion by arguing that those holidays did not qualify. If there is “no establishment” then there is “NO establishment” and both “free exercise” and Equal Protection kick in: either everybody gets paid for their time off to attend their High Holy Days, or nobody does. That district owes you money for every person they have ever given paid time off for Yom Kippur, Good Friday, Orthodox Christmas, etc.

8

I was wondering if you were an absolutist, rodbots. Glad to see you are not. Some Americans believe in a living constitution. They see the Constitution as something more than just the seven written articles including also the landmark court decisions, institutions, and traditions that have grown up around them. You might think this a modern invention but actually it’s an older conception going back to England’s unwritten Ancient Constitution.

This is not to ignore the fact that the party in power seems to adopt the most convenient interpretation of our basic law they can get away with. This is nothing new and we can thank the Founders for leading the way. The Federalists were the original “loose interpretation” party and when the Republicans took over in the “Revolution of 1800” ( so called by because it wasn’t revolutionary ) they continued the trend with actions such as purchasing Louisiana without explict constitutional authority and later under Madison actually reprinted some of Hamilton’s old arguments while rechartering the national bank. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

9

Okay, I admit to exaggerating when I said “no one.” But I disagree about the balance of constitutional vs. unconstitutional behavior. I can probably think of examples myself, but I would like to hear your best example of when the constitution was followed.

But here is an interesting test, or “thought experiment.” Heck, it could even be a real experiment for someone who has never read the Constitution before. I call this my “Constitutional Challenge.” The idea is to work the other way around, and it goes like this:

The federal government purports to abide by the Constitution. If I told you I abide by the rules of road when driving, and if you didn’t know what those rules were, you might ride around with me for a while and watch what I do. After a while, you would reason that there is probably a law requiring me to stop at those red, octagonal signs and maybe another one to stop at red lights and go when they turn green. You could figure out that these are the rules of the road because 1) I purport to be following the rules of the road, and 2) these are the behaviors I’m engaging in.

So I invite you to start with no knowledge of the Constitution at all, and to watch what the federal government does and how it works. Extrapolate the rules of behavior by observation using inductive reasoning, as any good scientist does. Then, compare your results to the actual Constitution. I’ll bet they won’t look anything alike.

10

NO, in my opinion the constitution has long since been forgotten.

for example it says we have a right to liberty and pursuit of happiness, but not only can’t we smoke weed, but our government even threatens Canada if they legalize pot over there !!!

11

Yea, quit bogartin, stoner. No where does the US Constitution say we have any such right. The PREAMBLE which is not LAW states that the Constitution is created to provide the People of the United States, a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Its the Declaration of Independence which mentions “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” not the Constitution. Take another hit stoney, maybe you will smoke yourself sober. (not that you should, just that stoney posts don’t make for great arguments)

Lastly, if infact the US government is presuring Canada to do something, then let Canadians protest. They are certainly capable, and don’t need American stoners making lame arguments for them.

12

whisper I think that was a joke

13

whisperI doubt it, but if so, how the hell am I supposed to know?

14

Uh, the Senate is composed of two Senators from each State. The Senators serve six year terms, and each Senator has one vote. See Const., Art. I, Sec. 3, Clause 1.

Less sarcastically, my beef is with this assertion:

The problem I have with this assertion is that it implies that the judges that interpret the Constitution, and the government employees that try to perform their Constitutional duties, do so largely without regard to what they think the Constitution says. I think that most of these people are actually acting in accordance with what they think the Constitution says.

I often think their interpretation is wrong, but I don’t think they’re ignoring the document itself. They just arrive at different conclusions than I do.

For example, I’m pretty well informed on the Constitution, and I think the war in Iraq was a perfectly valid exercise of Constitutional authority. Congress gave the President authority to use military action in Iraq, and the President, as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, used that authority. I don’t think that’s inconsistent with the Constitution.

15

Age Quod Agis said:

"The problem I have with this assertion is that it implies that the judges that interpret the Constitution, and the government employees that try to perform their Constitutional duties, do so largely without regard to what they think the Constitution says. I think that most of these people are actually acting in accordance with what they think the Constitution says. "

Mea culpa. I oversimplified when I said the government “ignores and violates” the Constitution. Rather, I submit that there is a mental process that goes on inside the heads of leaders in all three branches of government.

They think, “Wouldn’t it be great if I could do X? Gee, I wonder if I can. Let’s brush the dust off this here Constitution and see if it says anything about X. Well, I don’t see anything that explicitly mentions X. Although… if I contort my perception in just the right way, I can see how this clause right here might allow me to do X. Yes, now I see it. It’s perfectly clear to me now. X is Constitutional after all.” I apologize for calling this “ignoring and violating.”

A grand example of this is when John Marshall’s Supreme Court decided that the word “necessary” (as in “the necessary and proper clause”) really means “convenient.” He ascribed a new meaning to a clause because it was, well, convenient for him to do so.

What goes on in the minds of the general public? “Our leaders’ interpretation must be the true interpretation, because they are the anointed ones with the law degrees and the ability to get elected (or appointed). My own opinion means nothing, for although I can read English text as well as the next guy, the runes inscribed upon the sacred Constitution can only be interpreted by the high priests.” So the general public doesn’t put up much of a fight when the government reads something into the Constitution that isn’t there.

16

regardless, those are the values for which this country supposedly stands.

i didn’t really follow this discussion so i might have addressed a different question.

i am pretty sure though that things like the patriot act are not entirely constitutional but i am not really interested in technicalities.

i am looking at the picture as a whole - and i see that people do not want freedom but conformity and safety.

as for constitution versus declaration of independence, wouldn’t you agree that it was implied when drawing up the constitution that whatever was said in the declaration of independence still stands ?

17

BullCaca. There is no “general welfare” “clause.”

18

That’s not what it’s called in legal circles, but this is typically what is meant when people refer to the “general welfare clause”:

Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;