The Constitution of the United States

[Tnt4philly]

Quote

You don’t have "Constitutional Rights.” You have Rights.

By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Dec 13, 2011|Categories: Constitution, Eleven Years, Featured, Tenther 101

You do not have constitutional rights.

You just have rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienableRights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Unalienable: not capable of being repudiated.

You don’t worship as your conscience dictates because the Bill of Rights says you can. You don’t speak your mind because of a grant from the government. You don’t defend your life, family and property because the framers saw fit to write the Second Amendment.

Most Americans hold a seventh grade civics notion that the Constitution gives us certain rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights merely sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury. Except for a few procedural rights specifically for the trial process, the Bill of Rights does not actually bestow rights.

Many framers considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary. They argued that the nature of the Constitution rendered it redundant. The Constitution itself only grants the government specified powers. Since the Constitution extends the federal government no power to establish a national religion, they argued that it wasn’t necessary to specifically prohibit it. But others felt it necessary to make explicit certain government limitations, to better protect the liberties of the people. The preamble to the Bill of Rights clarifies its purpose.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The first eight amendments making up the Bill of Rights specify rights and privileges the federal government may not in any way abridge. It codifies protections of life liberty and property – rights each of us naturally possess – and enshrines specific privileges in the judicial system already accepted in Anglo-American law.

Finally, the Ninth Amendment makes the limiting nature of the Constitution clear.

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

The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers. The Ninth Amendment infers the corollary to this truth. The federal government may not exercise any powers not granted. And it makes clear that the few rights specifically highlighted in the Bill of Rights do not count as an all-inclusive list. The federal government cannot exercise ANY powers other than those granted.

Who possesses all other powers? The states and the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Tenth Amendment

It is important to understand that the Constitution does not create rights for anyone. It simply serves as a grant of power to, and a blueprint for, the structure of the federal government. The rights of the people existed before the founding of the United States.  The Bill of Rights clarifies limits on the power of the federal government. It declares "We, the people, retain our rights,” and prescribes that the creation of the federal government in no way limits the sovereignty of the states except where specified.

This may seem like an exercise in semantics, but the subtle difference in the actual intent of the Bill of Rights and the common notion that it serves as the source of rights is extremely important.

 

 

For if a government can bestow rights, a government can take them away. The Constitution was never intended to give government that kind of power. It was framed in a way to keep government from ever exercising that kind of power.

"It is the proper object of a written constitution not only to restrain the several branches of the government, viz. the legislative, executive and judiciary departments, within their proper limits, respectively, but to prohibit the branches, united, from any attempt to invade that portion of the sovereign power which the people have not delegated to their public functionaries and agents, but have reserved, unalienably, to themselves. " – St. George Tucker, early American constitutional scholar and legal professor.

 

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/12/13/you-dont-have-constitutional-rights/

[TEW]

I agree with the spirit. I really do. The founders were brilliant but idealistic men.

Realpolitik puts the idea to the test. The unfortunate fact is that, in the real world, your "rights” are unfortunately not a function of a natural and inalienable claim, but rather what power allows.

[Dave Moss]

Much of the opposition to the new governing document in 1787 (and afterwards) was over the Constitution giving the government too much power.  The Bill of Rights was essentially added to ensure ratification.  That being said, it's really hard to amend the Constitution.  17 times since 1791 isn't very many.  Also, many of the changes to the Constitution have come in spurts.  i.e. Reconstruction (13, 14, 15) and the Progressive Era (16, 17, 18, 19)

[Tnt4philly]

Amendment IX

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

 

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Tnt4philly]

Quote

In legal terms, the Tenth Amendment is what is known as a "rule of construction.” 

 

It doesn’t add anything to the Constitution, nor does it take anything away. But it serves a very important function. It tells us how to interpret the document. Think of it like a lens through which we evaluate everything the federal government does..

The Tenth Amendment makes explicit two fundamental constitutional principles that are implicit in the document itself.

1. The federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it.
2. The people of the several states retain the authority to exercise any power that is not delegated to the federal government as long as the Constitution doesn’t expressly prohibit it. 

In a nutshell, the federal government has a very limited number of things it is authorized to do. These powers are listed throughout the Constitution. 

Most power and authority remains with the states; either with the state governments or with the people themselves as they determine in each state. 

St. George Tucker summed up this rule of Construction in View of the Constitution of the United States, the first extended, systematic commentary on the Constitution published after ratification:

"The powers delegated to the federal government, are, in all cases, to receive the most strict construction that the instrument will bear, where the rights of a state or of the people, either collectively or individually, may be drawn in question.”

Thomas Jefferson said he considered "the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground.”

If you apply these rules to anything and everything federal government does or proposes to do, your foundation will remain strong.

 

[Dave Moss]

Jefferson also argued that a state can disobey a law if it’s unconstitutional when he wrote the Kentucky Resolution.  That one was kind of settled in 1865 though (if you catch my drift).

[Toastrel]

Shame that bit of rag means nothing these days. In modern America, LE can point at you, say "terrorist" and you can wind up in Gitmo, no trial.

You can be asleep in your house and be shot by police with a no-knock warrant.

Your home and land can be seized by the Feds to build a wall, or anything else.

A company can literally poison the earth, kill and sicken thousands of people and walk away with a slap on the wrist. A fine so small as to be meaningless to their profit/loss statement.

You can be sitting on a car and get grabbed by police and be choked to death on the street by LE.

 

[DrPhilly]

Some element of codification is/was likely necessary.  "We The People" sort of implies that "people" should at least be able to understand the basics.

[Gannan]

Pfft... this is the old version. MAGA constitution says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless they are black and doing it without a permit outside of their free speech zones; or abridging the freedom of speech...unless the free speech is making fun of dear leader on the twitter. or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless they are black, protesting without a permit, and outside of their designated free speech zones.

 

[MidMoFo]

Which part grants the executive branch the authority to call states weak and tell them dominate their citizens?

Asking for the 40+% of my fellow citizens who still approve the job trump is doing...

[Gannan]

59 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

Which part grants the executive branch the authority to call states weak and tell them dominate their citizens?

Asking for the 40+% of my fellow citizens who still approve the job trump is doing...

That's also in the new MAGA Constitution I believe it was enacted into law when the supreme leader said this...

Quote

"when somebody is the president of the United States" their "authority is total."

This was supported by congress when they decided it was ok for the president to commit crimes and treason apologetically out in the open.

[MidMoFo]

15 minutes ago, Gannan said:

That's also in the new MAGA Constitution I believe it was enacted into law when the supreme leader said this...

This was supported by congress when they decided it was ok for the president to commit crimes and treason apologetically out in the open.

I’m sure our founding fathers would be proud. I’m sure the constitution was only meant to be a starting point for government control that could be built upon into total authority at which point America would be great...

 

/sarcasm 

[Toastrel]

There was supposed to be this right to peaceably assemble, but chemical irritants, projectile munitions and police armed with batons and riot shields gassing/beating priests and reporters from Australia have revealed that to be  a lie.