The Constitution had several highly specific meanings. The Progressives have distorted many of them. And when they justify it, they use the lingo of evolution to do it. Is that a coincidence?
As Ian Fleming once said: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it's enemy action.
Evolution – science influencing government
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/08/22 01:31:33
|
|
|||||
|
23 votes
|
|
24% | ||
|
47 votes
|
|
50% | ||
|
24 votes
|
|
26% | ||
Progressives like to say that government should not influence science, nor science influence government. But what have they to say about the influence of evolution?
Nothing, of course. Because evolution informs their thinking.
Their entire philosophy of government has its basis in evolutionary thinking. Think about it. Morality is what they make of it. And so is the US Constitution. That's what all that tripe about "a living document" comes from, and what it means.
That's why the Constitution, in their view, means nothing more, nor less, than whatever the United States Supreme Court says it means, any time they say it.
It all comes back to evolution, which destroys the idea of unchanging principles and God-given rights.
Nothing, of course. Because evolution informs their thinking.
Their entire philosophy of government has its basis in evolutionary thinking. Think about it. Morality is what they make of it. And so is the US Constitution. That's what all that tripe about "a living document" comes from, and what it means.
That's why the Constitution, in their view, means nothing more, nor less, than whatever the United States Supreme Court says it means, any time they say it.
It all comes back to evolution, which destroys the idea of unchanging principles and God-given rights.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/08/21...
Progressives also think that scientific research should influence government. See global warming for instance.
Nor do they agree with all Supreme Court decisions. The post is way, way off.
What concerns the idea of "unchanging principles" and "God-given rights", then if either of these were the case US Constituition wouldn't have been amended 27 times.
the idea that the Constitution is a living document is nothing but a liberal interpretation OF the Constitution. that's all.
I do believe your assessment is correct.....
In politics or in life and this is why I became more democrat than die head republican when Reagan was elected !
All authority comes from God. The Constitution was founded on Godly principles. This Constitution lays down our God-given rights which are ABSOLUTE RIGHTS. A tyranical entity, can misuse their authority by taking away our excercise of those rights, however, the rights remain ours as they are instilled in our very nature by God.
ABSOLUTE RIGHTS CANNOT EVOLVE
The rotten fruit of evolutionary thinking brings distorted laws, such as abortion on demand, infringment of personal property rights or the present Affordable Health Care Act as only a few examples.
Changing the meaning of the Constitution is effectively desolving the footing laid down for our country by human hands, into written document; which document recoqnized and ascribed to us that which is already ours by God's hand.
ABSOLUTE RIGHTS CANNOT EVOLVE AS THEY ARE INHERENT IN OUR VERY NATURE, GRANTED TO US BY GOD
And if you don't accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, you don't accept the Constitution....because the US Constitution says "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court....The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..." Or to rephrase...."this Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means"
To suggest that anyone other than the Supreme Court is entitled to interpret the US Constitution, is to debate with the words provided by the founders of this great nation. They knew we would interpret their words differently and so they created a mechanism to arbitrate these disputes .... and a mechanism to change those words when the Supreme Court got out of line.
Your concept that the "people" have the last word in matters other than electing members of the House would have been foreign to the writers of the Constitution. They imagined three branches of government, the courts, the presidency, and the legislature. The only branch the people had any say in was the legislature...and then only half of the legislature....since Senators were selected by the State Legislatures and only the House selected by "the people".
Your understanding, IMO, is a natural evolution from the thoughts of the founding fathers to our modern interpretation of the Constitution. Of course you don't believe that values evolve....so you must accept the original text as it was written..
Clearly we read the Constitution differently....which our founders knew we would and so they created a single authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. If they had failed to do this, the Constitution would not have survived one generation let alone 10 generations. The people, of course, are free to amend the Constitution should they disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation....the classic instance of this being the Drew Scot case which resulted in the 14th Amendment.
