Thursday, February 08, 2007
That Pesky Little Document Called the Constitution
Isn't it a sad day when the Constitution of the United States is little more than scrap paper to the Nanny-State Left and the Neocon Right? I should think so, but unfortunately a good deal of the Democrat and Republican water carriers of America think they're upholding a good thing, and the thing I speak of certainly isn't the Constitution.
Every time the bureaucrats pass a bill that restricts our rights to life, liberty, or property, the water carriers jump to make this point: "We're not diminishing the Constitution, we're upholding Democracy. If the people vote for the representatives and the representatives vote on a bill, that bill cannot be subject to anything"
They say this like it was what the Founding Fathers wanted, when the truth couldn't be farther away. The Founders knew there is a problem with Democracy, and it's that popular opinion isn't always right, or moral. No matter how much support it gets, there is no justification for a bill that infringes on one's natural rights.
This is why we have a Constitution, and one that is not living and breathing, but set in stone as the supreme law of the land. It exists to prevent Democracy from killing itself a la Fascism.
Now, people voting for representatives and representatives voting for bills is a great system that our country runs on, but it can only be effective if all proposed bills are in accordance to the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the only document holding this country back from a bleak future where freedom and liberty are absent.
The most unfortunate thing is that the Constitution isn't holding bureaucrats back from destroying your freedom anymore, and most of the people of our country are too brainwashed by the RNC and DNC party lines to care.
This country is not and should not be a land of Democracy, but a land of liberty. It must be understood that you are meant to have many freedoms, but one of them is not the freedom to pass laws that restrict the freedoms of others, no matter what the majority consensus is.
Would you party hacks find it justified if the bureaucrats voted for no separation of powers, or no presidential term limits just because the majority think it's okay?
And though these examples are clearly rhetorical hyperboles, it is still safe to say that politicians are passing bills that are clearly unconstitutional.
For downloading a $1 song illegally, you can get a $750 fine. Sounds like excessive punishment to me, which is against the eight amendment.
Senator McCain wants to pass a bill that fines people $300,000 to people who don't snitch out child pornographers. Not only is that an excessive fine, but it is also coercion and involuntary servitude, which is against the thirteenth amendment.
What happened to the right to bear arms in California?
How about those warrant-less wiretaps by the NSA. That undoubtedly breaks the fourth.
Are these laws justified just because the majority supports them? Of course not. And I must add that this is only scratching the surface of a mountain of unconstitutional laws.
We're living in a world where liberty is no longer important to people. And I don't care if "the majority" is against me on this one, because guess what? That doesn't make them right.
Every time the bureaucrats pass a bill that restricts our rights to life, liberty, or property, the water carriers jump to make this point: "We're not diminishing the Constitution, we're upholding Democracy. If the people vote for the representatives and the representatives vote on a bill, that bill cannot be subject to anything"
They say this like it was what the Founding Fathers wanted, when the truth couldn't be farther away. The Founders knew there is a problem with Democracy, and it's that popular opinion isn't always right, or moral. No matter how much support it gets, there is no justification for a bill that infringes on one's natural rights.
This is why we have a Constitution, and one that is not living and breathing, but set in stone as the supreme law of the land. It exists to prevent Democracy from killing itself a la Fascism.
Now, people voting for representatives and representatives voting for bills is a great system that our country runs on, but it can only be effective if all proposed bills are in accordance to the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the only document holding this country back from a bleak future where freedom and liberty are absent.
The most unfortunate thing is that the Constitution isn't holding bureaucrats back from destroying your freedom anymore, and most of the people of our country are too brainwashed by the RNC and DNC party lines to care.
This country is not and should not be a land of Democracy, but a land of liberty. It must be understood that you are meant to have many freedoms, but one of them is not the freedom to pass laws that restrict the freedoms of others, no matter what the majority consensus is.
Would you party hacks find it justified if the bureaucrats voted for no separation of powers, or no presidential term limits just because the majority think it's okay?
And though these examples are clearly rhetorical hyperboles, it is still safe to say that politicians are passing bills that are clearly unconstitutional.
