Bill of Rights Questions

[ArmyJerry]

Well, according to the Constitution there should be very very little process to understand, it pretty straight forward, once " understanding" happens interpretations and deconstruction by the evil ones, much like we have today, is the name of the game.. For context, one other thing people need to read up on is the French Revolution.

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

 

[Greg Langelius *]

What is law?

noun
noun: law; noun: the law

1. 1.
   the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
   "they were taken to court for breaking the law"
   

   synonyms:

   rules and regulations, system of laws, body of laws, constitution, legislation, code, legal code, charter; jurisprudence "the law of the land"

   antonyms:

   anarchy

   • an individual rule as part of a system of law.
     plural noun: laws
     "an initiative to tighten up the laws on pornography"
     

     synonyms:

     regulation, statute, enactment, act, bill, decree, edict, rule, ruling, resolution, promulgation, measure, motion, dictum, command, order, stipulation, commandment, directive, pronouncement, ratification, proclamation, dictate, diktat, fiat, covenant, demand, bylaw; More ordinance; ukase; pronunciamento "a new law was passed to make divorce easier and simpler"

   • systems of law as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession.
     "he was still practicing law"
     

     synonyms:

     the legal profession, the bar, barristers and solicitors collectively "a career in the law"

   • statutory law and the common law.
   • a thing regarded as having the binding force or effect of a formal system of rules.
     "what he said was law"
   • informal
     the police.
     "he'd never been in trouble with the law in his life"
     

     synonyms:

     the police, the officers of the law, the forces of law and order, law-enforcement officers, police officers, policemen, policewomen, the police force, the constabulary; More informalthe cops, the fuzz, the boys in blue, the long arm of the law; informalthe (Old) Bill, the bobbies, the busies, the bizzies, the coppers, the rozzers, the force, plod, PC Plod; informalthe heat; informalthe pigs, the filth, Babylon "on the run from the law"

2. 2.
   a rule defining correct procedure or behavior in a sport.
   "the laws of the game"
   

   synonyms:

   rule, regulation, principle, convention, direction, instruction, guideline, practice "the laws of the game"

3. 3.
   a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
   "the second law of thermodynamics"
   • a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
     "the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"
4. 4.
   the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
   

   synonyms:

   principle, rule, precept, directive, direction, injunction, instruction, commandment, prescription, standard, criterion, belief, creed, credo, ethic, maxim, formula, tenet, doctrine, canon; mitzvah "a moral law"

   • the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
     noun: Law; noun: the Law
   • the precepts of the Pentateuch.
     noun: Law of Moses; plural noun: the Law of Moses

Does the Declaration of Independence carry the weight of law?

Although the Declaration of Independence stands with the Constitution as a founding document of the United States of America, its position in U.S. law is much less certain than that of the Constitution. ... The Supreme Court, however, has generally not considered it a part of the organic law of the country.

Is the Constitution an actual law, or is it the basis from which law is derived?

Generally, constitutional law is the foundation of all law in a specific jurisdiction. It establishes governmental authority and power, as well as limitations and grants of rights. The Constitution of the United States established a system of government and serves as the primary source of law. While each individual state has its own constitution, "Constitutional law" generally refers to such law of the federal government.

Is the Bill of Rights law, or is it the rules by which laws may or may not be established?

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. ... It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States.Oct 12, 2016

OK, some of these are lengthy and broad explanations.

But if people here cannot comprehend the distinction between laws (Acts/Statutes), and the frameworks within which those Acts/Statutes may be established; then I might as well be trying to describe the laws of physics to a convention of Gerbils.

The test: Is there any possibility that a person may be tried before a Court of Law under the wording of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or must the charge be in the wording of an Act or Statute?

Answer, the Constitution and Bill of Rights establish and validate/invalidate the works of the three branches, the three branches perform said activities by establishing and executing Acts and Statutes, and validating/invalidating those activities.

One can only be tried in response to breaking the provisions of an Act/Statute of a legislature, not for breaking provisions of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Greg

 

[ArmyJerry]

The supreme court is not supreme to the constitution. Hell SCOTUS is a construct of Congress, not really a co equal branch at all.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The supreme court is not supreme to the constitution. Hell SCOTUS is a construct of Congress, not really a co equal branch at all.

