US Constitution 101

[Stosh]

I think this excerpt addresses the point I have 

Two years later, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, but it was not until 1869 that the Supreme Court addressed the subject. In the case of Paul vs. Virginia, the court determined that the object of the clause was to give each citizen the following rights:

To be free from discrimination or disability as a person coming from one state to another

To be free from discriminating laws against them in other states

To be free to come and go from state to state without restraint

To be granted the same freedoms had by citizens of any state

To be free to buy property in other states

To be free in the pursuit of happiness

To enjoy the same protections of law granted to citizens of other states

 

That this is not to be understood as simply related to commerce. It hugely should be affecting the power of individual states. 

It sets up a situation of 'general citizenship' and pushes the states away from contesting one another with duties or tariffs against one another.  

Such a close look at constitutional law , provides a window on the way in which the natural conclusions that the actual wording may be ignored , or the meaning reconfigured entirely. Unfortunately it sets up a scenario in which the codification of LAWs is undermined by activism from either the judicial or legislative branches. 

This is what we have. 

For better or worse, however it leads me to feel that the body of legal opinion needs to be revisited in an ongoing matter , simplified , and corrected. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Stosh

[Lost in Translation]

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

Such a close look at constitutional law , provides a window on the way in which the natural conclusions that the actual wording may be ignored , or the meaning reconfigured entirely. Unfortunately it sets up a scenario in which the codification of LAWs is undermined by activism from either the judicial or legislative branches.

 

Good point. Too bad we can't go back in time and place cameras all over the constitutional convention to watch the debate while they were selecting this wording.

[Wu Ming Jen]

Now that we have read the US constitution can we now print money interest free or do we still need to buy our money from the world banking system with interest.?

 

Abraham Lincoln and president Kennedy tried it but that did not go over very well with the banking families our "elected politicians" actually work for.. If this sound like another conspiracy theory then.....UFO's and Dragons are in order.

[Lost in Translation]

Article 5

 

Quote

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev

 

Article 5 describes the amendment process. This is the means by which the Constitution is altered. Let's break this down.

 

There are two ways to amend the Constitution

 

Quote

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution

 

The first method is via Congress. If 2/3rd of both houses agree then new amendments can be proposed.

 

Quote

on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments

 

Alternately 2/3rd of the state legislatures can call a convention to propose amendments. This second method, a "convention of states",  provides a way to work-around Congress in the event that Congress is no longer responsive to the people. Some of you may have heard people talking about this, especially if you listen to US talk radio or subscribe to political podcasts.

 

Quote

[amendments] shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof

 

Once proposed, an amendment must be ratified (approved) by 3/4th of the states' legislatures or by conventions in 3/4th of the states.

 

In this sense the Constitution is a "living document" because it is not fixed and can change with time. But the written text of the Constitution is not "living" and thus is not open to reinterpretation with the times. As discussed earlier, reinterpreting existing text with new meaning is an act of judicial activism and is not in the spirit of the document since it obviates the legislature and the will of the people.

 

I'll pause here for a while in case people want to comment.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Lost in Translation

[Lost in Translation]

Article 6

 

Quote

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

 

Article 6 states that the new country formed by the Constitution will honor the debts and contracts of the old country, the Constitution shall be considered the supreme law of the land, all Senators and Representatives shall swear to support the Constitution, and lastly there shall be no religions test required for any office of the United States.

[Lost in Translation]

Article 7

 

Quote

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevii

 

At the time of writing there were 13 states in the union. 9/13th is approximately 70%.

 

And this, my friends, is the entirety of the Constitution of the United States as originally written.

 

Here are the names of the signers:

 

Quote

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 independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

 

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

 

G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut: Wm: Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York: Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey: Wil: Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware: Geo: Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco: Broom

Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia: John Blair--, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/signers

 

We'll move on to the amendments next, starting with the "Bill of Rights" (the first ten amendments) then moving on to the remainder.

 

I do hope you are enjoying this.

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

Article 7

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevii

 

At the time of writing there were 13 states in the union. 9/13th is approximately 70%.

 

And this, my friends, is the entirety of the Constitution of the United States as originally written.

