Who enforces adherence to the Constitution?

[squarejohn]

You can do better than that. Any graduate of a Louisiana high school could explain the meaning.

No advanced degree needed.

Sure I can. But I'm getting tired of this game. I'm going to view some really good porn for a while. No advanced degree needed for that, either.

 

[sr71plt]

Any of yours, certainly. Yours are very simple and easy to answer.

Except by him, apparently. But then, we've already established you have to be average or above to answer them.

 

[sr71plt]

Sure I can. But I'm getting tired of this game. I'm going to view some really good porn for a while. No advanced degree needed for that, either.

Good move. I hope Box and Zeb are listening. They might remember why they came to Literotica too.

 

[bronzeage]

Guess that answer puts you way below the average then.

(It means if your daddy has been convicted of treason, you don't have to look over your shoulder yourself for his crime. In times in some other systems before the Constitution, it was popular to wipe out all of the descendents too--a favorite activity in Bible, as a matter of fact.)

I'm not surprised you didn't know what it meant and thought it had something to do with those you knee jerk against. (Are those tea bags hanging from your baseball cap?)

Very good. It also means a person cannot be convicted of treason by an act of Congress. Congress can set the penalty for the crime of treason, but only a court can convict a person.

In Louisiana high schools, US History is part of the Junior year curriculum and the Constitution is a large part of the study.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Apparently it would.

"Apparently" doesn't work in the case of Supreme Court Justices.

I am not a scholar of the Constitution, so I would not presume to offer a definite opinion. At the same time, I am literate, and can read the articles of the Constitution, so I will offer an opinion that I believe is correct. Anybody who wants to can disagree with me, and they might be right.

 

[bronzeage]

Sure I can. But I'm getting tired of this game. I'm going to view some really good porn for a while. No advanced degree needed for that, either.

It's your thread and your post. Own it.

If you want to debate Constitutional law, it helps to have actually read the document.

 

[amicus]

The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Bill of Rights and the accumulated Amendments to the Constitution illustrate man's finest effort to create a free society of free men and to institute a system to protect those individual rights in perpetuity.

Although those documents state that rights are provided by a Creator; one can also interpret 'Nature', as the creator of the self evident, axiomatic, and unalienable liberties of man.

What followed the acceptance of the Consititution on September 17, 1787, has been a monumental battle between right and wrong, good and evil.

Among us today are descendents of those who opposed the very concept of individual human liberty; those who fought and died to maintain a Monarchy and all the evils that have their origins in totalitarian dictatorships wherein individual rights are abrogated, denied and violated for the greater good.

SquareJohn offers a valid perspective of the gradual loss, not only of individual liberty, but even knowledge of the reasons the Thirteen Colonies rejected Statist oppression.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

That is but the first reason establishing the groundwork for Revolution and Declaring Independence from England.

One might compare the Arizona Law being assaulted by King Obama and the many States that have gone to Court to prevent the enactment of Obamacare, Socialized Medicine, in the United States; as equal in danger to the natural liberties of man.

In answer to SquareJohn's original question; it is "we the people", that must punish those who violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Freedom is not given, it is innate. It was gained at a high price and has been defended at an even higher price.

The 'usual suspects', after a hundred years of success in diminishing human liberty, should realize that men who cherish freedom, will attempt in all ways possible, to peacefully protest the abridgement of their rights; but when peaceful means are exhausted, have the right to call upon the use of force to reinstate his natural rights.

"Up the Revolution!"

Amicus Veritas

edited to add: squarejohn, I thought your question deserved a wider audience:

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/profiles/blogs/who-enforces-adherence-to-the

 

[bronzeage]

It means the democrats lose all their rights and everything they've stolen.

...

SquareJohn offers a valid perspective of the gradual loss, not only of individual liberty, but even knowledge of the reasons the Thirteen Colonies rejected Statist oppression.


....

edited to add: squarejohn, I thought your question deserved a wider audience:

l]

That is some incisive perspective and knowledge, there.

 

[amicus]

Anyone who can read and understand a newspaper can understand the Constitution. You don't need to be one of those "intelligent, educated people" to read and understand the Constitution. I am highly intelligent and very well educated, but I am not one of those "intelligent educated" ones of whom you refer.

Those intelligent, educated people are well known to me and to those like me. They are the ones who have never held a real job or run any kind of operation. They are always working on their resume or their doctorate, when they are not criticizing the work of others. They are the ones whose eyes glaze over when the conversation turns to something other than their specialty. Ask four of them a question and you get five answers. When something unexpected happens, they don't know what to do except to point fingers of blame at others. If they ever stumbled into their true calling, you would find them on the end of a broom or a mop.[/

QUOTE]

~~~

I wanted to respond to this, squarejohn, to reinforce your perception of a non productive intellectual elite, that like germs, have mulitplied and soiled our society.

Being born smarter than others is an act of nature, or, fate perhaps, but it is undeniable; thas why we have an Intelligence Quotient curve.

Some...not all, intellectuals have always been a sorry, bitter lot. They know so much more than their fellow man, solve problems so much easier than the common guy and feel they should be worshipped, fed, bathed and clothed by the lessers among them.

Failing to achieve that status in most cases, they, from the very beginning, pandered to whatever Ruler, Chief, King or Queen they could find to exercise their greater mental agility.

Marx, Lenin and Engles were pikers when it came to fleecing the poor; the Intellectuals merely switched allegiance to the Church and managed to get paid for abusing children while being well fed and boozed up at the same time.

An equal amount of the psuedo intellectuals went into government financed education, at all levels, and are still paid to abuse children, physically and mentally. You never understood why these attractive women in public schools have sex with young boys? They do it because they can.

Some are born as strong boys who become powerful men; most use that strength to assist and protect their fellow man...ever notice the size of many law enforcement officers?

Other physically powerful men sell their strength in sanctified athletic competition; some become brutal and take what they want when and where they want it.

There is good and bad in all things and it is time the phoney intellectuals, the scavengers, the parasites, the panderers, were called out and shown to be what they really are.

Thank you for the inspiration...

Amicus

 

[colddiesel]

Sometimes there are advantages in having an unwritten Constitution (or none).

That doesn't stop us in the UK arguing about the Constitution we don't have but the arguments seem less bitter.

Og

The British Constitution ain't what it used to be Og. Since 1690 the legislature and the executive have consistently whittled away the rights of the people without any process of consent. That would be impossible in the USA.

It is also worth comparing UK with Canada and Australia, the former colonies have retained more of the former rights because they were guaranteed in a written constitution which protection was never afforded the British.

Even the American colonists original complaints were that the UK Parliament was depriving them of what they perceived as their rights before they contemplated revolution

Britain is far to complacent, indeed smug about its constitution which is a mess.

Incidentally are you suggesting that Northern Ireland is not a bitter debate, If the British people as a whole had a vote on the issue they would have got shot of it years ago but the UK establishment would never allow that.

 

[squarejohn]

It's your thread and your post. Own it.

If you want to debate Constitutional law, it helps to have actually read the document.

I guess when you say it's my thread you must mean that I made the first post. It was not my intention to debate Constitutional law. I have read the Constitution numerous times. As a boy in school, I was required to memorize the Declaration of Independence, The Preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I wouldn't call myself an expert on the Constitution, but I probably have a better than average knowledge and understanding of it.

My original post in this thread was a question of what mechanism is in place to arrest members of government who defiled the principles of the Constitution. By arrest I mean entering the office or home of the malefactor, slapping the cuffs on him, and trotting him off to jail.

That's all. I was just wondering about it and hoped someone here could supply the answer. Instead of increasing my knowledge, I was assailed by a lot of smart ass, snotty remarks from people whose greatest accomplishment was somehow obtaining a college degree. Anyone with a college degree has the same thing that tens of millions of others have.

I don't have an axe to grind against anyone participating in this forum. And I feel no need to prove anything to anybody. I like this forum because it is so freewheeling.

