US Constitution

[iaafan]

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]

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

[RickRund]

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]

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.

[BobCatFan]

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.

[LongTimeCatFan]

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

[CelticCat]

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?

[RickRund]

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...

[LongTimeCatFan]

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.

[wbtfg]

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.”

[seataccat]

I just have to respond to this. You are certainly correct in stating that “A lot of people don't really have a good grasp on the constitution.” I think that is a serious understatement.

The biggest misconception I hear all the time is that the constitution limited the power of the government. It only did so in the sense that it defined a framework for our representative republic/democracy. But at the time it drastically expanded the power of our government. The Federalist Papers were written to convince a skeptical public to radically expand the power of the central government. Essentially, so it could collect taxes, borrow money and provide for the general welfare. We needed a way to pay off the war debt and the articles of confederation did not have sufficient tax collecting or money borrowing capabilities.

There seems to be this notion that the founding fathers were somehow united in worshiping this document as if it were brought down from the mountain by Moses. The bill of rights was reluctantly written by Madison as an afterthought to appease the anti-federalists. Most of the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and to a lesser degree Thomas Jefferson were vehemently opposed to the constitution. They were fearful that the newly created, powerful, central government would not be responsive to their localities. Hence the second amendment was important to them to keep the militias intact. They were afraid the central governments standing army would not help out with slave revolts or things like the whiskey rebellion. It had nothing to do with packing heat to town like today's dopey NRA followers will lead you to believe.

Would the founders be surprised about the lack of amendments? It totally depends on the founder. Alexander Hamilton (a writer of the federalist papers) was in favor of very few amendments and that the original constitution minus the bill of rights was sufficient for all of time. He even argued that the Bill of Rights was dangerous. Thomas Jefferson hated the constitution but favored the Bill of Rights and thought the entire document should be torn up and started from scratch every 19 years.

[catsrback76]

I just have to respond to this. You are certainly correct in stating that “A lot of people don't really have a good grasp on the constitution.” I think that is a serious understatement.

The biggest misconception I hear all the time is that the constitution limited the power of the government. It only did so in the sense that it defined a framework for our representative republic/democracy. But at the time it drastically expanded the power of our government. The Federalist Papers were written to convince a skeptical public to radically expand the power of the central government. Essentially, so it could collect taxes, borrow money and provide for the general welfare. We needed a way to pay off the war debt and the articles of confederation did not have sufficient tax collecting or money borrowing capabilities.

There seems to be this notion that the founding fathers were somehow united in worshiping this document as if it were brought down from the mountain by Moses. The bill of rights was reluctantly written by Madison as an afterthought to appease the anti-federalists. Most of the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and to a lesser degree Thomas Jefferson were vehemently opposed to the constitution. They were fearful that the newly created, powerful, central government would not be responsive to their localities. Hence the second amendment was important to them to keep the militias intact. They were afraid the central governments standing army would not help out with slave revolts or things like the whiskey rebellion. It had nothing to do with packing heat to town like today's dopey NRA followers will lead you to believe.

Would the founders be surprised about the lack of amendments? It totally depends on the founder. Alexander Hamilton (a writer of the federalist papers) was in favor of very few amendments and that the original constitution minus the bill of rights was sufficient for all of time. He even argued that the Bill of Rights was dangerous. Thomas Jefferson hated the constitution but favored the Bill of Rights and thought the entire document should be torn up and started from scratch every 19 years.

While I am no historian by any stretch of the imagination, I find it fascinating how many people it seems have forgotten the basic premise for the 3 winged government we have. Essentially the genius of our constitution was that it allowed for, created a system that would hold in check the power of an executive branch, to eliminate the chance that any monarch could ever rise to power and subdue the populace. So, the legislative branch representing the populace has the power to legislate and fund the national agenda NOT the executive branch!

The judicial of course is to be an independent arbitrator for issues of legal governance that is not influenced by either legislative or executive influences.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. We have a current executive in chief who will do whatever he can to take funds as he sees fit, to build walls that don't need to be built from sources that were never intended to be used as such. The executive branch today is trying to act as though it has the "right" to rule...rather than the right to lead alongside the legislative representatives.

[KittieKop]

I just have to respond to this. You are certainly correct in stating that “A lot of people don't really have a good grasp on the constitution.” I think that is a serious understatement.

The biggest misconception I hear all the time is that the constitution limited the power of the government. It only did so in the sense that it defined a framework for our representative republic/democracy. But at the time it drastically expanded the power of our government. The Federalist Papers were written to convince a skeptical public to radically expand the power of the central government. Essentially, so it could collect taxes, borrow money and provide for the general welfare. We needed a way to pay off the war debt and the articles of confederation did not have sufficient tax collecting or money borrowing capabilities.

