The US Constitution - It doesn't help

[brodski]

I didn't read that website, but yeah, 100% of the jury must vote to convict before a person is punished for a crime.

That is not true for all states and it is not true even at a federal level for crimes which can be punished (with less than 6 months gaol time) without a trail by Jury.

 

[dtugg]

That is not true for all states and it is not true even at a federal level for crimes which can be punished (with less than 6 months gaol time) without a trail by Jury.

What states don't require a unanimous jury for a conviction? And what federal crimes don't allow for a trial by jury?

 

[brodski]

What states don't require a unanimous jury for a conviction?

Oregon and Louisiana.

And what federal crimes don't allow for a trial by jury?

I misspoke, what I meant is that the Supreme Court has held that the right to a trial by Jury is only guaranteed by the US construction where the penalty for breaking the law is greater than 6 months in gaol.

 

[dtugg]

Oregon and Louisiana.[/FONT][/COLOR].

Thanks.

I misspoke, what I meant is that the Supreme Court has held that the right to a trial by Jury is only guaranteed by the US construction where the penalty for breaking the law is greater than 6 months in gaol.

I'm sure you're right. Of course pretty much all crimes besides minor citations allow for a sentence of more than six months in jail.

 

[brodski]

I'm sure you're right. Of course pretty much all crimes besides minor citations allow for a sentence of more than six months in jail.

Yes, however the point being argued by the crazy website (which is what kicked off this branch of the thread) was that as the US is a republic (not a democracy) no laws really apply to an individual unless they consent to them, or they are convicted unanimously.
1) This is not true and
2) The preference for unanimous verdicts over majority verdicts has nothing at all to do with whether a government is a republic a democracy a democratic republic or whatever.

 

[D'rok]

Yes, it is, and I'm wondering (and yes, wondering, it's a question and not designed to be provocative) if 27 amendments in nearly 250 years, most of which have seen the world change beyond recognition, is really enough to keep up with the times?

That's not what "living document" means. Amendments are the least effective means to alter the meaning of the constitution. You can't know what the constitution means by reading it. You have to read how it has been interpreted - i.e., the rulings of the Supreme Court. Interpretation by the courts is the fundamental mechanism to adapt the constitution to current events, and it does the job quite well.

 

[truethat]

Um.
Is there a reason that you've linked to that tripe?
Do you really believe that laws do not apply to individuals in the USA unless they consent to them or unless 100% of a jury convicts?

That whole site appears to be Sovereign Citizen/ FMOTL woo, although to be fair that only becomes really obvious once you get about half way down the page.

My apologies for the crap site. I just quickly googled something that had a pretty basic description. I didn't check to see if it was woo. I was presenting these ideas to explain the difference between a republic and a democracy. It seemed many of the of the posters don't even realize the US is both a republic and a democracy which is why they are confused about the laws here.

btw I have no idea what FMOTL means.

And do I believe that the laws don't apply to individuals, well I don't think that is what they are saying. What they are saying is that any individual has the Constitutional right to protest a law or refuse to obey a law if they can prove it is Unconstitutional. Example Wesley Snipes refusing to pay taxes. Did he win? No. But he broke the law before it was established that it was Unconstitutional. However many of the freedoms of minorities in this country have come about because they have been able to prove something was "Unconstitutional." So it's not that individuals don't have to obey the law, rather that we are not majority rule like a democracy. If even ONE person can prove that their rights are being violated they can then overturn the law.

An example of this would be people with disabilities. In real estate you can force a landlord to make accommodations to a house so the tenant may live there. Even if the individual is the only person in an entire building that needs the adjustment, the landlord must pay for it so that the individual has the equal access as the other tenants.

That is an example of how the combination works well.

It's immediately obvious on the homepage, however.

Apologies again, I thought it was just a simple definition type page. Feel free to find a better link to explain it.

Oregon and Louisiana.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
I misspoke, what I meant is that the Supreme Court has held that the right to a trial by Jury is only guaranteed by the US construction where the penalty for breaking the law is greater than 6 months in gaol.

Trial by jury is often different in different states. It is easy to get confused.

That's not what "living document" means. Amendments are the least effective means to alter the meaning of the constitution. You can't know what the constitution means by reading it. You have to read how it has been interpreted - i.e., the rulings of the Supreme Court. Interpretation by the courts is the fundamental mechanism to adapt the constitution to current events, and it does the job quite well.

Excellent point. It's not the Constitution and the power inherent in the system that creates the law and government. It's more individualized and HOW people use it. One of the things that is often difficult for my foreign students to understand about Americans is how locked in we are to "Individual Rights" The rights of the Individual are very important and sort of a an unspoken priority in this country. We are highly litigious and focus very much on "getting our rights." I think having something that makes it difficult to make changes at times can also create more of a balance in how we more forward.

 

[brodski]

btw I have no idea what FMOTL means.

And do I believe that the laws don't apply to individuals, well I don't think that is what they are saying. .

FMOTL means freeman on the land, a crackpot legal CT. And that laws created by Republic don't apply to individuals unless they consent is exactly what that page is arguing. See below for the example taken from the bottom of that page (my bolding).

EXAMPLE
Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.

Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.

The site does mention democracies and republics, but it's explanation of what a democracy is and what a republic is, is not even wrong.

 

[truethat]

FMOTL means freeman on the land, a crackpot legal CT. And that laws created by Republic don't apply to individuals unless they consent is exactly what that page is arguing. See below for the example taken from the bottom of that page (my bolding).


The site does mention democracies and republics, but it's explanation of what a democracy is and what a republic is, is not even wrong.

I think you mean not even right. ?


It's the concept not the reality that Republic is talking about. There is a difference between majority rule and a land based on the law.

The LAW of the land is the US is based on a simple set of premises put forth by the Declaration of Independence

“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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Excerpt from the American Declaration of Independence, which was ratified on July 4, 1776.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These pretty much are the foundations of the way the Individual has been able to pursue individual freedom despite legislation that has held them back.

All men are created equal created a huge firestorm of trying to understand the rights of black Americans. Slaves were called slaves so that they weren't MEN and thus not granted access to these rights. ETC.

Life is a right, people sitting on death row have persisted in appeals for a long time because of the challenge to the idea of it being Unconsitutional.

People suggest that many Americans don't even know about the Constitution but I disagree, I think they are ingrained in our heads so much we don't even realize it.

You look at the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

In general, the Bill of Rights is about the INDIVIDUAL rights of people in this country. It has been used as a platform to present many cases before the court in discussing constitutional rights.

To suggest that the INDIVIDUAL in the United States is not "treated" differently than in other countries is disingenuous. Many countries have shifted towards a more individual based philosophy in their countries but it started pretty much in the US.

Think of the freedoms we set down here:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Right to bear arms
Due process

I'm not saying the US is a bastion of hope to the rest of the world, so please reel in your hostility and stop trying to throw me into some woo pile of Palin fans, I'm not.

I'm just pointing out how the Constitution does have an impact in our lives and the way it CAN be good and how the system could be good. Unfortunately the system doesn't always follow the blueprint as DOMA is now showing.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Australia has a Constitution. Nobody knows what's in it. It is very rarely mentioned, and I've never seen or heard of a fight over it's contents. Things seem to work okay.

Just saying.

The first article of the Australian Constitution: No one talks about the Australian Constitution.

 

[brodski]

I think you mean not even right. ?

No, it's not coherent enough to even be wrong; being wrong would be an improvement.

It's the concept not the reality that Republic is talking about. There is a difference between majority rule and a land based on the law.

Um, no. Majority Rule is about how the laws are made. A government based on majority rule can still be a government of laws.

The LAW of the land is the US is based on a simple set of premises put forth by the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing.

 

[truethat]

No, it's not coherent enough to even be wrong; being wrong would be an improvement.


Um, no. Majority Rule is about how the laws are made. A government based on majority rule can still be a government of laws.



The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing.

I didn't say that the Declaration of Independence had legal standing. I said the Constitution is based on these ideas.

I didn't say a country based on majority rule could not be a country based on law. But that is a democracy, not a republic.
Majority rule is NOT how the laws are made in this country. That's what I'm saying. You ........don't..........understand. Many people think the law of the land is based on majority voting. IT ISN'T. That's why we have the issue in Wisconsin right now. That's why the president is elected by the electoral college vote and not majority.

It's also why there is a case about vaccinations before the Supreme Court.

The law of the land is based on a law being Constitutional and at the heart of the Bill of Rights is the issue of Individual Freedom.

sigh.

 

[brodski]

I didn't say a country based on majority rule could not be a country based on law. But that is a democracy, not a republic.

No, it isn’t. A republic is a form of government without a monarchy. A democracy is a form of government which is based on elections. A representative democracy is one in which voters elect representatives rather than voting directly on laws. A liberal democracy is one where the rights of the individual are protected in some manner against the tyranny of the majority. The USA is a Representative Liberal-Democratic Republic.

Majority rule is NOT how the laws are made in this country.

Actually they pretty much are- even though there are limits based on the process. The protections in the US constitution are designed to slow down the tyranny of the majority, they are not designed to abolish majority rule altogether- which is why there is a procedure, based on democratic instructions, to amend the constitution.

That's what I'm saying. You ........don't..........understand.

Maybe if you use more full stops I’ll get it. Or stop relying on whacked out websites for your definitions? That may help too.

Many people think the law of the land is based on majority voting. IT ISN'T.

yes it is, within certain constraints, much like every other nation which claims to be democratic.

That's why we have the issue in Wisconsin right now.

Really? The Governor and state legislature of WI are not directly elected by FPTP systems?

That's why the president is elected by the electoral college vote and not majority.

The electoral collage is a form of

It's also why there is a case about vaccinations before the Supreme Court.

Ok, you’ll have to explain that one.

 

[Dancing David]

Right,

This one could be tricky, but I'm having trouble when reading quite a few threads on the US politics forum.

Discussions around gun control, healthcare and a myriad other topics all seem to end up focussing on whether something is constitutional or not.

My question is this:

Why does it matter?

Really? Shouldn't the question be whether it's a good idea for the country, productive, fair, useful and the like? Why does it matter if it's constitutional or not? Is the constitution in danger of becoming an outmoded and out of date piece of literature hanging round the neck of the US preventing the enactment of legislation that would be a good idea?

I understand that it's subject to amendment, but that hasn't really happened a lot (once in my lifetime I think) and involves (I believe) the moving of metaphorical mountains.

Why are you guys in the US so hung up on 'Is it constitutional?' when 'Is it a good idea?' seems like a much better question to ask?

Considering that you currently reside is a country that allows for the destruction of state documenets, secret detention and unchecked administrative power, I am not sure the concept of accountability and checks and balances is one that you favor.
Some 'good ideas' have been killing homosexuals, slavery, racism, the subjugation of women and the like.

The point of COTUS is to restrain and check the power of the individual to abuse the power of government.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

To reiterate in another way, the U.S. Constitution is a list of rules that combine to form (constitute) the U.S. Government. Similarly, state constitutions do the same for the state. The constitution can be changed in two distinct ways. The Judiciary interpets the rules and these interpetations can and often do change. These changes tend to be less far reaching but sometimes are very impactful. The other method is by changing the text by way of super majorities in the legislature and states. These changes are by nature of the more impactful kind. To keep the constitution from being clunky it tends towards very specific sets of rules. Restrictions on Federal/state powers and guarantees of individual/NGO rights. The times we have strayed into defining hard restirctions on individual powers resulted in problems. The example of Prohibition was already mentioned.

As to the arguement of "Is it Constitutional," it is an arguement that effectively shelves most other arguements. This type of arguement can often be hyperbole, in that it is a way to distract from other aspects of the arguement and to put a severe drag on making progress with an arguement.

