The law... and the rest of the law.

[gundaddypv]

I hear all the time about people fighting for rights. Moms Demand Action fights for the right to keep kids safe. The LGBT lobby fights for the right of people to be treated equally. The Catholics fight for the right to avoid birth control, as their religion dictates. What I don't see is people fighting for their rights on a local level.

I know that this isn't a law forum, and I don't expect to receive an answer from a lawyer, but if anyone has any insight, I'd appreciate it.

So, here's my question:

Is it just me, or does it seem that fighting to obtain and maintain our constitutional rights (which are the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND) is now considered extremist, stupid, and second to local laws and regulations?

For instance:
1. The First Amendment says that the government can not endorse any religion, but IN GOD WE TRUST is on our money.
2. The First Amendment also says that I have the right to criticize my government, but the NDAA says that doing so could get me labeled as a terrorist.
3. The Second Amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say where, but my boss says I can't carry at work and public buildings are off-limits... which is a direct violation of the supreme law of the land.
4. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against illegal searches and seizures... but the DHS is searching and seizing anything they can from personal computers and accounts.
5. The Tenth Amendment says that any power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution is a power of the State, but in states where marijuana is legal, the feds can still arrest people for possession.

Is it just me, or have we fallen off of the sanity wagon?

 

[ezkl2230]

As I have posted before, this is the end result of federalism, which elevates the supremacy, necessary and proper, and commerce clauses above the rights explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

The supremacy clause, btw, doesn't elevate the federal gov't, it establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and legitimizes the laws created by the federal gov't insofar as they do not conflict with the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Congress, on the other hand, has used it to elevate the federal gov't

 

[Domineaux]

1. The First Amendment says that the government can not endorse any religion, but IN GOD WE TRUST is on our money.

I agree with your point, but the 1st Amendment says exactly the following regarding religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Nothing in that should prohibit the mention of God by government in any form.

 

[vernsimpson]

I agree with your point, but the 1st Amendment says exactly the following regarding religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Nothing in that should prohibit the mention of God by government in any form.

Agree! God could mean many things to many different people! To some money and assets are their god. To others politics is their god. What they object to is they KNOW who our founding fathers were referring to when they said God!

I object to those who want to take God out of our laws, schools and everything that has a cross or whatever. These same people demand that we set aside places for Muslims in public places. BUT demand that no Christian can pray or show their faith in public, such Nativity Scenes.

The lib-o-rats want to read into the Constitution words that are not there and to omit words that they does not fit their world view. They quote, "Separation of Church and State". I have read the US Constitution many times and have YET to find that in there!

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

I agree with your point, but the 1st Amendment says exactly the following regarding religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Nothing in that should prohibit the mention of God by government in any form.

Should we mention that the law, as written, only applied to Congress and not to the States themselves? At the time the Constitution more than one State had established an official religion. It wasn't until the doctrine of incorporation that the idea that the States could not establish laws respecting religion became a 'thing'.

 

[gundaddypv]

I agree with your point, but the 1st Amendment says exactly the following regarding religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Nothing in that should prohibit the mention of God by government in any form.

True... but would you feel the same if tomorrow they started printing any of these on money?

IN ALLAH WE TRUST
IN BUDDAH WE TRUST
IN SATAN WE TRUST

Just sayin... no statement of faith should ever be made by our government - period.

 

[gundaddypv]

Agree! God could mean many things to many different people! To some money and assets are their god. To others politics is their god. What they object to is they KNOW who our founding fathers were referring to when they said God!

I object to those who want to take God out of our laws, schools and everything that has a cross or whatever. These same people demand that we set aside places for Muslims in public places. BUT demand that no Christian can pray or show their faith in public, such Nativity Scenes.

The lib-o-rats want to read into the Constitution words that are not there and to omit words that they does not fit their world view. They quote, "Separation of Church and State". I have read the US Constitution many times and have YET to find that in there!

The Founding Fathers did not create a theology. The Founding Fathers did not put any reference to God on the money they commissioned to be printed. Our government was created to be secular. What drives me nuts is people who won't admit that - who think that we were founded on a religion.

 

[telpinaro]

True... but would you feel the same if tomorrow they started printing any of these on money?

IN ALLAH WE TRUST
IN BUDDAH WE TRUST
IN SATAN WE TRUST

Just sayin... no statement of faith should ever be made by our government - period.

I so want to start printing money with "IN SATAN WE TRUST" and see what happens... :biggrin:

 

[lafaillepj]

Agreed our country has gone nuts and it seems a lot are in brain dead mode when it comes to our rights.

 

[r1derbike]

Welcome to the New World Order! Thank you sir, may I have another?

 

[Oldgrunt]

The Founding Fathers did not create a theology. The Founding Fathers did not put any reference to God on the money they commissioned to be printed. Our government was created to be secular. What drives me nuts is people who won't admit that - who think that we were founded on a religion.

The Founding Fathers did not create theology as you say. They did, however, recognize God and made reference to Him in their writings. To be a secular nation does not require one to reject any mention of God in our daily lives. Being secular means that we, as a nation, do not belong to any particular religious order or congregation. Further, we, as individuals are free to worship as we see fit, without limitation by the government. I know very little about the law as a profession and can not render an opinion on any subject with any validity. I have read the Constitution several times and, from my own opinion and rulings of legal scholars, I dare say the Constitution IS the law until changed through legal process called amendments. The Constitution was written in very easily understood terms. It has become very bastardized through legal maneuvers in order give the government authority to subjugate the citizenry and impose rules by whichever party that happens to be ruling through our election processes. I believe in the literal sense in which the document was written and believe we have an obligation to stand up for our rights against a tyrannical government. That is not a popular stand these days and many cower in fear of government. Unless I have misinterpreted all of the readings about the Constitution, it should be the government cowering in fear of the people.

Link Removed

 

[Jarhead6541]

God, is a personal choice, not a state or national choice. By using the phrase "in God we trust", the government makes clear it's intent in belief of a monotheistic religion, most assuredly Christianity, as opposed to others. Just as gun control is a backdoor to gun confiscation, the governments use of particular theistic phrasing is a backdoor to endorsing a particular religious theory, going against freedom of religion. Most Christians already believe this nation was founded on their belief system. The most damning evidence against this theory is the 1797 treaty with the Barbary pirates, where President Adams submitted “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This country was founded on freedom of [or from] religion for everyone, not only some.
E Pluribus Unum was the foundational motto, and remained so for 150 years. Even "of the people, for the people, by the people" is a much more acceptable motto.
Belief in God, gods or religion should be an individual decision, not one made or forced upon them by the citizens government.

 

[Ringo]

.

Is it just me, or have we fallen off of the sanity wagon?

"Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, so it was to utterly worthless minds that God gave them up, for them to do things which should not be done".​