What is the "US Constitution"?

Have you not heard of writs of habeas corpus?

The Constitution was built upon the Declaration of Independence.

Had the Declaration of Independence not existed the Constitution would include the items in the Declaration in the Constitution's preamble.

Items were left out of the Constitutions preamble because they would have been redundant.

You are claiming that the Constitution is a "non-legal" documenr?

Nope.

The Constitution was written to be the framework for our system of governance.

The Declaration is a flowery, well-written **** you to George III.

This is the Bargate it marks the original entrance to the city of Southampton.



Just above the centre arch is a statue of George III dressed as the Emperor Claudius.


https://seesouthampton.co.uk/works/bargate/statue-of-king-george-iii-in-roman-dress-bargate-southampton-3/

I will repeat myself, the Declaration of Independence is the foundation for the Constitution.

The Constitution either negates and makes void the Declaration of Independence or it builds upon it.

You can't have it both ways.

They both frame our system of governance.

Clearly the Constitution negates the Declaration of Independence.

God save the Queen!

That's an awesome false equivalence. It's still wrong.

But hey, if you're right, you can provide sources for your statements, yes?

Oh, wait.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Declaration+of+Independence#targetText=Although%20the%20Declaration%20of%20Independence,than%20that%20of%20the%20Constitution.&targetText=The%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20however%2C%20has,organic%20law%20of%20the%20country.


Or

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration


Or

https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/constitution-faqs


Facts sure are pesky things, aren't they?

Facts can apparently be slanted but truth is ever peskier.

Both are founding documents that curtail the authority of our republic/democracy.

The burden of proof is yours.

Prove that the latter either negates or builds upon the other.

I would like to hear your dissertation on how the Constitution negates the DOI or how the DOI has no relevance in regards to our government.

Let's hear it.

haha you say DOI is unbinding that is hilarious!



You mean the constitution is legally binding when our president has defied it after swearing to uphold it, our supreme court judges mock it with citizens united and corporate personhood?

And corporations are not even required to swear allegiance to it.

Facts... really pesky things.

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Comment:
I guess you could call that unbinding. But shhh! Don't tell the British it is not "legally binding".

"You are claiming that the Constitution is a "non-legal" documenr?"

I am not a lawyer so I might be on shaky ground, but as I understand it the Constitution is not a legal contract. There is a penalty for violating a legal contract, but there is no penalty for violating the Constitution.

1. Would lawsuits be defined as a penalty?

2. If a lawsuit is defined as being a penalty, can someone file a lawsuit because of a violation of the constitution?

I think impeachment counts as a fairly significant penalty.

Yep, it's not legally binding.

Keep digging.

Did you read anything I linked to? You know, from legitimate sources.

I provided my sources. And if you would like proof of my JD, I am more than happy to provide that, too. I wrote plenty then. It's not my obligation to write you a paper because you keep doubling down on a misconception.

Oh, you never got a legal education?

What is that they say these days, that your ignorance isn't the same as my education?

As for the cowardly bullshit that our government is up to these days, it doesn't magically make the Declaration anything more than what it was meant to be-- a list of grievances.

Izzy's right. A bunch of scattershot ideas get thrown around as if they were the greatest revelation since the Sermon on the Mount, and then once they've been challenged, it turns emotional.

I'm off to my job. Have a lovely day.

I expect this kind of comment from the repugs here.

I am 56 years old and I am also ordained clergy, 60%+ of the Bible is Levitical laws.

That qualifies me to say, "You are full of crap."

Many natural and spiritual laws are binding, karma happens...

Sloppy modern legalism has gotten us into this mess. You seem to have consumed the same Kool-Aid as Max and Izzy...

Our sovereignty as a country is based upon the DOI. It is asinine to say it is not legally binding. Do you ever even stop and listen to yourself, did you read your own links and still not see the error of them?

Excerpt from the DOI
"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Comment:
Natural laws are ermm, cough cough, "legally binding"...

Excerpt from the DOI
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Comment:
"Unalienable rights" are binding rights that even human laws cannot nullify.

Like the law of gravity... You can write a law to nullify the law of gravity if you would like. Good luck on that.

Non-binding. lol

Oh please, I'm a lifelong Democrat. And I'm 57.

As for the rest of it, I'm outta here. And yeah, I know you'll throw your arms up and yell that you've won.

Knock yourself out.

You're still wrong.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this matter.

That is my right, I am sure we agree on most other issues and no real offence is meant, just as with Izzy, I disagree often but I am sure we generally agree more than not.

I sincerely believe that you and you links are wrong.

My father was a Shriner, just like the founding fathers. I learned my view from not only from him but also through unconnected biblical research.

I started this thread because I find the knowledge that I have to have been been lost or forgotten. Perhaps thought too much secrecy.


I knew exactly that I would be challenged on this.

I am confident of my opinion...

And it seems, you are the angry one now, feel free to stomp off in a tantrum if need be. You are welcome regardless of our differences of opinion.

Precedent...

That is the word.

Have you ever heard of the term, "scripture buildup"?

Well, you can look it up but I have known of this term for over 30 years.

Consider the New Testament actually can be interpreted as the new Torah or new laws.

Do the new laws negate the old laws?

Not necessarily, the new laws are built upon the old laws.
The new laws shed light upon the old laws and infer a deeper meaning and understanding.

Just as the Constitution is built upon the Declaration of Independence.
To negate this fact would be like saying that the Gospel of John is last so Matthew, Mark and Luke no longer are in effect.

Or the Gospels come later so the Old Testament is therefore null and void.

Or the Epistles of Paul negate the Gospels, this would be ridiculous reasoning.

They all build upon one another as even today we are learning new insight into our standing and state with the divine in all of us...

Some laws are replaced by contrary laws and some laws sustain the ravages of time.

But to apply the logic that just because something comes after something else that the former is no longer "legally binding" is a fallacy of thought and understanding of how our edifice of laws have evolved over the eons of time.

Until the former is formally declared null and void though a series of litigation, trials and verdicts made against it, it will stand upon its own verity and veracity.

"I think impeachment counts as a fairly significant penalty. "

I think it is a mistake to impeach and convict any president for anything other than an actual crime. If Congress can fabricate a reason to remove a president then that is the end of separation of powers. That is not what the founders intended and would be a dangerous thing in that it would concentrated too much in the Congress. Congress is already corrupt enough. It is illegal for a congressman to sell the influence of his office but not for his relatives to do the same thing. What would it be like if there were no one too hold them in check?

"Re: longly (Post 6912675)
Quote:

There is a penalty for violating a legal contract, but there is no penalty for violating the Constitution.


1. Would lawsuits be defined as a penalty?

2. If a lawsuit is defined as being a penalty, can someone file a lawsuit because of a violation of the constitution? "

No, the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but an employer can prohibit certain speech at his place of business.

I don't think you truly believe this. If the president were a Democrat, you would be in the street shouting "Impeach".

In any sense. The Constitution is very clear. The House of Representatives has the sole power to determine whether the president has committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

(The advantage of the Constitutional point of view on this is that it is the same no matter which political party happens to be in office.)