 

[Dancing David]

What states don't require a unanimous jury for a conviction? And what federal crimes don't allow for a trial by jury?

Traffic court allows for you to request a jury trial, but it isn't a good diea.

 

[truethat]

No, it isn’t. A republic is a form of government without a monarchy. A democracy is a form of government which is based on elections. A representative democracy is one in which voters elect representatives rather than voting directly on laws. A liberal democracy is one where the rights of the individual are protected in some manner against the tyranny of the majority. The USA is a Representative Liberal-Democratic Republic.

Yes, this is what I have said from the start thank you very much. The US is combination of a republic and a democracy and also uses representative government.I thought that was so obvious I didn't even need to mention it. Even if the page link was wonk, the video should have made it clear.



Actually they pretty much are- even though there are limits based on the process. The protections in the US constitution are designed to slow down the tyranny of the majority, they are not designed to abolish majority rule altogether- which is why there is a procedure, based on democratic instructions, to amend the constitution.

Again, I said the same exact thing a few pages back when I mentioned John Stuart Mill. However the question in this thread is that the US CONSTITUTION doesn't help. I was addressing HOW the US Constitution is a necessary part of the government in this country.



Maybe if you use more full stops I’ll get it. Or stop relying on whacked out websites for your definitions? That may help too.

Maybe you should take a chill pill and read the things I'm actually writing instead of jumping the gun and deciding I'm saying something I'm not. (See the Should banning be banned thread for more on this brilliant habit on this site) I clearly posted above the links that I wasn't sure how good it was but HERE..........



yes it is, within certain constraints, much like every other nation which claims to be democratic.

In reality it works that way but it can be challenged. And there are checks and balances in place that when enacted can have an impact. The thread is about why the Constitution is no longer needed. I am addressing the fundamental reasons why it is needed.


Really? The Governor and state legislature of WI are not directly elected by FPTP systems?

I don't know what FPTP means. I'm referring to the walk out in Wisconsin ( I think it's Wisconsin) which is preventing a vote on a crucial Union bill. They can't just use a "majority vote" of the remaining members to settle it. They can't vote without them there. (This is where the "of the people, by the people, for the people comes in"


The electoral collage is a form of

The electoral COLLEGE is a form of checks and balance against tyranny of the majority.


Ok, you’ll have to explain that one.

Majority rule would say that all parents need to vaccinate their kids before enrolling them in schools. But some parents believe this violates their constitutional rights, freedom or choice and often times will throw in religion so they have a "Unconstitutional basis" in order to make the claim. Every single day you see this happening in the US. While the "government" is one part of the way the country works, rights and freedoms are another.

 

[dudalb]

I would guess the reasoning is that each state gets two senators no matter the population of the state. The Senators from California serve 66 times the constituents as the Senators from Wyoming yet they each have equal vote.

That was intentional in design, to keep the larger in population states from running roughshod over the smaller in population states.
I think that is importnat pary of the check and balances system.

 

[3point14]

This should be the secondary concern.


Because the Constitution is the law. The highest law in the United States. If we disregard it when it's convenient, why even have laws in the first place then? What restriction do they place on anything if they can be tossed aside like yesterday's hooker?

If it's a good idea, fair, just and useful, that is a secondary concern to if it's in the constitution?

Laws change all the time, that which is legal changes on occasion.

I really think that this is a uniquely American point of view.

 

[3point14]

Considering that you currently reside is a country that allows for the destruction of state documenets, secret detention and unchecked administrative power, I am not sure the concept of accountability and checks and balances is one that you favor.
Some 'good ideas' have been killing homosexuals, slavery, racism, the subjugation of women and the like.

The point of COTUS is to restrain and check the power of the individual to abuse the power of government.

Crikey, some people do get very defensive on this subject.

Knock yourself out, I'm not the biggest fan of politics in my country anyway, I just wanted to learn something.