I'm sorry, Jerry, but once again I remind you that things are not so simply because you want them to be so.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. ... Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation. ... As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

- uscourts.gov

Do your research.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I'm not your encyclopedia, your answer man, or any other kind of minion who can be made to jump through hoops at anyone's desire.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!

Greg

I'm done with this topic.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Here is the actual article 3 not someones interpretation of it.

ARTICLE III
SECTION 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

SECTION 3
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.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

We are talking past each other.

You just want to prove yourself right; your evidence supports both our assertions, but you only see what suits your narrative.

Familiar, 'dat.

As I said, done; and now, you are ignored because you refused to let the subject lie where it was...

Bye,

Greg

 

[ArmyJerry]

well I just copy and pasted the actual text from the Constitution.. no need to get upset. My "narrative" is the Constitution itself, other fictional stories to make people "feel" better or assume power over the citizenry has no place in the discussion about the Constitution really. acts are facts, and if you read the document it is pure factual, no interpretation needed really. Dosnt mean I am right about everything, but to counter my cut and paste above you really need to use fact from the document itself for if ts not in teh document it has no pace beig discussed as a government responsibility or delegated power because the 10th clearly states that the govement has o power unless expressly delegated in the Constitution, o matter who says they do.

AMENDMENT X
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.



I am not arguing with you or anyone else GL.

United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992) Constitution - Constitute

United States of America's Constitution of 1789 with Amendments through 1992

www.constituteproject.org

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Just goes to show, I can't manage to keep you on ignore for more than ten minutes anyway, Jerry.

I think we rule out accepted, standing jurisprudence/interpretation at our peril.

They actually do represent the acting law of the land.

Greg

 

[ArmyJerry]

They are all long dead Greg, the Justice system is a weapon of evil people, very evil people who like to "interpret" the Constitution.

 

[wilson1911]

Interpret means that 'we" do not like what it says, so we are going to change the definitions of words to get what we want.

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

Which is why I tell people I meet who want 'common sense gun regulation" and "assault weapons bans" that any such laws are a death sentence for me as it is infringing on my Rights which are plainly outlined in the Constitution. If one enforces/enacts an illegal law I am bound as an American to resist it. This will get me killed.

I tell folks who's position it is that "well, we have to do something" that the first thing they have to do is simple - repeal the Second Amendment. There are very clear guidelines how to legally do that and *any* laws infringing on the 2A are *Illegal* laws and I am duty bound to break them or become a criminal - not the other way around.

I tell anti gunners the solution is simple - repeal the 2A.

Good luck with that. Until then, stop infringing as it is very, very dangerous to my health. Don't make me a criminal. I have lived my whole Life and do not even speed. I pay my taxes and I am a model citizen. One cannot make an illegal law and turn me into a criminal - the ones who made the illegal laws are criminals and will be dealt with accordingly. I do not cotton to criminals.

VooDoo

 

[W54/XM-388]

Something to remember for if we get to do it all over again is that essentially the Devil was the first lawyer.

Laws are made to bind people

The good seem to always have this habit of falling into worshiping the "law" and being bound by it.
While the evil just laugh at them and either find ways around the law or just openly ignore it.

Get rid of the evil folks as they crop up and you'll need much less laws.
We don't owe evil people the right to live freely among the good decent folks.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Hmm...; maybe not just the evil openly ignoring.

Consider the NY SAFE Act registration numbers....

Peeling the onion on down; what it all translates into the Left's uninterrupted campaign to overflow the law books with illogical, contradictory, and unenforceable laws.

These laws dissolve the foundations supporting the rule of law. Only a small portion can actually be known by the individual, and they simply give up trying to keep track.

Thus, the rule of law fades into history; and that's no accident.

I have always made a point of obeying the law. But these days, they make that physically impossible. This, also, is no accident.

These days, you can point to anyone in the crowd, and know unequivocally that you have pointed out a criminal.

Universal leverage...

Greg

 

[ArmyJerry]

not just your health, am sure you wont go quietly

 

[Switchblade]

I was about to blast all of you cretinous belligerants on not mentioning Locke or the earlier writers of freedom based papers. It took much scrolling to read and note Sm0ke's post.
The 10th and 4th amendments maintains that no state may abridge your rights. Your rights are inalienable. If a law is repugnant to the constitution, it is technically invalid. Now grant you, my degree in law comes from the Barrack's School of Law so what I say should be taken with a grain of salt or two.

