Abandoning the Constitution

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Abandoning the Constitution

arbilad · Head Chef

1. Unequivocably yes
2. The Constitution is a limit on government, and there are several areas where they are simply ignoring certain provisions of the Constitution. First, they no longer bother with warrants in many cases. The FBI has even admitted to abusing the broad powers given to them by the unconstitutional Patriot act. Second, there are now many laws limiting free speech. Someone even proposed a law (I forget whether it passed) saying that talk radio couldn't comment about an election within a certain amount of time of the election. That's also abridging freedom of the press. Also, there are those eager to let the government ban guns for the promise of safety, even though that is blatantly unconstitutional. Courts are now regularly in the business of making laws, instead of merely judging you based on them. I could go on, and on, and on. Basically, there isn't a part of the Bill of Rights that hasn't been ignored or stomped upon in some way.
3. Why? Because they are promised various things. People by and large don't object to warrantless wiretaps, for instance, because it's done for their safety!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'd like to ask a fourth question too...

4. Do you think our technology presents specific challenges to preserving a proper interpretation of the Constitution? How so? What types of strains does technology put on constitutional protections?

(Arbi reminded me in his response that this was another question pinging about in my brain...)

--Ray

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:
question pinging about in my brain...)

This leads me to the OBVIOUS picture of ray's brain as a pinball machine! This explains SOOOO much!!! But I still love ya' rayb!!! Cause I am a

that way...

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

1. Do you believe Lundbaek's assertion to be true, that people are abandoning the Constitution?

Not quite, though I do think that portions have been broadly interpreted enough as to render them meaningless.

3. WHY? Why do people abandon the constitution?

That's easy. For power. When people broaden the reach of government, they do so because they want more power over their fellow citizens, even if they have "good intentions."

2. What SPECIFIC parts in particular of the constitution do you think people don't understand or are ready to abandon?

This could take a while.

I think McCain-Feingold is a violation of the First Amendment. I think the 9th and 10th Amendments have largely been forgotten. The commerce clause has been stretched to give the Federal government too much power....Those are just off the top of my head. I don't have time to elaborate much more....

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

1. Do you believe Lundbaek's assertion to be true, that people are abandoning the Constitution?

Yes

2. What SPECIFIC parts in particular of the constitution do you think people don't understand or are ready to abandon?

Freedom of speech. They want freedom of speech but only speech they agree with or politically correct speech. Just look at what happens on college campuses as conservatives are shut down because their speech isn't politically correct. In Europe they are already placing restrictions on free speech if it is against Muslims, Homosexuals, etc. The pressure is building here. I may not agree with Neo Nazis or the Earth Liberation Front but I wouldn't think of silencing them. Many young people seem willing to trade this one away so as not to offend. I also believe that so called laws limiting speach during elections via things like McCain Feingold are direct attacks. The second amendment is routinely being neglected in this country. I worry that young people really don't understand the history behind the constitution, the constitution itself, the amendments, their meaning, why it is important, and why it is so valuable.

3. WHY? Why do people abandon the constitution?

Many folks are simply disconnected. Video games, TV, IPODS, etc. Others think being PC is more important than rights laid down by old men. There is even a disdain for the constitution by some or it is seen as being invalid because the rights of minorities and women were not originally protected under it. They see it as somehow illigitimate because of that or because of the flaws of the authors and signitors. I also think there is a fair number of folks willing to trade rights away for security and government entitlements as has happened in Europe. They are willing to give up their rights for guaranteed jobs, housing, medical care, T.V. etc.

4. Do you think our technology presents specific challenges to preserving a proper interpretation of the Constitution? How so? What types of strains does technology put on constitutional protections?

Not really. What is the difference between something printed on the web or in the paper. What about a firearm today or fifty years ago. The common misconceptions is that man is someone without these rights if the constitution is not there. Man has always had these rights, they are God given. The Constitution just codifies it and tells our government that it cannot infringe upon them. The document does not grant these rights, it merely serves to codify them into law so the government won't take them away. If we allow them to be taken from us or give them up, those rights do not simply cease to exist, just the free exercise of them.

arbilad · Head Chef

Regarding point 4, technology shouldn't change the equation, but it does. The Constitution wasn't written to cover every possible combination of circumstances. It gave governing principles. For instance, we are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. A reasonable person would interpret that to mean that the government needs a warrant to set up high tech equipment across the street from you to look through your walls, hear every sound in the house, etc. But you could make the argument that, legally, since they aren't going on your property they don't need a warrant.
If we start amending the Constitution to protect against every variety of search and seizure, we're in deep doo doo.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I find it interesting that some think technology has no effect upon the Society's perception of constitution:

Here are some thoughts that spring to mind...

The Web is not the US. It is international and has very few boundaries. Those with entirely hostile views can be as indiscernable as children.

Abortion as a "safe" medical procedure didn't exist in the time of the Constitution's founding.

