Libertarian question.

Explain.

 

The preamble to the Constitution says it is being created by the people to form a more perfect union, insure tranquility, promote the general welfare, etc.. If you take those and ignore the enumerated powers there is nothing government can't do if it claims it is in furtherance of the "general welfare".

The Constitution is irrelevant because politicians and lawyers have taken every part of it and reinterpreted it to mean whatever they want it to mean. As an example, the commerce clause was intended by the framers to insure free and fair trade between the States but it has been reinterpreted to be a mandate for the federal government to control every aspect of anything that touches or might impact commerce in any way. The classic illustration of that is Wickard v. Filburn where a farmer grew wheat for his own consumption and was fined for violating a commerce clause regulation even though there was no commerce involved at all. An additional example is the First Amendment that states explicitly that "Congress shall make no law..." but has been reinterpreted to mean high school principals shall make no prayer. If the federal government was actually constrained by the Constitution as originally intended about 95 percent of it would have to be shutdown.

 

[

So in your mind preamble trumps Constitution?

 

No, the first part of my answer was to explain a possible reason Eleuthera might have asked the question about the preamble. The second part of my answer was to explain why I think the Constitution is irrelevant.

 

If the Constitution is irrelevant and the preamble is, how does the preamble not trump the Constitution?

 

The entire document is irrelevant. Government decides what they want to do without reference to any part of the Constitution, including the preamble.

 

So why is the judiciary referencing it all the time? Why do they deem things unconstitutional?

 

The judiciary are the ones reinterpreting it. They're the ones that decided growing wheat for your own use could be regulated as commerce. They're the ones that decided the First Amendment restricted local school administrators from saying prayers. They pay lip service to the Constitution because their role is supposed to be ruling on Constitutionality but their current function is to centralize government control and strip the States and the people of the power they're supposed to have under the Constitution.

 

Why would they need to reinterpret something that is meaningless?

how does a meaningless document give the people power?

 

Do you know what Jefferson meant when he said they shouldn't make the Constitution blank by construction? Do you know what "Lip Service" means?

It doesn't, but it wasn't originally meaningless. It has been made that way by government. I would say that currently the Constitution is part of what makes the States and the people less powerful because they want to believe that it is still meaningful. If the people recognized how excessive government has become and how little of the government is Constitutional, they would demand reform. Instead they're suckered into believing they have "representation" and their rights are being protected by the parasite that is government.

 

The entire document, from preamble to amendments, must be taken in context.

 

The Constitution isn't blank so in as it pertains to the Constitution, no I don't know what Jefferson meant.

I know what lip service means.

Explain.

I would argue the people's belief in it is the only way the Constitution could ever have meaning.

I would say it is a delusion to think any government necessarily tries to reduce the rights of the people. No government is benevolent.

 

In context of what?

 

I'm asking it because of your previous post that I replied to. Essentially, your claim that you don't view it as the government's duty to provide anything.

That raises the question of "If the government doesn't provide anything, why on earth create a government?"

 

Jefferson was saying that if the government were to interpret the Constitution broadly, it would be as if it were blank paper. If the Constitution is interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean without regard to what it actually says or what the authors intended it to mean, then it becomes "blank paper by construction".

Government has interpreted the Constitution so broadly that it has been made meaningless "by construction".

This is true, the people's belief is essential but not sufficient. For the Constitution to have actual value, the people must believe in it and the government must adhere to its stated requirements and limitations.

I don't think there is a formal conspiracy to reduce the rights of the people but it is the nature of government (the people in government) to do so. It's human nature to want things to go your way and being in government doesn't change that. Government however, gives you a tool that no other entity does, and that is the use of force to compel people to do things your way.

 

Nothing stands set, it can only atrophy. The Constitution is organic in construction, and of course it has changed, and it will continue to change.

As the Founders are not like us today, it is foolish to think we should be like them yesterday.

 

Not to create anything. I don't think any government does that. They regulate.

 

So there is a subjective word in that. Broadly. Isn't that based on opinion

How so?

I agree but it is our duty to hold our government accountable they're not going to do what we want them to out of the goodness of the heart. I think the deal is these days people don't care.

I agree with this too. But further I think it's our duty to keep our government in its place. Referencing your video, when the government over reaches or over regulates it is our responsibility to stop this the only way we can is civil disobedience. But it's that same old thing if I don't make unreasonable gestures to horse then I won't speak up when they arrest people who do.

 

You're changing the words. Originally, to which I replied, you used 'provide'. Now you want to use the word 'create'.

Would you care to defend your first use, or not?

If the government does not provide anything to the people, why create it? Have you read the Preamble?

 

what's your problem with better accuracy?

the moment I become defensive the discussion is over I don't defend myself I don't need to. It's just words on the internet.

to regulate.

I'm not going to read anything until you explain the relevance.

 

Something went wrong and your response to me and I'm not going to try and decipher what words you said and what words I said. You have a few minutes to edit your post. I would suggest that

 

Missed the deadline but it isn't that hard to decipher. I think I'm done with this discussion anyway.

 

I'm not deciphering it you should proofread your post after you post it.

 

If you do not understand or prefer to ignore the Preamble and its meaning, yessir, the discussion is over.