 

[ArmyJerry]

You'e too strident SB ..

 

[Soulezoo]

everyone should have a set of the founding documents and the federalist papers, give each kid a coy and teach them.

If you want to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a complete study of the Federalist Papers is required.

A complete study of the Anti-federalist papers is an equally or perhaps even more important study. Once you understand those, then you'll understand where we are at today.
Truly, both sets of writings are indispensable but the "anti" papers predicted much of what you see now in our governments.

 

[ArmyJerry]

buy a copy every time you by a thousand rounds.

 

[ArmyJerry]

 

[idahoorion]

very good and thought provoking. great thread.

Idahoorion

 

[Dreadnought]

Gents,

Help me out and please set me straight where I’m making a mistake. Not trying to stir the pot, just trying to be a good American.

Background: I believe that outside of the Bible, the chain of command, so to speak, goes from Declaration of Independence to U.S. Constitution to State Constitution. In other words, if a law violates the COTUS, it’s obviously not valid. But I believe, and I might be wrong, that if a law violates the Declaration of Independence, then it negates the purpose behind our revolution and is therefore also not valid.

Here’s my first question: In our Declaration, the founders said that rights come from our Creator. The implication is that what God (Creator) gives (rights), government has no authority to take away. I think JFK also said that. Did the founders intend to communicate that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are unalienable? I believe the answer is “yes,” since the Declaration says so about other rights.

Second question: How did the title “Bill of Rights” come to be? I could google these questions but I’d prefer to learn from people who love America, not those who want to “fundamentally change” her, or believe that the COTUS is a “living document.” I don’t care to hear what Bill Ayers thinks. Don't think he's a member here.

If these questions have already been answered by our founders, please point me to the appropriate references.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

God bless America

Scarface26,
I will not take the time to address your answer fully, but will offer a brief opinion. If you would like to have a more lengthy explanation, we might set up a time for a phone call. I have been a college history professor for over 30 years, and my major area of study has been the Formative Years (roughly from 1763-1800). I have read the various documents mentioned by others more times than I can count, and I often think that I was born 200 years too late.

The most often quoted book of our founders during this time was the Bible. BUT the philosopher they had read most and from whom they adopted the bulk of their political thought was John Locke. Jefferson in the Declaration was channeling Locke and his Social Compact view of human government. Locke, in the tiniest of nutshells, said that God wanted people, the most marvelous and beloved of His creations, to live in a society and under a government that would protect their God-given (natural) rights. If that government failed to do that it may have broken the compact and "the people," if it did not respond to their proper appeals. had the right "to alter or abolish it." The Declaration of Independence is NOT the organic law of the land...that is the Constitution. However, it IS part of the foundation on which the Constitution rests, and no one, not evoen the Supreme Court, can rightly adjudicate cases before it without a proper understanding AND acceptance of the philosophy contained within the Declaration.

OK----20 years later---Constitutional Convention (the legality of which is still debated by history geeks) was dominated by "nationalists." They devised a brilliant document that has been copied for 230+ years. The problem---WHERE was the protection from an over-reach of authority from the new federal government. After all, the GREATEST threat to our natural rights was, and remains, strong, centralized big government.
These opponents, billed as Anti-Federalists, opposed the ratification of the Constitution and demanded a Bill of Rights be added if it WAS ratified. Virginia actually reserved the right to secede if this was not done.

Fast forward (the writing, debate, and ratification of the first 10 amendments can be discussed elsewhere)--10 amendments were ratified b y Dec. 17, 1791, and called, collectively, the Bill of Rights. They RECOGNIZED our GOD GIVEN NATURAL RIGHTS, they DID NOT GIVE US RIGHTS. Sorry that I am shouting in all caps, but this is vital (and opens the door to wonderful and good-hearted debate with those who say there is no God).
The first five words of the 1st amendment offers the key--Congress shall make no law....! It is a limit on the exercise of power, first and foremost, by the Federal government.
The 9th amendment explicitly recognizes we have rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and the 10th explicitly states that those enumerated powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the states and the people.

