The Constitution - The Best and the Worst of It

[therealUT]

The Best:

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form 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.

Note: the US is charged with protecting the Blessings of Liberty for the US; not for the rest of the world.

Article I
Section II
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative

Currently, the average is one representative for every 800,000.

Section III
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof

Not elected.

Section VIII
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

I would love to see Letters of Marque and Reprisal reissued.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

According to this, maintaining a force to repel invasions is actually something that should be done by the States sans Federal involvement. The Federal Government only gets involved when these militias are called up because we are being invaded.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

Section IX
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it

Note: this is a limit on Congress; this is not in the Executive's lane

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken

Repeal the 16th...

Article II
Section I

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

It is about time to get rid of the popular vote.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

If the placement of commas means anything, then this reads as the following:

No person except a natural born Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...

and,

No person except a Citizen of the United States...

From a purely grammatical standpoint, this is a great statement in our Constitution. Any Citizen can be POTUS so long as they have lived in the US for fourteen years and are at least thirty-five years of age.

Section II
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

The POTUS is only the Commander of Chief when he is called into the actual Service of the United States. Who calls the POTUS into Service as the CiC? Congress, when they declare war.

Section III
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

One can only be a traitor during a war and can only be so overtly.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof

It is about time the States stepped forward and reigned the Federal Government in.

Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

.

And, the worst:

Article I
Section II

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

I understand that a compromise had to be made in order to go forward with 'America'; however, a compromise did not have to be made.

Article II
Section I

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

If one ignores the commas and the rules of grammar, then this paragraph eliminates foreign born individuals from being elected as POTUS.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I would add that it's telling that WE THE PEOPLE is emphasized, and this is the best part for me. When you think of all the potential words or phrases that could have been used, but they chose WE THE PEOPLE... to me that is significant.

It's also telling, imo, in what it does not say. For example, it does not say...

We the christian people or we the people of faith, or...
We the white people, or...
We the free (non-slave) people, or...
We the leaders of the people, or...
We the established government, or...
We the land owning people, or...
We the (fill in the blank).

It simply, but majestically, says... WE THE PEOPLE. Three words that represent a unified, yet diversified, nation at its very conception.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

How many representatives would we have if we had one for ever 30,000??? Imagine the gridlock versus what we have these days with the house of representin'

 

[GAVol]

I would add that it's telling that WE THE PEOPLE is emphasized, and this is the best part for me. When you think of all the potential words or phrases that could have been used, but they chose WE THE PEOPLE... to me that is significant.

It's also telling, imo, in what it does not say. For example, it does not say...

We the christian people or we the people of faith, or...
We the white people, or...
We the free (non-slave) people, or...
We the leaders of the people, or...
We the established government, or...
We the land owning people, or...
We the (fill in the blank).

It simply, but majestically, says... WE THE PEOPLE. Three words that represent a unified, yet diversified, nation at its very conception.

American Indians and those addressed by the 3/5ths Compromise might argue slightly.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

American Indians and those addressed by the 3/5ths Compromise might argue slightly.

Yeah, well you know what they say... you can't please everyone.

Slavery was definitely a sensitive issue, but Indians were addressed in the constitution iirc but were recognized more as native governments than U.S. citizens which is how both parties probably preferred it at that time.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I would add that it's telling that WE THE PEOPLE is emphasized, and this is the best part for me. When you think of all the potential words or phrases that could have been used, but they chose WE THE PEOPLE... to me that is significant.

It's also telling, imo, in what it does not say. For example, it does not say...

We the christian people or we the people of faith, or...
We the white people, or...
We the free (non-slave) people, or...
We the leaders of the people, or...
We the established government, or...
We the land owning people, or...
We the (fill in the blank).

It simply, but majestically, says... WE THE PEOPLE. Three words that represent a unified, yet diversified, nation at its very conception.

I am not sure if you old guys like Daniel Tosh but this post reminds me of a segment on his recent stand-up special.

Daniel Tosh on the Founding Fathers and Equality of the Sexes

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I am not sure if you old guys like Daniel Tosh but this post reminds me of a segment on his recent stand-up special.

Daniel Tosh on the Founding Fathers and Equality of the Sexes

:Bbiteme:


I like Tosh... that's pretty funny stuff.

 

[PKT_VOL]

:Bbiteme:


I like Tosh... that's pretty funny stuff.

Ha. I meant it as no insult. I think I am one of the youngest frequent politics posters. Daniel Tosh doesn't have a great following outside of the younger generation. I love his stand-up.

 

[therealUT]

How many representatives would we have if we had one for ever 30,000??? Imagine the gridlock versus what we have these days with the house of representin'

We would have a lot; basically, Citizens would have representation, representatives that were accessible, and representatives that were not wholly controlled by lobbies.

I do not mind having less than 1 per 30,000; however, there is a process to change the Constitution. That process was completely ignored when Congress was capped at the beginning of the 20th Century.

 

[theFallGuy]

How many representatives would we have if we had one for ever 30,000??? Imagine the gridlock versus what we have these days with the house of representin'

I think the founders were totally for gridlock. That was the whole point. The founders saw real tyranny and were very much against any one person or party being able to push all of their ideas through very easily. So, whenever you hear politicians today say the sides need to "come together" and to not have "gridlock" that is total BS. Our system was built for gridlock. Just look at all the checks and balances we have.

 

[therealUT]

I think the founders were totally for gridlock. That was the whole point. The founders saw real tyranny and were very much against any one person or party being able to push all of their ideas through very easily. So, whenever you hear politicians today say the sides need to "come together" and to not have "gridlock" that is total BS. Our system was built for gridlock. Just look at all the checks and balances we have.

This. More gridlock would lead to much less Federal legislation.

 

[n_huffhines]

Section II
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

The POTUS is only the Commander of Chief when he is called into the actual Service of the United States. Who calls the POTUS into Service as the CiC? Congress, when they declare war.

Love that point. Nobody understands how far we've stretched the executive's military power.

 

[n_huffhines]

How many representatives would we have if we had one for ever 30,000??? Imagine the gridlock versus what we have these days with the house of representin'

Gridlock would be a good thing. They always present themselves as if they are in gridlock. As they sneakily make you think they can't seem to get anything passed, they slam you with a $16 trillion in debt.

If they never agree, how come they spend so much of our money?

 

[theFallGuy]

Gridlock would be a good thing. They always present themselves as if they are in gridlock. As they sneakily make you think they can't seem to get anything passed, they slam you with a $16 trillion in debt.

If they never agree, how come they spend so much of our money?

Because every politician is tempted to get something for "their" district and it is easy for citizens to say "Hey awesome, so & so got us a new bridge with federal funds" instead of thinking, "those bridge funds came from people who live in another state that don't even benefit from this bridge, this isn't right".

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

Because Obama does crap while Congress is in recess.

I understand that some of the Founding Fathers were for more state's rights and less federal involvement but not all of them. That is why we got the Constitution because of the compromise between those who supported the Articles of Confederation and those who supported more federal involvement. So to say that the Founders made the constitution for gridlock is obnoxious. It was made with checks and balances not to put the system into never ending gridlock but to ensure that a Tyrant was not able to achieve and retain power.

 

[therealUT]

Because Obama does crap while Congress is in recess.

I understand that some of the Founding Fathers were for more state's rights and less federal involvement but not all of them. That is why we got the Constitution because of the compromise between those who supported the Articles of Confederation and those who supported more federal involvement. So to say that the Founders made the constitution for gridlock is obnoxious. It was made with checks and balances not to put the system into never ending gridlock but to ensure that a Tyrant was not able to achieve and retain power.

Yet, today we have a 'tyranny of the masses' and limited freedom.

 

[dreVol]

Yet, today we have a 'tyranny of the masses' and limited freedom.

I cringe everytime I hear people call the US a "democracy"

 

[RespectTradition]

I cringe everytime I hear people call the US a "democracy"

True. Technically we are a democratic republic. In practice, we are ruled by an oligarchy composed of certain business interests, party insiders and career politicians.

A free people are not ruled by anyone. Being under anyone's rule automatically means you are not free.

 

[PKT_VOL]

True. Technically we are a democratic republic. In practice, we are ruled by an oligarchy composed of certain business interests, party insiders and career politicians.

A free people are not ruled by anyone. Being under anyone's rule automatically means you are not free.

By your implied definition of "free", I am not sure that there has ever been a large (global power) which had "free" people.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

By your implied definition of "free", I am not sure that there has ever been a large (global power) which had "free" people.

Anarchist I assume.

 

[milohimself]

Anarchist I assume.

To make another reference to a bit from bill maher's show, penn jillette was on last year and said something to the effect of if there is a problem, can it be fixed by applying more freedom. To ask a legitimate question, if the answer is always yes, would that not ultimately lead to anarchy?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

To make another reference to a bit from bill maher's show, penn jillette was on last year and said something to the effect of if there is a problem, can it be fixed by applying more freedom. To ask a legitimate question, if the answer is always yes, would that not ultimately lead to anarchy?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes of course that was my point. There is obviously a trade off between liberty and other things such as security. The more you have of one the less you have of the other. Complete freedom is not the best for ME so I would rather have a few liberties denied and have a bit more security.

 

[therealUT]

Yes of course that was my point. There is obviously a trade off between liberty and other things such as security. The more you have of one the less you have of the other. Complete freedom is not the best for ME so I would rather have a few liberties denied and have a bit more security.

This is the problem. Someone makes a statement that something is 'best for them' and then makes that statement universal, 'it is best for everyone'.

If you want to secure yourself, I have no problem with that. Buy a gun, fortify your house, etc. Do not support a reduction in liberties for all because in doing so you will secure yourself.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This is the problem. Someone makes a statement that something is 'best for them' and then makes that statement universal, 'it is best for everyone'.

If you want to secure yourself, I have no problem with that. Buy a gun, fortify your house, etc. Do not support a reduction in liberties for all because in doing so you will secure yourself.

Come on TRUT, your not advocating anarchy are you?

Although your post reminded me of one of my favorite quotes:

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world" ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[therealUT]

Come on TRUT, your not advocating anarchy are you?

Although your post reminded me of one of my favorite quotes:

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world" ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

I am not an advocate of anarchy; however, I am also not an advocate of preventive law enforcement and/or preventive legislation. Given the option between anarchy or a state which uses preventative law enforcement methods, would choose anarchy.