 

Here are the names of the signers:

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/signers

 

We'll move on to the amendments next, starting with the "Bill of Rights" (the first ten amendments) then moving on to the remainder.

 

I do hope you are enjoying this.

Its a nice change - what is 'America the twelfth' ?

the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

the twelfth day after the ratification? 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Stosh

[Lost in Translation]

22 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Its a nice change - what is 'America the twelfth' ?

the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

the twelfth day after the ratification? 

Where did you find this?

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

Where did you find this?

 

Nevermind. I see it here:

 

Quote

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 independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

 

I missed that last bit when I read it before.

 

This is interesting. I'll need to research this. Thanks for pointing it out!

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

Its a nice change - what is 'America the twelfth' ?

 

Okay... poking around a bit it seems this refers to the age of the United States in 1787. The country was 12 years old (counting 1776 as 1).

 

Quote

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 independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

 

This is just saying that the Constitution was written in 1787 and that 1787 was the 12th year of the United States. I guess they wanted to make sure we knew this.

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

Bill of Rights

 

The "Bill of Rights" is a name given jointly to the first ten amendments, adopted in 1791, of the Constitution.

 

Quote

First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Second Amendment [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Third Amendment [Quartering of Troops (1791)] 

Fourth Amendment [Search and Seizure (1791)] 

Fifth Amendment [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] 

Sixth Amendment [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)] 

Seventh Amendment [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)] 

Eighth Amendment [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)] 

Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)] 

Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to States or People (1791)] 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmenti

 

These amendments constitute the first modification to the US Constitution and serve to clarify the intents of the founders.

[Lost in Translation]

First Amendment

 

Quote

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.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

 

The rights listed here: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom to peaceably assemble; freedom to petition the government; form the cornerstone of our democracy. They are, arguably, the foundation of the American society.

 

Please note the following language:

 

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In other words Congress shall not make a law adopting a state religion (such as the Church of England in Britain, for example). But neither shall congress make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We have had cases wherein Congress has done exactly this. For example: anti-discrimination laws prevent a business from refusing service on the grounds of a protected class, such as sexual orientation. Christian vendors have been and are being sued for exercising their Christian beliefs. This is 100% counter to the first amendment. I am curious to see how this will continue to play out in our culture. Will we continue to erode our first amendment rights or will we stand up for our core values?

[Stosh]

18 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

First Amendment

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

 

The rights listed here: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom to peaceably assemble; freedom to petition the government; form the cornerstone of our democracy. They are, arguably, the foundation of the American society.

 

Please note the following language:

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In other words Congress shall not make a law adopting a state religion (such as the Church of England in Britain, for example). But neither shall congress make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We have had cases wherein Congress has done exactly this. For example: anti-discrimination laws prevent a business from refusing service on the grounds of a protected class, such as sexual orientation. Christian vendors have been and are being sued for exercising their Christian beliefs. This is 100% counter to the first amendment. I am curious to see how this will continue to play out in our culture. Will we continue to erode our first amendment rights or will we stand up for our core values?

I read this one as being somewhat vague , I need to know what behavior is being considered exemplary of a 'religious belief'.

If the the behavior is one that is in fact not religion specific ,( meaning that one may or may not hold to this behavior as being specific to a religion or group of religions )  then I don't see this as being specifically a protected religious observance. 

Christians might decide that the descendants of Ham are dark skinned folks and not feel that they are entitled the treatment of others ,, or they may feel that marriage may properly be between a man and small female child, slavery may be acceptable biblical-ly speaking but that doesn't mean that Christians need not observe the laws that other citizens are constrained by.

It opens up a huge can of worms to say that any behavior which one believes is OK in their own faith , instantly trumps constitutional law , because it would essentially be respecting a particular religions practice ,

For ex. I could stone a whore to death with impunity,  if I was baptized Christian, but an atheist would be held guilty. 

[Lost in Translation]

18 minutes ago, Stosh said:

It opens up a huge can of worms to say that any behavior which one believes is OK in their own faith , instantly trumps constitutional law , because it would essentially be respecting a particular religions practice ,

For ex. I could stone a whore to death with impunity,  if I was baptized Christian, but an atheist would be held guilty. 

