What does the US Constitution mean to you?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
December 1, 2008 12:44pm CST
The US Constitution is the framework by which all federal laws, and the policies and procedures of federal departments and programs are to be run.
All elected officials and employees of the federal government have to take a pledge to take an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Therefore all acts by anyone within the federal government can and should be judged on their constitutional basis.
The same goes for state level officials, agencies and departments at the state level. Each action needs to be judged by the Constitution of the appropriate state.
To go beyond or ignore the US Constitution is to violate the oath of office and the violators should be held accountable for their violations. That doesn't always mean arrest or dismissal, but any violations should be overturned immediately. Until they are officially overturned, the decision should be ignored. All laws, policies, rules and other actions based on the unconstitutional decision should also be ignored.
Yes, the Constitution is changeable, but the only legal or constitutional way of affecting change is through the amendment process. No elected or appointed official has the authority or right to change it by any other means... including "interpretation". To do so it to violate the Constitution.
Of course, that is a very high standard to hold our government employees. There will be small violations just as there will be huge ones. The punishment should alway be commensurate with the level of violation.
The US Constitution defines us as a nation. The State Constitutions define each state. How you feel about the US Constitution is how you feel about the US herself.
1 person likes this
4 responses
@katran (585)
• United States
1 Dec 08
The fact that our constitution has survived over 200 years is in itself enough proof that it is a superb document that is capable of applying across spans of time without being changed very much at all. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and I think that they did a superb job! I think our constitution is something to be proud of and something to protect at all costs, because it holds the foundations of what makes us American. If it changes significantly, we will no longer be the America that we all have come to respect.
I think that if any president tries to change, ignore, or stretch the bounds of the constitution, that should be grounds for impeachment.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Dec 08
We focus too much on just the president. In doing so we let Congress and other government officials get away with too much. I'm not sayign we should ignore what the president does, but we need to include all elected officials.
1 person likes this
@CarlKnittel (692)
• United States
8 Jan 09
The President, and Congress swear oaths to uphold the constitution. Violating it is a violation of that oath and grounds for impeachment.
Our founding fathers made it clear that the rights enumerated in the constitution were given by God not by government and that the documentation was just official recognition of those rights. The entire purpose of the document was to limit government which is why the 18th amendment failed(it gave the government power over people rather than the other way around) and the 21st amendment had to be created(eliminating the 18th the only way they could and returning the power to individuals).
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
2 Dec 08
From the "Sixteenth American Jurisprudence" Second Edition, Section 256
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and the law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no actions performed under it...
A void act cannot be legally consistent a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to super seed any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
1 person likes this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
1 Dec 08
While some, including our President-Elect believe that our Constitution is a "living document" and has to change with the times and evidently according to the beliefs of those in office, I feel that our Constitution was written by very wise men who foresaw that this country would need their guidance indefinitely for our nation to survive and thrive.
Some compare this transition to raising a child - as the child grows, the rules change to address the situations of that child at a certain age. That may be true, however, a parent must lay down the basic ground-work and basic principles for discipline and those do not change.
Our Constitution is very much like the ground-work and basic principles that we set in place for our children - those who wrote it intended it to be the foundation of our country.
I personally feel that changes to our Constitution should be considered very carefully and should be put to a popular vote of all American citizens.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 Dec 08
Anyone who feels the Constitution should "change with the times" never believed in it in the first place.
They want the country to blow on the whims of the day... for no other reason than so they can manipulate it for their own petty agenda.
1 person likes this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
1 Dec 08
That is exactly the reason why I think any changes should have to be made by a popular vote of the people.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 Dec 08
Popular vote of the people is part of the whims of the day. It takes a lot to get an amendment passed, as well it should. No 1 entity (including We the People) should have all the say in a change to the constitution.
1 person likes this
@CarlKnittel (692)
• United States
8 Jan 09
Ever hear the rule that says you don't have to obey an unlawful order?
The first thing you learn in the police academy is that your job is to enforce the law. The second thing you learn is the law, to wit:
The US Constitution is the highest law in the land. In cases where the state constitution grants greater freedom to the average citizen than the US constitution then the state constitution may supersede. No law which violates the freedoms enumerated in the constitution is valid. It is not the job of cops to decide constitutionality and they may enforce any written law until it is ruled unconstitutional but, they are not compelled to enforce unconstitutional law.
Unreasonable and oppressive laws are always being put in play and there are always a few people with the guts to ignore them. Returning slaves to their masters, segregation, barring certain ethnic groups from possessing weapons... Ignoring these laws is what can be truly called civil disobedience. Unfortunately that term has been applied to everything from disrupting business to outright terrorism in order to justify the acts of radicals who claim a cause.
