Contrary to popular belief the Constitution for the united States is not a contract. It is a rule book written to limit the authority of the government in order to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people.
A contract is an agreement that creates an obligation to the participating parties abide by the mutually agreed upon terms.
The Constitution was written to govern the government not the people. It is the responsibility of government to obey the rules and it is our responsibility to enforce them.
If we don't hold our government officials accountable they have no incentive to honor their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution can not protect us, if we don't defend it.
Unfortunately when our Congressional Representatives violate the rules instead of being punished, they are rewarded by the Wall Street bankers and corporations who fund their campaigns.
We can not expect our elected officials to do their job, if we fail to do our job. We must either submit to tyranny or take responsibility. Giving Congress access to our credit cards is like giving the keys to your liquor cabinet to a thirsty alcoholic.
We the people elect the representatives, but they take their marching orders from the financial elite. We were supposed to be the employer and the government officials were to be our employees.
For our government to function properly, we must educate ourselves on the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility and hold our elected officials accountable.
If we don't govern our government, our government will become our masters and we will become their servants. The only way we can have a government of, by and for the people is for each of us to take responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable.
Representatives who violate the Constitution should be indicted and prosecuted and if found guilty they should be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
The Constitution is not a contract, it is the Supreme Law of the land and it is the responsibility of the people to enforce it.
To say that a gov body can increase its power by incorporating for book keeping purposes is the same as saying that it may increase its power thru simple lawmaking. The constitutions do not grant the states nor United States such powers.
However, if the gov can get away with claiming you are somehow a person over which it is sovereign, such as a 14th amendment citizen, as per Art 4,3,2, its powers suddenly become almost unlimited.
The problem the gov has is that instituting an official policy of imposing that status on state-only citizens constitutes an act of war. That policy exists, thus the gov is at war with state-born whites.
Correct. The Constitution is a contract between WE THE PEOPLE (a public group) and the states, not the Federal Government it formed.
The constitutions are not exactly contracts. They are the charters that created a state gov or a fed gov. It is the document that gave the agency life and give it, its powers, defines its duties and the limit of its powers.
It might be called a form of birth certificate that if revoked, kills the entity it gave life to.
It is an interesting concept that a state is not allowed to secede when the states have the power to have a constitutional convention and as a group, kill the United States gov. and thus the union.
A contract is a document that is offered to another party and is accepted by another party. It could give an agency life give it its powers and/or define its duties, etc. That is exactly what the Constitution is.
If one of the reasons for the Constitution is to create a more perfect union and becoming a state, after the first 13, had to be approved by the U.S. Congress, the option to succeed later had to be included in that original agreement or amended later, approved by both parties.
I view the constitution as more of a Trust document with us as beneficiaries.....those in government as trustees....entrusted with our welfare as their primary business....and we as beneficiaries..... All this said....we have to be more careful in our choice of wording. Government is people entrusted with our benefit....and our Trust document...the constitution...was written, not to give us any rights....but to protect rights that were considered given by God himself and recognized as inalienable or "un a lienable" not able to be liened or encumbered in any way. And when one of the government agents liens our rights....that person needs to be held accountable....It is a breech of contract. Government protects itself and insulates itself from accountability but when an agent thereof violates our rights....that agent loses all immunity...This needs to be our plan
The Constitution does provide for contracts between the people and each duly elected or appointed official, but those are separate contracts. The Constitution as a whole is not the contract. When an official takes an oath of office, he is agreeing to his employment contract, although that includes compliance with the Constitution, which is the law.
Much confusion on this thread, and it is clear that no one is reading or understanding anything I write here.
We understand what you wrote at issue is that we do not agree with your arguments. Did or did not the actual Constitution form a Republic with a weak central government that primary purpose was to provide for the common defense and strong Separate State governments that were unlimited except for a few exceptions.
So, yes it has all the required elements of a contract between the newly formed central government and each individual State. Both gave and both received.
The states were originally constitutional republics operating under the common law in regard to their citizens. Non-citizens were under civil law with few rights like the law in the current fed gov and which is imposed on everyone today.
The fed constitution created a union of constitutional republics. The United States / fed gov has never been a constitutional republic. It has always been under old Roman civil law where in congress is the sovereign with vast powers.
This is just one reason that congress was never delegated the power to impose its general laws upon the citizens of the states.
You have made a very good point with it being a form of trust document. However, 14th citizens receive no protection from any state constitution and very little from the fed, since, as the courts have stated, the 14th does not incorporate the fed bill of rights, thus the gov can ignore those rights if the gov can show where it is needful.
Barron V Baltimore is the current settled law on the BOI applying to the States. The SC stated that the BOI does not apply to the States. [Never been revisited]
Now you used the correct term - incorporation only the current interpretation is called "partial incorporation" So the courts have violated their own precedent and are outside the Limits of Article III.
Barron v. Baltimore was overturned by the 14th. That was one of its main purposes. But it did so using the "privileges and immunities" clause, which the Supreme Court denigrated in the Slaughterhouse Cases. However, it is still part of the 14th, waiting to be invoked. And most of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated under the Due Process Clause.
Almost every case involving the 14th has revisited Barron, though perhaps not by name.
The courts are not required to follow precedent if the precedent is wrong. Stare decisis is incompatible with the Constitution. See http://constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm
There were high hopes for the 14th by some of its framers. It is said the SCt stripped the 14th of much of what it was intended to do. The problem then is that like today, few people understand our constitutional system and what is and is not possible under the constitutions.
The 14th created a citizenship under Art 4 jurisdiction. The SCt has simply stated what Art 4 allowed in the way of rights. To do otherwise would have been to rewrite the fed constitution, which it chose not to do.
Simply stated, we need to amend the 14th to incorporate the bill of rights and the right to justice.