Boehner didn't want to quote the actual Preamble to the Constitution; of which he swore

[Uncle Joe]

an oath to uphold and defend, because his corporatist party has three fundamental objections to it and he can't promote these contradictions to his unaware and oblivious supporters.

"We the people of United States in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

1. "We the people" explicitly recognizes the government of the United States as the ideal, "perfect" agent or representative of the people, not the corporations. This is a direct challenge to oligarch rule or corporate supremacy by making it more difficult for the corporate supremacists to demonize the government. For better or worse the government is the people and drowning it in a bathtub would be akin to drowning the people in a bathtub.

2. "promote the general welfare" This can't be done when you promote or allow a select group of individuals or corporations having nothing to do with health care to not only profit, but actually leech from the general public welfare; in this case public health care.

3. "our posterity" wasn't just a one time application to the Founders' future generations but to ours as well and this applies to the environment; we bequeath our children, grandchildren and their children. We can't just rape the Earth without regard to "our posterity" as if there were no tomorrow.

In short I don't believe Boehner was so stupid as to not know the difference between the Constitution; or contract of which he is bound to uphold and defend and the Declaration of Independence; basically a spelled out grievance against a nation of which only 13 colonies ever belonged to, Boehner just wanted his supporters to remain stupid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=398987&mesg_id=398987

[tridim]

1. I have noticed that whenever a repuke holds up a copy of the Constitution..

The BS always starts flying seconds later.

[Bitwit1234]

4. You mean

that G...D... piece of paper which bush said was all it was.

[AspenRose]

2. Can someone send him the Schoolhouse Rock DVD so he can learn it?

[moobu2]

3. He knows it.

I know you're being sarcastic but the reptile has been in elected office since the mid fucking 80's.

[FatDave]

15. Well, now that's stuck in my head the rest of the night.

[cark]

5. Know your Constitution - Preamble is the mission statement

I'll get crucified for saying this but your 100% incorrect factually.

The preamble is the mission statement, not the 'laws'. Read it carefully, the preamble starts with the words 'in order to' blah, blah, blah. This is important. In order to accomplish these goals (which you mentioned above) the federal government is bound by the laws STARTING at Article 1.

The articles are the laws, not the preamble. The articles are established to do the mission laid out in the preamble.

There is a world of difference between Article 1 saying 'promote the general welfare' versus Article 1 saying do such and such and this in turn will help accomplish promoting the general welfare.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I never said it was the laws, but the mission statement is at odds with

current law and specifically the Republican aka; corporatist party views.

Boehner knew this and I believe you know it as well.

[WhiteTara]

9. current law is at odds with the preamble

not the other way around. And what a powerful mission statement it is.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Yes, thank you for the correction, WhiteTara.

:thumbsup: :)

[conscious evolution]

14. I agree

The laws are meant to uphold the mission statement.

[rfranklin]

7. So you only pay attention to certain parts of the Constitution?

The articles of the Constitution are not laws. Laws are created by Congress to enforce the principles enshrined in the Constituion. If you claim otherwise, Congress has been wasting its time since the beginning.

[harkadog]

11. The Constitution is a law. It is the Supreme law of the land.

[cark]

16. Congress

The constitution was supposed to limit the congress to the narrow defined powers granted to it by the constitution and all other powers were reserved to the state. Sadly these limits have been obliterated and ignored for a long time.

The federal constitution is the 'laws' governing the 3 branches of the federal government, they are not the laws governing the people. The consitution was supposedly created by 'we the people' to put restraints on government as a means to protect our individual freedom. It is not a wise idea to let congress make the laws governing themselves. Do you think congress on their own would limit their own power. You can obviously see how this is played out over history.

[Uncle Joe]

17. The Constitution is the law governing both the 3 branches of the federal government and the people.

The federal government is of "We the people," that's precisely what people like Boehner would have you forget.

Article VI expressly spells out the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land and the legislative powers granted to the Congress; by the Constitution are certainly not narrow, allowing them to pass law; amending or changing the Constitution. Indeed the legislative powers granted to the Congress in the Congress are the first items listed after the Preamble before the Executive and Judicial.

Article VI

2."This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Constitution; is the contract between the people and their government spelling out the basic structure and some limitations, but both structure and limitation can be changed by the Congress so long as enough people support them to do so.

In short there is nothing narrow about the powers given to the Congress and no state's laws can withstand those passed by the Congress, the Congress can change the law and the people can change the Congress.

[cark]

18. Incorrect

Congress does not and should not have the power to change/amend the constitution. The 'people' wrote the constitution specifically as a set of limits on the amount of power they wanted congress to have. It is foolish to suggest (if I understood you correctly) that congress on their own should be able to override those limits and give themselves more power. To suggest anything else goes against any constitutional history or plain reading of the text.

The constitution is the supreme law, but that is not the point. It does not set laws for the people only for the federal government. It gives congress the power to set laws for the people, but only in the areas specifically spelled out in the constitution - defense/treaties/taxation/post office. All other powers in all matters (like health care/welfare/etc) were supposed to be reserved to the states.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Sure it does, Article V of the Constitution spells out Congress's power to amend the Constitution

so long as enough people; translated in to state legislatures support them.

Article V "The Congress whenever, two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which in either case shall be valid as to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the First Article; and that no state without it's consent shall be deprived of it's equal suffrage in the Senate."

The Constitution isn't a static document; it can be and has been amended through the centuries. Other than restrictions on amendments passed prior to the year of 1808 and protection for states equal suffrage in the Senate there are no restrictions. *If the Congress were to pass an amendment retracting the Bill of Rights and 75% of the State Legislatures were to approve it, there is nothing in the Constitution to legally prevent it from happening. Any article of the Constitution can be amended or changed, Executive term limits being just one such example, there is nothing narrow about that kind of power.

"We the people" are the government and the Constitution whether directly or indirectly sets the law for both.

* Having said all that, I would certainly fight against such a catastrophe from happening and were to it occur that would be the end of our democratic republic.

[cark]

22. Proposing

Yes congress can propose amendments, but that is as much as they can do - suggest. They cannot change the constitution. Only the 'people' can alter the constitution, through ratification by their state legislatures or convention. The Constitution is the peoples laws on congress, not congresses laws on the people.

The constitution should be a static document, it should be an airtight contract between the 'people' and its government. It should not able to be altered by the whims of the majority of justices, but only by a legitimate amendment process and it's text should be read as plainly as possible and interpreted as it was understood at the time of passage. Anything less than this standard is intellectually dishonest IMO and will cause greater harm than good in the end by undermining our essential foundation.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. insure domestic tranquility.... sure..... as they call for a revolution and to storm the capital

insure domestic tranquility





they sure do a good job on that one

[pansypoo53219]

12. indeed,

my brother was vehement. no public healthcare! it's not in the constitution and i am thinking he forgot parts then.

[branders seine]

13. The United States of America, as it exists today,

has become an utter corruption of the words you quote above.

Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Point 3 is historically inaccurate

Environmental consciousness of that sort didn't develop until the late 19th century. It was simply inconceivable to the late-18th century and early 19th century (European) mind. As an excellent recent book demonstrates, even the establishment of the forestry service and the national forests in the 1900-1910's was a massive political fight (akin to today's health care debates, in fact). See The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire that Saved America.

[Uncle Joe]

21. It makes no difference whether environmentalism as we know it existed in their day or not.

"We the people of United States in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" is a fluid statement.

What are blessings, if the world is uninhabitable and at what point does the Founder's "posterity" run out?

My belief is they never do, nor were they intended to.