Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Can the Constitution Really be Changed from its Intent?

  1. #1

    Can the Constitution Really be Changed from its Intent?

    Can the Constitution Really be Changed from its Intent?

    I've had a conflict within myself, and trying to resolve it has been burdensome to some degree, about amendments to the constitution.

    Let's say that an Article V convention tried to strike the 2nd Amendment and restrict the 1st Amendment and 4th Amendments, for arguments sake. I don't believe that to be valid.

    (I know, they can do whatever they want because they have more and better guns, but let's keep this to natural law and constitutional reasoning).

    I would see the amendment process as enhancing the original intent (more freedom, fine tuned limits on government), rather than completely changing it.

    Even the supremacy clause (which doesn't directly restrict the amendment process) states "In pursuance of THIS Constitution". THIS Constitution would be the one ratified, with the first ten amendments presumed (otherwise it would not have been ratified).

    The Declaration of Independence could be used also, as a guide as well as the Federalist Papers, and perhaps more so. The DOI stated "All men are create equal", therefore I see the change of the 3/5 clause as pursuant to the original intent.

    What say y'all?
    Last edited by ClydeCoulter; 03-04-2014 at 11:36 AM.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    There's no Constitutional provision guiding the purpose of Amendments, so there's no Constitutional reason to expect the original purpose, spirit, or goals of the Constitution to remain intact.

    And that's by design.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    There's no Constitutional provision guiding the purpose of Amendments, so there's no Constitutional reason to expect the original purpose, spirit, or goals of the Constitution to remain intact.

    And that's by design.
    I have searched, but no avail as of this time, for some mention in the Federalist Papers. Has someone seen anything relating to it in them?
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    I have searched, but no avail as of this time, for some mention in the Federalist Papers. Has someone seen anything relating to it in them?
    I was basing my "by design" claim on Jefferson's thoughts of recurring revolution, and the general sense of the enlightenment age that they couldn't know what was best for the next generations anymore than the previous generations knew what was best for them.

    The very inclusion of an Amendment process admits that the drafters understood that nothing that they designed would be perfect for everyone forever. That includes specific provisions, general goals, and overall intent.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  6. #5
    I have added a blurb about the DOI to the OP.

    My intent here, more than an argument for courts, is to understand how a constitution "could" be formed or amended, a more perfect constitution (as opposed to a more perfect union) if an amendment that could restrict amendments of the future were not so circular and therefore useless.

    Yes, I understand that "The People" have to hold it accountable. But some easily understood, for the masses, language within the document is necessary.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    I was basing my "by design" claim on Jefferson's thoughts of recurring revolution, and the general sense of the enlightenment age that they couldn't know what was best for the next generations anymore than the previous generations knew what was best for them.

    The very inclusion of an Amendment process admits that the drafters understood that nothing that they designed would be perfect for everyone forever. That includes specific provisions, general goals, and overall intent.
    Yes. And those goals should be toward more freedom, and more security in defense of those freedoms.

    At least offhand, I remember the Constitution mentioning only "and other freedoms or rights" for the people, and that within the BOR. I don't recall any place where it mentions "and other authorities may exist" for the government.
    Last edited by ClydeCoulter; 03-04-2014 at 11:30 AM.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  8. #7
    There is nothing in the Constitution that cannot be changed by amendment.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  9. #8
    ..........
    Last edited by tommyrp12; 09-06-2014 at 06:25 PM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    Can the Constitution Really be Changed from its Intent?
    Let's say that an Article V convention tried to strike the 2nd Amendment and restrict the 1st Amendment and 4th Amendments, for arguments sake. I don't believe that to be valid.


    Foramlly speaking, it is perfectly valid. The deepest truths about how the Constitution came to be structured as it is shall never be known because all the people who had their says are long dead. But given what the Constitution is, how it is structured, its specifications, mandates, restrictions, etc., any thinking man is prompted to wonder about these greater truths. Were the Framers stupid? Crazy? Naive? Corrupt? Given my admittedly limited education on the topic of the first Convention, that which I have read and my general experience with the human creature leads me to some sore temptation to conclude that it was likely a mixture of all of these.

    Whatever the reality may have been, one thing I feel I can say about the Constitution is that it was not written to cope with a world such as this where the average man is bereft of honor, integrity, brains, and unworthy of any level of trust where a handgun is not prudent insurance.

    The fact is that a convention is not even required to remove the Constitution from effective existence. Granted, amending the Constitution out of existence is not that likely, but it's not exactly all that unlikely, either, given our current circumstance. The right emergency at the right time, marketed in the right way could have a majority of Americans begging the Congress to make the monsters go away no matter what the price.