The only reason I answered your post, is because I have read quite a few of your posts, and feel that you are one of the few denizens in this forum with a level head and are worthy of a little respect.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The real answer is: There's no means to punish transgressors unless The People arise in concert to hang the villains, and that aint gonna ever happen.

Virtually every government, soon or late, degenerates to a perpetual turf war between criminal gangs like Capone and Bugsy Moran in Chicago. If the GOP and Democrats cant strangle the Tea Party in its infancy it too will become another corrupt gang.

Here's what I suggest: Give every elected official perfect immunity from prosecution; that is, let each officer steal and rape and murder without consequence. Then put a cash bounty on each of them. That is, give every citizen a license to kill politicians for the bounty money. Make the bounty equal to what the politician earns.

 

[bronzeage]

I guess when you say it's my thread you must mean that I made the first post. It was not my intention to debate Constitutional law. I have read the Constitution numerous times. As a boy in school, I was required to memorize the Declaration of Independence, The Preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I wouldn't call myself an expert on the Constitution, but I probably have a better than average knowledge and understanding of it.

My original post in this thread was a question of what mechanism is in place to arrest members of government who defiled the principles of the Constitution. By arrest I mean entering the office or home of the malefactor, slapping the cuffs on him, and trotting him off to jail.

That's all. I was just wondering about it and hoped someone here could supply the answer. Instead of increasing my knowledge, I was assailed by a lot of smart ass, snotty remarks from people whose greatest accomplishment was somehow obtaining a college degree. Anyone with a college degree has the same thing that tens of millions of others have.

I don't have an axe to grind against anyone participating in this forum. And I feel no need to prove anything to anybody. I like this forum because it is so freewheeling.

The only reason I answered your post, is because I have read quite a few of your posts, and feel that you are one of the few denizens in this forum with a level head and are worthy of a little respect.

I appreciate your respect. Thank you very much.

Lit is not the Limbaugh show. You can't control who answers your questions, or the answer you receive. Your responses to their answers did not indicate a depth of study. It may be you have trouble expressing yourself, but you seem to have a very superficial understanding of the American system of government.

There is no one who can legally arrest members of government (or any other person) who defiled the principles of the Constitution. That is not a crime. Crimes are defined by the criminal law, as enacted by Congress.

This is why you will find the following sentence in several place in the Constitution, The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Being arrested, in the nation, is not the same thing as being convicted. It is not the punishment for a crime. "Being trotted off to jail", without trial or hearing, on the word or decision of a government official is how things are done in despotic countries. Again, you may have poorly expressed yourself.

There will always be a small but vocal minority in this nation who fear the government is working against the good of the people. Up to this point in history, it has been a very small minority. They think violence and crime are the way to effect their goals. When I was in elementary school, radicals on the left set off bombs in government buildings, to very little effect. Many years later, radicals on the right worked on a larger scale and killed 180 people in Oklahoma City. If anyone can explain the goals of either action, I would love to hear it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No government in the history of Earth has ever been benevolent, kind, and generous. Government is always about pacifying your barons with gold and favors; in turn they allow you to endulge your grandiose, narcissistic delusions.

 

[bronzeage]

No government in the history of Earth has ever been benevolent, kind, and generous. Government is always about pacifying your barons with gold and favors; in turn they allow you to endulge your grandiose, narcissistic delusions.

In your case, they have been remarkable successful.

 

[sr71plt]

My original post in this thread was a question of what mechanism is in place to arrest members of government who defiled the principles of the Constitution. By arrest I mean entering the office or home of the malefactor, slapping the cuffs on him, and trotting him off to jail.

That's all. I was just wondering about it and hoped someone here could supply the answer. Instead of increasing my knowledge, I was assailed by a lot of smart ass, snotty remarks from people whose greatest accomplishment was somehow obtaining a college degree. Anyone with a college degree has the same thing that tens of millions of others have.

Point of order. I did answer that question. I gave a straightforward answer (post #5).

