Violating Our Constitution

[Lhotka]

Is it acceptable to violate the U. S. Constitution in order to protect it?

 

[mdlowry]

Evidently the congresscritters and Shrub think its ok to violate the Constitution to protect American jobs--theirs (see the Incumbent Protection Act they passed not too long ago). I doubt they have any qualms about violating it to "protect" the people. Besides, it's an excuse to increase their power. #@$%!

I however have a different opinion.

 

[FATCAT]

To violate is to harm.

Violating the Constitution IS harming the Constitution and not protecting it. If you are refering to the Fifth Amendment concerning jury trials, I would say that the stmt "... except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; ... " can be applied to the situation today ... "Public Danger".



Any time the Constitution is violated, it is definately not protected!

 

[The patriot]

Any violation of the Constitution, is unconstitutional. PERIOD!!

Just because someone in Washington says it's "law" dont make it right.

These rights are "God given" not by some elected official in Washington.

JM . 02

Eric

 

[LSMITH]

There has never and never will be a reason to violate out constitution, EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BFC]

Not in my book! To protect us... ... . according to whom? Would you want to be "protected" by Hillary and freinds I don't!



Glenn

 

[DBazley]

Constitutionally speaking......

Originally posted by The patriot

Any violation of the Constitution, is unconstitutional. PERIOD!!

Just because someone in Washington says it's "law" dont make it right.

These rights are "God given" not by some elected official in Washington.

JM . 02

Eric

Amen & Amen. I couldn't agree more, gentlemen! It's good to hear others who notice the abuse of our foundational law, the Declaration of Independence & Constitution.



I'm always searching for practical ways to bring light to this topic, do you guys have any ideas ?



For example, many of us "conservatives" are noisy when Democrats propose legislation that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but silent when the same is unlawful legislation is proposed by Republicans. "Bad if by CLINTON, OK if by BUSH" it seems to be!



I ask you: Is that not the heighth of hypocracy ?? If our devotion is to bedrock principle, the Constitution, then how can we look the other way when the party takes a popular, but wrong position?



Have you ever noticed how the (largely) Republican candidates take hard line positions when asking for your vote, then reverse themselves and take a pragmatic (whatever works is fine) stand once in office? Does it make you feel betrayed ?



I think that the fact that our lawmakers have little respect for & knowledge of the Constitution is a sad reflection on many Americans.



After all, how can we hold them to standard, if most don't even care to know what that standard is?



[That is changing, slowly I believe. But don't wait for the Government schools to teach it to our youth, those who care must do that job. ]



Remember what Thomas Jefferson said of it's function to prevent corruption and abuse by politicians:



"In questions of power, let us hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the constitution"



For God & country, Oo.



David B.

 

[sberrio]

MAYBE?

Add conditions, and MAYBE it is allright to violate it.



To avoid annoying people let me say I am in the Army, and many military members are relatively narrow minded. I would say that the constitution in its current form is damaged. It has too many crazy loopholes that let people burn flags, people support terrorism and many other things in the name of "Free Speach"among other things. No one wants to see Americans guarding their words or actions, but something has to be done. MAJOR REFORM IS NEEDED.

Like I said I am narrow minded. As far as republican vs. democrat. All I can say is with the Democrats the average Infantryman, Artilleryman, Supply Sergeant or cook recieved an average of 1. 9% increase in pay. With the Republicans it was 5%.



sorry for the rambling,

simon:{

 

[mdlowry]

Re: MAYBE?

Originally posted by sberrio

Add conditions, and MAYBE it is allright to violate it.



To avoid annoying people let me say I am in the Army, and many military members are relatively narrow minded. I would say that the constitution in its current form is damaged. It has too many crazy loopholes that let people burn flags, people support terrorism and many other things in the name of "Free Speach"among other things. No one wants to see Americans guarding their words or actions, but something has to be done. MAJOR REFORM IS NEEDED.

Conditions like only lasting 10 years (assult weapon/magazine ban*), or perhaps only limiting free speech for 60 days prior to an election? Once you start making exceptions on when you can excercise a right, it ceases to become a right. The government now has control of that privilage. They can tell you when and how you can excercise that privilage. It can even be denied. Just ask the subjects of DC (or CA, or MA, or The Patriot) about their "right" to keep and bear arms.

_______

*This ban will expire in September of 2004. When Shrub was campaigning in 2000 he even mentioned it. He promised to keep the ban in place if congress sent it up to him. Will most likely be another casuality in the war on terrorism.

 

[emarsh]

Non citizens should not have constitutional rights. We certainly do not when we are in their country.

 

[mdlowry]

The Constitution does not grant you any rights.

 

[mdlowry]

1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the presss, or the right of the peopple peaceable to assemple, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be perscribed by law.

4) The righ of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing he place to e searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

6) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

7) In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

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

10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

--------------
It seems pretty clear to me that this is a list of thing that the government is prohibited from doing. Our rights are not granted by the Constitution. They are human rights that pre-exist the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was supposed to prevent the government from taking our rights away.

 

[The patriot]

Re: Re: MAYBE?

Originally posted by mdlowry

Once you start making exceptions on when you can excercise a right, it ceases to become a right.

BINGO!!!

A right cant be licensed, regulated, or otherwise controlled by ANYONE. Ya either got it, or ya dont.

Eric

 

[DBazley]

Why the Dis-respect ??

Originally posted by The patriot





BINGO!!!

A right cant be licensed, regulated, or otherwise controlled by ANYONE. Ya either got it, or ya dont.

Eric

Granted, but I ask you: Where do rights organically come from, and why are they so dis-respected by so many today ?



[I don't just mean by politicians, either, I mean by many of our fellow citizens. ]



David

 

[The patriot]

Pretty simple...

Theyre God given rights, thus no man can take them away.

I dont know why so many are disrespectful of them... maybe for the last few deacdes, we've been being told (in school, media, govt. etc. etc. ) that they CAN regulate them, and ultimately take them away. ?? Keep repeating a lie, and it will be precieved as a fact eventually.....

I'm blown away that even three people, 8% (in this poll) would let the govt do this for their own piece of mind.

It's sad.

Eric



PS The more our rights are trampled, the clearer the the real reason for the Second Amendment becomes.

 

[Champane Flight]

War acts

I think the goverment is already in violation of said constitution in the cases of several suspected terrorsists. Let me ask you, do we allow the goverment to violate the constitution in the pursuit of these low lifes? Or do we give them their basic freedoms according to the constitution? Be advised we are not at war as defined by both houses.