Purpose of the Constitution

[PsyOps (Premo)]

I would really like our liberals friends and gun control advocates in here to repond to this. In light of the gun control debate, is the 'controlling' of our gun ownership placing limits US? The operative word that liberals like to use here gun 'control' implies gun 'limits'; and these limits placed on the people.

In your mind, does the constitution impose limits on US - the people - or on government? Please justify your answer.

[bcp (Premo)]

The Constitution is to liberals as God is to atheists.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Another thread liberals seem to not want to touch.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Another thread liberals seem to not want to touch.

Maybe it's because they can't read?

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I would really like our liberals friends and gun control advocates in here to repond to this. In light of the gun control debate, is the 'controlling' of our gun ownership placing limits US? The operative word that liberals like to use here gun 'control' implies gun 'limits'; and these limits placed on the people.

In your mind, does the constitution impose limits on US - the people - or on government? Please justify your answer.

The purpose of the Constitution is to set out a framework for government. It both grants the government powers and places limits on the governments power. Indirectly it grants individuals liberties but also creates a set up where restrictions can be placed on individual liberties.

An example of the Constitution granting the government power, in Article it grants Congress a list of enumerated powers including for example to coin money. An example of the Constitution limiting the power of the government would be some of the Bill of Rights amendments including the First and Second Amendments.

An example of the Constitution indirectly giving individuals rights (by prohibiting the government from action) would be the First and Second Amendments. An example of the Constitution creating a framework to limit individual rights is Article I which enumerates the powers of Congress or alternatively the Tenth Amendment which grants all non-enumerated rights to the states. For example once a state has that power they can use it to restrict the individual rights of citizens (a murder statute for example limits the ability of citizens to kill other citizens).

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I would really like our liberals friends and gun control advocates in here to repond to this. In light of the gun control debate, is the 'controlling' of our gun ownership placing limits US? The operative word that liberals like to use here gun 'control' implies gun 'limits'; and these limits placed on the people.

In your mind, does the constitution impose limits on US - the people - or on government? Please justify your answer.

This question should apply to everyone as we are all guilty of not giving a crap about it when it suits us.

[czygvtwkr]

It absolutely does not place limits on the people, but it doesnt only place limits on the government either. I believe your poll was poorly worded.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by philibusters

The purpose of the Constitution is to set out a framework for government. It both grants the government powers and places limits on the governments power. Indirectly it grants individuals liberties but also creates a set up where restrictions can be placed on individual liberties.

These powers do NOT extend into a limiting of our rights that would, in turn, result in amassing more power unto them - the government. They have the power to pass laws that protect us from those that aim to inflict harm on us (criminals).

Our government does not, EVER, grant us liberties. Liberty, as defined under the constitution are OURS. The constitution does NOT, by any means, grant us our liberties. It protects them. The only time our liberties can be restricted is if we violated that law; laws that are designed to protect us from harm. No laws should be passed by this government that uses the guise of protecting us while restricting the rights of those that exercise those rights in a moral and law-abiding way.

In other words, if a crime is committed, that individual should have their liberties repealed; that does not demand our government repeal the rights of EVERYONE ELSE in order to prevent such crimes from ever happening again. THAT is not the role of government; nor is it even remotely the intent of the constitution.

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

These powers do NOT extend into a limiting of our rights that would, in turn, result in amassing more power unto them - the government. They have the power to pass laws that protect us from those that aim to inflict harm on us (criminals).

Not sure exactly where you are coming from. For the most part the federal gov't under the Constitution is a government of enumerated powers. If the power is not listed then the federal gov't cannot do that action, but if it is listed they can exercise that power and in such a way to limit individual rights. For example if you made copies of DVD's protected by Federal Copyright you could be held liable or event sent to jail.

The states under the Constitution for the most part are not governments of enumerated powers. Basically unless the 14th amendment and through incorporation through the 14th amendment the Bill of Rights say an individual right is protected, the state can regulate anything. For example, a state could do its own version of Obamacare and not have issues of Constitutionality because the states are not limited by enumerated powers inthe Constitution.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Our government does not, EVER, grant us liberties. Liberty, as defined under the constitution are OURS. The constitution does NOT, by any means, grant us our liberties. It protects them. The only time our liberties can be restricted is if we violated that law; laws that are designed to protect us from harm. No laws should be passed by this government that uses the guise of protecting us while restricting the rights of those that exercise those rights in a moral and law-abiding way.

Again, I disagree. The federal gov't can restrict a liberty anything they properly use an enumerated power. The states can restrict liberties unless it such restriction violates the Constitution because it violates some other provision of the Constitution (like the Second Amendment) or conflicts with federal law. If a state wanted to ban red hats they probably could.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

In other words, if a crime is committed, that individual should have their liberties repealed; that does not demand our government repeal the rights of EVERYONE ELSE in order to prevent such crimes from ever happening again. THAT is not the role of government; nor is it even remotely the intent of the constitution.

I am not sure that even logically follows. If somebody committed a crime, they didn't commit a crime because they killed somebody. Rather they committed a crime because they violated a statute that prohibited them from killing other people. If they lived in Antarctica, where lets say hypothetically there are no laws and they killed somebody they would not have committed a crime. Thus in order for somebody to have committed a crime a statute already has to have existed and if the statute already existed, the statute is limited individual's liberties.

Overall I think you are running to far with the theme that the Constitution was designed to protect individual liberties. To some extent, most of the founding fathers believed in natural law, so they believed citizens had rights and it was an abuse when gov't's violated those rights. You get a good dose of that from Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. However, the actual framework for drafting the Constitution was the Constitutional convention was framers were looking to fix the defects with the Articles of Confederation. The main problem with the Articles of Confederation was not so much the gov't was trampling on rights but that the federal gov't was so weak it could not accomplish anything. For example it didn't have the right to lay taxes, it had to beg money from the states. So the immediate issue at hand was developing a better balance the federal and state governments. Unfortunately the federal gov't has become a lot stronger than the drafters envisioned compared to the states government.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by philibusters

Not sure exactly where you are coming from. For the most part the federal gov't under the Constitution is a government of enumerated powers. If the power is not listed then the federal gov't cannot do that action, but if it is listed they can exercise that power and in such a way to limit individual rights.

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’.

Originally Posted by philibusters

I am not sure that even logically follows. If somebody committed a crime, they didn't commit a crime because they killed somebody. Rather they committed a crime because they violated a statute that prohibited them from killing other people.

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.

Originally Posted by philibusters

Overall I think you are running to far with the theme that the Constitution was designed to protect individual liberties. To some extent, most of the founding fathers believed in natural law, so they believed citizens had rights and it was an abuse when gov't's violated those rights. You get a good dose of that from Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. However, the actual framework for drafting the Constitution was the Constitutional convention was framers were looking to fix the defects with the Articles of Confederation. The main problem with the Articles of Confederation was not so much the gov't was trampling on rights but that the federal gov't was so weak it could not accomplish anything. For example it didn't have the right to lay taxes, it had to beg money from the states. So the immediate issue at hand was developing a better balance the federal and state governments. Unfortunately the federal gov't has become a lot stronger than the drafters envisioned compared to the states government.

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.