Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Whats NOT in the constitution,
adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 07/08/14 07:31 PM
exactly, another phrase that can be found NOWHERE In the US constitituion instead , paraphrased rather safely from ,,, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof CONGRESS ( A very specific political designation) must not respect religion nor prohibit others from exercising theirs,,, CONGRESS should stay out of religious matters,,,, the latter two are more paraphrasing and INTERPRETING what is in the constitution Edited by msharmony on Tue 07/08/14 06:35 PM which means govt funds should not be spent to support a religion and govt officials have no right to stop any one from practicing their religion no matter where they practice it actually that phrase is taken out of context from a writing of Jefferson http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts I only slightly disagree, as the government is bigger than just the congress, but yeah, I think it means the CONGRESS (as the legislative branch of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) cannot make LAWS regarding religion, pro or con,,,, being a state in the union means you must support and abide by the constitution thus the bill of rights must be observed by all govt jurisdictions from the smallest town to the total country many precedents enforce that go back to the civil rights movement to see some of them thus local police must give Miranda rights the 5th amendment being one police must get search warrant to search without cause

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 07/08/14 08:00 PM Edited by msharmony on Tue 07/08/14 08:07 PM
yes, where it is EXPRESSLY granted to Congress (or the UNITED STATES) is is to be the law of the land because Congress is the legislative branch of the land,,, where the document reads CONGRESS SHALL< it refers to CONGRESS if its not expressly an authority of congress, or expressly forbidden to states it is not a matter of the constitution,,,but of 'the people'(state, city, whatever,,) tenth amendment 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 the constitution delegates NO POWER regarding religion to the US, nor does it prohibit power to the STATES, so the powers regarding religion are reserved to the 'people'

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 07/08/14 08:07 PM
where the document reads CONGRESS SHALL< it refers to CONGRESS if its not expressly an authority of congress, or expressly forbidden to states it is not a matter of the constitution,,,but of 'the people'(state, city, whatever,,) tenth amendment 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 the constitution delegates NO POWER regarding religion to the US, nor does it prohibit power to the STATES, so the powers regarding religion are reserved to the 'people' it comes in to play in the bill of rights

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 07/08/14 08:09 PM
where the document reads CONGRESS SHALL< it refers to CONGRESS if its not expressly an authority of congress, or expressly forbidden to states it is not a matter of the constitution,,,but of 'the people'(state, city, whatever,,) tenth amendment 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 the constitution delegates NO POWER regarding religion to the US, nor does it prohibit power to the STATES, so the powers regarding religion are reserved to the 'people' it comes in to play in the bill of rights the bill of rights only declares that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof congress bares no authority over religion, so it is delegating NO POWER to congress that is different than if it gave Congress the power, and then that power would apply across the land when Congress passed legislation

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Wed 07/09/14 10:54 AM Edited by Chazster on Wed 07/09/14 10:56 AM
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials. 1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. interpretation but THE CONSTITUTION,nowhere states that there is a right to a 'fair' trial,,, an 'impartial' jury is not going to happen in the media age,,,,, It also doesn't say you have the right to eat. So what? It doesnt have to explicitly say everything. and therefore, though I may argue that I have the 'right to eat', I could not use the COHSITTUON as the basis most likely I would use the popular and vague 'inalienable right' argument about 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness' Yes you could. 9th amendment. Let me further this by saying, what YOU think and what constitutional law allows is not the same thing.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 07/09/14 01:55 PM Edited by msharmony on Wed 07/09/14 01:57 PM
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials. 1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. interpretation but THE CONSTITUTION,nowhere states that there is a right to a 'fair' trial,,, an 'impartial' jury is not going to happen in the media age,,,,, It also doesn't say you have the right to eat. So what? It doesnt have to explicitly say everything. and therefore, though I may argue that I have the 'right to eat', I could not use the COHSITTUON as the basis most likely I would use the popular and vague 'inalienable right' argument about 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness' Yes you could. 9th amendment. Let me further this by saying, what YOU think and what constitutional law allows is not the same thing. the ninth amendment says something about 'right to eat'? really? let me check,, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people NOPE, not there let me add, the column is about the flaws in the thinking of 'literalists' who use the LITERAL and verbatim, words of the Constitution to define everything,,,, what is LITERALLY there, and what one THINKS it means, are not the same thing,,

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Wed 07/09/14 03:07 PM Edited by Drivinmenutz on Wed 07/09/14 03:19 PM
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials. 1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. interpretation but THE CONSTITUTION,nowhere states that there is a right to a 'fair' trial,,, an 'impartial' jury is not going to happen in the media age,,,,, It also doesn't say you have the right to eat. So what? It doesnt have to explicitly say everything. and therefore, though I may argue that I have the 'right to eat', I could not use the COHSITTUON as the basis most likely I would use the popular and vague 'inalienable right' argument about 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness' Yes you could. 9th amendment. Let me further this by saying, what YOU think and what constitutional law allows is not the same thing. the ninth amendment says something about 'right to eat'? really? let me check,, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people NOPE, not there let me add, the column is about the flaws in the thinking of 'literalists' who use the LITERAL and verbatim, words of the Constitution to define everything,,,, what is LITERALLY there, and what one THINKS it means, are not the same thing,, This is where the declaration of independence comes in. The right to "life" would be violated if citizens were denied the "right to eat". So, according to the declaration of independence it would be the right and responsibility of the people take up their arms (which are SUPPOSED to be protected by the 2nd amendment) and overthrow the the corrupt officials who are denying their "inalienable right" to "life". I believe the people you are trying to point out are the lawyers who pervert the constitution by separating it from other documents. You are correct in the flawed logic of, "it's not in the constitution word for word the right doesn't exist". So I guess these documents cannot be separated, any more than the executive branch can be separated from the judicial branch, as one is a check/balance for the other.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 07/09/14 03:14 PM Edited by msharmony on Wed 07/09/14 03:14 PM
actually, I dont even think the constituiton needed to be written , if the declaration was the law of the land because 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happinesss', pretty much covers anything someone wants it to,,, imho,,, however, Im glad it was, since at the time of this everyone being created equal to rights of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' africans and women were not at all given 'equal' access to any of these things,,,,or treated 'equal' in these rights,,,,

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Wed 07/09/14 03:25 PM
actually, I dont even think the constituiton needed to be written , if the declaration was the law of the land because 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happinesss', pretty much covers anything someone wants it to,,, imho,,, however, Im glad it was, since at the time of this everyone being created equal to rights of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' africans and women were not at all given 'equal' access to any of these things,,,,or treated 'equal' in these rights,,,, The original constitution (to include the Declaration of Independence) was ahead of it's time (and still is). Culture had not matured enough to appreciate the concept of being equal. Just as culture today has not yet grown to appreciate the responsibility of being independent.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Wed 07/09/14 05:15 PM
actually, I dont even think the constituiton needed to be written , if the declaration was the law of the land because 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happinesss', pretty much covers anything someone wants it to,,, imho,,, however, Im glad it was, since at the time of this everyone being created equal to rights of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' africans and women were not at all given 'equal' access to any of these things,,,,or treated 'equal' in these rights,,,, The original constitution (to include the Declaration of Independence) was ahead of it's time (and still is). Culture had not matured enough to appreciate the concept of being equal. Just as culture today has not yet grown to appreciate the responsibility of being independent. bravo absolutely it is being proven that your statement is true all the time unfortunately

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 07/09/14 07:35 PM
actually, I dont even think the constituiton needed to be written , if the declaration was the law of the land because 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happinesss', pretty much covers anything someone wants it to,,, imho,,, however, Im glad it was, since at the time of this everyone being created equal to rights of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' africans and women were not at all given 'equal' access to any of these things,,,,or treated 'equal' in these rights,,,, The original constitution (to include the Declaration of Independence) was ahead of it's time (and still is). Culture had not matured enough to appreciate the concept of being equal. Just as culture today has not yet grown to appreciate the responsibility of being independent. The constitution does not INCLUDE THE DECLARATION it is a separate document,, it is a document to separate one entity from another the constitution is a document to outline the UNITY of entities as one UNITED STATES,,,

