How is the Constitution so powerful it still controls the country to this day?

How is the Constitution so powerful it still controls the country to this day?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's really fricking good. The constitution is far more valuable than any of the particulars of how the US is governed.
    A written sheet of things the government is not ever supposed to infringe upon, CHIEFLY speech and the bearing of arms, is unprecedented in human history and it makes psychopaths seethe to this day.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh hate speech
      >muh unfettered arsenal

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what are you trying to say?
        the fact that the bill of rights is continually under attack by the government should tell you something but whatever frick it lol it never mattered I guess.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the fact that the bill of rights
          No it's not.
          That was a letter to the King of England.
          We're talking about the Constitution.
          What I'm trying to say is that is what is substantively given a shit about in regards to those two rights.
          Which, by the way, is a right to BEAR arms. Not own them or even own an ass-ton of them or own military grade weapons.
          It doesn't even specify guns.
          For that matter it's an amendment, so it is allowed to be subject to change.

          hate speech = free speech I don't like

          Kind of, in the lowest common denominator sense.
          But, not being liked is not an attack on the right.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's an amendment
            true
            >so it is allowed to be subject to change.
            not true. It's an amendment which explicitly says it cannot be infringed. This is why no one argues to change it but rather to reinterpret it.
            There is no other amendment with a "shall not be infringed" clause.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because it is the foundation of the US government. What country are you from OP? The U.S. Government is the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the Government. These two things are not separate, they are the same. Even the most hardcore liberal will admit this, because all liberal court decisions regarding the Constitution are only interpretations of the Constitution. Which is why liberals are okay with amending the Constitution.

            >not true. It's an amendment which explicitly says it cannot be infringed.

            The Supreme Court established it's power to Infringe, Nullify or just discard anything it doesn't like in Maybury v. Madison in 1803. Your argument is invalid as all the Founding Fathers still alive then agreed with that decision. The Supreme Court is, itself, technically the highest order within the Constitution as it is the final authority on what is or isn't compliant with the Constitution. The Supreme Court then legalized amendments, which were necessary additions to the Constitution as the United States grew from 13 colonies to 20 states, then 25, going progressively west.

            Even if we entirely ignore this, the Louisiana Purchase (also in 1803) invalidates your argument as it is clearly Unconstitutional. President Thomas Jefferson acted illegally when he purchased the land from France without consulting the Congress, gaining their approval with a vote, and formally approving it as a Bill through the Congress. Despite this, all parties agree it was good and was completed without incident.

            Ditto for the Trail of Tears in 1831 under President Jackson, the only President to successfully ignore/nullify a Supreme Court Order. But, Congress didn't care as the victims were natives and therefore beneath consideration as they could not vote in state elections (and therefore, ironically, had no representation despite being landowning US Citizens).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jackson didn't do anything to save the Cherokees from deportation because he couldn't. The citizens of Georgia were going to have their way and expel them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good post

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            we can change any part of it, but we don't, which means we consent to it's continued effect.

            >>so it is allowed to be subject to change.
            >not true.
            it is true, any provision of the constitution can be changed pursuant to article 5

            strictly speaking the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government, not the states which are free to otherwise pass any gun control laws they wish

            >strictly speaking the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government, not the states which are free to otherwise pass any gun control laws they wish
            false, under the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment, the second amendment applies fully to state governments as well as the federal government.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            one case worth citing was Presser vs Illinois which post-dated the 14th Amendment and determined that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the Federal government. there were no Federal level gun control laws until FDR put the Constitution in the shredder.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            presser was soft overturned by mcdonald v chicago

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            actually that was McDonald v Burgerking
            easy mistake

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            strictly speaking the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government, not the states which are free to otherwise pass any gun control laws they wish

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Which, by the way, is a right to BEAR arms. Not own them or even own an ass-ton of them or own military grade weapons.
            Tell that to the Supreme Court, oh wait they disagreed.

            strictly speaking the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government, not the states which are free to otherwise pass any gun control laws they wish

            Tell that to the Supreme Court, oh wait, incorporation of federal rights has been around for decades.
            I hate non-law gays

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        hate speech = free speech I don't like

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        as opposed to your shithole where you could get thrown in prison for what you say on IQfy and the state can just stomp on your head over and over again with no recourse other than cucking and begging for mercy. why do homosexual europeans always let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to the fact that the US is undoubtedly better than their dying theme park culture state-sized polities

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Right because no politician can dictate ridiculous things to us, and combine that with made-up false accusations, which they then use secret police to enforce in a reign of terror as the Soviets and others did – they want to enforce their own version of 2+2=5 on everyone. But if everyone has guns, that isn't possible. They seethe so hard about this that they have to make up all these false narratives, which they collectively drum on repeatedly to try to get people to vote their constitutional rights away. It is all a bid for absolute power in the hands of a few, and nothing other than that.

      >the fact that the bill of rights
      No it's not.
      That was a letter to the King of England.
      We're talking about the Constitution.
      What I'm trying to say is that is what is substantively given a shit about in regards to those two rights.
      Which, by the way, is a right to BEAR arms. Not own them or even own an ass-ton of them or own military grade weapons.
      It doesn't even specify guns.
      For that matter it's an amendment, so it is allowed to be subject to change.
      [...]
      Kind of, in the lowest common denominator sense.
      But, not being liked is not an attack on the right.

      >That was a letter to the King of England.
      The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution including the 2nd amendment.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        strictly speaking the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government, not the states which are free to otherwise pass any gun control laws they wish

        Gun culture is never going to go away by law within America, this is an ideal both the left and right overthink

        Gun culture is going to go away bc less people own property less chance they will own a gun

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're forgetting 3d printers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            stfu Anon

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, but have you seen those?
            Like, there's a certain sexiness to guns.
            Not so with those cheap plastic dollar store looking guns.
            Just sayin.'

            >it's an amendment
            true
            >so it is allowed to be subject to change.
            not true. It's an amendment which explicitly says it cannot be infringed. This is why no one argues to change it but rather to reinterpret it.
            There is no other amendment with a "shall not be infringed" clause.

            Damn. I forgot about that.

            Right because no politician can dictate ridiculous things to us, and combine that with made-up false accusations, which they then use secret police to enforce in a reign of terror as the Soviets and others did – they want to enforce their own version of 2+2=5 on everyone. But if everyone has guns, that isn't possible. They seethe so hard about this that they have to make up all these false narratives, which they collectively drum on repeatedly to try to get people to vote their constitutional rights away. It is all a bid for absolute power in the hands of a few, and nothing other than that.

            [...]
            >That was a letter to the King of England.
            The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution including the 2nd amendment.

            >The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution including the 2nd
            amendment
            Oh, so two documents in one, but I got them mixed up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, but have you seen those?
            Like, there's a certain sexiness to guns.
            Not so with those cheap plastic dollar store looking guns.
            Just sayin.'
            [...]
            Damn. I forgot about that.
            [...]
            >The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution including the 2nd
            amendment
            Oh, so two documents in one, but I got them mixed up.

            That might be the actual end of gun culture. Those 3D printed guns.
            I mean, the cheapness of it. Untraceable and anyone can get them, and they're ugly.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but have you seen those?
        Like, there's a certain sexiness to guns.
        Not so with those cheap plastic dollar store looking guns.
        Just sayin.'
        [...]
        Damn. I forgot about that.
        [...]
        >The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution including the 2nd
        amendment
        Oh, so two documents in one, but I got them mixed up.

        What I meant to say was 'two documents and two documents in one and I mixed them up.'

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If everyone has guns, everyone has guns but still thinks 2+2=5. Gun ownership doesn't stop anything when the government can just deny it to groups it doesn't like. For example, Trump's campaign against gun owners selling guns to mexican invaders as part of his border security control package. Americans want their guns taken away and will hand their guns in so long as an outside external force, like foreigner immigrants, are blamed.

        Americans don't actually want their guns but want the false sense of security they provide. A glock cannot protect you from the mafia wanting to kill you, because if you kill their hitman they'll kill your children instead. Which is how it works in mexico, and is how the CIA trained their stooges worldwide.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If everyone has guns, everyone has guns but still thinks 2+2=5.
          They can't force me or another person to say something untrue, even if it becomes popular or hip to do so.

          They might lure a proportion of impressionable people to go along with a narrative, but they can only go so far with it. They can't back up these things with force, because the citizenry isn't completely disarmed. That's the main reason, for example, why there were no "quarantine camps" anywhere in the U.S., where people were just summarily rounded up and locked into cells, but they had them in other countries.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, it's done well enough so far.
    But, the power can be undermined.
    Trump did want to suspend the Constitution.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      FRICKINH FRUMPFF

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Normally the procedure to amend the Constitution is approval by Congress+3/4ths of the states. There is also a provision whereby 2/3rds of the states can hold a constitutional convention and modify the Constitution but it's never actually been done.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Our government stopped giving a shit about the constitution a long time ago...

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US just followed the English in their footsteps. The Bill of Rights and is based on the Magna Carta (respect for private property, respect for individual armament which follows, insurance of a fair trial, punishment proportional to crime).

    It was understood before that if the government violated the Magna Carta it was a tyrannical government that deserved to be held in contempt, but then committees were allowed, then building codes and gun bans, and now the government can literally do whatever they want.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >insurance of a fair trial
      due process I believe is even more ancient than the magna carta
      it's such a bedrock aspect of anglo politics because it essentially stands for the general proposition that government can never behave arbitrarily or capriciously.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >because it essentially stands for the general proposition that government can never behave arbitrarily or capriciously
        was that before or after Obama paid the FBI to harrass Republican activists and anyone else he didn't like?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          we've sacrificed a lot of our liberties and freedoms to federal administrative agencies, which kind of frick with the separation of powers doctrine considering they're technically all 3 branches in one, and we've done so under essentially the same rationale that justified dictatorships in the past: "We just want the country to be safer!" "We just want the country to be more efficient and productive!" "We need to cut through the bureaucratic redtape of normal democracy and get down to business!"
          we really don't have anyone to blame but ourselves

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          meds

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The constitution aint shit. The judiciary pulled of a coup early in US history and it's been rule by judicial fiat ever since.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the judiciary, the weakest of the 3 branches, should actually be even weaker, so weak in fact that it's not capable of doing checks and balances on the other branches
      "le marbury v madison wuz a coo"tards are the biggest dumbasses on this website

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >weakest of the 3 branches
        Literally congress
        >gridlock shuts down everything
        >even when they manage to pass something president or judiciary can just cuck them out of it
        >president can just make their own law with executive orders, judiciary can just legislate from the bench with far less obstacles in the way

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's a feature, not a bug, that passing legislation is such a process where wrenches can be thrown in at several points. Passing federal laws SHOULD be difficult and include lots of debate, that way when something does pass you know it's been vetted thoroughly.
          >judiciary can just legislate from the bench
          No, not their job. That's why they just repealed Roe, the current court is (mostly) kino and understands that decision was effectively legislating from the bench

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the judiciary literally depends on the other branches to do anything. Congress has the most control over every aspect of your life, because congress is the branch that is constantly passing, repealing, and amending laws
          The executive has administrative agencies which steal the power of every other branch and become mini little dictatorships in their own right.
          Both the executive and the legislative combined control all of the country's financing, and all of the military and police forces.
          The judiciary controls no finances. The judiciary has no army or police force. They are constrained by the rules on personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and thus have no power to effect your life except under very narrow circumstances.
          And then, what happens if they believe that they are empowered under a particular set of narrow circumstances to effect your life and the other branches disagree? Well, we saw this with FDR. You can just tell the SCOTUS to pound sand, because there is no enforcement mechanism for ANY of their decisions. They are wholly reliant on both (1) the other branches accepting their decisions as legitimate, and (2) the whole population accepting them as legitimate as well. If they don't, guess what? You can just make a SCOTUS decision disappear.
          The founding fathers intended that the judiciary was the weakest branch, and this is exactly the way in which they wanted them to be weak. To add on that they can't even review the constitution is excessive and unwarranted.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off, Jefferson

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because we can add and subtract parts of it as we please.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Founding Fathers were really big buttholes who wanted to make it practically impossible to change anything because of how dysfunctional the system is by design.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because Americans are even dumber than their ancestors.
    only two people signed both the constitution and declaration
    no one actually thought or wanted the constitution to last more than a generation, it should have been re-written in 1800 or 1810.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How come Americans are always like
    >The Founding Fathers would NOT have wanted this.
    Why are they even called the Founding Fathers? Weird cultish name.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Elevators > Escalators.
      Escalators are just gimmicky stairs. Elevators are literal vertical train cars that you can control

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    America is controlled by the israelites. They wipe their asses with the Constitution.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *