How many people understand the US Constitution?

TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Claiming the fruit of the labor of another person under the threat of force is slavery isn't it?
Click to expand...
No. It has to do with real property law.

Any real property not titled to or leased to a person, persons or organized entity is by default the property of the State. As such, nothing can be done on that real property without the expressed permission of the State.

So, if you decide to walk into a random field, plant a crop, grow it and harvest it or build a house / barn / stable / whatever, without bothering to find out who owns the land, obtain rights and/or a lease to farm it / build on it / whatever, then the owner or State (whichever is applicable) can quite literally take the crop / building / whatever. What's more, they can also fine you, sue for damages, and press criminal charges against you.

This, once again, is an example of how ignorant the vast majority of Americans are about basic law. This thread is exhibit A on that.
 
tampee

tampee

Well-Known Member
MadMel said:
I see many comments on our government, both good and bad. Yet it seems that very few Americans have any real knowledge about the Founding Document, the Constitution.

I was reading one thread about problem with our government. I was, as I usually am, appalled by the misconception of how our government, according to the Constitution, is supposed to work.

First, let me state that there are 4, not 3, branches of the government. They are mentioned in order of power/authority. The first is THE PEOPLE, which is mentioned in the preamble. Next is Congress, then the Executive, and finally the judiciary. The people have the ULTIMATE authority by the power of the vote, or eventually by Revolution.

Please read the Constitution. Reading this is the only way to understand why it isn't working, and what and how it should work if the Constitution is followed.

Many people don't seem to know, or care, that the government is Waaaaaaay out of control.

Article VI, section 2 tells us that ANY laws which violate the Constitution, are not laws at all, just so much gobbledygook that Congress has passed without regard to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Down to the war on drugs is unconstitutional they made a Constitutional amendment for the Volstead Act but not drugs.

But it's a shame so many people are against the Constitution @UncleBuck is even against the 2nd amendment probably the 1rst too since he goes on about hate speech and fake news.
 
MadMel

MadMel

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Congratulations. You now have the single dumbest comment on this entire thread. Well done.
Click to expand...
It could be argued that it violates the 9th amendment, which says;

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Enumeration means nothing more than "listed", this refers to the other amendments which list some pretty specific rights.

The 9th amendment says that we have more rights than those which are specifically listed. However it's up to "we the people", to demand those rights.

Might I suggest that, when reading the Constitution, you should also have a dictionary at hand.

Also there is a legal thing called "precedent". If it took an amendment to make alcohol illegal, then it logically follows that it would also take an amendment to make marijuana, or any other drug, illegal. For over a hundred years no drugs of any kind was illegal. Only after the 18th amendment was the drug alcohol illegal. The 21st repealed the 18th
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MadMel said:
It could be argued that it violates the 9th amendment, which says;

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Enumeration means nothing more than "listed", this refers to the other amendments which list some pretty specific rights.

The 9th amendment says that we have more rights than those which are specifically listed. However it's up to "we the people", to demand those rights.

Might I suggest that, when reading the Constitution, you should also have a dictionary at hand.

Also there is a legal thing called "precedent". If it took an amendment to make alcohol illegal, then it logically follows that it would also take an amendment to make marijuana, or any other drug, illegal. For over a hundred years no drugs of any kind was illegal. Only after the 18th amendment was the drug alcohol illegal. The 21st repealed the 18th
Click to expand...
is that you, doer?
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
MadMel said:
Then I guess I must apologize for liking the subject of politics. This is a first for me. I have never apologized for being passionate about politics! Not even to my wife, who absolutely despises the topic!!

No. I won't apologize. Nor will I apologize for trying to learn about growing pot.

On the subject of pot, can someone PLEASE show me a link on "super soil"? I tried the search function, but got HUNDREDS of hits. Most are asking specific questions about it, but not the recipe for making it. Any help from anyone would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!
Click to expand...
go to organics section also in organics is a subcool thread. also try using the search bars.
are you a Constitution Party member? left or right?
 
Last edited:
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
MadMel said:
It could be argued that it violates the 9th amendment, which says;

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Enumeration means nothing more than "listed", this refers to the other amendments which list some pretty specific rights.

The 9th amendment says that we have more rights than those which are specifically listed. However it's up to "we the people", to demand those rights.

Might I suggest that, when reading the Constitution, you should also have a dictionary at hand.

Also there is a legal thing called "precedent". If it took an amendment to make alcohol illegal, then it logically follows that it would also take an amendment to make marijuana, or any other drug, illegal. For over a hundred years no drugs of any kind was illegal. Only after the 18th amendment was the drug alcohol illegal. The 21st repealed the 18th
Click to expand...
First townships, then RFDs, then towns, then cities, then counties (parishes), and then states all outlawed alcohol long before the Volstead Act. It didn't take a constitutional amendment. Localities did it first.

Local temperance leaders were incensed that after outlawing alcohol's sale, manufacture, and possession in their local communities that Supreme Court decisions cited the federal Interstate Commerce Commission to render these local ordinances null and void. Alcohol manufacturers and distributors had to travel with alcohol through dry areas, and the sought protection from the courts to do so. Moreover, once a local town or county would go dry, enterprising citizens of a nearby town or county would go wet to make money off the drinkers in the next community over. This is why temperance organizations fumed for national prohibition of alcohol through an amendment.

For more information on the Volstead Act, see Ken Burns's documentary series Prohibition. Watch the entire first episode and half of the second. The narrator explains everything with primary source documentation shown on screen. See also books by Jonathan Zimmerman on the culture of temperance.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
MadMel said:
It could be argued that it violates the 9th amendment
Click to expand...
No, it couldn't. The war on drugs involves interstate commerce and national security. As such, it is the COMPLETE domain of the Federal Government and is not regulated or subject to Constitutional Individual Rights.

Once again, a very stupid comment. That's like saying one can argue NASA's funding violates the 14th amendment because the government doesn't fund the NAACP.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
why do you continue to compare equal rights for black people to theft?

civil rights did not take any rights away from you, civil rights just gave equal rights to black people.

segregationist.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing equal rights to theft, slow person.

I'm saying all people should equally have the same right to determine the use of their own property and their own body.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
No. It has to do with real property law.

Any real property not titled to or leased to a person, persons or organized entity is by default the property of the State. As such, nothing can be done on that real property without the expressed permission of the State.

So, if you decide to walk into a random field, plant a crop, grow it and harvest it or build a house / barn / stable / whatever, without bothering to find out who owns the land, obtain rights and/or a lease to farm it / build on it / whatever, then the owner or State (whichever is applicable) can quite literally take the crop / building / whatever. What's more, they can also fine you, sue for damages, and press criminal charges against you.

This, once again, is an example of how ignorant the vast majority of Americans are about basic law. This thread is exhibit A on that.
Click to expand...

Legal sophistry aside, how and why does the "default" ownership to the state occur ?

What makes it legitimate ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top