A New Constitutional Idea

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by Tram Law, May 26, 2014.

  1. Tram Law

    Tram Law Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    9,582
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One of the big problems in this country regarding proposing new legislation is this:

    If you think a new legislation is unconstitutional, the onus is on you to prove it.

    This has caused a lot of problems and how we got abominable things like Obamacare and the like.

    so here is my possible solution to the problem.

    Instead of the onus is on the person who thinks a new law is unconstitutional, maybe we should have it the other way around.

    That is to say that if a newly proposed legislation is contradic tory to the constitution and constitutional rights in some way, the onus should be on the proposer of the new laaws to prove it is constitutional, otherwise the default is that the law should never get passed.

    So what do you think?
     
  2. NightSwimmer

    NightSwimmer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why not simply have Congress check in with you prior to every vote, so that you can advise them as to the constitutionality of their proposed legislation? That seems to me to be the most efficient way to get exactly what you desire.
     
  3. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and when they say they have proved it.. then what, someone is still gonna say it's unconstitutional... no one is gonna say the law they are passing is unconstitutional....

    the supreme court doesn't have the time to rule on every law passed through out the country, we have court systems that filter out the obvious stuff and the rest goes up the chain

    btw, Bush's supreme court pick says the ACA is constitutional

    .
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I think our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution.

    Providing for the common defense and general welfare are expressly declared, general powers.
     
  5. OLD PROFESSOR

    OLD PROFESSOR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think no reasonable argument begins with the necessity of proving the negative. Does not violate the constitution will be onerous at best.

    I reject the constitutional test for all legislation in any case. That 200 year old document shows its age and need repeated testing.
     
  6. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pass an amendment then. Good luck with that.
     
  7. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The bolding is mine. The bolded: How do we know its contradictory? Someone has stood up and said "hey that's contradictory to the constitution under this reasoning" and then they argue it.
    Which is how its set up now, more or less, IIRC.
     
  8. Tram Law

    Tram Law Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    9,582
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it's contradictory, it is a law that infringes upon the constitution, such as forcing people to own firearms. Or restricting free speech.
     
  9. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed I understand the definition. I'm questioning the practice. Someone puts forth legislation: Someone else looks at it and says "o my!! This bill would quarter troops in the homes of citizens! And my word it would have state legislatures electing senators!!!! This is unconstitutional!! I challenge this!". Which is how it works now. The person putting it forth aint gonna call bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on themselves. Someone has to call BS ON THEM. That's already how it works.
    Sure, people should be able to read plain english (like the 2nd amendment) and know not to screw around with it. But then people are often less than perfect, especially politicians.
     
  10. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suggest you read Section IV of the Militia Act of May 8, 1792, and tell us what part of it violates any constitutional provision.
     
  11. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is very reasonable. Too bad it won't happen.
     
  12. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That section says that the militia receives the same pay as the troops.
    Maybe you can tell us what you meant. I'm a little perplexed.
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We couldn't do a better job, today.
     
  14. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, you're looking at the May 2 act. The section I referred to is about halfway down the page.
     
  15. Casper

    Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    12,540
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Most laws are looked at by lawyers before being submitted, thing is they do not always get it right and some law makers will pass laws even though they know it may very well get shot down because it is not Constitutional, they are either hooping no will notice or they are pandering.
     
  16. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Very close. I do believe there should be a consensus on laws before passing them.
    So this is one way to ensure conflicts/objections are addressed and resolved in advance.
    Not just passing something by majority rule, then letting courts or elections sort it out after the damage is done.
    AGREED something more should be done. I nominate you to organize a Constitutional team to address this and find agreed solutions!

     
  17. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The issue is moot. The Constitution is a paper wall and has failed to prevent the abuses of power we see. The proposal here would do nothing because the author misunderstands the purpose of the Supreme Court in declaring things constitutional. The purpose is to rubber stamp the acts of the Federal government in order to create the appearance of legality. The only solution is to simply get rid of government.
     
  18. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    American awareness of constitutional intent has been pretty seriously compromised by 50 years of mass media manipulation, not to mention an educational system that is manipulated enough to have not taught the constitution much at all for 20 years. University students understand socialism, but not the constitutional republic we are at all.

    Watching occupywallstreet (OWS) use their First Amendment right without standing in defense of the constitution which guarantees the the right was painful. The GA could not produce one American that would support an Article V convention. While on their forum I was constantly painted as an ALEC educated conservative.

    To counter that I produced a petition, this is the second such. The first expired.

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/298/...icle-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

    To counter this, the unaccountable at OWS created a thread misrepresenting my position on revolution. Which sees Article V as a lawful and peaceful revolution. By doing that they sabotaged my efforts to get signatures on the petition.

    For the record, I see Convention of States as a sincere and constitutional effort. ALEC appears as a corporate effort to reorient the constitution towards corporate interests. The petition is designed to elicit comments on the notion of America preparing for an Article V convention.

    What an absurd notion:) I mean why would we need that? Hah, as if those that got us into this predicament of unconstitutional, unlawful government could define constitutional intent for us.
     
  19. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and what would make your artV better than ALEC's? Nothing. I'm not much on paying a compliment to those filthy hippies from occupy (and I know a bunch of them in the houston side) but they did recognize that what you wanted wouldn't help.
     
  20. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, . . . you have left out addressing the fact of "Preparatory Amendment", ALEC does not propose that. The petition is all about that.

    Also you are trying to impliment a cognitive distortion of "minimizing" by refering to Artice V as if it were mine alone while evading what is the concept I put forth, that America prepare for Article V. WHAT IF America recognized the purpose of free speech as assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood? BTW, do you recognize that purpose?

    If America did, it would realize it does not have what will serve the ultimate purpose of free speech, protecting our lives. This is against a prime principal of the republic. America can unify around that and such IS unity around constitutional intent. ALEC says nothing about that in context of their proposals for Article V.

    Accordingly, a competent reply addresses what ENDING the abridging of free speech does to an Article V convention. Also securing the vote and reforming campaign finance.

    So far all you've done is tried to dispose of an effective way to "alter or abolish" abusive government.
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe we should not be delegating wartime powers if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates to the Electorate of the United States in that office of public trust.
     
  22. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeesh. You're taking this way too personally. I referred to it as yours, because you suggested the idea here.

    And you're missing the point: An art5 opens up the constitution for amendment. Of ANY sort. Couple of things: If the gov is so abusive and the NWO etc etc blah blah blah agenda 21 blah blah blah illuminati bull(*)(*)(*)(*) I mainly hear peddled by occupy associated folks IS true what makes you think they wouldn't (*)(*)(*)(*) with an art5? Twist it for their purposes? That's right: There is no guarantee of that. In fact its almost certain multiple groups with only their own greed in mind would attempt to alter the document to suit their purposes and as stupid as people are these days it would probably work.

    You want to use a nuke to kill a mountain lion. Art5 is WAYYYYYYY overkill.
     
  23. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed, and the 1787 constitution supports that position. America by that constitution does not have a standing army.

    But what about the purpose of free speech, to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?

    What about using that right to unify and impliment the right to "alter or abolish" abusive government that is threatening our lives by cultivating an unstable economy, dedicated to war
     
  24. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You referred to Article V as mine alone and evaded addressing preparation for it which is a concept I bring, and you are still evading it.

    What about the purpose of free speech as assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood?
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    If there are no war time tax rates there is no exigency to deny and disparage the press.
     

Share This Page