The three branches of government were designed to check each other. Unfortunately, what has happened instead is that each branch has exceeded their Constitutional limitations without being checked by the other two.
My response to you, however, concerned your assertion that the Constitution did not begin to protect the people until after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. That is patently false, as the Bill of Rights clearly states protections specifically for the "people".
First of all the amendments are just that .... secondly have you paid attention to the words in the "Bill of Rights"?
Amendment 1...."Congress shall make no law...." Exactly how does that restrict state legislatures?
Amendment 2...."....being necessary to the security of a free State..." again the founders were clearly thinking about states and not individuals.
Amendment 3...discusses the quartering of soldiers and clearly refers to a federal army and not the state militias.
Amendment 4....you could argue establishes restrictions on state government but Amendment 10 was successfully argued to supersede this amendment and suggest this amendment did not apply to state government.
Amendment 5 - 8...I am not aware of a single decision that favored the individual over the state based on any of these clauses prior to the passage of the 14th amendment.
Amendment 9 and 10...these are the basis for denying ruling against the states in the prior 8 amendments.
It is my assertion that the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the states and not the rights of the "people". You have asserted otherwise...but simply to state I am wrong with providing evidence to support your position is pointless. I do not believe you can find a single case prior to passage of the 14th amendment where an individual prevailed over a state based on the "Bill of Rights".
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner , nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment 4 -
The right of the | people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put i...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment 4 -
The right of the |people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10
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.
Your assertion that the rights of the people were not addressed until the 14th Amendment is clearly false. The Bill of Rights is all about the rights of the people. Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 clearly state “people”. Amendment 3 speaks of the “owner” of a house. Amendment 5 uses the term “person”, while 6 uses the term “accused”. Only the 7th and 8th do not specifically use a word to represent the people, and that is simply because it is not necessary, as it is plain that it refers to the rights of the people.
In fact the 14th Amendment eliminated almost all States rights and gave them to the people.
The Civil War, the 14th Amendment and the Act of 1871 did indeed change the union. The union was founded with the ultimate sovereignty belonging to the people, followed by the several republics (states), which came together with a limited central government under the Constitution for very specific and very limited purposes. Those three things served to give the central government more power than was intended when the union began.
Sovereignty Of The People!
What do the courts say about sovereignty of the people? "What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established." See: Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (1795).
1. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the l...
&
The Civil War, the 14th Amendment and the Act of 1871 did indeed change the union. The union was founded with the ultimate sovereignty belonging to the people, followed by the several republics (states), which came together with a limited central government under the Constitution for very specific and very limited purposes. Those three things served to give the central government more power than was intended when the union began.
Sovereignty Of The People!
What do the courts say about sovereignty of the people? "What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established." See: Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (1795).
1. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and
limitation of power.
2. For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable on any country where freedom prevails, as being
the essence of slavery itself. See: Yick Wo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S. 356 (1886) .
3. "He is not to substitute even his jester will for theirs; otherwise it would not be the 'common will' which prevails, and to that extent, the people would not govern." See: Speech by Judge Learned Hand at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. May 11, 1919, entitled, "Is there a Common Will?"
4. ". . . The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared." See: Perry v. United States , 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).
5. "In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution." See: Chisholm v. Georgia , 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).
6. "We the people . . . do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America." See: Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (1789).
7. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." See: Article IX, U.S. Constitution.
8. "As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intent to convey; the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in their natural sense, and to
have intended what they have said." See: Gibbons v. Ogden, 27 U.S. 1
9. No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. See: New Orleans Gas Co v. Louisiana Light Co , 115 U.S. 650 (1885).
10. For it can never be maintained in any tribunal in this country that the people of a State, in the exercise of the powers of sovereignty, can be restrained within narrower limits than that fixed by the Constitution of the United States . . . the people of a State may, by the form of government they adopt, confer on their
public servants and representatives all the power and rights of sovereignty which they themselves possess; or may restrict them within such limits as may be deemed best and safest for the public interest. See: Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co. v.
Debolt , 16 How 415, 428-9.;
11. The phrase as used in the constitution does not mean a statute passed for the purpose of working the wrong. That construction would render the restriction absolutely nugatory. The people would be made to say to the houses, 'You shall be vested with the legislative power of the state, but no one shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a citizen, unless you shall not do the wrong unless you choose to do it.' See: Per Bronson, J., In Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill (N.Y.) 140, 40 AM, Dec 274.
12. People are supreme, not the state. See: Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93.
13. Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. See: 2 Dall. 471; Bouv. Law Dict. (1870).
14. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. See: James Madison.
15. The theory of the American political system is that the ultimate sovereignty is in the people, from whom all legitimate authority springs, and the people collectively, acting through the medium of constitutions, create such governmental agencies, endow them with such powers, and subject them to such limitations as in their wisdom will best promote the common good. See: First Trust
Co. v. Smith, 134 Neb.; 277 SW 762.
16. What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established." See: Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance , 2 U.S. 304 (1795).
17. A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their
representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. See: Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; 99 NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.
18. The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people. . . . The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without
restriction of limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members. See: U.S. v. William M. Butler , 297 U.S. 1.
19. The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal in arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory: It is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government; yet only his fellow citizens can convict
him. They are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all powers of congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation. See: 2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.
20. But it cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it did not intent that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free from all ambiguity, all
courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid hardships of particular cases, we must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign powers. See: State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 WX N.W., 262, 101, N.W. 74; Cook v. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.
21. In this state, as well as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme--- but the people--- and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the
people themselves; that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do, not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. See: Warning v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P. 93.
22. There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country. See: Terry v.
Ohio , 392 U.S. 39 (1967).
In 1831 Virginia passed legislation making it illegal for slaves to assemble for religious services unless presided over by a white pastor. Other southern states had similar laws.
These are clear examples of violations of the 1st Amendment. To my knowledge there is not one example of the Supreme Court applying the Bill of Rights against a law of a state legislature prior to 1860.
Did God tell anyone to own something that didn't exist at the beginning of time, absolutely not....but he did give us parameters by which we can legally and scripturally ascertain his wisdom, which do translate culturally and timeless to our day and culture and which do not lose importance. Life is sacred and since the beginning of time we have been warned and told and shown again and again in scripture to defend those who cannot defend themselves, defend our own life and even our property!
Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. "
In Nehemiah 4:8-23 we also see what is EASILY translated into today's culture. "Swords and daggers killed Ehud, Amasa, and eighty priests. At longer ranges, we know bows and slings killed men like Goliath, King Joram, ...
Did God tell anyone to own something that didn't exist at the beginning of time, absolutely not....but he did give us parameters by which we can legally and scripturally ascertain his wisdom, which do translate culturally and timeless to our day and culture and which do not lose importance. Life is sacred and since the beginning of time we have been warned and told and shown again and again in scripture to defend those who cannot defend themselves, defend our own life and even our property!
Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. "
In Nehemiah 4:8-23 we also see what is EASILY translated into today's culture. "Swords and daggers killed Ehud, Amasa, and eighty priests. At longer ranges, we know bows and slings killed men like Goliath, King Joram, and King Ahab. Spears killed men like Asahel, Absaolm, the Israelite man and the Midianitish woman, and many others. These are handguns, shotguns, and rifles. These are implements of lethal force. In fact, at close range, a sword is more deadly than a handgun. These ancient weapons are as deadly as their modern counterparts."
http://www.biblicalselfdefens...
Nehemiah 4:14 "...fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses."
Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.
There are plenty more and even from the New Testament (like the example from Luke). Before you go on a tirade about what you think people have been led to or by you should first seek to understand instead of jumping to judgement, who are you to question what you clearly lack an understanding of to begin with?
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Grace to you, Glory to God!
"And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Grace to you, Glory to God!