The Constitution and Freedom

[scaredyclassic]

i took an oath to defend the constitution, but all i could think was, defend it as it is interpreted, defended as previously interpreted, or defend it as I believe it should or will be interpreted in the future?

[Anonymous]

There are lots of Constitutional issues w/ regard to fighting terrorism: surveillance, search and seizure, due process, etc.

I’m having a hard time thinking of examples of any Constitutional questions based upon the need to “protect me from things like global warming or evil corporations.”

Please elaborate.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of Constitutional issues w/ regard to fighting terrorism: surveillance, search and seizure, due process, etc.

I’m having a hard time thinking of examples of any Constitutional questions based upon the need to “protect me from things like global warming or evil corporations.”

Please elaborate.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of Constitutional issues w/ regard to fighting terrorism: surveillance, search and seizure, due process, etc.

I’m having a hard time thinking of examples of any Constitutional questions based upon the need to “protect me from things like global warming or evil corporations.”

Please elaborate.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of Constitutional issues w/ regard to fighting terrorism: surveillance, search and seizure, due process, etc.

I’m having a hard time thinking of examples of any Constitutional questions based upon the need to “protect me from things like global warming or evil corporations.”

Please elaborate.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of Constitutional issues w/ regard to fighting terrorism: surveillance, search and seizure, due process, etc.

I’m having a hard time thinking of examples of any Constitutional questions based upon the need to “protect me from things like global warming or evil corporations.”

Please elaborate.

[Anonymous]

The video is a short overview of the basic history of framing of the Constitution, but it over-emphasizes and distorts a couple of key points.

The video shows a picture of Jesus and a Christian cross when it mentions that natural law is based upon God.

There is NO reference to God, Jesus, or Christianity in the Constitution. None. (Only in the signature line where it refers to “Year of our Lord,” which is just a convention at the time.)

Jefferson, Franklin, and many of the other framers practiced Christianity, but not very devoutly, and often questioned their own beliefs. By the end of his life, Franklin was not a Christian at all, and Jefferson was very much a skeptic.

The idea that the Constitution somehow establishes Christianity as a national religion is a myth. If anything, the framers were trying to distance the government from the predominant (and only) religion of the time because they understood the importance of separating the government from ANY religion.

Also, the part about the “opposing” (and losing) argument claims that “freedom came only from the government” is total nonsense. That was never really an issue. This is just a weak attempt to set the stage for a “big government is unconstitutional” argument. Big government may be a bad idea, but it’s not unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

The video is a short overview of the basic history of framing of the Constitution, but it over-emphasizes and distorts a couple of key points.

The video shows a picture of Jesus and a Christian cross when it mentions that natural law is based upon God.

There is NO reference to God, Jesus, or Christianity in the Constitution. None. (Only in the signature line where it refers to “Year of our Lord,” which is just a convention at the time.)

Jefferson, Franklin, and many of the other framers practiced Christianity, but not very devoutly, and often questioned their own beliefs. By the end of his life, Franklin was not a Christian at all, and Jefferson was very much a skeptic.

The idea that the Constitution somehow establishes Christianity as a national religion is a myth. If anything, the framers were trying to distance the government from the predominant (and only) religion of the time because they understood the importance of separating the government from ANY religion.

Also, the part about the “opposing” (and losing) argument claims that “freedom came only from the government” is total nonsense. That was never really an issue. This is just a weak attempt to set the stage for a “big government is unconstitutional” argument. Big government may be a bad idea, but it’s not unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

The video is a short overview of the basic history of framing of the Constitution, but it over-emphasizes and distorts a couple of key points.

The video shows a picture of Jesus and a Christian cross when it mentions that natural law is based upon God.

There is NO reference to God, Jesus, or Christianity in the Constitution. None. (Only in the signature line where it refers to “Year of our Lord,” which is just a convention at the time.)

Jefferson, Franklin, and many of the other framers practiced Christianity, but not very devoutly, and often questioned their own beliefs. By the end of his life, Franklin was not a Christian at all, and Jefferson was very much a skeptic.

The idea that the Constitution somehow establishes Christianity as a national religion is a myth. If anything, the framers were trying to distance the government from the predominant (and only) religion of the time because they understood the importance of separating the government from ANY religion.

Also, the part about the “opposing” (and losing) argument claims that “freedom came only from the government” is total nonsense. That was never really an issue. This is just a weak attempt to set the stage for a “big government is unconstitutional” argument. Big government may be a bad idea, but it’s not unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

The video is a short overview of the basic history of framing of the Constitution, but it over-emphasizes and distorts a couple of key points.

The video shows a picture of Jesus and a Christian cross when it mentions that natural law is based upon God.

There is NO reference to God, Jesus, or Christianity in the Constitution. None. (Only in the signature line where it refers to “Year of our Lord,” which is just a convention at the time.)

Jefferson, Franklin, and many of the other framers practiced Christianity, but not very devoutly, and often questioned their own beliefs. By the end of his life, Franklin was not a Christian at all, and Jefferson was very much a skeptic.

The idea that the Constitution somehow establishes Christianity as a national religion is a myth. If anything, the framers were trying to distance the government from the predominant (and only) religion of the time because they understood the importance of separating the government from ANY religion.

Also, the part about the “opposing” (and losing) argument claims that “freedom came only from the government” is total nonsense. That was never really an issue. This is just a weak attempt to set the stage for a “big government is unconstitutional” argument. Big government may be a bad idea, but it’s not unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

The video is a short overview of the basic history of framing of the Constitution, but it over-emphasizes and distorts a couple of key points.

The video shows a picture of Jesus and a Christian cross when it mentions that natural law is based upon God.

There is NO reference to God, Jesus, or Christianity in the Constitution. None. (Only in the signature line where it refers to “Year of our Lord,” which is just a convention at the time.)

Jefferson, Franklin, and many of the other framers practiced Christianity, but not very devoutly, and often questioned their own beliefs. By the end of his life, Franklin was not a Christian at all, and Jefferson was very much a skeptic.

The idea that the Constitution somehow establishes Christianity as a national religion is a myth. If anything, the framers were trying to distance the government from the predominant (and only) religion of the time because they understood the importance of separating the government from ANY religion.

Also, the part about the “opposing” (and losing) argument claims that “freedom came only from the government” is total nonsense. That was never really an issue. This is just a weak attempt to set the stage for a “big government is unconstitutional” argument. Big government may be a bad idea, but it’s not unconstitutional.

[scaredyclassic]

the self-congratulatory tone at the beginning of the video is kind of a turn-off. “the greatest document ever of all time no matter what…” we’re number one, super-brilliant, etc. Obviously the document as drafted was substantively flawed; if it weren’t, it would never have had to be amended. The constitution reflected a cobbled attempt at a workable system under the social reality of the time, rather than some perfect document. I guess you could say that a system that allows itself to be amended and interpreted is brilliant and perfect but, well, that hardly seems an inherently brilliant idea (we can change our minds if times change (although i don’t know, maybe that concept was groundbreaking at the time?). But that’s not the sense of greatness i get from people who sing paeans to the constitution– it’s that somehow the words “due process’ or “unreasonable search and seizures” will magically by virtue of the document itself, somehow protect us all. It won’t — ot without courageous people to step up and argue what that means, today, right now, for us here. I’m not saying constitutional history isn’t interesting, inspiring, scary, maddening, enlightneing, and a real part of what makes America great … just that, well, a little humbleness might be more attractive.

[scaredyclassic]

the self-congratulatory tone at the beginning of the video is kind of a turn-off. “the greatest document ever of all time no matter what…” we’re number one, super-brilliant, etc. Obviously the document as drafted was substantively flawed; if it weren’t, it would never have had to be amended. The constitution reflected a cobbled attempt at a workable system under the social reality of the time, rather than some perfect document. I guess you could say that a system that allows itself to be amended and interpreted is brilliant and perfect but, well, that hardly seems an inherently brilliant idea (we can change our minds if times change (although i don’t know, maybe that concept was groundbreaking at the time?). But that’s not the sense of greatness i get from people who sing paeans to the constitution– it’s that somehow the words “due process’ or “unreasonable search and seizures” will magically by virtue of the document itself, somehow protect us all. It won’t — ot without courageous people to step up and argue what that means, today, right now, for us here. I’m not saying constitutional history isn’t interesting, inspiring, scary, maddening, enlightneing, and a real part of what makes America great … just that, well, a little humbleness might be more attractive.

[scaredyclassic]

the self-congratulatory tone at the beginning of the video is kind of a turn-off. “the greatest document ever of all time no matter what…” we’re number one, super-brilliant, etc. Obviously the document as drafted was substantively flawed; if it weren’t, it would never have had to be amended. The constitution reflected a cobbled attempt at a workable system under the social reality of the time, rather than some perfect document. I guess you could say that a system that allows itself to be amended and interpreted is brilliant and perfect but, well, that hardly seems an inherently brilliant idea (we can change our minds if times change (although i don’t know, maybe that concept was groundbreaking at the time?). But that’s not the sense of greatness i get from people who sing paeans to the constitution– it’s that somehow the words “due process’ or “unreasonable search and seizures” will magically by virtue of the document itself, somehow protect us all. It won’t — ot without courageous people to step up and argue what that means, today, right now, for us here. I’m not saying constitutional history isn’t interesting, inspiring, scary, maddening, enlightneing, and a real part of what makes America great … just that, well, a little humbleness might be more attractive.

[scaredyclassic]

the self-congratulatory tone at the beginning of the video is kind of a turn-off. “the greatest document ever of all time no matter what…” we’re number one, super-brilliant, etc. Obviously the document as drafted was substantively flawed; if it weren’t, it would never have had to be amended. The constitution reflected a cobbled attempt at a workable system under the social reality of the time, rather than some perfect document. I guess you could say that a system that allows itself to be amended and interpreted is brilliant and perfect but, well, that hardly seems an inherently brilliant idea (we can change our minds if times change (although i don’t know, maybe that concept was groundbreaking at the time?). But that’s not the sense of greatness i get from people who sing paeans to the constitution– it’s that somehow the words “due process’ or “unreasonable search and seizures” will magically by virtue of the document itself, somehow protect us all. It won’t — ot without courageous people to step up and argue what that means, today, right now, for us here. I’m not saying constitutional history isn’t interesting, inspiring, scary, maddening, enlightneing, and a real part of what makes America great … just that, well, a little humbleness might be more attractive.

[Author]

Posts