There seems to be this notion that the founding fathers were somehow united in worshiping this document as if it were brought down from the mountain by Moses. The bill of rights was reluctantly written by Madison as an afterthought to appease the anti-federalists. Most of the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and to a lesser degree Thomas Jefferson were vehemently opposed to the constitution. They were fearful that the newly created, powerful, central government would not be responsive to their localities. Hence the second amendment was important to them to keep the militias intact. They were afraid the central governments standing army would not help out with slave revolts or things like the whiskey rebellion. It had nothing to do with packing heat to town like today's dopey NRA followers will lead you to believe.

Would the founders be surprised about the lack of amendments? It totally depends on the founder. Alexander Hamilton (a writer of the federalist papers) was in favor of very few amendments and that the original constitution minus the bill of rights was sufficient for all of time. He even argued that the Bill of Rights was dangerous. Thomas Jefferson hated the constitution but favored the Bill of Rights and thought the entire document should be torn up and started from scratch every 19 years.

While I am no historian by any stretch of the imagination, I find it fascinating how many people it seems have forgotten the basic premise for the 3 winged government we have. Essentially the genius of our constitution was that it allowed for, created a system that would hold in check the power of an executive branch, to eliminate the chance that any monarch could ever rise to power and subdue the populace. So, the legislative branch representing the populace has the power to legislate and fund the national agenda NOT the executive branch!

The judicial of course is to be an independent arbitrator for issues of legal governance that is not influenced by either legislative or executive influences.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. We have a current executive in chief who will do whatever he can to take funds as he sees fit, to build walls that don't need to be built from sources that were never intended to be used as such. The executive branch today is trying to act as though it has the "right" to rule...rather than the right to lead alongside the legislative representatives.

The current occupant of the White House is hardly the first, of either party, to try to stretch his authority. "I have a pen and a telephone" certainly had his moments as well. Don't act like this is something new that's suddenly a threat to the free world.

[arvcat2]

I just have to respond to this. You are certainly correct in stating that “A lot of people don't really have a good grasp on the constitution.” I think that is a serious understatement.

The biggest misconception I hear all the time is that the constitution limited the power of the government. It only did so in the sense that it defined a framework for our representative republic/democracy. But at the time it drastically expanded the power of our government. The Federalist Papers were written to convince a skeptical public to radically expand the power of the central government. Essentially, so it could collect taxes, borrow money and provide for the general welfare. We needed a way to pay off the war debt and the articles of confederation did not have sufficient tax collecting or money borrowing capabilities.

There seems to be this notion that the founding fathers were somehow united in worshiping this document as if it were brought down from the mountain by Moses. The bill of rights was reluctantly written by Madison as an afterthought to appease the anti-federalists. Most of the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and to a lesser degree Thomas Jefferson were vehemently opposed to the constitution. They were fearful that the newly created, powerful, central government would not be responsive to their localities. Hence the second amendment was important to them to keep the militias intact. They were afraid the central governments standing army would not help out with slave revolts or things like the whiskey rebellion. It had nothing to do with packing heat to town like today's dopey NRA followers will lead you to believe.

Would the founders be surprised about the lack of amendments? It totally depends on the founder. Alexander Hamilton (a writer of the federalist papers) was in favor of very few amendments and that the original constitution minus the bill of rights was sufficient for all of time. He even argued that the Bill of Rights was dangerous. Thomas Jefferson hated the constitution but favored the Bill of Rights and thought the entire document should be torn up and started from scratch every 19 years.

While I am no historian by any stretch of the imagination, I find it fascinating how many people it seems have forgotten the basic premise for the 3 winged government we have. Essentially the genius of our constitution was that it allowed for, created a system that would hold in check the power of an executive branch, to eliminate the chance that any monarch could ever rise to power and subdue the populace. So, the legislative branch representing the populace has the power to legislate and fund the national agenda NOT the executive branch!

The judicial of course is to be an independent arbitrator for issues of legal governance that is not influenced by either legislative or executive influences.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. We have a current executive in chief who will do whatever he can to take funds as he sees fit, to build walls that don't need to be built from sources that were never intended to be used as such. The executive branch today is trying to act as though it has the "right" to rule...rather than the right to lead alongside the legislative representatives.

The current occupant of the White House is hardly the first, of either party, to try to stretch his authority. "I have a pen and a telephone" certainly had his moments as well. Don't act like this is something new that's suddenly a threat to the free world.

Yes, President Pen with a Telephone had his moments and his biggest moment is yet to come. He is increasingly coming under scrutiny (not by his allied MSM pals) for unconstitutionally weaponizing his executive banch to protect his heir apparent Hillary & to attack his political enemies (Trump being the most notable). I look forward to the day when Obama’s last AG, Loretta Lynch(pin), is put under oath. She will either take the fifth, fall on the sword for her boss and perjure herself, or spill the beans on the whole unlawful attempted Trump “takedown.” Tic tok…

[wbtfg]

"You people with this phony Emoluments Clause." Lol!

[77matcat]

Sad but true.

[seataccat]

Sad but true.

WTF? Phony emolumants clause? That's like saying the Bill of Rights is Phony.

[77matcat]

Oh, sorry.
Sad but true this statement was made.