My Constitutional Education

[Minor Axis]

Part 1
____________________________________________________________________________________
Declaration of Independence- The Charter, Purpose Document, why we were founded. 1400 words.

Constitution- By laws, how we will govern ourselves. 4500 words. 4000 of the words describe the three branches of government and how they will operate. 400 words describe the relationship to the States and the process of making amendments. The preamble consists of the first 52 words that state the six core purposes of why the Constitution was written. They define and limit the rest of the document to these six purposes as described in the preamble.

Declaration of Independence and Constitution are designed to work together.

Bill of Rights- 10 items that describe citizen rights

Preamble of 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.

Preamble Paraphrased: Connect States, Ensure Justice, Ensure Peace, Provide Defense, Promote General Wellfare, Secure liberty for now and the future. General Welfare- means promote a fair economic playing field for our citizens.

Comment: No surprises so far? Any controversies or discussion items? I'll continue to part II and post it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXSO0ETvq4

 

[Accountable]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OyU4O80i4

 

[Minor Axis]

Part 2
__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Constitution continued

3 branches of Government

1st Branch Congress:
1. Borrow and Coin money.
2. Regulate Commerce.
3. Regulate Immigration
4. Set up post office and roads.
5. Create an environment for good commerce.
6. Maintain Army, Navy, Militias
7. Declare War
8. Conduct Impeachments
9. Oversea District of Colombia.
10. Make laws limited to the six purposes of the Constitution and these areas.

2nd Branch Executive Branch (President)
1. Act as Commander in Chief
2. Appoint Ambassadors, Judges, and Officers.
3. Enforce Laws of U.S.
4. Sign Treaties & recieve ambassadors from other countries.
5. Grant pardons
6. Give State of the Union to Congress.

3rd Branch- Judicial (Supreme Court)
1. Take appeals from citizens, courts, & states.
2. Make Principled judgments.
3. Ensure jury trials.
4. Uphold Constitution.

Important Concept: All 3 Branches of the U.S. government are to uphold and interpret the Constitution, not just the Supreme Court. The founding fathers were concerned because Supreme Court justices were appointed for life, there could be Judicial Overreach or Judicial Tyranny.

Balance of Power over the Court: Congress establishes jurisdiction of the court, what kind of cases they can rule on and congress can impeach judges if they feel they are operating outside of Constitutional bounds.

Checks and Balances:
Congress- slightly more powerful than other branches.
President- powerful in war and keeping the law, otherwise medium power.
Supreme Court- Mostly used for checks and balances, least powerful.

Bill of Rights (brief comment in video)
1. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof.
Also insures Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press.

X. Powers not delegated to the United States are reserved for the states respectively or the people.

Reemphasised: Declaration of Independance and Constitution designed to work together. The Preamble of the Constitution limits what government is able to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQxigKFa5k

 

[Minor Axis]

The Constitution Preamble Paraphrased: Connect States, Ensure Justice, Ensure Peace, Provide Defense, Promote General Wellfare, Secure liberty for now and the future. General Welfare- means promote a fair economic playing field for our citizens.

For the people in the forum who claim that the U.S. today is operating outside the limits of the Constitution, has anything been posted in Part 1 or 2 that you would use as evidence? The Preamble of the Constitution appears to be both specific and vague at the same time. I'm going to continue posting new parts so maybe I've not gotten to it yet.

Bill of Rights (brief comment in video)
1. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof.
Also insures Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press.

It is argued that this statement separates Church from State. I am a firm believer of the concept. Is religion mentioned anywhere else? Should the government be endorsing specific religions for example by putting a large granite 10 commandments on the lawn of the Courthouse?

 

[Kyle B]

What about the elastic clause?

 

[Accountable]

The Constitution Preamble Paraphrased: Connect States, Ensure Justice, Ensure Peace, Provide Defense, Promote General Wellfare, Secure liberty for now and the future. General Welfare- means promote a fair economic playing field for our citizens.

For the people in the forum who claim that the U.S. today is operating outside the limits of the Constitution, has anything been posted in Part 1 or 2 that you would use as evidence? The Preamble of the Constitution appears to be both specific and vague at the same time. I'm going to continue posting new parts so maybe I've not gotten to it yet.

Bill of Rights (brief comment in video)
1. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof.
Also insures Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press.

It is argued that this statement separates Church from State. I am a firm believer of the concept. Is religion mentioned anywhere else? Should the government be endorsing specific religions for example by putting a large granite 10 commandments on the lawn of the Courthouse?

Off the top of my head, Congress no longer coins money or regulates it. Congress has ceded its responsibility to declare war to the President.

Also the statement that Congress can "make laws limited to the six purposes of the Constitution and these areas" is too general. Article 1 Section 8 is quite specific on what laws may be made. The framers were pretty emphatic that "promote the general welfare" is not a mandate to pass any law that falls under that umbrella.

 

[Minor Axis]

What about the elastic clause?

Background please. I'm digging up my own material.

Also the statement that Congress can "make laws limited to the six purposes of the Constitution and these areas" is too general. Article 1 Section 8 is quite specific on what laws may be made. The framers were pretty emphatic that "promote the general welfare" is not a mandate to pass any law that falls under that umbrella.

I'm heading that direction in my research. The guy in the video says that "general welfare" had to do more with a level economic playing field and had nothing to do with government run welfare programs. And while I'm not disagreeing with that assertion, so far in my research the exact term of "general welfare" is left undefined. The vagueness of that statement could spread out into a variety of solutions to insure the "general welfare" that might include government programs. You'd have to locate some words somewhere in the document that would refute this idea, wouldn't you?

 

[Accountable]

I was looking at it in the Federalist papers, but I 'm too tired right now to get it all in my head. The language is too unfamiliar. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[retro]

I was looking at it in the Federalist papers, but I 'm too tired right now to get it all in my head. The language is too unfamiliar. Maybe tomorrow.

It's in Federalist 41

 

[retro]

It's in Federalist 41

Whch, the way that I read it... the opponents to the Constitution were using the general welfare clause as a reason not to ratify, for fears that it would allow government to name everything they wanted as "general welfare". Madison argues against this being the case in a pretty convincing fashion IMO.

 

[Minor Axis]

Part 3
__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Bill of Rights source: Wikipedia

Theses are the Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution.

• First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

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.

• Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [7]

• Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

• Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

• Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

• Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

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 where in 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.

• Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

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.

• Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Kyle B]

Background please. I'm digging up my own material.

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Basically, it lets the Federal government do whatever the hell it wants, as long as it can vaguely connect it's actions with one of the enumerated powers. Hence, it's known as the "elastic clause" because it allows the government to greatly expand its power.

 

[Minor Axis]

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Basically, it lets the Federal government do whatever the hell it wants, as long as it can vaguely connect it's actions with one of the enumerated powers. Hence, it's known as the "elastic clause" because it allows the government to greatly expand its power.

Kyle, where did you pull this from?

Accountable and Retro, you guys are talking about the Federalist Papers as if they have some bearing on the words in the Constitution. Granted, I have not had a chance to read them, but it may be a problem if you are using these papers to explain the words in Constitution. It might lead you to believe what the intentions are of some of the founding fathers were and somehow that makes it binding, but first glance I think the words of the constitution take precedence. In other words if wording is vague such as "provide for the general welfare", then it is vague. I don't think you can say, well they ment "this" based on other writings. The Constitution stands on it's own. If it is vague, then you've got a framework to maneuver within and stay within Constitutionality. I need to look these Federalist papers over before I'll really decide the validity of this reasoning.

 

[Kyle B]

Kyle, where did you pull this from?

I didn't really pull it from a specific area. It is a basic textbook concept that was stressed in my various government classes in high school and college.

Here are some internet sources on the topic that I came across via a Google search. :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/49-necessary-and-proper-clause.html

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/f/elastic.htm

 

[retro]

The Federalist papers are regularly used by the Supreme Court in ruling on cases. They ave just as relevant today as they were 250 years ago. They were written by members of the Federal Convention; most notably James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, as well as John Jay... the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

To quote Chief Justice John Marshall in the opinion for McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, regarding the Federalist Papers

the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained."

To claim that they aren't relevant just shows that you don't really know much about the founding of this country or the creation and ratification of the Constitution.

 

[Minor Axis]

To claim that they aren't relevant just shows that you don't really know much about the founding of this country or the creation and ratification of the Constitution.

I have not claimed anything and don't appreciate you injecting your condescending view into this thread, at least at this point. Maybe later you'll have a valid reason to do so.

 

[retro]

Kyle, where did you pull this from?

Accountable and Retro, you guys are talking about the Federalist Papers as if they have some bearing on the words in the Constitution. Granted, I have not had a chance to read them, but it may be a problem if you are using these papers to explain the words in Constitution. It might lead you to believe what the intentions are of some of the founding fathers were and somehow that makes it binding, but first glance I think the words of the constitution take precedence.

That statement implies that the Federalist Papers do not have relevance, at least as near as I can tell.

 

[Minor Axis]

That statement implies that the Federalist Papers do not have relevance, at least as near as I can tell.

I guess I gave you more credit for smarts than I should have. Seriously I think your response is knee jerk. Not saying I've never done that...

 

[retro]

I guess I gave you more credit for smarts than I should have. Seriously I think your response is knee jerk. Not saying I've never done that...

Wow, and you talk to me about being condescending. At first glance, I don't think that I'd be the only one to view what you said like I did. I also haven't seen you claim otherwise yet either.

 

[Minor Axis]

Wow, and you talk to me about being condescending. At first glance, I don't think that I'd be the only one to view what you said like I did. I also haven't seen you claim otherwise yet either.

Tit for tat, I thought you liked that? I followed my first statement with"seriously", which implied the first part was not serious. I guess I failed. Next time I'll throw in a wink for a hint that I was kidding.

You said I claimed the Federalist papers were not relevant and that I really knew nothing. I claimed no such thing. And I did not start this thread to bicker with you at this level about piddly stuff. Why don't you wait until I claim something you really have an issue with? If you had read my previous post and retained what I said, you'd remember I told you I needed to look at the Federalist papers, now didn't I? And lets review.... hmm, I'd say you were the first one notching up the tension. Not me. Being instantly angry and trying to prove your superiority is really not necessary, in fact it's counterproductive in trying to have an intelligent discussion. You need to take a lesson or two from Accountable.