US Constitution

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

Post Reply
iaafan
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3742
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

US Constitution

Post by iaafan » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:32 am

A lot of people don't really have a good grasp on the constitution. We hear a lot of people taking it out of context and using as a skirt to hide behind. It starts with a preamble. "We the people,..." Most people have knowledge of that beginning part, but a lot of folks don't know it's the start of the constitution despite probably having to learn to recite in grade school. It's a very key phrase and lays a huge foundation for the constitution. It basically says that the people are in charge of this country with the obvious implication that majority rule is the basic standard.

The constitution has numerous articles that continue to put the document together and provide the framework for how the government will be run. It was signed in September 17, 1787 and ratified on June 21, 1788.

Upon ratification 10 amendments were submitted on Sept. 25, 1789, but those weren't ratified until Dec. 15, 1791. This is a huge detail that is often not considered when people talk about the constitution. Many, probably most, US citizens don't know that the amendments are just that, amendments. They were not part of the original constitution, but are included in the constitution as amended. The constitution can be amended and has been amended as recently as May, 1992. Amendments also are not set in stone or irreversible. The 18th amendment was annulled by the 21st amendment.

The constitution is a living document as spelled out by Article Five, which is part of the original constitution.



77matcat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: US Constitution

Post by 77matcat » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:16 am

No doubt (ok it appears) the founding fathers considered their time in history to be tumultuous and wanted to provide a governing tool that allowed "we the people" to change our mode of governing as appropriate.

I wonder if they would consider the number of amendments to be reasonable??? Too many??? Too much???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



User avatar
RickRund
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3179
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Post Falls ID

Re: US Constitution

Post by RickRund » Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:58 am

There is a great site out there, Hillsdale, that has online courses on all sorts of "government" workings. They are free and the courses are excellent.

That is a great question. My guess is the founding fathers would find at least some of them preposterous.



MSU01
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3808
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:21 pm

Re: US Constitution

Post by MSU01 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:07 am

77matcat wrote:No doubt (ok it appears) the founding fathers considered their time in history to be tumultuous and wanted to provide a governing tool that allowed "we the people" to change our mode of governing as appropriate.

I wonder if they would consider the number of amendments to be reasonable??? Too many??? Too much???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd wager that they would be surprised how few amendments there have been in almost 250 years since the document was written. Remarkable foresight was shown to allow for amendments to be made, realizing that our country is an ever-changing group of people with ever-changing attitudes and that someday we would no longer be ok with counting an African-American as 3/5 of a person or with not allowing women to vote, for example.


Go Bobcats! 24-17 31-23 29-25

User avatar
BobCatFan
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1287
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: US Constitution

Post by BobCatFan » Sat Oct 01, 2016 2:35 pm

Why so few new amendments to the constitution recently ? The reason is, the amendments that are needed would limit the power of Congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court. Please get behind Article 5 and Convention of the States.



User avatar
LongTimeCatFan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8566
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: Kalispell

Re: US Constitution

Post by LongTimeCatFan » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:49 pm

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/ar ... nts-clause

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8

https://twitter.com/newttrump/status/795439186488815616


Image

User avatar
CelticCat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 9303
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Mt Vernon, WA

Re: US Constitution

Post by CelticCat » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:58 pm

LongTimeCatFan wrote:http://www.heritage.org/constitution/ar ... nts-clause

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8

https://twitter.com/newttrump/status/795439186488815616
And you aren't the least bit concerned that Trump wouldn't violate this clause?


R&R Cat Cast - the only Bobcat fan podcast - https://anchor.fm/rrcatcast
Twitter - @rrcatcast

User avatar
RickRund
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3179
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Post Falls ID

Re: US Constitution

Post by RickRund » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:23 pm

BobCatFan wrote:Why so few new amendments to the constitution recently ? The reason is, the amendments that are needed would limit the power of Congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court. Please get behind Article 5 and Convention of the States.
Yes, remember that the Constitution is not penned to protect the government from the people but to protect the people from the government..... The government is the entity that is to be held down...



User avatar
LongTimeCatFan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8566
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: Kalispell

Re: US Constitution

Post by LongTimeCatFan » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:10 pm

CelticCat wrote:
LongTimeCatFan wrote:http://www.heritage.org/constitution/ar ... nts-clause

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8

https://twitter.com/newttrump/status/795439186488815616
And you aren't the least bit concerned that Trump wouldn't violate this clause?
No

But clearly you don't give a FVCK that the Clinton mafia already has....

FROM OUR ENEMIES

That's also called TREASON

Someday you will realize how fvcking stupid you are.


Image

User avatar
wbtfg
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8990
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: US Constitution

Post by wbtfg » Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:24 pm

LongTimeCatFan wrote:
Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:10 pm
CelticCat wrote:
LongTimeCatFan wrote:http://www.heritage.org/constitution/ar ... nts-clause

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8

https://twitter.com/newttrump/status/795439186488815616
And you aren't the least bit concerned that Trump wouldn't violate this clause?
No

But clearly you don't give a FVCK that the Clinton mafia already has....

FROM OUR ENEMIES

That's also called TREASON

Someday you will realize how fvcking stupid you are.
I think LTCF has researched the emoluments clause more than our next attorney general who has already served in that role. Haha


“Well, I think there’s a dispute as to what the Emoluments Clause relates to,” he replied as he fiddled nervously with his tie. “I have not personally researched Emoluments Clause. I can’t tell you what it says at this point.”

“Off the top of my head, I would have said emoluments are essentially a stipend attached to some office,” Barr continued. “But I don’t know if that’s correct or not. I think it’s being litigated right now.”



Post Reply