Sorry for the wall of text. I will not get into the so called "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights on the states by the 14th amendment and the myriad of Supreme Court cases which give the Federal Government more power at the expense of our God-given and Constitutionally protected rights.

Summary--we have rights, given by God, that the government must protect. This government is limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[ArmyJerry]

This thread should be made a sticky.

 

[Soulezoo]

@Dreadnought ...

You may be familiar with one of my great grandfathers. Caleb Strong.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Dreadnought; speaking of nutshells...

I wish I had your gift for putting essential concepts so succinctly.

IMHO, you nailed it.

Makes me wonder what other work you have nailed so succinctly.

Greg

 

[mardad]

I was made to read , and became a fan of Alexis de Tocqueville. Many of the views posted here are in his essays. Not as difficult to read and digest as the Federalist Papers, and certainly not a replacement. Just another useful tool in the ole tool box.

 

[Scarface26]

The only thing I would like to add - it was the opinion of the Founding Fathers that the first 10 amendments could never be changed for any reason while retaining the existence of a nation they would recognize. So no, repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't have been something they considered as being in the cards.

Thanks , King.

This is where I was going, along with the meme AJ posted.

Sincere thanks to all who took the time to answer my questions. So many of you gents really know how to write, @Dreadnought gets the blue ribbon, though, I'll take you up on that phone con.

I asked these questions because I love my country. Part of my duties as an American require that I write my State and Federal congressional reps, and that I meet with them when available. I will occasionally write a letter to the editor. Rest assured that the other side does these things too, and I don’t want their voice to be the only one the politicians hear. I also volunteer with the Republican party, attend rallies, and support many of the same organizations and causes you gents do.

I asked the questions because, like AJ, I’ve substituted different words for “Crown” in the DOI and, unfortunately, it still reads like the original. How I wish that weren’t so. Like most of us on this forum, I want the America I grew up in to be the same America my children inherit. It isn’t, but I believe it CAN be, so I come here to learn from those who have already asked the same questions. I’m thankful for my rights, and try to demonstrate that by fulfilling my responsibilities.

I have to say how betrayed I feel by President Trump’s (and other Republicans) apparent support of red flag laws. If he were a politician we wouldn’t be surprised, but he made a big deal about how he wasn’t that and we trusted (well, I did) him for it. The only thing missing from these “red flags” is a hammer and sickle.

It always does my heart good to see references to God in such weighty matters.

I’ve got both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers with and without commentaries on order, from Amazon, ironically. I can’t thank you enough for the time and effort you've taken to educate a fellow patriot, hopefully I’ll be able to return the favor in some small way in the near future.

God have mercy on us and God bless America

 

[ArmyJerry]

Buy the Americana set from Britannica, hard cover and give a set to each kid with a few ARs nd 10 k rounds of green tips.

 

[Nik H]

yup but its also evidence of an awakening and thirst for knowledge that will undermine the house built on sand that is our public indoctrination system you call aneducation system .

Maybe here and some limited number of other sites but not in mainstream Merica....

Fuck me...demographics are "young"! No millennial, and I would dare say no large % of anyone under 35, that know anything about this type of conversation. One of the greatest things I admire about Larue firearms is that you get a pocket constitution with it and it is pretty well written. Best part is if you ask for more for a good reason, you get more for free. I have given them to my son's hockey team and to my daughters' high school friends.

More of this needs to happen to get the word out

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Talk is cheap.

I'll believe anything he says when he actually makes the move.

He needs to put the Dems in their place on his one. Even I am watching this one.

If he bites on their bait this time, I'm putting him in the same category as McCain was in; RINO.

Greg

PS The Democrips are winning this already; they've managed to turn gun owners against him.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Trump is the only one turning gun owners against trump.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

No, you too...; when you jump right onto their bandwagon and diss him every chance you get.

Who would you have facing up to the Democrats in 2020?

The only person who meets with the standard of perfection you demand doesn't even exist.

Give it a rest, Jerry...

Greg

 

[ArmyJerry]

Yeah it does exist,,, besides its not perfection it adherence to the bounds of the constitution.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Oh and yeah,,, fuck Trump....1st A all the way.