 

That's a good point. I suppose the difference comes down to harm vs no harm. If a religion requires that I stone someone then that is harm. If a religion requires that I refrain from an action then that is no harm. In this case refusing to bake a cake or decorate flowers is not an act of harm, but compelling someone to engage in an action that runs counter to their religion is harm.

[Lost in Translation]

6 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

That's a good point. I suppose the difference comes down to harm vs no harm. If a religion requires that I stone someone then that is harm. If a religion requires that I refrain from an action then that is no harm. In this case refusing to bake a cake or decorate flowers is not an act of harm, but compelling someone to engage in an action that runs counter to their religion is harm.

 

Essentially what we are saying here is that one cannot be a Christian AND a baker, or a Christian AND a florist, since at any time one could be asked to perform an action that runs counter to one's belief and subsequently sued. This is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.

[dawei]

33 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Essentially what we are saying here is that one cannot be a Christian AND a baker, or a Christian AND a florist, since at any time one could be asked to perform an action that runs counter to one's belief and subsequently sued. This is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.

 

I thought the SCOTUS ruled on the baker issue... you can be. 

[Lost in Translation]

27 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Essentially what we are saying here is that one cannot be a Christian AND a baker, or a Christian AND a florist, since at any time one could be asked to perform an action that runs counter to one's belief and subsequently sued. This is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.

 

Another example: One is a florist and an orthodox Jew. As such one it not allowed to work on the Sabbath (sundown to sundown, Friday to Saturday). A couple enters the store and asks for flowers for their wedding. Part of the job includes delivery and arrangement. It ends up the wedding is on Saturday, during the Sabbath. In this example the florist is allowed to refuse service on religious grounds since day of the week is not a protected class. Both examples are equivalent in that they are expressions of religious faith, but in the former the florist can be sued and in the latter they cannot. If the couple in the latter example were same-sex then I don't know what would happen. As a society we need to get a handle on this. The Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

[Stosh]

I suppose thats a functional view.k

In that bakery incident, the religious excuse is entirely moot. I dont respect their view is accurate to the teachings of jesus, its tremendously arrogant uncivil wrongheaded BUT the state should not get involved in compulsory morality, IMO 

Engage or not uncoerced , but abide by the contract. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Stosh

[dawei]

6 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I suppose thats a functional view.

In that bakery incident, the religious excuse is entirely moot. I dont respect their view is accurate to the teachings of jesus, its tremendously arrogant uncivil wrongheaded BUT the state should not get involved in compulsory morality, IMO 

 

If we were all like Jesus.. maybe there would be no laws...or fewer. 

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, dawei said:

 

If we were all like Jesus.. maybe there would be no laws...or fewer. 

If all were like me , aside from gender, we would reside in Eden

[Lost in Translation]

58 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Engage or not uncoerced , but abide by the contract. 

 

I'm glad you mentioned contract since that is the issue. The law is compelling those of faith to enter into contracts that they do not want to enter. This is not the same as the ubiquitous "deli counter" where a customer walks in and is refused service. This is about a person being compelled to contract for labor to a ceremony that violates one's faith. You may not agree with one's faith but the First Amendment is clear that the government cannot write laws forcing one to violate their faith.

 

Another example: in WWII there were conscientious objectors who refused to fight on basis of their religion. The world was at war against fascism and the US government allowed able bodied men who were drafted to not fight due to their religious belief. This is how important the First Amendment is. Now, 60+ years later the government is forcing those of faith to bake cakes and arrange flowers.

[thelerner]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Another example: One is a florist and an orthodox Jew. As such one it not allowed to work on the Sabbath (sundown to sundown, Friday to Saturday). A couple enters the store and asks for flowers for their wedding. Part of the job includes delivery and arrangement. It ends up the wedding is on Saturday, during the Sabbath. In this example the florist is allowed to refuse service on religious grounds since day of the week is not a protected class. Both examples are equivalent in that they are expressions of religious faith, but in the former the florist can be sued and in the latter they cannot. If the couple in the latter example were same-sex then I don't know what would happen. As a society we need to get a handle on this. The Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

I don't know.  One is asking the business to do what it normally does, ie bake a wedding cake.  With the orthodox Jew its making them change there hours of normal operation. 

