You are absolutely correct that there are many areas of the constitution that we currently don't follow.

I can't speak for Palepictures, but at least for me, I firmly believe that we should either follow the letter of the constitution and the reasoning behind it that our founding fathers wrote to clarify it, or we should follow the amendment process and make the changes that we believe will improve or update it.

I for one would like to see all judges take exactly that view, since my understanding of the constitution is that the courts are intended to protect and defend the constitution and guard against laws that would infringe on individual rights.

I believe that the constitution and bill of rights are intended to limit the scope of federal government and insure that private citizens and states have rights that the federal government can not legally meddle in.

The constitution is clear that unless a power is specifically stated in the constitution then it is not a federal power and is either the purview of the states, or leaves the rights up to the individual.

Judges are supposed to be there to protect state and individual rights and protect from unconstitutional grabbing of power by the federal government. I would hope that is what Palepictures is saying.

Of course there are a whole bunch of things that we do that are contrary to the constitution. Where I disagree with you is you seem to be saying that is a good thing. Examples of the federal government overstepping their authority include, but are not limited to meddling in education (the department of education), the TSA, illegally searching our personal affects. When the airlines did this it was legal, but it isn't legal for the government to search my possessions without probable cause. For what it's worth the entire patriot act is unconstitutional as is the portion of the affordablecare act that requires everyone to purchase health insurance or get taxed.

There are countless other areas where the federal government has taken power that was never intended for it to have and the courts have allowed this to happen.

And you are way off on gun rights. If you read what the founding fathers had to say about militias and gun rights every healthy male 14 or older was expected to have a gun and be part of a militia. The militia as they saw it wasn't a federal thing, it was what Americans were expected to do to protect themselves from outside aggression or, God forbid, from our own government becoming overly oppressive. Obviously they didn't mean for the military to replace local militias when it came to gun rights, or they wouldn't have stated so clearly that gun rights were in part to protect against the possibility of our own government becoming oppressive. The view of gun rights that you have stated comes from failure to read the rest of what our founding fathers wrote about gun rights.

As far as no air force, don't be ridiculous. Both the army and navy have planes of their own, so it doesn't really change anything whether we have an air force or not.

But where I really disagree with you is the statement that the constitution is a living document. That is clearly not what our founding fathers intended. They were very specific that it should be interpreted as written, and only changed through a constitutional convention or the amendment process. It is lawmakers who have attempted to increase the power of the federal government coupled with liberal judges who have tried to make the constitution into a living document. It is my hope that justices like Gorsuch and any others that Trump appoints will turn out to be originalists and stick to the original interpretation of the constitution. I think that is what Palepictures may be referring to.

I think it is you that needs to do some research and educate youtself rather than blather away as you call it. No one said anything about anti-gun only about the lack of provision concerning self defense.

The constitution says in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Note it says "...congress willl provide for.....arming....the militia". You are trying, again, to divert and evade the issue.

I just showed you where in the constitution where the second amendment reference to a well regulated militia leads you. Now you show me the article and section that gives people the right to own guns for anything else......
not that that is bad thing. It just isn't in the constitutionn.

Tribal governments: show me the article and section that authorizes tribal governments. The 10 th amendment gives all authority to the state that isn't reserved for the federal government. Also look at the Acts approved by congress and show me where land outlying the state's.boundary excludes land for tribal governments.

The 14th amendment says. "Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside+". So show me the article and section where people born within the US and subject to our laws are not us citizens of the :US and stateinwhich they reside

That's enough now. I am doing this on me cell phone.....but remember, we are talking about a "constitutional judge, and hos they would deal with this vagness.

Last item. The point that went right over your head is that we don't follow the constitution and some rights you take for granted aren't there. I said this right at the beginning and most of these are examples.

I think this quote from you really applies to you, not me. " All this information is readily available to you IF you really wanted to educate yourself, which I sincerely doubt that you do."........and treaties do not negate (or trump) the constitution.

I think it is you that needs to do some research and educate youtself rather than blather away as you call it. No one said anything about anti-gun only about the lack of provision concerning self defense.

The constitution says in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Note it says "...congress willl provide for.....arming....the militia". You are trying, again, to divert and evade the issue.

I just showed you where in the constitution where the second amendment reference to a well regulated militia leads you. Now you show me the article and section that gives people the right to own guns for anything else......
not that that is bad thing. It just isn't in the constitutionn.

Tribal governments: show me the article and section that authorizes tribal governments. The 10 th amendment gives all authority to the state that isn't reserved for the federal government. Also look at the Acts approved by congress and show me where land outlying the state's.boundary excludes land for tribal governments.

The 14th amendment says. "Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside+". So show me the article and section where people born within the US and subject to our laws are not us citizens of the :US and stateinwhich they reside

That's enough now. I am doing this on me cell phone.

Last item. The point that went right over your head is that we don't follow the constitution and some rights you take for granted aren't there. I said this right at the beginning and most of these are examples.

I think this quote from you really applies to you, not me. " All this information is readily available to you IF you really wanted to educate yourself, which I sincerely doubt that you do."........and treaties do not negate (or trump) the constitution.

There is one problem with your logic with the TSA.
You voluntarily choose to fly. You can walk away from security anytime you want and not board a plane. You voluntarily give up your right when you choose to fly.
I would like to see each airline effect it's on security and not have the government involved, but it is not unreasonable to have the TSA do so.(Search you)
A free market solution would likely work where each airline has it's on security. You can then choose to fly on the airline that best makes you feel secure.
I doubt much would change if that happened. I would prefer to fly airlines that were more safe.... if Airlines did do their security.
You could use the same logic for entering a courthouse with a gun. Most all courthouses require a search(Metal wand) to enter.

I hope to see more constitutionalist judges approved in the next few years.


So what is a constitutional judge? One that follows the constitution to the letter? Our constitution is not the perfect document as we have been told over and over again that it is. It is flawed, it is vague, it has been added to by various interpretations, parts are ignored and can as has been interpreted in many ways by various means. So again what is a constitutional judge?

I wrote the following to respond to a post from Blurry. It points out some of the problems with the constitution.

***
I often hear about the different interpretations of the constitution, as you mention. Conservatives saying it should be adhered to as written and liberals saying it needs to be interpreted in terms and conditions as they exist today.

There are many parts of the constitution that we do not respect, and haven't for decades or more, but have become so accustomed to it that we don't ever question it.

The most glaring one to me is the Supreme Court. No where does it say there will be 9 judges. No where does it say the court is the final arbitrator and decision maker of the constitutionality of a law. But, we take it for granted now. No where does it say the court can make laws but they do make decisions that are in essence new laws. For example: The Citizens United case. The constitution does not mention he word "corporation". Corporations are entities created by the individual states. What they are and what rights they have should be determined by the individual states, not the Supreme Court, in accordance with the 10th amendment ("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.. ") Furthermore, the extent of corporations involvement in political advertising should be regulated by congress in accordance with the commerce clause in the constitution, not the court.

Then there is the confiscation of property. The constitution says government cannot confiscate property withthout due process. Yet autos are confiscated for alleged drunk driving. Cars, boats etc, can be ceased by conservation officers on the spot for fishing violations (at least in Minnesota). Armies are to be established for two years. There is no provision for tribal governments, yet we have them. The constitution doesn't provide for funding and training of the Air Force, only the Army and Navy. ("The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years"). Gun rights are for a well regulated militia, funded by congress No where does it provide is right of gun ownership for personal defense or hunting. This should be up to the individual states (10th anendment again. "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".) The list goes on. My point being, we don't strictly adhere to consitution. It is in fact, a living document.

Thomas Jefferson believed the constitution, as written, would only last a generation or two and that each generation should write it's own constitution. It seems we have done that by ignoring parts of it and adding unwritten other parts.


Would a constitutional judge say trump violated the constitution be committing an act of war without a declaration of war by congress?

So, what makes a judge, a "Constitutional" judge?

As usual you are ignorant. What better source then the statements and writings of the Founding Fathers ( the ones you were too lazy to research ):
1) " No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"- Thomas Jefferson,Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

2) "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison,January 30,1787.

3) "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take up arms" Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20,1787
4) "The Constitution of most of our States and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people;that they may exercise it by themselves, that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed" Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, June 5,1824.
5) "I ask who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few officers". George Mason,Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention,June 4,1788.
6) "To disarm the people. ..is the most effectual way to enslave them". George Mason,Debates in the Several States Conventions On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14,1788.
7) "Guard with jealous attention the Public Liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined. The great object us that every man be armed. Every man that us able might have a gun."Patrick Henry, June 5, 1778.

Plenty more where those came from. You just got your ignorant ass schooled again!
Your Welcome!

Got another one that even someone as dense as you should be able to understand :
" The Constitution shall NEVER be construed to prevent the People of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" Samuel Adams,Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

Also:
" To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788.

Plenty more that destroys your position!

Quoting Frosty: "Then there is the confiscation of property. The constitution says government cannot confiscate property withthout due process. Yet autos are confiscated for alleged drunk driving. Cars, boats etc, can be ceased by conservation officers on the spot for fishing violations (at least in Minnesota)."

Autos are not confiscated for alleged drunk driving in Minnesota without due process. They can be seized and held under Minnesota law until the court orders the confiscation. Neither are cars, boats etc confiscated by conservation officers on the spot for fishing violations in Minnesota. They are allowed to be "seized", and held, under Minnesota Statute, but can not be confiscated without due process.

Perhaps you forgot about this.

"The Metro Gang Strike Force was a unit of officers from 13 Twin Cities police forces, sheriff’s offices and other entities. It financed its activities, in part, through seizures and forfeitures of money and property.

But last year, the state’s legislative auditor warned that lax oversight and overzealous enforcement had led to officers confiscating cash and property and sometimes not reporting the seizures. Some officers allegedly took seized items — ranging from electronics to big-screen TVs — for personal use."

The words used here, by the press and the legislative auditor were: seized, confiscated, and forfeitures. There was no due process unless you consider task force members taking away money and property out the door as due process.

Property is often "seized", no charges filed, no court order and the property remains seized....never to be seen again by the owner. You are just talking about semantics.

Added:
Many states, including Georgia, allow what is called a civil forfeiture. Unlike criminal cases, all prosecutors have to do to take possession of property is allege the property was used to commit a crime.

The City of Brotherly Love, over a 10-year period, has seized more than 1,000 houses, about 3,300 vehicles and $44 million in cash, totaling $64 million in civil forfeitures over a 10-year period, according to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group.

Where does the money go? According to Pennsylvania state records, about $7 million went to salaries for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office and the police department.

Only eight states require property from seized funds go to a neutral account. Law enforcement in other states — including Georgia — can use the money directly.

To begin with Mr hubert, you are wrong. I don't have a position destroyed because I do not have a position. It seems that you and everyone else completely missed my point. My point was that the constitution is a living document. It has to be. If not all the things I listed and more would not be part of our lives.

All the writings of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, the Federalist Papers and Harvey Schwartz's brother-in-law don't matter if you take a strict constitutionslist position on the meaning of the constitution. What would be important is the exact wording in the constitution which is sometimes vague. For example, how many justices should be on the Supreme Court?

Another good example is the Air Force. It doesn't matter one iota that the Army and Navy have aircraft. What matters is that the Air Force is a relatively new (1947) branch of the national defense. It is not, for obvious reason, not mentioned in the constitution. This just demonstrates my point. The constitution is a living flexible document that has unwritten concepts, ignored sections, modified portions and changes to fit the times.

I am certainly not advocating a strict interpretation of the constitution......quite the opposite, so all of you that are trying to disprove something are wasting your time. A strict constitutionslist would say guns for personal protection etc. is not written in the constitution....that the constitution says what it says. If you think there is something about gun ownership for personal protection, please cite the article and section. For clarification, I am not saying people should not own guns, to the contrary. I am saying that if you go by a strict interpretation of the constitution without some flexibility, you would not have this perceived right.

Btw, concerning tribal reservations and government. I knew someone would mention treaties, so show me the article and section where treaties trump the 10th Amendment, which says, "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." I only see power to the federal government, the States and the people."

For added measure, here is a excerpt from the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...." One need only look at the act of establishing statehood of the various states to see if reservations are part of the state or separate and sovereign.

Maybe, Mr Hubert, the density tag you tried to pin on me belongs elsewhere....on.......perhaps?

Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying we need this flexibiliy in the constitution and the idea of getting a strict constitutionslist on the Supreme Court would be folly.