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Wed 07/09/14 07:41 PM
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials. 1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. interpretation but THE CONSTITUTION,nowhere states that there is a right to a 'fair' trial,,, an 'impartial' jury is not going to happen in the media age,,,,, It also doesn't say you have the right to eat. So what? It doesnt have to explicitly say everything. and therefore, though I may argue that I have the 'right to eat', I could not use the COHSITTUON as the basis most likely I would use the popular and vague 'inalienable right' argument about 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness' Yes you could. 9th amendment. Let me further this by saying, what YOU think and what constitutional law allows is not the same thing. the ninth amendment says something about 'right to eat'? really? let me check,, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people NOPE, not there let me add, the column is about the flaws in the thinking of 'literalists' who use the LITERAL and verbatim, words of the Constitution to define everything,,,, what is LITERALLY there, and what one THINKS it means, are not the same thing,, Actually it does. It basically says that just because certain rights are stated in the constitution does not mean rights not stated in the constitution are not rights. The fact that there are many cases of constitutional significance and rulings after such cases, of things not explicitly stated in the constitution prove that you are wrong.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 07/09/14 07:44 PM
wow, IM amazed at this, really basically says that just because certain rights are stated in the constitution does not mean rights not stated in the constitution are not rights the point was never whether or not they are rights,, the point was that they are not in the constitution,,, clarified by the constitution itself as well as the above interpretation 'rights not stated in the constitution',, meaning they ARENT IN THE CONSTITUTION,,, its another topic as to whether they are therefore 'rights' or not,,,

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Wed 07/09/14 09:49 PM
You confuse me MsHarmony. They are separate documents, but they are linked. I don't really think the people that you are seemingly trying to educate exist here on mingle. Or are trying to counter you... No one stated that direct quotes you gave are in the constitution word for word. So, what exactly are you trying to achieve?

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Wed 07/09/14 09:56 PM Edited by Drivinmenutz on Wed 07/09/14 09:56 PM
wow, IM amazed at this, really basically says that just because certain rights are stated in the constitution does not mean rights not stated in the constitution are not rights the point was never whether or not they are rights,, the point was that they are not in the constitution,,, clarified by the constitution itself as well as the above interpretation 'rights not stated in the constitution',, meaning they ARENT IN THE CONSTITUTION,,, its another topic as to whether they are therefore 'rights' or not,,, I think where you are getting confused is lumping constitutionalists into a category that only speaks of the constitution itself, and only believes in the literal direct translation of the constitution. Don't personally know any people like that with the exception of MAYBE one or two hardcore liberals who happen to be lawyers... (Ironically they are not here on mingle)

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Sun 07/13/14 08:06 PM
A Texas woman is being pressured by the government to remove a Christian-themed sign from her property. Jeanette Golden received a letter from the Texas Department of Transportation in April telling her that she needs to remove a large sign that has the Ten Commandments from her yard because it’s close to the highway. The DOT told her that the only acceptable signs along to road are those for commercial and industrial uses. With the help of attorney Michael Berry and the Liberty Institute, the pastor is fighting the will of the government. http://tellmenow.com/2014/07/government-forcing-woman-to-remove-ten-commandments-from-her-own-property/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- guess it doesn't matter what is in the constitution

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 07/13/14 08:08 PM
You confuse me MsHarmony. They are separate documents, but they are linked. I don't really think the people that you are seemingly trying to educate exist here on mingle. Or are trying to counter you... No one stated that direct quotes you gave are in the constitution word for word. So, what exactly are you trying to achieve? I have debated with people who seem to believe that all that matters or should be enforced is what is IN the constitution, or what they INTERPRET the constitution to mean, but not what others do,,,,

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Mon 07/14/14 06:31 AM
wow, IM amazed at this, really basically says that just because certain rights are stated in the constitution does not mean rights not stated in the constitution are not rights the point was never whether or not they are rights,, the point was that they are not in the constitution,,, clarified by the constitution itself as well as the above interpretation 'rights not stated in the constitution',, meaning they ARENT IN THE CONSTITUTION,,, its another topic as to whether they are therefore 'rights' or not,,, Yes, you are indeed confused. The rights not given to the Federal Government or to the States are SPECIFICALLY GIVEN to the people. This is one of the most used and most important parts of the Constitution and you seem to just "not get it".

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Tue 07/15/14 05:49 AM
The most important thing NOT in the Constitution? The eyes of those in DC we call "Representatives"!