What is wrong with ignoring the constitution?

[VoteForRonPaul]

I have been cheering for the constitution for some time like everybody else, but yesterday I was asking myself a question about if there is any law which penalizes breaking the constitution?
I mean is there any section in the law that says; if anybody breaks the constitution will go to jail say for 6 month? Is it a crime not to follow the constitution ? And if it is not so why we are blaming G.Bush for doing it?
Is the constitution a law? :confused:
And if it is not, so what is wrong with ignoring it?

[Dr.3D]

The U.S. Constitution is the law.... it's just that nobody is enforcing it.

[notcarljung]

Nothing that I know of. Congress can pass unconstitutional laws which should be struck down by the courts. But all it takes is one screwed up (usually backed a precedent ) decision to constitutionally circumvent it.

[Luft97]

If you are a member of the Military or in Elected Office you have to take an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States and protect it from all enemies foriegn or domestic. Not sure about any laws.

[Dr.3D]

If you are a member of the Military or in Elected Office you have to take an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States and protect it from all enemies foriegn or domestic. Not sure about any laws.

The problem is, nobody is doing anything to those who do not honor their oath of office.

So what good is it to have them take the oath of office in the first place?

[WRellim]

You just NAILED the reason the whole thing went down the proverbial tubes.


Violating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights carries NO consequences... EVER.


The ONLY provision is to provide for "impeachment" and then criminal charges for (other) crimes, but as violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights have no specific penalties, there are no such "crimes", no one with the ability to "indict" and nothing to "charge" them with, and no "court" that has jurisdiction to prosecute.

In short, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have absolutely no "teeth" -- they are all bark and no bite.

[VoteForRonPaul]

Thanks guys! That is really unbelievable!
:(

[Dr.3D]

In short, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have absolutely no "teeth" -- they are all bark and no bite.

Or as George Bush would say, "It's just a God damned piece of paper."

[Truth Warrior]

The Constitution of no Authority.by Lysander Spooner
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6

[acptulsa]

I love the Constitution, but I could really go for an amendment about now. Life? Exile? Pillory? Death?

[Shed]

It's a problem, yes. But if so many elected officials and bodies ignore the law routinely, who has the authority to prosecute them?

[Shed]

I love the Constitution, but I could really go for an amendment about now. Life? Exile? Pillory? Death?

I find the Death sentence for violating the Constitution appealing in a perverse way - unfortunately in practice this would make the court deciding those cases the Sovereign Power, which is even more unconstitutional than before.

[acptulsa]

I find the Death sentence for violating the Constitution appealing in a perverse way - unfortunately in practice this would make the court deciding those cases the Sovereign Power, which is even more unconstitutional than before.

That's an excellent point. I actually prefer pillory, but with the things the current administration has been up to, it might be the same. I don't know if the Secret Service could protect them in the stocks.

[FreeTraveler]

It's a problem, yes. But if so many elected officials and bodies ignore the law routinely, who has the authority to prosecute them?

Read the writings of the Founding Fathers. We, The People, are responsible for enforcing the Constitution. We are the final defense for it. The Second Amendment provides for enforcement.

FedGov is monsterous and arrogant because We, The People have not enforced the contract the politicians have with us.

[FindLiberty]

I find the Death sentence for violating the Constitution appealing in a perverse way - unfortunately in practice this would make the court deciding those cases the Sovereign Power, which is even more unconstitutional than before.

I agree, but still, there's something a-peeling about being "drawn and quartered" though.

[Shed]

Freetraveler: Yes, I know, but The People are doing a rubbish job!
FindLiberty: A-peeling. Ho-ho.

But yes, giving power to an institution to strike down unconstitutional laws or representatives (like the Guardian Council in Iran) gives that body a huge amount of power without any assurances that it can be trustworthy itself!

[hillbilly123069]

Without it, we are stones throw away from being the victims of genocide like what is going on in african nations as well as other oppressed places around the world.The 2nd amendment guarantees that we are able to shoot back.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I have been cheering for the constitution for some time like everybody else, but yesterday I was asking myself a question about if there is any law which penalizes breaking the constitution?
I mean is there any section in the law that says; if anybody breaks the constitution will go to jail say for 6 month? Is it a crime not to follow the constitution ? And if it is not so why we are blaming G.Bush for doing it?
Is the constitution a law? :confused:
And if it is not, so what is wrong with ignoring it?

A similar situation would be Catholic priests choosing not to follow the contents of the bible. Such preists instead followed legal precedents set up by the Vatican rather than follow any interpretation of civil purpose in the Bible. Their legal claim was justified in that the contents of the bible had no legitimacy over the the supreme authority of the Pope.
This type of legal precedent ruling over civil purpose is what got Galileo persecuted by the Vatican. At one time the Word of God became so insignificant to the Catholic Church that Aristotle's works were incorportated with them as "God's natural laws." The ancient philosopher's works were actually prayed about and read by preists as if they were Holy scripture. So, Galileo wasn't persecuted because he questioned God and any civil purpose written in the Bible but because he questioned a legal precedent set up by the Vatican which held the works of Aristotle as God's natural laws.

[orafi]

You just NAILED the reason the whole thing went down the proverbial tubes.


Violating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights carries NO consequences... EVER.


The ONLY provision is to provide for "impeachment" and then criminal charges for (other) crimes, but as violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights have no specific penalties, there are no such "crimes", no one with the ability to "indict" and nothing to "charge" them with, and no "court" that has jurisdiction to prosecute.

In short, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have absolutely no "teeth" -- they are all bark and no bite.

Ah, but the people are the bite, my friend.

[acptulsa]

Ah, but the people are the bite, my friend.

And if election rigging doesn't get their teeth pulled, Second Amendment violations will.

[thuja]

You just NAILED the reason the whole thing went down the proverbial tubes.


Violating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights carries NO consequences... EVER.


The ONLY provision is to provide for "impeachment" and then criminal charges for (other) crimes, but as violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights have no specific penalties, there are no such "crimes", no one with the ability to "indict" and nothing to "charge" them with, and no "court" that has jurisdiction to prosecute.

In short, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have absolutely no "teeth" -- they are all bark and no bite.
there is this:www.pledgetoimpeach.org

[VoteForRonPaul]

We are the final defense for it. The Second Amendment provides for enforcement.

This argument is unpractical.
This way you are still using the second amendment as a proof while the second amendment itself has no authority. So you are trying to be protected with the unprotected. I think unless breaking the constitution is criminalized the constitution will be exposed to underestimation and disrespect at all times.
I am really so interested to know Ron Paul's opinion about this issue!

[Deborah K]

It's a problem, yes. But if so many elected officials and bodies ignore the law routinely, who has the authority to prosecute them?

We have the authority to OUST them! We're just too apathetic to do so. As to the OP's question, everything is wrong with ignoring the Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the land. It lays out the foundation of our system of government as well as the protections for we the people, by way of the Bill of Rights. Without it, we are nothing but a people beholden to a corrupt governmental system.

[acptulsa]

I can't help but feel that the laws against treason would apply.

[thuja]

look www.pledgetoimpeach.org

[Truth Warrior]

"We the People", never was.<IMHO>

[Theocrat]

I have been cheering for the constitution for some time like everybody else, but yesterday I was asking myself a question about if there is any law which penalizes breaking the constitution?
I mean is there any section in the law that says; if anybody breaks the constitution will go to jail say for 6 month? Is it a crime not to follow the constitution ? And if it is not so why we are blaming G.Bush for doing it?
Is the constitution a law? :confused:
And if it is not, so what is wrong with ignoring it?

If you're secular humanist/"atheist", then there's nothing wrong with ignoring the U.S. Constitution because it was written by fallible men who thought they knew what limited government was supposed to do and how it should function. Since every man is autonomous with his own "rights", then he can choose to follow a piece of paper with words on it or not, if he doesn't like what it says. Besides, who can stop him or tell him he's wrong, as you've suggested in your original post?

Though they won't say that as bluntly as I've posted, I sincerely believe many of our politicians in Washington, D.C. reason and act that way when it comes to honoring the U.S. Constitution. They feel they have no moral obligation to follow such an "archaic piece of paper" because that was written at a different time, in a different culture. You see, today we, as "very wise humans" (**** sapien sapiens), have "evolved" better as well as our society, so we must work from a better paradigm ("human reason", scientific experimentation, psychological analysis, new "evolving" relative moral codes) in government than just the Constitution which was written by those old-fashioned, White male, property-owning, Protestant Founders... :rolleyes:

[jblosser]

This argument is unpractical.
This way you are still using the second amendment as a proof while the second amendment itself has no authority. So you are trying to be protected with the unprotected. I think unless breaking the constitution is criminalized the constitution will be exposed to underestimation and disrespect at all times.
I am really so interested to know Ron Paul's opinion about this issue!

Most of this thread has it backwards. The Constitution does not need authority to penalize those that violate it. The Constitution is not a grant of rights or a concession from some body that has absolute authority. The Constitution is a carving out of authority for a government, with specific limitations clarified so everyone can be sure what exactly is not being claimed or agreed to. We never gave them the authority to do things the Constitution does not list. That authority remains with us and any attempts by them to infringe are theft of rights and despotism, pure and simple.

The 1st Amendment is not a boon of free speech from a collective that holds some right to deny speech, such that if some part of that government chooses to ignore the 1st Amendment the people are compelled to go along with it or file a charge. The 1st Amendment is a recognition that the parties to the Constitution are not granting the government any authority over speech. Any infringements on speech are themselves what are not enforceable, because they are coming from 0 authority.

So yes, it is all about the 2nd. The 2nd is not a boon either, it is a statement of the understanding that the Constitution is claiming no authority for the federal government over the people's right to bear arms, and therefore the states that signed it gave up no such rights.

If the bully on the playground demands your lunch money you either give it to him or you don't. If you don't, and he comes after you, you either give in, or you don't. The responsibility belongs with the individual States and beyond them the individual people. This is of course a poor analogy because on the playground you can appeal to the teacher. In the US, we are the final authority (teacher) as well as the student.

[Deborah K]

Most of this thread has it backwards. The Constitution does not need authority to penalize those that violate it. The Constitution is not a grant of rights or a concession from some body that has absolute authority. The Constitution is a carving out of authority for a government, with specific limitations clarified so everyone can be sure what exactly is not being claimed or agreed to. We never gave them the authority to do things the Constitution does not list. That authority remains with us and any attempts by them to infringe are theft of rights and despotism, pure and simple.

The 1st Amendment is not a boon of free speech from a collective that holds some right to deny speech, such that if some part of that government chooses to ignore the 1st Amendment the people are compelled to go along with it or file a charge. The 1st Amendment is a recognition that the parties to the Constitution are not granting the government any authority over speech. Any infringements on speech are themselves what are not enforceable, because they are coming from 0 authority.

So yes, it is all about the 2nd. The 2nd is not a boon either, it is a statement of the understanding that the Constitution is claiming no authority for the federal government over the people's right to bear arms, and therefore the states that signed it gave up no such rights.

If the bully on the playground demands your lunch money you either give it to him or you don't. If you don't, and he comes after you, you either give in, or you don't. The responsibility belongs with the individual States and beyond them the individual people. This is of course a poor analogy because on the playground you can appeal to the teacher. In the US, we are the final authority (teacher) as well as the student.


This is good!

[Kade]

Or as George Bush would say, "It's just a God damned piece of paper."

Holy crap, he actually said that... http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

[sophocles07]

If you're secular humanist/"atheist", then there's nothing wrong with ignoring the U.S. Constitution because it was written by fallible men who thought they knew what limited government was supposed to do and how it should function. Since every man is autonomous with his own "rights", then he can choose to follow a piece of paper with words on it or not, if he doesn't like what it says. Besides, who can stop him or tell him he's wrong, as you've suggested in your original post?

Though they won't say that as bluntly as I've posted, I sincerely believe many of our politicians in Washington, D.C. reason and act that way when it comes to honoring the U.S. Constitution. They feel they have no moral obligation to follow such an "archaic piece of paper" because that was written at a different time, in a different culture. You see, today we, as "very wise humans" (**** sapien sapiens), have "evolved" better as well as our society, so we must work from a better paradigm ("human reason", scientific experimentation, psychological analysis, new "evolving" relative moral codes) in government than just the Constitution which was written by those old-fashioned, White male, property-owning, Protestant Founders...

God, you're an unpleasing broken little record, a i n ' t ' c h a b o y ?

[Kade]

God, you're an unpleasing broken little record, a i n ' t ' c h a b o y ?

Have you received the blood letting pm from him yet?

[mrsat_98]

Is it a crime not to follow the constitution ? And if it is not so why we are blaming G.Bush for doing it?
Is the constitution a law? :confused:
And if it is not, so what is wrong with ignoring it?

Well for starters the following are a few things I have come accross since I started studying the constitution.

42 USC 1983 provides:

Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

1985 provides:

§ 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
How Current is This? (1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

1986 provides

§ 1986. Action for neglect to prevent
How Current is This? Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

[mrsat_98]

Also 18 USC 241 and 242 are crimminal sections detailing the same.

[mrsat_98]

I can't help but feel that the laws against treason would apply.

LEts look it up and see.

Treason according to the lectric law library is

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

4 USC 105-110 which is known as the Buck Act made military reservations with the same names the states of the union. Google "the story of the buck act" and if you have several days to read the governments on report try "Jurisdiction over federal areas within the states" it 300 pages or so. After digesting both you might come to the conclusion that there are two states. One the state of the union and another new state that is a military reservation. These two states are different places ( venue ) . The military reservation state at 4 USC 110 (d) and as described in the inter departmental report noted above just so happen to be under national emergency due to the banking issues from 1933. In the event you happen to be "resident" "in this State" you are treated the same as the enemy.

From another perspective it is if someone took the law of a foreign land and stamped state of whatever on it and came up misrepresenting what the current law is. This is pretty much how it is with your driver's license, sales tax, income tax, ... all the way down to your thumb tax.

these laws, sales tax, income tax etc , actually apply to is tricky to get a grip on but to my understanding its everyone but We the people. It helps to understand that the freed slaves from the civil war via the 14th amendment. Read and study that one. Are actually the enemy. That would be a US citizen. As the people and a US citizen are not the same animal.

IMHO the above inadequately descibed scenario is an act of treason. Face it the people are the state. Texas vs White ( see blacks law dictionary defintion of state). They have made military reservations and given the the same name, which are under national emergency via the amended trading with the enemy act. .

It takes quite a bit of time to come to this conclusion but as far as I am concerned this scenario is an act of treason.

In the circles I travel there are lots of people that understand this.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=emergency+war+powers

http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep1.html

None of the authors seem to make much destinction between a United States citizen and a State Citizen or the term I prefer "the People". For a better understanding of the difference "the Federal zone cracking the internal revenue code" is a good start at supremelawfirm.com , Or any of Richard Mc Donalds work concerning "state citizen".


Hope this helps.

[Theocrat]

God, you're an unpleasing broken little record, a i n ' t ' c h a b o y ?

At least I'm consistent in my reasoning, unlike some people on these forums...

[Dr.3D]

Where is the love?

[VoteForRonPaul]

Where is the love?
Was love mentioned in the constitution? :D