 

Course you just have to change it a little, to make it relevant to the same point, ie An Orthodox Jew (or any baker) being asked to bake a cake for neo-nazi's.  That'd be closer. 

 

It's not an easy decision.  It feels easy when you have strong sympathy or antipathy for the 'wronged' party. 

<doing research>

This sums up what happened in the actual case nicely- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/

"A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that the state exhibited "religious hostility" against him.

The 7-2 verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage in 2012, several years before the practice was legalized nationwide. The justices ruled that a state civil rights commission was hostile to him while allowing other bakers to refuse to create cakes that demeaned gays and same-sex marriages.

 

As a result, the long-awaited decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, including bakers, florists, photographers and videographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples. In fact, the court on Monday scheduled a similar case involving a Washington State florist for consideration at their private conference Thursday.

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's decision against the same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, departing from his long history of opinions in favor of gay rights dating back a generation. Included among them was the court's 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.."

 

There are no villains here, I thought this article shows the Baker to be a pretty solid guy who defended his argument well. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/baker-who-refused-make-cake-gay-wedding-i-don-t-n880061

 

In some class 30 years ago I remember a professor saying 'Hard cases make for bad laws' meaning that certain cases force decisions and precedents that are not necessarily good.  This is a hard case. 

 

Being a pragmatist, when a hard case comes up, I'd like both sides to have a chance to explain there positions.  It may well be I'd go with the Baker in this case, especially if there was other bakeries who'd be happy making the cake (see his argument above) yet in the case of Joe Baker vs. Neo Nazi wedding, then I'd probably go with the bakery.  Preferring such 'passion' cases go to court then impose a one size fits all solution.  

 

Maybe that's not satisfying, but when people of passion get into conflict, the niceties matter.  The basis of there belief, what they're defending matter, to me at least.  The original bakery case is hard, listening to both sides, I give a little more sway to the baker (it helps that he'd bake cakes for gay/lesbians just not wedding cakes) though the gay couple have my sympathies, but there remedy is relatively easy.  

 

Nazi's/neoNazis strike me as the antithesis of America.  They'd do well not to wind up in my court.  Decent odds I'd find them in contempt of court for something, chewing gum, misuse of pronouns..   Sadly, life isn't fair and neither am i.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by thelerner

[Stosh]

Ok , but again the faith bit is still moot and needs to remain so ,since paying attention to it either respects or infringes on behavior on religious grounds. 

Wisely generously humbly ,it was intended for gov to butt out ,and simply walk away from the destructive bias that besets nations around the globe. 

Its an example of Doing , by not Doing. One is thereby freed from the curse of moving to defend or prevail , for the low low price of minding ones own business.

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

though the gay couple have my sympathies, but there remedy is relatively easy

 

They would not have mine. 

 

Notice no one goes into a Muslim butcher shop and ask for pork meat, complain when they will not be served it.

 

Nor will you find many mentioned in the Press complaining about the practices of this faith. 

 

In fact the last 8 years of the previous administration actively went about deleting any terminology related to this ideology ie. Muslim extremist terrorist. 

 

They've managed to obtain victim status while at the same time preserving barbaric practices of the past.

 

Due to the litigious nature of the US Society.  There are many that go around looking for places to sue in order to make money using the law destroying it in the process.

 

Very  prevalent in high-tech companies,  media companies , citing First Amendment protections while using the law that allows them to do so but is applied to newspapers and magazines which they claim not to be.

 

At some point expect them to be regulated.  They are very propagandistic in nature becoming a danger to The Republic.

Edited October 20, 2018 by windwalker

[windwalker]

4 hours ago, windwalker said:

Due to the litigious nature of the US Society.  There are many that go around looking for places to sue in order to make money using the law destroying it in the process.

 

I should mention only those okayed by what are called the left or Progressive.

 

Free thinkers in any of the groups are Outcast by the groups themselves.  

 

The real Danger for the u.s. society is the upcoming food fight.

 

By all the groups trying to be the most disadvantaged in order to receive the free stuff.

 

  That will happen should they managed to attain controls of power.

 

Of course once they manage to do this it will require some type of limitation commonly known as Socialism or communism to contain,  control it.

Edited October 20, 2018 by windwalker