Purpose of the Constitution

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Again, I disagree. The federal gov't can restrict a liberty anything they properly use an enumerated power.

You like to talk about what the government CAN do as opposed to what the government is truly authorized to do under their limited powers. I think our government has proven it CAN do all sorts of things they BELIEVE are within their power. And that’s the reason for this discussion. On nearly every front our government has grown way beyond its means and mandates under the constitution. They are a retirement insurance company. They are now a health insurance company. They are a bank. They are there to bail out too-big-fail companies. They do all these things under distorted premises of ‘enumerated powers’.

I think you are trying to disagree with me there, wherereally there may not be a disagreement. I say the gov't can exercise the powers granted to it in the Constitution. Essentially we have a gov't of limited powers. I think we both agree on that both. And I think we can both agree that when the gov't exercises its enumerated powers it can restrict individual liberties. Again if a copyright statute is properly enacted, that is going to limit the ability of a citizen to legally copy a copyrighted work.

Where you found disagreement with me is where you said the gov't has in the past exceeded the scope of the power granted to them in the Constitution and then gave the example of social security and Obamacare. In reality there is no disagreement as I neither expressed a belief either way as to whether gov't sometimes exceeds their authorities. I merely pointed out that the Constitution not only provides limitations on the gov't power but that it also grants the gov't powers.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You're right, you're not following my logic at all. Adam Lanza violated several of our existing crimes. Because this one person did this does not require we ALL must now relinquish our rights, or that we must ALL submit ourselves to some government mandated program to prove our worthiness to own something that was abused by one person.

Okay I do think I misinterpreted your original comment. I am still now sure what the first part of that paragraph that I quoted mean which basically said the Liberty is ours not granted to us by the Constitution. As for the second part, I now see what you are saying.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

How can anyone that not only desires their freedom but demands it run too far with it? The Declaration of Independence is clear:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Our rights are unalienable – they are not grated to us by government. The ‘shall not be infringed’ clause is a strict mandate to limited government. Our government does not have the authority to demand I prove myself worthy to purchase a gun. Although I recognize they exercise this authority – unconstitutionally – all the time.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. The title of the thread is the purpose of the Constitution---the Declaration of Independence was a document drafted 13 years before our current Constitution was drafted and the country existed for a number of those 13 years in between under an entirely different constitution--the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to declare to the world at large that the Colonies were forming an independent state and to state the reasons the colonies were doing. The purpose of the Constitution was to draft a document that created a government.