Movies, pornography available in such readiness, and mega-media corporations with narrow minded political agendas didn't exist in a time when Free Press was garanteed.

Heck, even the monetary system has evolved technologically...

The biggest gun was a cannnnnon. There was no atom bomb, or automatic assault rifles. Heck, they didn't even know about flight, let alone space flight.

Cars... Oil... Hydroponic Farming... Ipods... Homosexuals... Mexican immigrants... H1B Visas... Absurd wealth... Welfare... Social Security... Indian gambling casinos... Civil Rights for blacks and women and the surgically altered... Botox... Mormons... Vitamin Fortified Cereals...

All things that were yet to be dreamed up and given a cause... All the political hotbutton issues are those that didn't exist when the Constitution was in embryo. If the Founders had had some of these things, would they've worded things differently--perhaps there would've been different rights... like the right to Poptarts...

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 10:13, 2007-05-03

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

You know, I had a spiritual experience with Poptarts once. I was in Wal-Mart in the cereal aisle and for some reason I started gazing out into space, and a peculiar feeling came over me. I refocused my eyes and there were the Poptarts in all their glory. All flavors, all varieties. I thought how amazing this would be through the eyes of the majority of people who've ever lived on this earth. Just a mere couple generations ago, even. And I think just a mere couple generations from now, it will be just as unbelievable, but that's just the psycho-conspiracist talking.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

This morning my daughter had something of a spiritual experience with poptarts. She needed a fast breakfast, and searched the cupboards for poptarts, her heart set upon them... Sadly there were none left. She then crumpled into a mass of crying jello as she lamented the loss of the poptart. I pointed out to her that Poptarts were not constitutionally protected rights, and that she was allowing a simple breakfast pastry determine her level of happiness. I said, "Behold the power of the Poptart! It can make you cry!!" I then waved my arms around and said, "Now I will control the Becca with the power of my Magic Poptart!! Muwahahahaha!!" with my evil sinister laugh...

She didn't appreciate my comments, but mom found her some chocolate graham crackers and she managed to muster a grimace.

--Ray

Randy · Senior Member

The Constitution was really thrown for a loop by the civil war and associated issues.

West Virginia was carved out of Virginia, in defiance of the Constitution.

Lincoln's enforcement of keeping the union together through military means is difficult to find in the Constitution.

An amendment to the Constitution was approved by the requisite supermajority of states that was only possible because the states of the Confederacy were excluded from the count (not just from the numerator, but from the denominator as well).

I'm sure there are other examples as well.

In each of these cases, the cause was arguably just. But if we gut the Constitution, we're not left with much. Although I love the Constitution, I'm not sure that it is always possible to adhere to it.

-- Edited by Randy at 11:19, 2007-05-03

Randy · Senior Member

Did I say that?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

"Lincoln's enforcement of keeping the union together through military means is difficult to find in the Constitution."

Article 2, Section 3

The President shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Lincoln's Proclamation on April 15, 1861:

"Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law.

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed."

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

the constitution was intended to govern a moral people... or so Adams said... so... exactly when were Americans their moralest?

--Ray

Randy · Senior Member

That's not such an easy question to answer, Rayb.

Slavery, forced resettlement of American aborigenes, abuse of the Mormons, conquest of territory governed by foreign contries, Jim Crow laws from the past, now we have wide acceptance of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and pornography.

Dunno.

Randy · Senior Member

So, Fear of Shiz, are you saying it was illegal for states to peacefully secede from the union? I've never heard of this law. Which state passed it? Or was this a federal law? Just askin'.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Randy: That's what I was thinking too... rolleyes

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

The states were in rebellion. They were "obstructing the execution" of the Federal laws. Lincoln had a responsibility to enforce the laws--all the laws.

The Union was/is not a compact of the states. It was a compact of the PEOPLE of the United States--from Maine to Georgia. Those people had placed the Federal government as the highest authority by the Constitution. A portion of the nation was rebelling against that authority.

Randy · Senior Member

The states freely entered into the union without compulsion. As far as I know, there was nothing in the Constitution that stated that that entry into the union was irreversible.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

As I understood it, it was not specifically or explicitly stated it was illegal for states to secede. But, up until the time of the Civil War, their was much more of a feeling of strong state power and not as strong federal power. After the revolution, it was strong state and weak federal, and as the decades progressed, the balance continued to shift towards federal. By about the time of the Civil War, they were in balance, with the Southern states not wanting to acknowledge that their powers were no longer greater than the federal powers, particularly since it revolved around the issue of slavery.

The Civil War settled the question as to what Shiz refers to above. The Federal government (as embodied in the executive branch) has more power ultimately than any State government (executive or legislative branches). The problem today is that the federal legislative and federal judicial branches are trying to exert greater power over all aspects of State government than they really should have call to have (and the liberals, who are the ones doing it, are blaming it on the Bush administration and the executive branch's policies).

And to answer Ray's question, Americans are / were their moralest before the age of accountability.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

We the People of the United States........do ordain and establish this Constitution....