You haven't at all shown that this was your real "question," but you did get a straightforward answer to the question you asked right off the top.

The fact that you don't acknowledge (or seem to realize) that you got a straightforward answer to the question asked is just further evidence that it's not really what your agenda was/is.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Dear Reader,

Our ELWOOD comes across as a K-MART Obama.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Members of Congress and other legislative bodies can be arrested for drunk driving or armed robbery or spousal abuse or other crimes, just as anybody else can. However, they cannot be arrested for what they do while in session. If a member introduces a bill to punish by burning at the stake any person who criticizes the president or member of Congress, that would not be an illegal act. That is an extreme example, and nobody would ever do it or vote for it, but such an action would not be punishable by law.

Hopefully, the voters will punish that foolish person by voting him or her out of office at the first opportunity. That is the only legal remedy for removing inept politicians. The better way is to refrain from electing them in the first place.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In a different forum, there is someone complaining about feminism. It hurts his feelings.


I've been wondering what, exactly, people like him want when they start threads like these?

maybe they want to hear someone say;

"Ohmygod, I never realized that my intelligence has been making you feel like a dumb shitheel all this time. It's TOTALLY my fault, and i will never, ever act smart around you again, and I totally agree with your superior dumbness that Washington is the root of all evil." I'll vote the straight tea party ticket form now on.

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways, and reminding me that stupid is morally superior to smart any day of the week. "

yep, that's what squarejohn wants to hear.

 

[amicus]

The above is about the best example of an intellectual snob looking down on the common people that one can find...a confession of sorts about how superior 'smart' people claim to be.

Pish...

Amicus

 

[bronzeage]

I
Ayn Rand...of course...who else?

If that is a little heavy and complex for you...take note of what you watch or read within the spectrum of the arts in general.

Ask yourself why you find this or that, song, book, sculpture or film enjoyable and what it means to you.

Mindless entertainment is not an option.

Amicus

The above is about the best example of an intellectual snob looking down on the common people that one can find...a confession of sorts about how superior 'smart' people claim to be.

Pish...

Amicus

 

[squarejohn]

The above is about the best example of an intellectual snob looking down on the common people that one can find...a confession of sorts about how superior 'smart' people claim to be.

Pish...

Amicus

You sure got that right.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The above is about the best example of an intellectual snob looking down on the common people that one can find...a confession of sorts about how superior 'smart' people claim to be.

Pish...

Amicus

Who's an intellectual? STELLA? snort cough

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[cloudy]

Common people?

For heaven's sake. My 11-year-old son could debate with more skill than has been displayed on this thread.

And amicus, what are you doing here? Why aren't you off looking at pictures of prepubescent girls?

Squarejohn, you seem to hate all people with college degrees. Huge chip on your shoulder. Hokay.

Earlier you said this:



Despite your hatred of academia, let me pose a question, if I may.

If you need medical assistance, don't you want a specialist? Don't you want your doctor or surgeon to be the best educated, most highly trained, finest medical geek there is? Don't you want a god with a scalpel?

I do. Of course I do. And so should you.

And I don't care if their eyes glaze over during a conversation when someone is discussing something that doesn't interest them. (That happens to most folks, I imagine.)

I don't care if they don't know the price of a gallon of milk, or how to change the oil in their car, or how to fire a rifle. Who gives a shit?

I do care if they've read up on the latest medical procedures.

I expect them to know possible medicinal interactions for my safety.

I want to know if they've attended medical conferences to read, write, reflect and discuss with colleagues.

I expect them to belong to many different medical organizations so they can stay current with things that may ultimately affect me.

I don't care if they have people skills. I don't need someone to "There there, honey" me, I want a kick-ass professional surgeon.


In many instances, you benefit from the education of others. And you especially want and need their skills.

So I am confused by this disgust for the educated.

But I do have pity for you and your bigoted view of education.

http://www.colectiva.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lkzyz89efm_clap.gif

Usually those who disdain an education are those without one, and feeling inferior because of it.