That is just ignorant, in the true definition of the word.

And add another sheep to the fold..

I would definitely say the absolute cornerstone of the Constitution is set out in the First Amendment. Our freedoms is what makes America American.

 

I would also say the right to privacy embedded in the 4th Amendment, IMO, would rank higher in personal importance than the 2nd.

 

I think its hard to rank the original amendments. The first 10 were created 'as a set' and there is a reason they hold a more special place than the follow amendments that basically tweak and modify specific elements of the Constitution.

 

I really find it disturbing when the Constitution is attacked as an outdated 200 year old document that no longer works. It just does not work for those who want to ignore and possibly eliminate the Republic or eliminate government 'of the People, by the People and for the People'. The Constitution does not 'give' the People anything. Its make-up, especially in the first 10 Amendments (The Bill of Rights) includes direct instructions to the Federal government and by inclusion state and local governments to not take actions that would discard peoples unalienable inherent rights.

 

Look at the wording of some of the most cherished amendments. They are not granting anything. They are limiting the ability of the government to remove an unalienable right. Also look at the use of the word 'shall'. This is term that compels a party to action or non-action. In legal documents, should you want to consider the Constitution a contract, the word shall is very powerful - even in modern, general contracts.

 

1st - Congress shall make no law...

2nd - ...shall not be infringed.

3rd -No Soldier shall...

4th - ...shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

5th - No person shall be held....nor shall any person be subject....nor shall be compelled....nor shall private property

6th - ...the accused shall enjoy the right

7th - ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,...

8th - ...shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed...

9th - ...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

The 10th is what legal people would call a 'sweep clause'. It is designed to keep limits on powers of the Federal government. It is the only amendment without a specific directive from the People to the government. This is because it was supposed to keep any non-enumerated (listed) power from the Federal government.

 

The Constitution and its function only really function when there is understanding of the hierarchy of functions and those involved.

 

I contend that the heirarchy is such:

 

1) Natural unalienable rights

2) The People

3) The People's Constitution granting power to the Federal government

4) The Federal government

5) The Peoples' Constitution in each state or commonwealth granting power to the State or Commonwealth government

6) The state or commonwealth government

7) Local governments

 

Go ask anyone 'Who owns the Constitution?' See how they answer. How do you answer?

 

The answer is in the opening sentence - "We the People...". Most will not answer this basic question correctly.

 

 

If in the cartoon 'Western Civilization' and Uncle Sam are supposed represent the concept of self-government by the people via a Constitutional Republic I think the cartoon oversimplifies true threat that we the People should be concerned about. Current 'liberal' goals seem to include some threats to Peoples rights at times and radical Islamist certainly are not supporters of government of the People since radical Islam advocates religious-government rule (mullahs and Sharia law). But these are not the only or even primary threats to Constitutional Republic. It is the reactions and actions of those in power the represent more serious threats in my view. Example coming in another post.

I found Sen. Lindsey Graham's comment that suspect of the Boston bombings was not eligible for 'Miranda rights' disturbing. His statement that the bomber is an 'enemy combatant' and the apparent complete disregard that the suspect is an actual US Citizen should be alarming. The suspect IS a US Citizen. He is a naturalized Citizen but is a full US Citizen none the less. Naturalized citizens enjoy every right and protection under the Constitution just as natural born citizens do. The only specific distinction of a naturalized citizen and natural born citizen called out in the Constitution is the ability to hold the office of President or Vice President. Holding those offices not an unalienable right though. Naturalized citizens are in no way second class citizens, even if they have ties to radical or militant elements that pose threats.

 

He is a US citizen (unfortunately), his suspected acts were done inside the US. If his rights can be discarded so can the rights of any citizen be disregarded. It does appear that fear and emotions are winning out over basic rights.

 

A video that captures this quite well.

 

I think they are getting around reading the Miranda warnings by citing the "public safety exception;" however, the Miranda warnings were entirely made up by the SCOTUS and serve as a mere Constitutional safeguard, they are not actually required by the Constitution. They just serve to set off the coercive nature of police questioning/interrogation.

Dubya loved big government, yet he repped the R.

 

Which IMO resulted from a chain of events all starting from the 9/11 attacks. I'd be curious if things turned out in a similar fashion if you take 9/11 out of the equation but then again we can't really change that now can we?

Which IMO resulted from a chain of events all starting from the 9/11 attacks. I'd be curious if things turned out in a similar fashion if you take 9/11 out of the equation but then again we can't really change that now can we?

 

Like I've previously stated, both parties are guilty here. People on this thread and across America find it a lot easier to shift the blame about our rights dissolving to the other party, and will never admit fault within their own party. I'm not directly affected by all this 2nd Amendment talk, but several of those I am around are. I know bad people will get guns regardless, that's how crime works. If you are a decently smart criminal, you don't commit crimes with a gun registered in your name. I see no harm being done in the push for universal background checks. I know it's not really a solution to the problem, but it gives people a sense of false security that a majority of Americans want.

So you basically agreed with me because liberals of the democrat party are for a bigger much more powerful government. Liberalism today has mutated into new ideology no where near what you stated above. Libertarians are the only group practicing classical liberalism .

 

Yes, there is a distinction between classical liberalism and the American usage. It doesn't change the interpretation of the cartoon, though.

Nope. As of 2013 the right to bear arms is what the Constitution is all about.

 

I thought it wa a woman's control of her body.

I meant it in the classical sense, but the point is still the same. Individual liberty vis-a-vis a government is a hallmark of the "West," with the iconic example being our Bill of Rights. I take the cartoon to be in favor of a more powerful government that would handle problems more iron fistedly and "liberals" - whatever the stripe - get in the way of that with their belief in pesky things like rights.

From what I can tell, it's liberals that want the big government for all. Your analogy is backwards from reality.

From what I can tell, it's liberals that want the big government for all. Your analogy is backwards from reality.

 

American liberals typically want a more involved government in economic matters, but with few exceptions are generally proponents of civil liberties (e.g. the ACLU is often derided as a "liberal" organization; liberals oppose things like the Patriot Act, etc.). Classical liberalism is broader and older ideology that privileges a limited government. Either way the cartoon meant the term my point is the same.

Really. The cartoon seems like it implies if modern liberals and Islam combine they can kill America.

Is this a serious post? You really think guns is the ONLY way to prevent those in Washington from taking my rights away? How about my ability to vote in people who will not take my rights away? I think that is a better solution to the issue.

 

Agree. There are always non-violent solutions. However, we should hold that philosophy at all times. Including when a few attempt to forcefully take away other's rights through government legislation. Which is a violent act in and of itself.

I take exception to the implication of the cartoon, and the not as subtle comments by some here, that liberals of any ilk have any desire to destroy our country. I take EXCEPTIONAL exception to the futher implied (and not implied) assertion that liberals are in some way aiding radical Islamists (or any radical Anti-American groups) in achivieving the destruction of our country. As to whom wants more a more intrusive government, I find it interesting (to say the least), that some here who preach smaller, less intrusive government are eager to have an American citizen denied his rights under the Constitution.

I take exception to the implication of the cartoon, and the not as subtle comments by some here, that liberals of any ilk have any desire to destroy our country. I take EXCEPTIONAL exception to the futher implied (and not implied) assertion that liberals are in some way aiding radical Islamists (or any radical Anti-American groups) in achivieving the destruction of our country. As to whom wants more a more intrusive government, I find it interesting (to say the least), that some here who preach smaller, less intrusive government are eager to have an American citizen denied his rights under the Constitution.

Don't confuse interpreting what the cartoon says, with believing interpretation to be true.

 

While I do believe there is a sector of Islam that would like to destroy America.

 

I do not believe that liberal Americans want to destroy America. They have a different view (particularly fiscally) of what is good for the nation. I don't agree with Obama's policies, but I don't think he's evil. I just don't think they are sustainable.

Yes, there is a distinction between classical liberalism and the American usage. It doesn't change the interpretation of the cartoon, though.

 

Sure it does. Being that a majority of Americans today would associate the word liberal with the ideas of today's democrat party. I highly doubt most people when they look at the picture think libertarian.