I don't see anything about the states having entered into the Constitution. It was not a confederatoin of independent states.

James Madison argued that the nation came into being by virtue of a common adherence to the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, principles that were to be enforced over time by a Constitution gradually brought into line with those principles. I also suggest reading Lincoln's first inaugural address.

But we are rehashing an argument that has been going on for 230 years now.

Randy · Senior Member

Sorry to contribute to your frustration. If you're not interested in discussing the fact that the Constitution has been abandoned to a great extent at least since the time of the Civil War, (Or as it's called around these parts, The War of Northern Aggression) no one says you have to.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Oh, I'm not really frustrated. I was just commenting on the fact that the argument of states' rights, and secession, and such has been going on for so long. I enjoy the discussion. I am learning as I try to respond.

And I live in parts where they say the South will rise again, too.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Oh, and I happen to disagree that it has been abandoned since the Civil War, or that the Civil War is what started its abandonment. I think FDR did much more damage than Lincoln did. And LBJ and Nixon even more....

Randy · Senior Member

If you've pegged me as one who thinks that the Union was in the wrong by thwarting the plans of the Confederacy, understand that, if for no other reason, I feel that freeing the slaves was a good thing to do. I think it is justified under the same principles that are found in the Declaration of Independence. Although many will say that the Constitution has force of law while the Declaration does not, I would point out that if the Declaration of Independence is not legal, then thirteen of our states are part of Britain.

But I honestly can't see where supressing secession is authorized by the Constitution.

The case of West Virginia is much clearer. The Constitution specifically forbids the taking of territory from one state and giving it to another without the consent of the state from which the territory is taken, yet that is precisely what happened in the case of West Virginia. That split between Virginia and West Virginia came about due to the Civil War.

And it's clear that one of the amendments to the Constitution was possible because the southern states were excluded from the count of states. I would say therefore that that amendment's legality is questionable, although it has been enforced since that time.

arbilad · Head Chef

I've heard that the civil war wasn't just about slaves. The northern states had a captive market for their manufactured goods in the south. The south wanted to sell their agricultural goods into markets other than the north.
BTW, here's a link to the confederate constitution. In ways, it is much like ours.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

The Spirit of the civil war is still being fought all across this world... it is the fight that all men will have the freedom to determin their own destiny or have the right to suppress and subject their rivals to slavery.

Section 87: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;

7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.

IMO, this war will continue until slavery is abolished in all the world and nations cease to oppress nations...

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:
I have three questions.

1. Do you believe Lundbaek's assertion to be true, that people are abandoning the Constitution?

2. What SPECIFIC parts in particular of the constitution do you think people don't understand or are ready to abandon?

3. WHY? Why do people abandon the constitution?

--Ray

1. Absitively posolutely.

2. I think we are trading liberty for security and personal responsibility for entitlement.

3. Because we're listening to the tempting lies of Satan's rebellion: I will save them all, not one soul will be lost, give me thine honor (and their agency.)

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Right on Roper! That's it exactly!!!

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

A while ago Rayb asked "WHY? Why do people abandon the constitution?" I think Americans in general have abandoned it for perceived convenience or gain. But I'm much more concerned about why Latter Day Saints, especially LDSs who are U.S. citizens, fail to understand and espouse constitutional principles. Since I joined the Church in 1960, Prophets who have spoken on this particular subject have warned us that there is simply no way around this duty if we wish to remain a free people. But especially in the last 25 years those admonitions have become much more subtle at best. However, and in spite of what to me seems to be a "muzzling" of this topic even in church, these following scriptures have never been rescinded or "scrubbed".

'I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land. (August 6, 1833, Doctrine and Covenants 98:6)

"[T]he laws and constitution of the peopleshould be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles." (December 16, 1833, Doctrine and Covenants 101:77)

Roper's answer "Because we're listening to the tempting lies of Satan's rebellion" is a big part of the reason. But we don't listen to all of Satan's lies. Members of this forum probably do a good job of rejecting nearly all of them. But why or how could we mess up so badly that then President McKay would say in the October 1966 General Conference "We know that there has been an alarming increase in the abandoning of the ideals that constitute the foundation of the Constitution of the United States and of the American home.", and that Ezra Taft Benson would state in 1986 "For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at every major clause of our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions."

I can only offer my own excuses: 1.) Failure to take seriously the admonitions that I heard and read back when they were given, 2.) Distraction by other priorities or interests, some due to church responsibilities, but most probably not, 3.) Superficial reading of and failure to internalize the above D&C verses, 4.) Ignorance of the principles of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) and consequent unawareness, and maybe even occasional support of violations of those principles by government.

I'd probably still be cruising along in ignorance if it were not for a then BYU professor, W. Cleon Skousen, whose efforts to teach the importance of the Constitution finally began to reach me when I was renting a room in the basement of his house in Provo, UT.

-- Edited by lundbaek at 10:39, 2007-05-13