If state law conflicts with the US Constitution will be deemed unconstitutional?
Yes, that is the whole point of the Constitution. It binds the states to follow the Constitution, which is why amendments have to have state approval before passing.
Why is the U.S. Constitution a good thing?
Not a bad point, but should it be the current society that deems what is good and what is bad? The Rule of Law is the system in place where men don't just follow men, they follow an agreed upon adoption of laws. The whimsical nature of man is not always a good notion to follow. What you deem as good might not be the same opinion of another man. We look to the Constitution as a document that draws the line for which man can make laws for the times and provides us with a foundation of principles that transcend the evolution of society. If the constitution is wrong (which it has been-take 3/5 compromise for example) then that needs to be changed. I do wish the framers might have made it slightly easier to change...but not too easy of course.
Does the PATRIOT Act violate the U.S. Constitution?
Yes, here is a published researched paper from Katarina Uhalova from Kean University. For the full paper: http://www.kean.edu/~eslprog/accents/2006/page2006_13.html The Patriot Act breaches the First Amendment, which declares our rights to freedom expression, speech and information. Freedom of information and individual liberty had a tremendous impact on the people in the 20th century, which allowed them to have their perceptions and examine situations from their own point of view. The Fourth Amendment should also protect us from search and seizure. Our society should deny the Patriot Act because it raises controversial issues, such as violating the Constitution and having a tremendous impact on our social lives. One of the first reasons why the Patriot Act violates the First Amendment rights is because, as it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Patriot Act does not just violate the Constitution, but re p resents the loss of our individual liberties by violating our freedom of speech, information, and expression as stated in the First Amendment and the protection from search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Most serious is that it threatens democracy and gives the FBI uncontrolled power to gain personal information without adequate charges. For all of these reasons we should realize our liberties and fight for them. The Patriot Act does not just violate the Constitution, but re p resents the loss of our individual liberties by violating our freedom of speech, information, and expression as stated in the First Amendment and the protection from search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Most serious is that it threatens democracy and gives the FBI uncontrolled power to gain personal information without adequate charges. For all of these reasons we should realize our liberties and fight for them.
Does the constitution protect America from becoming a theocracy ? Literally ?
I mean, if you have 51% of the country wanting America to become a theocracy, will the constitution somehow prevent this ? Really ? And if the constitution DOESN'T prevent theocracy, why do we not have a Christian theocracy in America ? Why does the supreme court not simply weigh laws against the 10 commandments ? Why don't lawyers have to memorize the Bible instead of the laws we have 'on the books' ?
What do you dislike about the U.S. Constitution?
I've been doing searches trying to find out people's opinion on what they would think about a new constitution for the US. I usually see comments such as “The constitution is perfect as it is. We just need to follow it.” Does anyone else see that as a contradiction? That person is implicitly making the statement that the Constitution doesn't have an adequate enforcement mechanism, but is still saying that it is perfect. I think a problem a lot of people have on that issue is that they are thinking sentimentally and giving emotional rather than objective responses. So, instead of asking if we need a new one, I'm asking you what you don't like about the current one. I'm sure everyone can at least find ONE thing they don't like about the Constitution. If you can't, you either haven't read it and are taking it on faith that it is perfect, or you are just reading it with rose tinted glasses and your dogmatic worship of it prevents you from holding an objective view. My biggest problem with the Constitution is that it is too ambiguous and there isn't any official document of how to interpret it (and don't say the federalist papers. It is not an official document and even if it were, it still wouldn't come close to resolving all of the issues). I do not like the idea of a living constitution and I think the interpretation should be set in stone. There should be minimal wiggle room and the law should not change based on the makeup of the supreme court. I think any constitution should have the following three parts: First Part: A document in a similar format to our current constitution. This would just give the outline of basic government structure and list the guaranteed rights of the citizens and the powers of government. Second Part: A guide to general interpretation of the constitution as a whole and a more detailed explanation of the boundaries and the philosophy of each clause. Third Part A list of case scenarios that are on the borderline of what is constitutional and what is not. After each scenario, there would be a ruling of how the constitution resolves the issue and why it does so in the way it does. There are a lot of other things I don't like, but this is supposed to be a question not a lecture. Please tell me what you don't like about the U.S. Constitution.
Is it a constitutional right to drive in the United States?
Driving is a privilege, not a right. It can be denied any time.
Do you think the United States of America should follow the Constitution or just wing it?
George Washington said: “We are a country of laws, NOT men!”Our constitutional republic has secured liberty for our citizens for roughly the past 230 years; if we restore the constitution it will live for another 230 years.We have allowed Washington DC to “wing it” in the interst of progress for the past 100 years of progressive hell. Why have a constitution at all if the government isn’t required to live within its limits?Unquestionably, the federal government should live within its constitutional enumerated powers; after all, the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed!We should remove everything from the jurisdiction of the federal government and return it to either the states or the people, respectively! After that 90% of the federal government is gone, then we can have a logical debate about what aspects of our society we really do want to give the federal government power over; THEN we need to amend the constitution accordingly.
Is it a realistic option to ban all guns in the USA or would a second civil war of gun owners and liberals, young people and whatever police/military force they convince to be more realistic if they tried?
It would be a conundrum for cops and the military if they were called upon to enforce an un-Constitutional law.You see, during the Nuremberg trials, the defense of “I was just following orders” didn’t cut it for those Nazis accused of war crimes.This principle of law means that each and every one of us is responsible for his and her own moral decisions. We cannot slough off our responsibility by saying “We were just following orders.”That goes for cops as well as soldiers.Cops who would enforce a gun confiscation law in violation of the Constitution would be no better than those Waffen SS soldiers who disarmed the Jews and herded them into boxcars.We have had quite a few immoral laws over the years. One that comes to mind is the Fugitive Slave Act, which required anyone who knew of a runaway slave to notify the authorities, so the slave could be recaptured and returned to his or her “owner.”A law that required the confiscation of firearms would have no more moral authority than the Fugitive Slave Act, which is to say—none.If, somehow, socialist Democrats managed to get such a law passed, it would trigger a second civil war—and it would be much uglier than the first.Dystopian liberals who visualize passing such laws do not take into account the actions and events that would follow. Patriots would organize and overthrow that government, and I hate to think of the fate of those who caused a second civil war.The militias that would be formed in the wake of a confiscation law would not be a mere rabble. They would be organized along the lines of Special Forces units, and led by combat veterans. They would force the surrender of police and other officials who tried to carry out gun confiscation. They would infiltrate Washington, D.C., and then show up in full strength—something like 150,000 strong—and would storm the Congress and White House that had shredded the Constitution. The military and police could not stop them. In fact, most of those in the ranks of police and military would have joined them.I don’t want to see my country descend into the chaos that would accompany another civil war—so I hope that socialist Democrats will think long and hard before passing another “Fugitive Slave Act.”