Yes, morals are important but the Constitution is about Law (government takes an Oath to the Constitution (last paragraph of Article VI); can morals be made a law especially for government Officials to obey? What morals would you suggest government make into law for the Citizenry to live by?

Isn’t morals an emotion and should emotions be made a crime?

I hear we already have “hate” laws on the books and maybe love laws (gay marriage) are just around the corner.

I think laws on or about emotion defy justice. It is impossible for a thought to be a crime. It’s also impossible for an accident to be a crime. A crime can only be an act done with “intent” to do harm.

According to the Constitution the Citizenry, not government, is obligated to dispense justice when serving on a citizen jury; reference Amendment 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill of Rights.

I say when the Citizenry gets around to stop trying to do God’s work of judging sin and sinners and get around to doing the Constitution’s work of judging crime and criminals thereby dispensing justice to “government accused” fellow Citizens America will be the home of the brave and free.

The people Americans reelect to make law are all criminals; they have at one time or another committed the crime of perjury, if not treason, by dishonoring the Oath of Office – I think it is past time we fire by voting to not reelect “known” criminals.

Allan

I am attempting to circumvent political rhetoric from the facts of what the Constitution says in writing and as applied to a Citizen when performing a Duty in Citizenship. Must what the Constitution says be interpreted for us, if so would any interpretation “constitutionally change” what is written in the constitution? Should each generation of People or Presidential Administrations have a different interpretation?

The idea of a different interpretation changing the Constitution obliterates the Constitution’s written method of amendment. Amendment requires three fourths of the State Legislatures/Convention in agreement to amend. Does anyone suppose a proper Amendment could “change” the body of the Constitution? Does amend mean change or simply add an unforeseen in 1787 power of some future necessity of the Federal Government?

The Constitution is the People’s Law (Preamble) to Rule their government and the People alone are obliged to enforce it; (power to enforce Article I, Section 2 – the power to hire (elect) Lawmakers.). Government – Federal and State – are defined in part in the last paragraph of Article VI.

I find nothing in the Constitution delegating any power to the States over the delegated powers of the federal government. According to the 1787 Constitution the Senate is chosen by the States and therefore is the State’s voice in the Federal Government.

The “general welfare” clause means just that and does not apply to any one person or any particular group of people. The Federal government does not own anything – everything in government’s possession belongs to the People, all USA Citizens. If government doesn’t own it then giving it away what is not owned is called theft. In Americans Duty in Citizenship they are obligated to judge, not sin or sinners, but crime and criminals. Under the Constitution’s Justice system the Citizenry as Jurors is obligated to dispense to fellow citizens accused of committing a crime by government prosecutors; Amendment 5, 6, and 7, of the Bill of Rights (for starters). Check out FIJA for more on that subject.

Since 1787 the existence and lifetime of the Republic and Liberty depends, not on government, but solely on the People to enforce their Law, Constitution, on government.

Allan

That profound statement by Lysander Spooner is correct and I have my doubts that few, if any, Champions of Liberty get the logic of it; particularly those so-called Champions of today.

The Constitution is a Law (the Supreme Law of the Land) to Rule government Officials in their official acts/capacity and a Law “prevents nothing”, so a Law has no power to stop anything at all. The Constitution rules no one in their private acts/capacity.

Does anyone always stop at all stop signs? There is a law to stop at stop signs but the law does not force anyone to stop. A law does not enforce itself, isn’t that simple logic, or simple common sense? If a person gets caught running thru a stop sign by the Enforcer (government/police/courts) of such laws then what is the prescribed punishment for breaking that law?

So, if the Constitution doesn’t enforce itself then who is the “Enforcer” of it? Is government/police/courts the enforcer of the Law that rules it obligated to enforce that law on itself? No! So, who is the Enforcer of the Law of the Constitution on government and what power of force does the Constitution delegate the Enforcer to use and what is the prescribed punishment of the guilty offender?

Allan