For downloading a $1 song illegally, you can get a $750 fine. Sounds like excessive punishment to me, which is against the eight amendment.
Senator McCain wants to pass a bill that fines people $300,000 to people who don't snitch out child pornographers. Not only is that an excessive fine, but it is also coercion and involuntary servitude, which is against the thirteenth amendment.
What happened to the right to bear arms in California?
How about those warrant-less wiretaps by the NSA. That undoubtedly breaks the fourth.
Are these laws justified just because the majority supports them? Of course not. And I must add that this is only scratching the surface of a mountain of unconstitutional laws.
We're living in a world where liberty is no longer important to people. And I don't care if "the majority" is against me on this one, because guess what? That doesn't make them right.
# posted by Cody O'Connor @ 2/08/2007 12:12:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Technically the Constitution allows for its own amendment, but as you say, many of these laws are not amendments and are therefore unconstitutional. I agree that if the majority says it's okay it is UNLESS the Constitution says it isn't. The Constitution was, in fact, as you say, meant to restrict the Republic from destroying itself via bad laws and representatives, and it can't be interpreted any other way than the way it was written.
# posted by 
: 2/08/2007 3:51 PM
: 2/08/2007 3:51 PM 
If something is unconstitutional and the people take issue with it, that is what the judiciary branch is for.
Well sort of. The Supreme Court has to interpret the Constitution. They can't just make unconstitutional laws.
# posted by : 2/09/2007 2:13 PM
: 2/09/2007 2:13 PM
One thing that I see when I look at the constitution is a document that was written in a time that obviously is different from what exists today. While it is still an important framework and the base of our government, it has to be flexible as time changes to adapt to new times and new definitions. The right to bear arms, for example, was amended into the constitution at a time when personal protection (and protection from foregin armies) was essential, as police forces and SWAT teams and home security systems were not yet available. I'm not at all suggesting that that amendment should then be disregarded, but gun control and possession issues have to be looked at in the context of the year 2007, not the 1700s.
I still believe the second amendment is just as necessary. If you look at the stats, violent crime in developed countries goes up when gun control is implemented. Guns actually prevent crime. If you're mugging a guy, and he pulls out this huge .357 Magnum, you're going to think twice and no one has to get hurt.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever shot a gun? I notice that many people who share your opinion haven't, so I'm just wondering.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever shot a gun? I notice that many people who share your opinion haven't, so I'm just wondering.
# posted by : 2/09/2007 7:53 PM
: 2/09/2007 7:53 PM
Yes, I have shot a gun. Not a handgun, if you meant that, but yes I have shot a gun.
It's still not legal to shoot someone, so what is the purpose of carrying a weapon? I see no reason that anyone needs to carry a gun with them, unless they are hunting. In your home? Maybe, if it's properly stored and impossible for a child to reach. But the need to carry a gun with you is something I really don't understand.
It's still not legal to shoot someone, so what is the purpose of carrying a weapon? I see no reason that anyone needs to carry a gun with them, unless they are hunting. In your home? Maybe, if it's properly stored and impossible for a child to reach. But the need to carry a gun with you is something I really don't understand.
"It's still not legal to shoot someone, so what is the purpose of carrying a weapon?"
To defend yourself from people who want to shoot you.
People should not be able to put their agendas into the constitution. Restricting gay marraige or gun rights are partisan issues that do nothing but restrict your liberties. The constitution is to be ammended to secure your freedoms, not regulate them.
To defend yourself from people who want to shoot you.
People should not be able to put their agendas into the constitution. Restricting gay marraige or gun rights are partisan issues that do nothing but restrict your liberties. The constitution is to be ammended to secure your freedoms, not regulate them.
Okay, I was just wondering. I like to get the statistics on that sort of thing. But as for your arguement, I mean, it's not legal? Allisoni, if a guy is running at me with a drawn weapon trying to kill me, I'm going to shoot him if I can, screw the law. I'd rather have broken the law than be dead, and trust me, no jury on earth is going to convict anyone for self-defense.
And again, guns make the streets safer. The statistics prove that. When someone pulls a gun on a mugger, the mugger is not going to try and mug the guy anymore. As a consequence, neither the man getting mugged, nor the mugger need get hurt.
And again, guns make the streets safer. The statistics prove that. When someone pulls a gun on a mugger, the mugger is not going to try and mug the guy anymore. As a consequence, neither the man getting mugged, nor the mugger need get hurt.
# posted by : 2/10/2007 12:46 PM
: 2/10/2007 12:46 PM
"There has to be a balance between safety and liberty."
"He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
-Ben Franklin
"He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
-Ben Franklin
But let's be serious here, how often do people attempt to mug you? How often is someone chasing you with a drawn weapon? Sure it happens sometimes but I doubt the ordinary person needs to be concerned about that.
And if that is the case, Cody, we need to re-examine the liberties we have sacrificed since 9/11.
And if that is the case, Cody, we need to re-examine the liberties we have sacrificed since 9/11.
Here? Not often. In the cities? Very often. I used to live near Philadelphia, I’ve seen it. Sirens ever other minute, driving through the lower end neighborhoods.
There's a handgun motto, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it." Again, how can you argue with the statistics proving that gun control increases violent crime?
Oh and both Cody and I disagree with almost every big government program Bush put in, so that line of argument won't work.
There's a handgun motto, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it." Again, how can you argue with the statistics proving that gun control increases violent crime?
Oh and both Cody and I disagree with almost every big government program Bush put in, so that line of argument won't work.
# posted by : 2/10/2007 2:19 PM
: 2/10/2007 2:19 PM
So we should give the lower class, crime infested people more guns so that they can have more drive-bys and murders? Sounds like a plan to me. Violent crime will not decrease if the average person is carrying a weapon.
Despite the statistics to the contrary? Legal gun owners are more responsible. You need to go to a range and meet these people. They strictly observe gun safety. They are also very polite, and I don't think they commit drive bys either, as you imply. Criminals do though. And making guns illegal will only give guns to people who are criminals.
# posted by : 2/10/2007 3:55 PM
: 2/10/2007 3:55 PM
You just said in your last comment that the crime is occuring in lower end neighborhoods in big cities. That is where the drive-by comment came from.
I don't think that gun owners are bad people, I know quite a few people who own guns and I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think it's at all necessary to carry a weapon on a regular basis, and I don't think the average person thinks they need a gun with them on a regular basis.
I don't think that gun owners are bad people, I know quite a few people who own guns and I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think it's at all necessary to carry a weapon on a regular basis, and I don't think the average person thinks they need a gun with them on a regular basis.
You may not think it's neccesary, but many people living in cities do, and they know it firsthand. And if you think the average person dislikes guns, you should look into the NRA. Besides, again, I would rather have a gun and never have to use it than need a gun and not have it. It's a common handgun adage.
# posted by : 2/10/2007 4:31 PM
: 2/10/2007 4:31 PM
My argument here is not against the owenership of guns, it's against the ability to carry one, especially a concealed one, in public. And I'm pretty darn sure I never said that the average person doesn't like guns. Because you bring it up, it's interesting to note that of the approximately 300 billion people who live in the U.S., only approximately 4.3 billion are members of the NRA. Which is waaay less than one percent of the population.
First of all it's million, not billion. The US population is 300 million. That’s not important though My point is this: do you think that 4.3 million is an insignificant number? My point was that a gun club with 4 million members is pretty impressive. Again though, if you ban guns in public, the criminals will be the only ones with guns. They don't care about the law, they're already planning to kill or mug someone for Christ's sake! Do you think a gun law will stop them? And the second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. Laws that do not allow guns are unconstitutional by definition.
# posted by : 2/10/2007 7:46 PM
: 2/10/2007 7:46 PM
Oh yes, my bad about the million vs. billion deal. I was thinking that sounded like a few too many, haha.
It is not insignificant, but it is in comparison to the total population. How often do you see someone with a gun in public? It is illegal in the state I live in to carry a concealed weapon and all efforts to make it legal have been rejected. Pretty much because there is no need in Wisconsin to carry a concealed weapon. Besides in movies, I cannot think of a single time I can remember seeing someone carrying a handgun, with the expection of police officers. I don't know about you, but I never want my children to think it's normal to carry a gun with you, because frankly that is not the norm.
It is not insignificant, but it is in comparison to the total population. How often do you see someone with a gun in public? It is illegal in the state I live in to carry a concealed weapon and all efforts to make it legal have been rejected. Pretty much because there is no need in Wisconsin to carry a concealed weapon. Besides in movies, I cannot think of a single time I can remember seeing someone carrying a handgun, with the expection of police officers. I don't know about you, but I never want my children to think it's normal to carry a gun with you, because frankly that is not the norm.
Yeah, can you imagine? China's bad enough. But no, the point is we living in rural areas don't see it, but I can assure you people do in cities, and for good reason. Carrying a gun is not bad, nor are guns themselves. I don't see what it is that disturbs you about them so much. They're very precise and simple machines. The only way for anyone to get hurt is if they're used irresponsibly, by say, criminals. Carrying a gun is not abnormal or creepy as you imply. It's simply a means of defense. Two of my grandparents carry 9mm pistols in a certain state, and they're about as normal as you can get.
# posted by : 2/10/2007 10:49 PM
: 2/10/2007 10:49 PM
You know Robby, this is pointless. Why debate with someone who thinks they know more than James Madison?
I know as a libertarian I'm supposed to be half-and-half, or the beak to go with the two wings, but God, Liberals are so much more annoying than Conservatives.
I know as a libertarian I'm supposed to be half-and-half, or the beak to go with the two wings, but God, Liberals are so much more annoying than Conservatives.
Am I to assume the argument is over then?
Yeah Cody, I know. I can't change the minds of liberal debators, but if moderates read this, they could be persuaded one way or the other. That's why I do this.
Yeah Cody, I know. I can't change the minds of liberal debators, but if moderates read this, they could be persuaded one way or the other. That's why I do this.
# posted by : 2/11/2007 11:06 AM
: 2/11/2007 11:06 AM
Yeah pretty much. Okay let's go with that.
By the way, we'll be discussing this gun control issue in tonight's podcast if anyone wants to listen. We should outline it much better than we do here.
By the way, we'll be discussing this gun control issue in tonight's podcast if anyone wants to listen. We should outline it much better than we do here.
# posted by : 2/11/2007 12:59 PM
: 2/11/2007 12:59 PM
Plus Cody and I will get the liberal view on the subject through Mike.
# posted by : 2/11/2007 1:00 PM
: 2/11/2007 1:00 PM
I'm sure you will. I've got a transcript of Obama's speech if the gun thing doesn't annoy you enough.
# posted by : 2/11/2007 2:26 PM
: 2/11/2007 2:26 PM
Robert M. Said... And again, guns make the streets safer. The statistics prove that. ...how can you argue with the statistics proving that gun control increases violent crime?
I can disagree with your "statistics" because they're untrue. As usual, the only way the Right can produce "facts" which support their postions is to fabricate them.
I can disagree with your "statistics" because they're untrue. As usual, the only way the Right can produce "facts" which support their postions is to fabricate them.
I don't argue with you anymore dervish. That's all I have to say to you.
# posted by : 2/14/2007 3:15 PM
: 2/14/2007 3:15 PM
You sounded extremely eager to present your "facts" concerning gun control. I gave you an opening to do so and you're passing it up? I guess you must not be that confident in your "facts" after all.
What about "Carl Langbehn"? Does he have anything to say to me?
What about "Carl Langbehn"? Does he have anything to say to me?
Sir,
I hope you are still in this frame of mind! I shouldn't even have to tell you that Ron Paul should be your presidential candidate choice!
www.ronpaul2008.com
I hope I'm correct. I appreciate your article.
Post a Comment
I hope you are still in this frame of mind! I shouldn't even have to tell you that Ron Paul should be your presidential candidate choice!
www.ronpaul2008.com
I hope I'm correct. I appreciate your article.
<< Home
