100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Whats NOT in the constitution, | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
more detail here: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/p/Constitution.htm Innocent until Proven Guilty: The Right to a Fair Trial Right to a Jury of Your Peers: The Right to Vote The Right to Travel Judicial Review The Right to Marriage The Right to Procreate The Right to Privacy Reading and Interpreting the Constitution If you check the Constitution,they are all in there! 
Sure are, but the sad part is most believe that is where they got them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you check the Constitution,they are all in there!
did you bother reading the article,, they aren't in the constitution, they are widely believed to be there but actually aren't,,,, They are there, not believed but actually there. To understand you must be able to comprehend what is being read, something a large majority of people are incapable of doing. Also, according to the author, there is no evil by his beliefs. The author has a serious lack of comprehensive skills not to mention a sick sense of indoctrination. It would be better stated that the author suffers a serious case of Moral Relativism and has a real problem with truth. Truth is objective, meaning that it is not based on perceptions of human beings (which is capable of wavering). Truth is simply that which is. It is that which has occurred in the past and that which is occurring in the present. That which is. To have a belief their is no evil would be a serious compromise to being objective, therefore truth has no meaning to the moral relativist. That article is a case in point of the lack of reasoning, something missing in all moral relativist, of the author and would be extended likewise on any that would use that for their justification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, but it is your fault for debating the point you haven't bothered to research the constitution: http://constitutionus.com/ feel free to have a go at finding any of these in the document Innocent until Proven Guilty: The Right to a Fair Trial Right to a Jury of Your Peers: The Right to Vote The Right to Travel Judicial Review The Right to Marriage The Right to Procreate The Right to Privacy No, it would be your fault due to a total lack of comprehension of that little ole document. Each and every one of them and so many more are in the Declaration of Independence, the constitution and the Bill of Rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is the Declaration of Independence, but yes that is where it started and most importantly declared that man had rights that were unalienable, no liens can be placed upon them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you are on dude the things I listed are NOWHERE in your post or the bill of rights,, 
Yes they are, but you must have the ability to comprehend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. declaration of independence, I address that in a different post,,, 
Address what? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. quick test of understanding copy and paste the bill of rights into word hit Ctrl F and put in ANY of the list of things posted in the OP then tell me where you find them,, but you wont,,,, Total lack of understanding, there they all are in the Bill of Rights but then you would need to comprehend. First they are staged in the Declaration of Independence, retained by the constitution and forbidden to be impinged by the Bill of Rights. But the real problem stem from a total ignorance of what a right is or entails, without that knowledge, all the rest is just gibberish anyway, a point most elegantly demonstrated by your replies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Never expect PERFECT, from anything or anybody perhaps that's why I escape being part of the discouraged and end of the world crowd,,, Really? And where would we find any tenure of this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to share some interesting urban legend about what is in the constitution,, or NOT,,,lol let me add, the article itself sums up the futility of literalists who insist on taking the constitution strictly LITERAL Because of these things that are not LITERALLY Included in it,,, the Author summarized this way: (Im leaving out irrelevant comments about religious people) Debates about whether some particular right is ��in�� the Constitution or not are really debates about how to read and interpret the Constitution. Those who claim that the Constitution doesn’t say “right to privacy” or “separation of church and state” are relying upon the assumption that unless a particular phrase or specific words actually appears in the document, then the right doesn’t exist�� either because the interpreters are drawing invalid implications or because it’s illegitimate to go beyond the exact text at all. Interpretation of laws should generally be limited to the plain text, but the Constitution isn’t a law or a set of laws. Instead, it’s a framework for the structure and the authority of the government. The main body of the Constitution explains how the government is set up; the rest explains the limitations on what the government is permitted to do. It can’t be read without being interpreted. The people who sincerely believe that constitutional rights are limited solely to those spelled out in the text of the Constitution must be able to defend not just the absence of a right to privacy, but also the absence of constitutional rights to travel, a fair trial, marriage, procreation, voting, and more — not every right which people take for granted has been discussed here. I don'��t think it can be done. I Am not personally a strict constitutionalist because I do believe that it has to be INTERPRETED on some level and not taken solely literally,, but there are many who say it isn't open to ANY interpretation besides what's literally there this information was pointing out the flaw in their logic,,, Well this didn't really share anything except the ignorance of author of the article and any attempt to try and justify a position based on a false set of assumptions. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 - Supreme Court 1803 by Chief Justice, John Marshall, to paraphrase: "The constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law. Clearly John Marshall said that for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other law and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law. And for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from a date so branded in an open court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or as a fiction of law." So I guess that pretty much nullifies any other conclusions that the idiotic author has to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AlterNet / By Thom Hartmann 151 COMMENTS Hartmann: The Radical Right Wing Supreme Court Is Acting Like It's a Monarchy Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down laws or to create law -- but that's what they're doing. Tom Hartman is partially right, the Supreme court has been granted very little power and their abuses, along with the other two branches, are gross in their magnitude. But he is wrong about being able to determine the constitutionality of a law, that is the part about "...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact." In deciding a case, "law" is always determined first. If the law is in fact repugnant to the constitution, it is to be struck down and declared void, thereby settling the case as invalid law. This also applies to any other case using that law, hence they can and do determine the unconstitutionality of a law, the final arbitrator of statute law. However, they have no authority to change or arbitrate law, only congress has that power. Declaring a law unconstitutional is within their power and then it is up to congress to pass new legislature that is within their bounds of the constitution, part of the checks and balances system. And as to the President, his only power is to either sign bills into law or veto them. Otherwise his duty is to enforce those laws, all of them. If he determines one is unconstitutional, it is his duty not to sign it or if existing law, to petition the court for a declaration, not a review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep,Progressive Green Man Thom Hartmann! That Guy is so Leftwing,if he were a Bird,he'd fly in Circles,which he is doing any way!
Is that not an ad homienen(sp?) argument? What argument, seems to just be a comment on the author, doesn't state one way or the other about the statement, so no that wouldn't be ad hominem and yes it's misspelled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 Blistering Highlights from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Hobby Lobby Dissent "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." 203 COMMENTS203 COMMENTS A A A Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons July 1, 2014 | Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a scathing 35-page dissent in the disastrous 5-4 Supreme Court decision Monday granting corporations First Amendment religious rights to deny women birth control coverage. The court had ventured far out in to unprecedented territory by granting private companies the right to be exempt from laws their owners don't agree with. Crazy! In their zeal to deny women access to reproductive healthcare, expand the rights of corporations and hurt Obamacare, "The court," she wrote, "has ventured into a minefield." Sadly, her clear-eyed reasoning did not sway the Court's five arch conservatives, but it is worth reading her dissent here (starts on page 60.) For those in a bigger hurry, here are highlights: 1. "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision." 2. "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." 3. "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community." 4. "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage" 5. "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults." 6. "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage." 7. “Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women’s well being. Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.” 8. “The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.” 9. “Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?” 10. “The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public. No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for ‘it seems unlikely’ that large corporation ‘will often assert RFRA claims.’” Why do you continue to hijack this thread? If you want to talk about the Supreme Court start your own thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hartmann wants a toothless SCOTUS so that the other two branches of the U.S. government can violate the U.S. Constitution at will. Go figure. And just what would be the difference? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the revolution of this country was fought to obtain the principles of the declaration of independence the constitution was written to help enforce the declaration of independence and you left out separation of church and state in list of not in Constitution and the 6th amendment is In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. and the 7th is In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. so judicial review is there as the 6th & 7th amendments are in bill of rights which are undeniable Not exactly, the Declaration of Independence was a war document, a declaration that the people would fight to declare the right to freedom and self determination. The Articles of Confederation were written to enforce that declaration, in 1777. The constitution wasn't written until 1887, ten years later when the country was in turmoil over the thirteen little sovereign nations, all in conflict with each other, even worse than Europe with the European Union. And the constitution was never intended to have a separation of church and state, just that all religions would be free to worship as they saw fit. The first amendment just restricts the government from declaring a state religion or any religions right of free practice. And there are no judicial review in any of the amendments, including the 6th and 7th. Both of these amendments are based on common law, one for criminal procedure and the other for civil. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrong , on so many levels and too long but I will try to point out the errors the FIRST error is that this thread is not about what is in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE it is about what is in THE CONSTITUTION in THE CONSTITUTION although some INTERPRET The meaning of some things those things are not LITERALLY (that means word for word) in the document called THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA Yeah wrong, but on your part, a lack of comprehension, of understanding anything about law and specifically contracts or trust documents, albeit the constitution. The law of this land start with the Declaration of Independence, hence the title of "Declaration". It states a cure for a redress of a long list of grievances, the "Declaration" that we have claimed our freedom and are now a free and independent nation, these thirteen colonies, in 1776. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation were agreed to by the 13 colonies established the principles and terms of the union. In July, 1787 the Articles were amended with the Northwest Ordinance which used some of the same language latter adopted by the constitution and the bill of rights. But it wasn't until September of 1787 that the constitutional convention approved the Constitution and not until June of 1788 when New Hampshire becomes the ninth state does the constitution become established and on July 2nd Congress declares the constitution operational. And to understand what is in the constitution, one must first understand just what the constitution is, a delegation of powers from the people, the holder of all power, to a trust established for the benefit of the people. And no interprutation is needed, it's all there. like 'the constitution is written to help enforce the declaration of independence',,not actually WRITTEN in the constitution though some have obviously INTERPRETED it that way,,, Yes it is, "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,". Full acknowledgement of our independence that was done by declaration, known as the "Declaration of Independence". The document that started it all and allowed the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. but on to the points made: 1st. judicial review is not about what accused have a right to its about the courts authority to interpret the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a law or government action,,,, NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION Right about the 6th and 7th amendments but wrong otherwise. Article III does allow a form of judicial review as most emphatically expressed by Hamiliton: "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing." But then I guess we should take your word over the authors of the document. 2nd: right to travel not in THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES because the declaration of independence is NOT the constitution The right to travel is in the constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And was further endorsed: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But then when one remains ignorant of exactly what a right is and how the constitution was written would not be able to comprehend any of this. 3rd: I agree the constitution should never be construed to define rights because too many things were not thought of due to it being a different era and culture when it was written, I don't agree with literalists , which is why I contributed the article,, And era not culture had nothing to do with it, it is the idiocy of the people that is in question. People of that time understood perfectly what their rights were and what the constitution meant. And of course you wouldn't agree with anything literally, except entitlements which by the way are definitely forbidden by the constitution. And as to why you really contributed the article..... 4th: if a right to vote were absolute there would be only ONE time it would be mentioned to say EVERY CITIZEN has a RIGHT TO VOTE but that is also NOT in the Constitution,,, instead, the constitution only provides specific situations in one cant be denied a vote,, those things not mentioned can therefore be regulated as it is never mentioned as a right of EVERYONE, or that NOONE Can be denied,,, Sure it does, Article I, Section 2, and then Amendment XIV, and then Amendment XV for all non-white men and then Amendment XIX for women, and then XXVI for the kids. Now the whole thing is a mess. But it was never meant for the people to elect either Senators nor the President/Vice President, a total loss of checks and balances. 5th: the constitution is in English, yet, even here people are interpreting it to mean things it does not literally or explicitly state,, like that its written to reinforce the declaration or that its mention of the rights of an accused means 'judicial review' is mentioned or included,,, BS, already covered above. 6th: Innocent until Proven Guilty is not there, Im glad we are in agreement there, regardless of the reason one assumes it is absent,,, the analogy about air is not a good one, as in fact the breathing process is a biological reality and innocence as a reality is quite different than innocence as a social or legal issue,,, 7th: right to fair trial is also NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION., agreed trial by jury, is not the same as a 'fair' trial,,, Sure it does, the preamble; Article I, Section 9; and again in Amendments IV, V, VI, and VII. A trial by an impartial jury is part of a "fair" trial, except by those having a problem comprehending what "fair" means. As an example, entitlements would not be deemed "fair" as they are something stolen from one person for the benefit of another that hasn't earned them except through the barrel of the government's guns. And that original article author is just purely one sick individual and reminiscent of the ills of today's society, no concept of malum in se, just believe in malum prohibitum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the challenge find these nine phrases Innocent until Proven Guilty: The Right to a Fair Trial Right to a Jury of Your Peers: The Right to Vote The Right to Travel Judicial Review The Right to Marriage The Right to Procreate The Right to Privacy anywhere in the US CONSTITUTION or continue debating individual INTTERPRETATIONS Of what is actually, literally, there,,, The real challenge, being able to comprehend the constitution for what it is and how and why it was written, then they are all there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the declaration of independence overrides the constitution Good luck in finding a judge who agrees with that. Actually, try to find a judge that will even acknowledge the Declaration. But otherwise, the Declaration does not override the constitution but does establish the basis for the document. Without the Declaration, there would be no need nor any meaning for the constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Right to a Fair Trial You will not find you exact words, no. However you will find synonyms or explanations of those words. I will start with one that is more obvious; "Fair" in "The Right to a Fair trial", is subjective. In our constitution; In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. "Public trial", by an "impartial jury", being "informed of the nature and cause of accusation", be "confronted by the witnesses against him" and "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" as well as "to have the assistance of a counsel for his defense", more specifically outlines a "fair trial". If the constitution were to say the words "fair trial" than people would be left to their devices on interpretation of what "fair" actually means. So to revisit, when saying we have a "right to a fair trial" is slang used to sum up the above mentioned amendment. Its a heck of a lot easier/quicker to say, and it sums things up fairly accurately. I respectfully disagree that these things equal a 'fair' trial, especially since having 'counsel' does not mean one receives a defense, let alone a 'fair' one,,, let alone that 'impartial' is possible, but that is a whole other debate,,, Of course you would, words have no real meanings, do they? fair: adjective, in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. adverb, without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Mon 07/07/14 11:27 PM
|
|
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#PAitIRHYdIJGeSwD.99 The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#PAitIRHYdIJGeSwD.99 -------------------------------------------------------- the second is why you stop after doing the first |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 07/08/14 04:03 AM
|
|
and yet, no one can point out the given set of phrases in the the US CONSTITUTION,,,,,
which I thought was a pretty 'simple' challenge,,,lol only insist that their interpretation means its there,,,or that everything somehow that is in some document predating it therefore means it is also in the constitution by default, even if never mentioned IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSSELF,,, showing the constitution isn't to be taken so literally after all, but up for 'interpretation',, |
|
|
|
|