    (I know, they can do whatever they want because they have more and better guns, but let's keep this to natural law and constitutional reasoning).
    It ain't the guns of which you should be most afraid. It's the simplicity of the process and the mere fact that Congress holds the power to amend the land's foundational document right out of existence, all nice and tidy, legally speaking. This is why the Constitution is a sadly inadequate document - the Congress can in principle do awaay with it, installing basically anything they please in its place, and tell us with a straight face and without having to lie or even stretch the truth the least bit when the tell us that it's all within their power to do it. That is the reality that has existed since inception. What kept that genie in the bottle was a population who would have shot every Member dead as stone had they tried it. Today I feel it is still a large risk for Themme, but far and away less so than it once was. IMO and regardless of whether it was an "inside job", 9/11 was a great litmus test of the American people and they came up shockingly short. The immediate post-9/11 period was when Theye struck with all those fine little turds like PATRIOT and the establishment of TSA and DHS, and we witnessed the advance of the militarization of the police state accelerate like a top-fuel dragster.

    Did the people take G. W. Bush and shoot holes in him on the White House steps? Did they massacre the Congress as the traitors they proved? No. They meekly accepted what was handed down in hands-grabbing-ankles fashion and took it like mice. I would assess any man the foolish one who would underestimate the significance of this. We as a nation should have put an end to that in the next heartbeat and by any means necessary including killing ever last one of these traitorous men. We did nothing but acquiesce like quivering pansies and ashake because the nasty old terrorists might bomb the Mall of America. We responded as children and not as adults and it is shamefully telling with respect to the fabric from which the meaner is now cut - pure chincy garbage.

    I will not predict that something big will be on the horizon for us - the next step in the as-yet wildly successful campaign of conditioning to train Americans to love their rank and ignominious servitude. But if something were to happen, I would be willing to predict that the people of America will then be treated to the next installment of their new status as serfs, and I would bet money I do not have that the bite from our backsides will be enormous and possibly fatal to the tattered remnants of our liberties, such as they may currently remain.

    I would see the amendment process as enhancing the original intent (more freedom, fine tuned limits on government), rather than completely changing it.
    There is NOTHING in the Constitution that would by necessity guide anyone to that opinion or restrict them to such a channel.

    Even the supremacy clause (which doesn't directly restrict the amendment process) states "In pursuance of THIS Constitution". THIS Constitution would be the one ratified, with the first ten amendments presumed (otherwise it would not have been ratified).
    Doesn't matter that it says this. The raw truth is that there exists NO specification for a convention beyond those for calling it. Once it is called, anything is possible and as I wrote years ago, make no mistake that the money would flow by the billions or even trillions of dollars if necessary, to buy the scheme Theye. Under current circumstances, a convention stands to be a monumental catastrophe.

    Convene the states and watch the tattered remains of this nation wing away into the mists. I believe it would be a disaster for us.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    I was basing my "by design" claim on Jefferson's thoughts of recurring revolution, and the general sense of the enlightenment age that they couldn't know what was best for the next generations anymore than the previous generations knew what was best for them.
    And in this I am so tempted to assess them as fools, but I have the benefit of almost 250 years of hindsight. They were doing something that had not been tried in any previous large civilization. Tribal societies don't count. On the other hand, Jefferson and Henry appear to have been well aware of the deeper truths in those days.

    But I believe we have evolved in our thinking sufficiently in the intervening years that we have been able to identify those most fundamental and irreducible inherent qualities of the individual such that we are very precisely able to say what is best for all, and without equivocation I say that it is freedom to live as you see fit so long as you do not trespass upon the equal rights of others.

    The very inclusion of an Amendment process admits that the drafters understood that nothing that they designed would be perfect for everyone forever. That includes specific provisions, general goals, and overall intent.
    I am not sure you can make this inference from the facts you cite.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  13. #11
    The Constitution is an experiment in self government.

    An unstated necessity for that experiment to be successful is for a citizenry that is educated, has a common understanding of some form of natural law, and is intent on maintaining their liberties.

    Attack those foundations, and the experiment fails. Ignorant, uncaring people can only be free if their rulers wish them to be so.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    The Constitution is an experiment in self government.

    An unstated necessity for that experiment to be successful is for a citizenry that is educated, has a common understanding of some form of natural law, and is intent on maintaining their liberties.

    Attack those foundations, and the experiment fails. Ignorant, uncaring people can only be free if their rulers wish them to be so.
    None are more hopelessly enslaved than those that falsely believe they are free. People see an Illusion of Freedom, not actual freedom. Real freedom seems to scare the $#@! out of most people.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  15. #13
    Freedom requires immense responsibility, it isn't as simple as the way some type it even for American society.

    Osan - Did the people take G. W. Bush and shoot holes in him on the White House steps? Did they massacre the Congress as the traitors they proved?

    That would be the way to remove bad leadership in a supposedly progressive country, well we all know it isn't except for NASA.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    There's no Constitutional provision guiding the purpose of Amendments, so there's no Constitutional reason to expect the original purpose, spirit, or goals of the Constitution to remain intact.

