Washington Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Evergreen State.
Welcome to Washington Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post Tue, Feb 10 2009 1:13 PM by workindad. 3 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (4 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Sun, Jan 11 2009 9:59 AM

    • Tritium
    • Top 50 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on Sun, Nov 23 2008
    • Seattle, WA

    What a Constitution is to me...


    In my understanding of a Constitution, each clause represents a law, which once established is a truth. Much like a Law of Nature, it cannot be false, nor can an amendment be contrary to it. If an amendment were to conflict with an already established truth, then it is Unconstitutional, and becomes Null and Void. Since a Constitution by it's very definition must be the truth and cannot be contrary to itself, any legislative act contrary to it is Unconstitutional.

    An established body is required to follow all of the Rules in order to act as that body, and as it is with our Constitution, Article I. establishes Congress. The only way for Congress to act, is by legislation, in all decisions whatsoever. Congess may only propose amendments as long as it compliments the Constitution, and is necessary and proper. (I believe that since a requirement of "necessary and proper" is mandatory, the proposed amendment (or law) is required to explain the purpose for the amendment, and why such is necessary (as opposed alternative solution not requiring amendment).

    The Constitutional Amendments XIV+ would be Unconstitutional because none of them obtained a signature by the President once passed by Congress. (Required by all Acts that require a vote, except adjournment.) Also, the Direct Taxation power is a direct tax that is applied to the State, not the people, therefore people should not be getting taxed in any other way, but through excise, duties, sales tax, etc, which require that such a tax is applied equally, and in consequence of a transaction upon the purchaser. (Wages cannot be taxed, but the purchase of labor could be.) In the case of a direct tax, it was to be left to the state Governments to determine the best mode in which to collect the tax, keeping the federal spending in check.

    :write:

    What is justice ?
    Justice has regard to the acts, which are done by one person to another; also to the words and representations of the character and conduct of another; and it is mostly exhibited in the dealings of one man with another; paying debts; performing promises; in buying, selling, and exchanging articles of purchase or growth or manufacture. It is the exhibition of faith, most generally denominated good faith, in stating what is true of the article sold, as to defects as well as good qualities, and in giving what is of equal value for what is purchased of another.
    I know it is stated in Cicero, that what is said is not always to be taken for granted; that the buyer buys what he wants, and the seller sells what he don't want; that it is foolish to cry down an article in the market. This is rather slippery morality. Simulation and dissimulation are to be avoided. Every violation of good faith, either in obtaining more than the thing is worth, or obtaining property for less than its worth, is a violation of justice. What is secret, sinister, and deceptive, is fraudulent, and is unjust.

    Is honesty always to be regarded as the only true utility?
    What is dishonest, either in word, deed, or in heart, is, in a compact or agreement, a violation of justice.

    What is a lie?
    It is the violation of truth: a want of veracity : a want of conformity to facts. A lie implies a knowledge of the falsity of the relation. Falsehood is the want of accuracy or want of truth, but is destitute of the great guilt of the offence of a lie, which is a wilful and corrupt falsehood.

    Is falsehood ever justifiable?
    It is never justifiable; it may, perhaps, be excusable in many instances. To save life, to prevent crime, or to deter from the commission of offences, it may be excusable. Moral offences, as a general rule, are not to be compared or set off one against another, nor can a recoupment take place. Evil is not to be done to produce good. The falsehood to the robber to save life, may excuse the guilt; it is done to deceive, and deception is a violation of faith, without which society cannot exist.

    Are secret reservations proper or justifiable?
    They are not. They are deceptive. What is unknown to the promissee cannot excuse the promissor. He promises not to expose the offender, but secretly says, I will, or I will cause it to be done. He then requests a magistrate to issue a warrant or summons, requiring his attendance to give evidence of the offence which has been committed. The exception to any rule should never be substituted for the rule itself. To admit the necessity of it, or take away the guilt, makes the exception greater than the rule.

    Which are the cardinal virtues?
    Justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude, are those named by the ancients. Justice is the highest virtue in its exercise, and supports the highest honor of civil society. A band of robbers between themselves must exercise this virtue, or they would not be kept together. The division of the plunder taken from others must be-according to the principles of justice, or death or expulsion would be the consequence of a violation of it.

    The more complete the power of justice, the more refined the state of society. Justice is the opposite of extortion. It prevents the powerful from trampling on the feeble: the cunning from defrauding the weak. It punishes those who violate the law; protects all in their rights of person, property, and liberty.



    :stop:
    I don't believe i am so far off course, and the corruption that was supposed to be prevented cannot continue to be given a legal opinion by someone whose entire purpose is to find creative ways to drill a whole through the very principles this nation was founded upon. Advise, whether bad or good, can be accepted or not accepted. Chances are, if you have to ask, there's a good chance you can't.

    As far as taxation goes, the bigger the tax break to big corporations, the more money they have to pay for lobbyists, campaign contributions, etc. etc. This Conflict of Interest is obviously the cause of the economic troubles we're experiencing. No doubt whatsoever. Yet it seems people have little interest in the matter. Do we wait until Iran and Israel come in conflict?

