The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.
Get a FREE Copy of "The Essential Federalist Papers
What Jefferson called the greatest commentary on Government ever written, organized by topic!
Undoubtedly, the “Messiah” does not know this basic fact.
Beware of foreign “entanglements”.
The way things been going now is “We the People” are being IGNORED BIG TIME??????????????
Until the early 1900s this was required reading for school children along with the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Not only reading but comprehensive tests were taken for the first eight years of their schooling. Regarding history, it is not important if we agree or disagree with certain decisions or actions taken. What is important is an understanding of their reasons or context and the results.
THIS was an EXCEPTIONAL American!!
Tell that to Obama and the rest of the liberal crowd.
Tell that to Palin and the rest of the conservative crowd, also.
Mark, I assume you are referring to the man who was elected by a clear majority of his country to be president. I find that people who don’t know anything about Constitutional Law are usually the first to say Obama is not following the Constitution. In is not enought to read the text. The law school course is two semesters long. Caselaw constues the text and is essential to understanding the Constitution. So be of humble heart and assume that a Harvard Law Review President and teacher of Con Law at one of the US’s best law schools knows more about the subject than you do.
Cheryl, “we the people” elected Obama, and will re-elect him next year. The phrase meant only white land owning males when Washington was president, but now it includes you and me.
If anyone wants to tell me what they thing our president has done to violate the Constitution, say so. Give particulars. Don’t just repeat what you heard someone else say.
What individuals tend to forget is that each congressman is elected as much by people who vote against him/her as for him/her; the same is true of senators; the same is true of presidents. Indeed, they are there to represent the whole–not just voters that voted for them, nor even just voters, or taxpayers, or land holders, or the rich, or the poor, or any other fraction of the whole. The significance of this is something that Washington clearly understood, as he clearly and unequivocally talks about the fact that even the Constitution being modified by the “explicit and authentic act of the whole people.”
@Michael Elsken: Sarah Palin is not president; Obama is and he is the one who is lawless and ignoring the U.S. Constitution, which Obama took an oath to “execute, preserve, protect, and defend.” Of course that was his first lie: one of many since.
@Michael: What you apparently tend to forget is that George Washington was referring to Article V of the U.S. Constitution providing for an amendment process. He was not referring to elected officials and judges just making it up as they went along.
Elizabeth.,.,.apprently YOU need to get some FACTS…first off, he never TAUGHT Law at Harvard…he was given the “Law review” job after Syrian Muslims BRIBED his way into Harvward WITHOUT any transcripts from his SUPPOSED time at Columbia College…the Syrians gave Harvard OVER $20 MILLION dollars to make sure Obama was given “special Treatment” by the Admission Boards…..he (Obama) has NEVER released his SUPPOSED history because then we’d find how FAKE he is & how true the ILLEGALITY of his taking office is …he was never PROPERLY Vetted first by the CORRUPT politicians in Illinois then not vetted AGAIN by those in Congress/Senate to VERIFY he “was who he said he was”…..Michelle(Obama) had her license taken away because she brought in Barrack/Barry who had NO LEGAL LICENSE to be a LAWYER/ATTORNEY because he had NO DEGREE when she helped get him hired into the company she worked for….you want some FACTS as to how he has BROKEN THE LAWS & CONSTITUTION he swore to uphold” BEGIN THERE…& then let’s start with his TREASONOUS acts against our men & women in Military & Border Patrols AND the fact that CONSTITUTIONALLY he is to DEFEND America AT ALL COSTS yet his stance on the border is PATHETIC…..he led us into a war in Libya WITHOUT the backing or a vote in Congress but went to the U.N….the one who seems to be “repeating what someone else says” seems more to be YOU.,..puking out the same LAME Socialist Liberal GARBAGE handed down from Obama & his bankrupt tax evading moron flunkies…. Obama himself said “The Constitution needs to be rewritten” a statement that begs to differ why a man who SUPPOSEDLY studied the LAW & CONSTITUTION would say something so INCREDIBLY IGNORANT,….the same TRUTH that began this country with ALL of our FOudning Documents STILL HOLD TRUE TODAY, yet Obama wants to REWRITE them…only a Socialist intent on the DESTRUCTION of what America IS & STANDS FOR would make such a LAME CLAIM as this Arrogant Fool has done…. so…can we hear some of the FACTS you seem to think you have a grasp of to back how he has NOT BROKEN LAWS or VIOLATED his oath & VIOLATED The COnstitution>??????
Actually, considering that the Obama Administration has not attempted to assert that torture is constitutionally permitted, or that American citizens can be stripped of their constitutional rights merely by administratively calling them “enemy combatants,” I think that Obama is doing a much better job of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution than the individual he replaced in office.
Name the US CITIZEN who has been tortured or stripped of their constitutional rights.
Jessee, Elizabeth never indicated that Obama taught at Harvard, just that he taught at one of the best law schools in the nation. I would acknowledge that the University of Chicago’s law school meets that criteria.
As for the claim that Obama’s status on law review was purchased, no less as law school class president, is an insult to every classmate he had at Harvard (including, mind you, some very staunch Republicans). Law review status at Harvard, as with most law schools, is only obtained by having the highest grades within the class. That status cannot be purchased, as any attempt to do so would result in immediate backlash by students who outperformed the person who allegedly purchased the status.
Finally, I have great faith in the ability of the American people as a whole uphold the Constitution. I, for one, will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans who stood at the crest of Little Round Top, and who scaled to the heights of Lookout Mountain to preserve this nation from those who would tear it asunder.
Actually, Jose Padilla, a United States citizen, was taken into custody in Chicago in May 2002 after arriving at O’Hare International Airport from Pakistan via Switzerland.
President George W. Bush declared Padilla an enemy combatant a month later, saying he possessed valuable intelligence about the personnel and activities of al Qaeda.
Padilla was taken to a South Carolina Navy brig and held there for more than three years. During that time it is alleged that he was waterboarded, kept in isolation and darkness, and subjected to constant noise.
Obligatory upon all yet constitutional law has been trampled since the late 1800s and amendments to it has limited our freedoms while legalizing plunder upon its citizens—income tax, removing or changing the way states select Senators, and so on. We have politicians and media commentators who see the constitution as non-essential because it is “old” and therefore has no relevance to us today. The US Constitution is the foundation of this country and when held up to its greatest potential, will allow all people the full benefits of citizenry and the freedoms it guarantees.
Patricia. amendments are, by their very nature, as so recognized by Washington’s quote above, absolutely constitutional. It is because the constitution specifically allows such changes. If it had not, there would be no constitutional right to freedom of assembly, no constitutional freedom from search and siezure, involuntary servitude would not be prohibited, and the right to vote cold be undermined by the imposition of a poll tax. If you dislike how senators are elected, and want to take away the direct election from the public, act to reamend the constitution. If you dislike the pathetically small tax liability you pay compared your parents (In 1953, the year Eisenhower started his presidency, a married couple whose taxible income exceeded $8,000 paid a marginal tax rate of 38%, and by the year I was born (1957) any couple earning more than $20,000 a year in taxible income was paying 38%. By contrast, currently the highest tax bracket pays 35%, and that tax rate does not kick in for married couples until their taxable income exceeds $379,000 per year. See http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html), seek to reamend the constitutiion.
Micahel, have you read the Constitution? Washington said in his quote above that the amendments need to be accepted by ALL. The amendment that changed the way they are selected removed and limited states rights. The original selection of Senators allowed for states to be represented, the amendment removed that in favor of the popular vote. Income tax is unconstitutional per the US Constitution itself because the government has no right to take money from our earnings. Amendments can change the very foundation of the original Constitution and render its original intent, invalid as do the income tax and senator amendments.
Yes, most definately more than you have read it. I also took two semesters of constitutional history (my major was in history), two semesters of constitutional interpretation (my minor was in political science), and , or course, constitutiional law during law school.
Your analysis of the income tax ignores the fact that the 16th Amendment clearly and unequivocally entitles the calculation of tax from earnings. So your analysis is incorrect as constitutional history, constitutional interpretation, and constitutional law. If you do not like then, then seek an amendment to repeal that status. Not even the Republican party is dumb enough to support that
As Washington so clearly articulared, “the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government.” That was duly and appropriately done with regard to direct election of senators. You do not like that, simply convince the people that they should surrender direct election of senators to states by amending the constitution.
Moreover, the whole of the people is not, and has never been, ALL of the people as you assert. The procedures set out for amending the Constitution, and indeed even originally adopting the Constitution, does not require universal acceptance. Indeed, as the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution replaced, required unanimous actions by all of the states in instances. That ALL requirement was precisely one of the problems which our Founding Fathers were attempting to eliminate.
Sorry, Patricia, but I do not think that that is the right approach to take to this. Michael is right that those amendments are constitutional. They were bound to be, as a part of the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding amendments allowing the federal government to “take money from our earnings” or to change or roll back “states rights,” or requiring unanimous approval before an amendment can be made. Now that they are a part of the Constitution, they are unambiguously constitutional.
Wow, Elizabeth, your response to Marks sounds like shut up and leave it to your betters. That may not have been your intent, but it is sure how it came across. As for the Constitution, it was written so that everyone could understand it. The Founders did not intend it to be a document that would require a law degree to understand.
Now as for our history, Elizabeth, are you aware that women and free blacks voted in our early years? In some areas there were more black voters than white. Both blacks and women voted on whether to adopt this Constitution. Also, many free blacks and single women owned land. Ever heard of James Forten? He was one of the richest men in Philadelphia. He was also black.
Michael, you should like this quote, it was not only Washington who understood he represented all. Jefferson did too,
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”