    And that's by design.
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    I have searched, but no avail as of this time, for some mention in the Federalist Papers. Has someone seen anything relating to it in them?
    mczerone is basically correct, but the original intent is intact anyway, one has to do as is suggested with the intents stated in the DOI instead of the constitution for reason. There are some critical missing aspects that make it very hard to know the original intent while written record is missing.

    ON this page, my post #105 has the original intent and some history to fit it into.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...59#post5447559

    And the reason it is missing is by the design of the Empire competition with the American framers as well as altering the historical written record. Much of the prime intent is carried in this thread about ending the abridging of free speech.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-PREP-FOR-ART5

    The process "lost by design" for Americans to use the original constitutional intent to assure the continuity of the republics service to the generation under it, is laid out step-by-step here.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

    People were far more capable with the philosophical aspects in the mid 1700's. The dumbing down got rid of a lot of little clues surrounding the outright manipulations and deceptions that accumulated disabling constitutional defense or enforcement by the people.

    There has been an infiltration, quite complete since the civil war. Following that unconstitutional officials have been embedded. It is possible through deceptive manipulations that the original intent could be perverted. I made a petition to try and gain some accountability from powerful organizations forming that are working for an Article V convention. Sign it, and seek other signatures if you understand the situation of accountability to the people required to assure constitutional intent in all amendment.

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/298/6...tional-intent/
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-09-2014 at 07:42 PM.

  17. #15
    delete
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-09-2014 at 07:43 PM.

  18. #16
    Lincoln turned the Constitution on its head. All one needs to see that is to read his First Inaugural and his July 4, 1861 message to Congress. Then compare his views on the nature of our government expressed in those speeches with that of James Madison in Federalist #39.

    Keep in mind while reading Madison that his views were that of the Federaists, the 'big government' guys at the time.
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    The Constitution, being a piece of paper, is not capable of having intent. And even if it could, the Constitution's intent was not "more freedom," nor was it "fine tuned limits of government."
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  21. #18
    The Constitution was a coup by the Hamiltonians, who wanted a big central government. The Articles of Confederation were considered "weak" by the "federalists" because they didn't have enough control.

    The original Amendments were added only because the separate states would not sign on the line unless certain freedoms were insured, including separate state autonomy. Lincoln drove the final nail in that coffin and the 14th amendment did not free the slaves- it made all Americans slaves.
    There is no spoon.

  22. #19
    Thanks to everyone for posting your comments. I will consider each comment.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  23. #20
    What was the intent, aside from killing the Articles of Confederation and making the Federalist oligarchs richer?

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    The original Amendments were added only because the separate states would not sign on the line unless certain freedoms were insured, including separate state autonomy. Lincoln drove the final nail in that coffin and the 14th amendment did not free the slaves- it made all Americans slaves.
    How did the 14th amendment turn us into slaves? Its the only reason blacks can vote, own property/businesses, its the only reason religious groups aren't discriminated against. Its the only reason ppl born in this country are automatic citizens, despite the attempts by fascists to deny the Bill of Rights to them.

    Hey maybe you have a pt, I'd like to hear it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    The Constitution, being a piece of paper, is not capable of having intent. And even if it could, the Constitution's intent was not "more freedom," nor was it "fine tuned limits of government."
    All statements have intent. Words always have meaning. It may be hard to interpret, especially when its the word of groups, but there's still meaning there. Words are meaningless without context/intent/etc.

    For instance, the commerce clause isn't 1% of what ppl make it out to be today, in part because the drafters listed it alongside twenty other powers that would today be subsumed (Clarence Thomas' words?) by the commerce clause. So obviously that's not what the commerce clause means. Also, the intent behind interstate commerce ("commerce among the states") is literally interstate transactions. The word commerce was ambiguous then as its ambiguous today, but the commerce clause's limited meaning is only exposed by the surrounding text, and by the idea in everyone's minds that this government wouldn't get too involved in intrastate affairs. Absent context, "commerce among the states" could be used to include anything.

    And the fugitive slave clause doesn't say "slave" at all, but everyone knew what it meant because of the dealmaking surrounding it.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    What was the intent, aside from killing the Articles of Confederation and making the Federalist oligarchs richer?
    The legitimate intent was to create a central power that could do a few things better than the looser confederation. Those few things were generally related to promoting commerce and providing a national defense and can be found in Article I, Section 8. I couldn't say what the actual intent might have been for any particular individual.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-01-2014, 10:53 AM
  2. Constitution - Living document or original intent - call in now
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-06-2011, 10:44 AM
  3. Constitution or Founding Fathers' intent?
    By Optatron in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 11:34 PM
  4. Undermining the Intent of the Constitution
    By angelatc in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 08:30 PM
  5. The Gold Standard and the Original Intent of the Constitution
    By Truth-Bringer in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 03:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •