Gunco Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Having practiced law for 20 years, I had opportunities to question the Constituitonality of statutes. Attorneys are trained to analyze statutes as they apply to cases ... There are rules used by Courts when judging the constitutionality of any particular law.

But, in my humble opinion, that training is short-sighted, as is our highest Court's interpretation of individual liberty.

The Constitution is not the fountain head of Federal jurisprudence. Our country pre-existed the Constitution by eleven years. In fact, the Constitution proved to be a rather crappy document.

Oh, what sacrilege! How can anyone criticize the Constitution?

I judge the Constitution from perspective of the Declaration of Independence, our country's founding document. Our country declared in 1776 that all men were created equal, but the Constitution allowed slavery and even counted some people as 3/5. The Declaration announced that all men were endowed with inalienable rights by a Creator, but the ACLU and other "civil rights" organizations say the Constitution requires such separation between Church and State that Boy Scouts cannot use public property, because they believe in a Creator.

Much has been made about Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. His mention of a wall separating Church and State has been interpreted by some to mean that the United States, a government established by the "consent" of the People, must deny them access to their Creator on government property, or in organizations somehow attached to Federal, State, or local governments. Frankly, the ACLU interprets the United States government to be Godless, hardly what we declared 228 years ago.

I say go past the Constitution to see from where our rights arose, not the Constitution, nor a letter to Church elders. We made a statement to the world on July 4, 1776. Let's not forget it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
AClay47 said:
Having practiced law for 20 years, I had opportunities to question the Constituitonality of statutes. Attorneys are trained to analyze statutes as they apply to cases ... There are rules used by Courts when judging the constitutionality of any particular law.

But, in my humble opinion, that training is short-sighted, as is our highest Court's interpretation of individual liberty.

The Constitution is not the fountain head of Federal jurisprudence. Our country pre-existed the Constitution by eleven years. In fact, the Constitution proved to be a rather crappy document.

Oh, what sacrilege! How can anyone criticize the Constitution?

I judge the Constitution from perspective of the Declaration of Independence, our country's founding document. Our country declared in 1776 that all men were created equal, but the Constitution allowed slavery and even counted some people as 3/5. The Declaration announced that all men were endowed with inalienable rights by a Creator, but the ACLU and other "civil rights" organizations say the Constitution requires such separation between Church and State that Boy Scouts cannot use public property, because they believe in a Creator.

Much has been made about Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. His mention of a wall separating Church and State has been interpreted by some to mean that the United States, a government established by the "consent" of the People, must deny them access to their Creator on government property, or in organizations somehow attached to Federal, State, or local governments. Frankly, the ACLU interprets the United States government to be Godless, hardly what we declared 228 years ago.

I say go past the Constitution to see from where our rights arose, not the Constitution, nor a letter to Church elders. We made a statement to the world on July 4, 1776. Let's not forget it.
I agree. From the way I read it it, the founding fathers are saying all men are created equal, as long as they are white. All though I beleive our country is the best in the world, I do find a bit of hipocrishy in the constitution. I think what this country did to the american indian is a crime. ak'sr4me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
We have our flaws and in the begining we had some big ones. What bothers me or worries me is that one day the ACLU will be able to tear down our system based on those flaws. Just to go off into wonderland for a minute. Could our system be torn down because the slavery and 3/5 stuff? Could someone make a case teh whole system was flawed due to those thing and we are therefore an illegitimate entity from that time?

I know it's tinfoil, but you see the movement for reparations to slaves that some are pushing. While I find teh thought of slavery an abomination I'm also alarmed that I might have to pay for that. Neither side of my families were here in America before 1880 or so.

How could anyone say I would have to pay? How about the Indians which I find all of that pretty gruesome as well, but as far as I know my family had nothing to do with it.

Don't take me too seriously as I'm just a little worried about the screwball things that go on. A few years ago an attorney from my city who is an Atheist wanted to abolish the Christmas holiday, so that people no longer would be able to take off. It was shot down, but you never know what someone will think of next.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
A lot of people associate the 1st Amendment as the reasoning for separation of church and state. And I'm ashamed of myself to say this, but I never checked it out for myself until recently. Here's what it says:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Sounds to me like that the 1st Amendment cannot restrict religion or favor one religion over the other. Doesn't say anything about religion being in the government. Seperation of church and state? What are they going to do next, ship all of our churches to the moon? Better watch what I say, don't want to give them any ideas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
One problem is children are taught the Constitution is the foundation of our country. It wasn't. Most people think the Bill of Rights gave them rights, but it only prohibited the Federal Government from infringing on pre-existing rights. The Constitution was supposed to set up a small, central government which would regulate interstate commerce, and coordinate defense of the country as needed.

In my humble opinion, the nation's conscience never forgave the Framers for allowing slavery. Eventually, the North rid itself of the stain of slavery, but used it as a political tool. Southern States, fearing political isolation, unwisely justified secession with the issue. Where did they get an idea that States could dissolve their bonds with the Union? Maybe, it was this passage:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

- Declaration of Independence

Or, maybe it was the Hartford Convention, when New England States met to discuss whether they should secede during the War of 1812? In any event, the Supreme Court ruled secession unConsittutional after the "Civil War." Lincoln's invasion and overthrow of duly elected State governments cemented the political power of the fledgling Republican Party and allowed his government and successors to occupy a large portion of the country with military force.

How does that relate to firearms? Courts have allowed gun control for "compelling reasons." Wouldn't a government find it compelling to disarm the public before enacting laws which deny them of basic liberties? Is there a more compelling reason to disarm the public?

Until our Courts look past the Constitution, our rights will be determined by a flawed instrument, rather than the Document which stated the premises upon which our Country was born. Recent Court cases involving Freedom of Religion demonstrate how our myopic view of liberties is short-changing us.
 

·
Poof no eyebrows
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
I've said it once and i'll say it again


"No goverment on earth can take away your rights, the only thing a goverment can do is refuse to recogize them"

That sums it up for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,143 Posts
interesting...

And klauss I have to agree!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
Klauss, check out my new signature.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Very informative Lupeloff, Thanks for the insight.
 

·
Poof no eyebrows
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
AClay47 said:
Klaus, check out my new signature.
Cool, glad you like it :thumbup1:
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Clay, I must vigorously disagree with you. Judges starting looking past the Constitution in the 1930's such as the Brandeis type brief in order to find justifications for clearly new interpretations of the law without Constitutional amendments or even legislative changes. The pace and scope of that external look has done nothing but increase. Once you start doing that, there is no stopping just at the external document in favor at that moment.

That freelancing has become our major judical problem. These activists are taking judicial notice of the most way out things...things not even in the evidentiary record nor would they even be admissable into the record at trial. They magically appear at the appellate level.

Counselor, we both know there are some very well established precedents that have evolved over hundreds of years to guide and limit judges in interpreting laws at both the state and Federal level. The problem is that the activists don't honor the guidelines. I don't want to give them any more ammo.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top