Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Whats NOT in the constitution,
adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Wed 07/02/14 09:16 AM
will combine all these post into one

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 07/02/14 12:53 PM
wrong , on so many levels and too long but I will try to point out the errors the FIRST error is that this thread is not about what is in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE it is about what is in THE CONSTITUTION in THE CONSTITUTION although some INTERPRET The meaning of some things those things are not LITERALLY (that means word for word) in the document called THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA like 'the constitution is written to help enforce the declaration of independence',,not actually WRITTEN in the constitution though some have obviously INTERPRETED it that way,,, but on to the points made: 1st. judicial review is not about what accused have a right to its about the courts authority to interpret the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a law or government action,,,, NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION 2nd: right to travel not in THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES because the declaration of independence is NOT the constitution 3rd: I agree the constitution should never be construed to define rights because too many things were not thought of due to it being a different era and culture when it was written, I don't agree with literalists , which is why I contributed the article,, 4th: if a right to vote were absolute there would be only ONE time it would be mentioned to say EVERY CITIZEN has a RIGHT TO VOTE but that is also NOT in the Constitution,,, instead, the constitution only provides specific situations in one cant be denied a vote,, those things not mentioned can therefore be regulated as it is never mentioned as a right of EVERYONE, or that NOONE Can be denied,,, 5th: the constitution is in English, yet, even here people are interpreting it to mean things it does not literally or explicitly state,, like that its written to reinforce the declaration or that its mention of the rights of an accused means 'judicial review' is mentioned or included,,, 6th: Innocent until Proven Guilty is not there, Im glad we are in agreement there, regardless of the reason one assumes it is absent,,, the analogy about air is not a good one, as in fact the breathing process is a biological reality and innocence as a reality is quite different than innocence as a social or legal issue,,, 7th: right to fair trial is also NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION., agreed trial by jury, is not the same as a 'fair' trial,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 07/02/14 01:01 PM
the challenge find these nine phrases Innocent until Proven Guilty: The Right to a Fair Trial Right to a Jury of Your Peers: The Right to Vote The Right to Travel Judicial Review The Right to Marriage The Right to Procreate The Right to Privacy anywhere in the US CONSTITUTION or continue debating individual INTTERPRETATIONS Of what is actually, literally, there,,,

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Wed 07/02/14 02:48 PM
The Right to a Fair Trial You will not find you exact words, no. However you will find synonyms or explanations of those words. I will start with one that is more obvious; "Fair" in "The Right to a Fair trial", is subjective. In our constitution; 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 the 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 defense. "Public trial", by an "impartial jury", being "informed of the nature and cause of accusation", be "confronted by the witnesses against him" and "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" as well as "to have the assistance of a counsel for his defense", more specifically outlines a "fair trial". If the constitution were to say the words "fair trial" than people would be left to their devices on interpretation of what "fair" actually means. So to revisit, when saying we have a "right to a fair trial" is slang used to sum up the above mentioned amendment. Its a heck of a lot easier/quicker to say, and it sums things up fairly accurately.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Wed 07/02/14 03:49 PM Edited by adj4u on Wed 07/02/14 04:08 PM
the declaration of independence is the precursor to the constitution the revolt was because of the unanswered grievances in the declaration of independence the revolution was won thus along came the constitution you do not say this is why we revolt then not honor those reasons after the revolution you do create a more detailed way to enforce and support your declaration that you wrote as to why you seek independence thus a constitution is written the constitution was written to expand and enforce the declaration of independence the declaration of independence overrides the constitution

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48914	Wed 07/02/14 04:37 PM
the declaration of independence overrides the constitution Good luck in finding a judge who agrees with that.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Wed 07/02/14 04:43 PM
the declaration of independence overrides the constitution Good luck in finding a judge who agrees with that. i would like to debate it with one not smart enough to understand it hopefully there are none

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/03/14 12:24 PM
The Right to a Fair Trial You will not find you exact words, no. However you will find synonyms or explanations of those words. I will start with one that is more obvious; "Fair" in "The Right to a Fair trial", is subjective. In our constitution; 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 the 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 defense. "Public trial", by an "impartial jury", being "informed of the nature and cause of accusation", be "confronted by the witnesses against him" and "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" as well as "to have the assistance of a counsel for his defense", more specifically outlines a "fair trial". If the constitution were to say the words "fair trial" than people would be left to their devices on interpretation of what "fair" actually means. So to revisit, when saying we have a "right to a fair trial" is slang used to sum up the above mentioned amendment. Its a heck of a lot easier/quicker to say, and it sums things up fairly accurately. I respectfully disagree that these things equal a 'fair' trial, especially since having 'counsel' does not mean one receives a defense, let alone a 'fair' one,,, let alone that 'impartial' is possible, but that is a whole other debate,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/03/14 12:29 PM
the declaration of independence is the precursor to the constitution the revolt was because of the unanswered grievances in the declaration of independence the revolution was won thus along came the constitution you do not say this is why we revolt then not honor those reasons after the revolution you do create a more detailed way to enforce and support your declaration that you wrote as to why you seek independence thus a constitution is written the constitution was written to expand and enforce the declaration of independence the declaration of independence overrides the constitution it could be said, being English that the law was 'based' in English laws , magna carta,, etc,,,yet these are not the same document as the one called the CONSTITUTION either, and what is constitutional or a 'right' in america is not determined by what is in these other documents either odd that the declaration (or other british legal documents) were't just amended though and that no one argues legally using the declaration or magna carta ,,etc,,, instead of the constitution in lieu, the delcaration and the constitution becomes TWO SEPERATE documents I could not write a document, lets call it Document A for an assignment and then submit a second document lets call it Document B and then claim that something was in Document B, because I wrote it in Document A only way I can claim that is if I ALSO include it in DOCUMENT B if it is in the first but not the second than it is simply,, in the first,, and NOT in the second

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Fri 07/04/14 04:47 AM Edited by adj4u on Fri 07/04/14 05:10 AM
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#pe7GG5DRFqT9uukl.99 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#pe7GG5DRFqT9uukl.99 --------------------------------------------------------------------- The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. George Washington Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html#KhiDDRAkQiVMT8cv.99 -------------------------------------------------------------------- The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves. George Washington Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html#KhiDDRAkQiVMT8cv.99

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Fri 07/04/14 05:01 AM
the declaration of independence is the precursor to the constitution the revolt was because of the unanswered grievances in the declaration of independence the revolution was won thus along came the constitution you do not say this is why we revolt then not honor those reasons after the revolution you do create a more detailed way to enforce and support your declaration that you wrote as to why you seek independence thus a constitution is written the constitution was written to expand and enforce the declaration of independence the declaration of independence overrides the constitution it could be said, being English that the law was 'based' in English laws , magna carta,, etc,,,yet these are not the same document as the one called the CONSTITUTION either, and what is constitutional or a 'right' in america is not determined by what is in these other documents either odd that the declaration (or other british legal documents) were't just amended though and that no one argues legally using the declaration or magna carta ,,etc,,, instead of the constitution in lieu, the delcaration and the constitution becomes TWO SEPERATE documents I could not write a document, lets call it Document A for an assignment and then submit a second document lets call it Document B and then claim that something was in Document B, because I wrote it in Document A only way I can claim that is if I ALSO include it in DOCUMENT B if it is in the first but not the second than it is simply,, in the first,, and NOT in the second ----------------------------------------- """"and then claim that something was in Document B, because I wrote it in Document A""" ------------------------------------------ it happens all the time it is called a precedent in law and a sequel in entertainment

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Fri 07/04/14 09:29 AM
thats a bad example really,,lol if it wasnt in the sequel, noone will say it was in the sequel just because it was in the first movie,,,lol unless it was IN THE SEQUEL and precedent doesnt apply to documents, it applies to the application of law as it has already been decided that is to say, one cant say in one case that something is ok and then in an IDENTICAL case say its not thats not a matter of saying what is 'in a document', that is a matter of saying what has been established as law,,,,

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Sat 07/05/14 09:44 AM Edited by adj4u on Sat 07/05/14 09:44 AM
thats a bad example really,,lol if it wasnt in the sequel, noone will say it was in the sequel just because it was in the first movie,,,lol unless it was IN THE SEQUEL and precedent doesnt apply to documents, it applies to the application of law as it has already been decided that is to say, one cant say in one case that something is ok and then in an IDENTICAL case say its not thats not a matter of saying what is 'in a document', that is a matter of saying what has been established as law,,,, court records are govt documents declaration is a govt document constitution is a govt document in the case of govt documents """that is to say, one cant say in one case that something is ok and then in an IDENTICAL case say its not""" the govt should not say something in one docement and then not honor it in another

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 07/05/14 09:52 AM Edited by Conrad_73 on Sat 07/05/14 09:54 AM
the Garbage that Phreak in the WH is perpetrating on the Nation since early '09 definitely is NOT!

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/05/14 01:28 PM
thats a bad example really,,lol if it wasnt in the sequel, noone will say it was in the sequel just because it was in the first movie,,,lol unless it was IN THE SEQUEL and precedent doesnt apply to documents, it applies to the application of law as it has already been decided that is to say, one cant say in one case that something is ok and then in an IDENTICAL case say its not thats not a matter of saying what is 'in a document', that is a matter of saying what has been established as law,,,, court records are govt documents declaration is a govt document constitution is a govt document in the case of govt documents """that is to say, one cant say in one case that something is ok and then in an IDENTICAL case say its not""" the govt should not say something in one docement and then not honor it in another no matter how you spin it not in there is not in there being 'honored' , is not the same as being 'in'

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sun 07/06/14 02:23 PM
more detail here: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/p/Constitution.htm Innocent until Proven Guilty: The Right to a Fair Trial Right to a Jury of Your Peers: The Right to Vote The Right to Travel Judicial Review The Right to Marriage The Right to Procreate The Right to Privacy Reading and Interpreting the Constitution This author is as big a fruit cake as they come. Indoctrinated in three countries, too bad he was too stupid to educate himself. Perhaps he should try reading the constitution, nah, on second thought it would just be a waste of time, doesn't seem to have the skill needed to comprehend, like so many of the entitlement crowd. But all of it is right there in the constitution and so much more as the founders understood and wrote that most illustrious document. But just to be sure, the anti-federalist insisted it be more explicit and hence the Bill of Right were enjoined. But as to even why this was posted, well I would say that it was because of a lack of understanding of rights even in their most basic form. To some, rights are that which is granted by the constitution, a totally idiotic thought in and of itself, but then they will never understand the concept.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sun 07/06/14 02:25 PM
These are basic human rights. Every human right doesn't need to be spelled out in the Constitution to be accepted. But each and every right is spelled out, right in the constitution.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sun 07/06/14 02:27 PM
who says they are 'human' rights? for me, a 'human' right requires no one else to participate (except procreation) and was present with the FIRST human so things like voting and trials and marriage(government marriage) etc,, are not 'human' rights because they are born from unnatural and man made processes I say they are rights and of course you don't. To have rights, first one must understand what a right is. Without that knowledge, there are no rights, just slaves with privileges.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sun 07/06/14 02:39 PM Edited by alnewman on Sun 07/06/14 02:47 PM
Ok, some unnatural and man made processes are considered rights as long as they don't infringe on others rights. To try to write every possibility into the Constitution would be endless. So you depend on the constitution for your rights, then you don't have any. The constitution does not have the power to grant any rights what so ever. Now if it did, then the US has 10, the British 13, the Belgians 25, the Germans 29 and the poor Swedes only 6. But the constitution does cover all rights of man, each and every one of them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sun 07/06/14 02:44 PM
I agree, thare are 'human' rights and 'constitutional' rights those 'human' are those that exist with EVERY human from the very first one constitutional are those that mostly pertain to human interaction with the man created Government,,,, I think its overuse of the term 'right' which makes it seem like it would be endless to include them all in the constitution,,, There are no constitutional rights, there are no human rights and their are no civil rights, just don't exist in any way, shape, or form. But then, we have all been here before and it just doesn't seem to matter, most choose to remain ignorant of just what a right is, much less at how they obtained that right. Most choose to be a statist and declare it their right to democracy and mob rule, telling others what their rights are even though by that very fact demonstrate that they don't have a clue what a right really is.