How Can We Prevent Societal Rifts From Expanding into Violence

Some people are conflating the "Constitution" with the "Bill of Rights." The latter is part of the former, but the constitution does a lot more than establish or consecrate or affirm "rights". It establishes organs and powers and the framework of the federal government.

There was and remains the defensible position that the federal government's excesses can be resisted without a bill of rights, by arguing that the government is nowhere in the articles if the constitution granted the authority to kick in doors without warrants, or seize your guns, or jail a speaker in the first If they lack such power, their action is can be nullified by the courts with or without a correlative right.

Did you ever wonder why the Bill of Rights is not enmeshed or incorporated in the main body of the constitution? They are called "amendments" because they were tacked on at the end as a compromise between federalists and antifederalusts, all if whom took it as a given that the people have rights, whether enumerated or not (see the Ninth Amendment). The Bill didn't even apply to the states originally. The founders met at the constitutional convention primarily to establish a form of government, not to consecrate or memorialize rights.

Even Madison believed a Bill of Rights unnecessary. This doesn't mean he didn't support individual rights themselves.

Hamilton also opposed a bill of rights; that doesn't mean he didn't believe the rights existed: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations."

 

There is a reason that many people, even Howard Dean, mistakenly believe that "hate speech" is not protected under the constitution. Where do you think they got that idea? Hint: not from conservatives.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-deans-wrong-tweet-constitution-doesnt-prote/

 

Here is another example of leftist attacks on free speech:

https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/1...lity-warranted-people-say-anything-offensive/

 

So the way you figure it, judges should violate their oaths of office in every case where individual rights conflict with the Constitution. Right?

And the basis of that claim is...?

 

No federal judges should only be involved when one individuals rights collide with anothers.
Their oath of office is to uphold the constitution. I'd say they are violating daily already.

 

Shirley, you jest. The Bill of Rights did not extend to constrain the states until after enactment of the XIVth amendment in 1868.

That it does so now is due to the "incorporation doctrine". Which I made up just now. Not really; it's actually quite old.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Prior to the doctrine's (and the Fourteenth Amendment's) existence, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government and to federal court cases. States and state courts could choose to adopt similar laws, but were under no obligation to do so.

 

All state laws should be subservient to the federal constitution, especially the bill or rights.

 

The alternative would be the Gilligans Island model were everyone except for Mr. Howell wears the same clothing every day

 

What the hell that has to do with the question I have no idea, but you're asking for a radical rewrite of Article 3.

Which was the point, obviously.

BTW, the core of the Constitution as a legal instrument is not individual rights but states' rights, and I can prove it. Shall I?

The basis of this claim remains obscure.

I'm aware of it, of course.

Modern writings hardly constitute a credible basis for pronouncements about the intent of the BoR. Now you could go look up Barron v Baltimore, which comes pretty close to being contemporaneous with the BoR; but while it does a swell job of dismantling the plaintiff's argument, it offers nothing in support of your position beyond the Court's authoritative assurance that the states would never have consented to be constrained by 2A through 8A.

 

So you oppose America being the land of the free, got it.

You're too stuck in the letter of the law. The intent is far more important. The founding fathers held paramount the right of the individual to be self governing, individuals should be free to do anything they wish unril they violate the rights of another.

 

You will naturally get from your mind what you want to get, which in this case is an excuse to believe a lie.

Understanding the intent of the law requires at least a rudimentary understanding of the letter of the law; and from what I'm seeing here, there are liberals whose constitutional acumen puts yours to shame.

Then do feel free to explain why that so clearly failed to manifest itself in the Constitution.

 

Should? Well, okay, but that's a values argument, not a factual argument. I don't know why a codicil to a main document is more important than the main document, but whatever.

 

If I am wrong in claiming the original BOR (the first 10 amendments only) did not constrain the individual states, then surely you can find a better case that says so. The case you cite says what I claimed .... quite explicitly. I don't have energy to argue about what is indisputable.

If the state police kick in your door without a warrant and then claim that the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you from exercises and abuse of state police power, you can be sure that the 14th amendment will be the stated basis on which you will prevail against that part of the state's argument.

But the state won't argue that in the first place, because they are familiar with ...

the incorporation doctrine.

 

Art. I, sec. 1 and 2 make this plain enough, though your question was directed at Robert Allen. So they used different words ... big deal.

I have often wrestled with the question of why a person can't personally secede, move to the mountains, and claim that the gummint has ZERO say in how he lives and what he does.

Of course, people try to do this all the time. It just doesn't work. The comanches and other plains Indians were free people. We are not. Actually, neither were the Comanches after the Indian Wars.

It's kinda depressing.

 

It is clearly manifest in the constitution, the declaration of independence and throughout the writtings of the founding fathers. It was all about freedom. The only reason to believe it not to be so is the desire to control people.

. "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

 

Because the constitution is the only thing we have in common anymore and it alone guarantees our freedom. Without out feeedom America is meaningless.

 

Yes, yes, I didn't say the contrary.

The question here is whether it is the Bill of Rights component, and ONLY the Bill of Rights component, of the constitution that limits exercises of state power. I think it is obvious that articles 1, 2 and 3 spell out what the branches can do, and (by implication) what they cannot.

These "rights" analyses invariably come down to policy disagreements.

 

Only problem is, is that we are being pushed so far that the rights themselves are the policy disagreements.

Keep in mind that the rights listed in the constitution are among the rights we have. It is not a list of rights we have.

 

Say that in some other way, please. The speed of the mind likely exceeded the speed on the keyboard.

 

The constitution lists some of the rights Americans were given by God/Nature. It is not a comprehensive list of rights given to us by government.

Modern Democrats are becoming a threat to the rights expressly mentioned in the constitution then have the audacity to suggest that we are simply having policy disputes.

Is we are to have domestic tranquility Democrats need to stop threatening our rights.

 

I think Jay runner may have been referring to the first paragraph of your post, not the second.

 

Whenever the USG violates the human rights of Americans you can usually find both RP and DP leaders involved. The latest example is the FISA Court.

 

Yup. Keep in mind that the rights listed in the constitution are among the rights we have, but it is not a complete list of rights we have.

 

True we should abolish every bit of it and the patriot act. Terrorist attacks are better that out of control government, which we currently have.

 

Yes, our seventeen intelligence agencies need a kick in the arse to get them working.