    What Constitutes a chemical reaction?
    Constitution of a chemical reaction:
    a process in which one or more substances are changed into others;
    ---
    A process in which atoms of the same or different elements rearrange themselves to form a new substance. While they do so, they either absorb heat or give it off.
    ---
    Okay, so if you were to amend what I wrote, you could not amend by saying, "a process in which no interactions of atoms or substances take place." Why not? If you wish to change what is already established, you must establish a whole new Constitution, which is why the Articles of Confederation had to be changed into a new document, because the New Constitution contained provisions that were contrary to the Articles of Confederation.

    The Science of Law. In a Government established to protect Liberty, Law is equal to fact. Liberty (though non-existant in the U.S.) requires that all laws are in consequence of an act that causes harm or loss to another. Rather than laws restricting liberty, laws should be written to establish Justice and in consequence, require retribution to be paid to the victims of the crime. Drugs could not be illegal, however crimes committed while intoxicated or high, could provide for additional consequences like a rehab program. "Theft - What was stolen must be returned, or equal compensation made in retribution."  As such, rather than useless jails and prisons systems, I believe that all sentences should require retribution to the victimes, and upon paying such, after costs for food, living arrangements, etc the sentence is served.  Accelerated Release? 10 hour days.  Relief from the budget, and return to a true and fairly simple system of Justice.  It would be nice if in my lifetime, to experience true liberty.

    As another example, Madhoff would be required to work in a labor camp until he could pay back all of the people he ripped off. Anything he earns above meals and rent for jail cell, would go to a trust for the victims. As soon as he's done paying back the $$ he lost, he is released. (Family & Friends could contribute to get him out sooner.)

    Not only has Congress stripped us of Justice, but they're like a nurse doing a blood infusion before fixing the leak. Either way, we're probably screwed, but fix the problem, then think about how to clean house.

    But then the question becomes, Is Congress at fault? Or are we, for sitting around thinkin'... "gee, this stinks."?

    James Madison was discussing the power to coin money, there was a want to completely forbid the use of paper money, due to some bad experience years before that coined the slogan, "Not worth a Continental." Madison, in response to forbidding the use of paper money, said it was better to make no mention of it, then to forbid it, as you never know when paper money might be necessary. It is much easier to add and repeal amendments, then it is to change a constitution.

    Each amendment not signed by the President at the time of proposal is Unconstitutional. An Amendment, though part of the Constitution cannot be contrary to the principles of the Constitution, therefore the 18th Amendment, being that it restricts liberty of an individual could not be a part of the Constitution. An amendment that restricts liberty cannot be considered part of the same document established to protect it.

    Just like in the case of science, the Constitution can only be amended by what is necessary and proper, and such cannot be necessary and proper without experience (aka wisdom) and first hand knowledge. When science advances, it can add truths to the objects constitution, which should be proved prior to making such a proposal. Until then, it's a theory, and theoretical laws are an entirely seperate from Constitutional Laws.

     

    Idea-Tritium

  • Thu, Feb 5 2009 12:11 PM In reply to

    Re: What a Constitution is to me...

     I"ve read your post and it is very good. May I comment..? Your opening statement might suggest that a truth is established by the Constitution. My point of contention would be that truth preceeds any and all constitutions and it is mans imperfect goal to define those truths with written words into a constitution. I only raise this point to establish what W. Blackstone wrote (Vol 1the Nature of laws in general) "This will of his maker is calledd the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewillto conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is some degree regulatedand restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws." ....and adding my own....Thank God for the Jury system.!

     

  • Thu, Feb 5 2009 8:33 PM In reply to

    • Tritium
    • Top 50 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on Sun, Nov 23 2008
    • Seattle, WA

    Re: What a Constitution is to me...

     A constitution cannot contain a lie.  The whole point of a Constitution is to put forth the truth.  And what is established by a Constitution cannot be contrary to that Constitution, whether by amendment or otherwise.  A new Constitution contrary to the original is a new truth.  The articles of Confederation was a Constitution, but what was constituted could not do what it was intended to do without changes being made that were contrary to its original establishment, therefore a new Constitution was created.  The new constitution required ratification by the people and the states.  So no amendment contrary to the original constitution could be ratified by the states alone, but required the peoples ratification to give it affect.  If all the power is held by the people, and delegated to the federal government, and changes MUST be ratified by the people in those powers.

    So yes, I agree with your statement.

     

    Idea-Tritium

  • Tue, Feb 10 2009 1:13 PM In reply to

    Re: What a Constitution is to me...

     A fine point I would like to highlight though I believe you already know it. The Articles of Confederation were and remain the original document of Union and as the preamble suggests what was written in addition to it , our constitution, is only that we would have a " More perfect union". The Articles of confederaton remain in effect and the Constitution is built upon it.  There is controversy that some ammendments have never been properly ratified however that may be a moote point considering we are poised to find the whole constitution and all rights nullified by martial law and executive orders.....

     

Page 1 of 1 (4 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems