Does it really matter to you if it is unconstitutional?
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
October 16, 2010 9:18pm CST
The constitution has been used by both parties for decades now as a weapon, but only against things they don't like. That tells me that they (the politicians) don't care if something is unconstitutional. They only care if they like it or not and if they don't, it's time to check if it's constitutional.
I think most mylotters can agree that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Warrantless wiretapping clearly violates the 4th amendment. Despite that the majority of our politicians supported it when Bush pushed it and many of the democrats who cried that it was unconstitutional (including Obama) then voted to renew it with Obama as president.
The Obamacare bill is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the 10th amendment and forces people to buy a product that they may not want or can't afford without serious hardships. Regardless, people support it because they like it, or call it unconstitutional because they don't like it. They're just glad the constitution is on their side this time.
Roe v Wade was unconstitutional as it violated the 10th amendment. Despite that, all that really matters to people is whether they are pro-abortion or pro-life. They don't really care if the ban on state laws prohibiting abortion is constitutional. It's just about what they want.
Many people are pushing Obama and congress to make gay marriage legal under federal law. They don't care in the slightest that marriage laws are set at the state level. They just want what they want and ignore the constitution.
The most recent issue I've seen discussed are federal drug laws. You can read the constitution a million times and you'll see that the federal government has absolutely no authority on the matter, but those laws have been on the books for decades because people WANT drugs to be illegal.
So does it really matter to you if anything is constitutional, or does it only matter if you like it or not? Have you or would you support something blatantly unconstitutional if you really felt it was a good, great, or necessary thing?
http://www.usconstitution.net/
2 people like this
5 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
17 Oct 10
I support it, even when it is distasteful for me to do so. This means I must tolerate the vile filth spewed by the Westboro Baptist church. This means no matter how offended I am that a Mosque is going to placed right near the WTC site, I will not protest them building it. It is why I must swallow and accept that if we arrest someone rather than kill them on the battlefield or detain them as POWs, even for horrendous acts they have committed against this country, even if they are not U.S. citizens, we must permit their rights to stand and put them on trial.
The true tests of our constitution come not when we find it easy to agree with it..but when we find it hard.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
18 Oct 10
I knew you'd be quick to respond to this. The thing that bugs me more than anything else is the "invention" of rights in the constitution. It seems like all anyone has to do is say they have a right often enough and then everyone starts believing it even pushing it against the rights of others.
How often do you hear someone say they have freedom of speech and thus YOU have no right to condemn their statements? It's ridiculous.
Then we have the people who just think the only part of the constitution that matters is the supremacy clause and their twisted interpretation of it. If we took their definition, and the one Obama's used to back up his Obama-care, then the federal government could literally make ANY law they wanted, regardless of the rest of the constitution, and the states could do nothing about it.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
19 Oct 10
I can't begin to count how many times I have busted that supremacy clause argument, it's almost too easy. Yet there are people who will look right at Hamilton's own words explaining it and STILL just put their fingers in their ears and repeat the argument.
I have found more often than not, it comes down to what someone "feels" the constitution should mean and say, or what they simply feel is right and just, rather than what it actually does or does not say. If someone thinks the constitution should include amendment *x* or *y*, then fine, make that argument. At least it would be an honest and legitimate conversation to have. But we can't just go around interpreting the constitution based on what we wish it provided for and allowed.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
17 Oct 10
That's why, who is on the Supreme Court really does matter.
The new health care bill, we will wait and see but most of it falls under the commerce clause and fedral regulation (law).
Most of the Patriot Act was under a war declaration so as despicable as it was most of it was legal, what was not legal was the things that some of the feds tried to do claiming it fell under the Patriot Act when in fact it was not covered.
Wire tapping millions of people without warrents just to name one.
Roe V. Wade was not about abortion. The two political parties have made it about abortion. The court was protecting your right to privacy as the constitution provides.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
17 Oct 10
"The new health care bill, we will wait and see but most of it falls under the commerce clause and federal regulation (law)."
No, the interstate commerce clause does not give the government authority to mandate that a U.S. citizen purchase something. And federal law is irrelevant in this case. The federal government cannot pass a law that declares something constitutional, they do not have that power.
"Most of the Patriot Act was under a war declaration "
There was no formal declaration of war...even if it was, it still does not grant the authority to the federal government to circumvent the 4th amendment. In order for this to happen, the U.S. must be in a state of insurrection and must first respond with a formal declaration of Martial Law.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
18 Oct 10
"Roe V. Wade was not about abortion. The two political parties have made it about abortion. The court was protecting your right to privacy as the constitution provides."
Roe v Wade was 100% about abortion. A woman wanted to get an abortion, lied and said she was raped, and when she was caught lying she filed suit over it. The constitution does not provide a "right to privacy". That's just something that got made up along the way and is repeated so often that people believe it. What the constitution says is:
"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."
Nothing in that grants any right to abortion and I've never seen anyone manage to explain how it could even be construed that way.
@rogue13xmen13 (14403)
• United States
17 Oct 10
Yes! We have "The Constitution" for a reason, so that people don't try to do things that will destroy the government. We need "The Constitution" and people should respect it.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
17 Oct 10
"We have "The Constitution" for a reason, so that people don't try to do things that will destroy the government"
Actually, you have that backwards. The constitution is meant to limit government so it does not do things that destroy the people.
But I'm glad to see you support it either way.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 Nov 10
Absolutely!
We have an incompetent hag (Ruth "Buzzie" Ginsberg) saying that she doesn't see any reason to hold her rulings to the US Constitution. We have "Judges" who base their "rulings" on their own opinions of the issue instead of the laws as written. We also have "justices" ruling that something clearly and plainly worded in the Constitution are somehow "unconstitutional".
The US and state Constitutions are We the People's only real way to hold our government officials to a standard. Without it, government is basically nothing but a gaggle of powermongers forcing their will on us.
Furthermore, the Constitution is the only document granting our officials the authority to act. It's hypocritical and illogical for an official to reject the very document that gives them their authority in the first place.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
19 Oct 10
It matters to me a lot whether or not something is Constitutional.
The Constitution can be changed only by amendments, not by judicial fiat as we have been seeing so much of recently.
For a while I thought the Patriot Act was a good thing although I had misgivings about it.
Now I oppose it in it's entirety, because it is not only unconstitutional, but it also has been turned into a weapon against those of us who support the Constitution and have been labeled as right-wing extremists by the leftist factions of government and the SPLC and Homeland Security.
Even my home state got in on the act last year with that brief that the MO Highway Patrol put out that listed all of the possible threats that we law abiding citizens posed to the government with our political beliefs.
The Constitution sets limits that the Federal Government is not supposed to exceed... and when it does exceed those limits, then our Liberty and freedoms suffer for it.
