US Constitution = Declaration of Independence?

[Greed and Death]

"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 property ."

Fixed

Property is simply the only way to effectively measure happiness.

Personal Posessions contribute to happiness, but aren't the most important of factors. Land only brings major landowners happiness.

And major land owners should have the freedom to get more land.

[Greed and Death]

"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 property ."

Fixed

Property is simply the only way to effectively measure happiness.

If this is a joke--then lol to you.

If this is serious, I demand an elaboration at once.

Ownership of things is the only way when can quantitatively measure happiness on more or less the same scale.
For instance Sex.
For some people sex makes them really happy (porn stars).
Some only get made a little happy (normal)
and some it makes sad (rape victims).

[Neesika]

Ownership of things is the only way when can quantitatively measure happiness on more or less the same scale.
For instance Sex.
For some people sex makes them really happy (porn stars).
Some only get made a little happy (normal)
and some it makes sad (rape victims).

Wait...we own sex? Sex is property? Buh?

[Greed and Death]

Ownership of things is the only way when can quantitatively measure happiness on more or less the same scale.
For instance Sex.
For some people sex makes them really happy (porn stars).
Some only get made a little happy (normal)
and some it makes sad (rape victims).

Wait...we own sex? Sex is property? Buh?

Sex is not property. therefore the happiness it brings varies from individual to individual.

[Neesika]

Sex is not property. therefore the happiness it brings varies from individual to individual.

Gag, have you been drinking again?

[Soheran]

Isn't teabagging the act of lowering one's scrotum-wrapped testicles into another person's mouth?

Shh, the longer they don't know the funnier it will get.

[Free Soviets]

I don't know why teabagging is suddenly so popular in the US. It seems sort of gay.

not as gay as snorting meth off a gay prostitute's ass is, and that was the other option.

[Greed and Death]

Sex is not property. therefore the happiness it brings varies from individual to individual.

Gag, have you been drinking again?

Yes. Alumni event... I also got a 75,000 a year job until I get into a law school.

[The Black Forrest]

aww, i was hoping this would be about house minority leader john boehner getting the two documents confused while out teabagging today
http://www.politico.com/singletitlevide ... 8488521001

Isn't teabagging the act of lowering one's scrotum-wrapped testicles into another person's mouth?

I don't know why teabagging is suddenly so popular in the US. It seems sort of gay.

They realized their mistake after several people told them what it means. Now they try desperately to call themselves the tea party.

Hey we can chuck them into the sea!!!

[Drachmar]

The Constitution is the highest law in the land period. If the President gives an order that goes against the constitution then he is breaking the law and we are not obligated to follow it.

False

If Congress passes legislation, signed into law by the President, legally challenged, then declared unconstitutional by a majority ruling of the SCOTUS, then that law is over turned. Prior to an actual hearing and decision by the highest court in the land, it is law unless a legal "stay" is handed down by the federal courts. Then the legislation is still law, but not enforced or enacted until the case against it has been heard.

If the law is enforced prior to it's overturn, the President or Congress is not necessarily in violation of the Constitution.

[SF Penguins]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

[Goath]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit. If they did, that'd be the case unless the Supreme Court at a later date reversed itself.

[Andaluciae]

While useful as a lens through with to interpret the law, the Declaration is not law in and of itself. It helps to provide context, but not to provide the actual rules.

[Cameroi]

"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 property ."

Fixed

Property is simply the only way to effectively measure happiness.

simply not true. not only not effective, but not at all.
accumulation for its own sake or to impress others gratifies nothing for more then about the first five minutes.
only creating and exploring and that which encompassas eliments of one or the other or both can.
although nurturing, which is a natural impulse, might also.

this is why fencing more then needed for peace and privacy violates persuit of happiness, as for that matter, does robbing others of dreaming their own dreams and thinking their own thoughts by forcing loud reproductions of the human voice on them.

people who think they want to live in the kind of world thoughtlessness creates, have no idea what they're robbing THEMSELVES of.

[Greed and Death]

"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 property ."

Fixed

Property is simply the only way to effectively measure happiness.

simply not true. not only not effective, but not at all.
accumulation for its own sake or to impress others gratifies nothing for more then about the first five minutes.
only creating and exploring and that which encompassas eliments of one or the other or both can.
although nurturing, which is a natural impulse, might also.

this is why fencing more then needed for peace and privacy violates persuit of happiness, as for that matter, does robbing others of dreaming their own dreams and thinking their own thoughts by forcing loud reproductions of the human voice on them.

people who think they want to live in the kind of world thoughtlessness creates, have no idea what they're robbing THEMSELVES of.

But you see if I own a Ferrari I am one Ferrari happy.
Others may find happiness in amny things but property is the only means to measure it.

[Greed and Death]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit. If they did, that'd be the case unless the Supreme Court at a later date reversed itself.

Individuals have a duty to disobey laws they feel violates morality, or what they see as constitutional.

[Uawc]

333

Only a few to 666!

If you're 555...

[Uawc]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit. If they did, that'd be the case unless the Supreme Court at a later date reversed itself.

Individuals have a duty to disobey laws they feel violates morality, or what they see as constitutional.

While I agree, the government will still imprison/kill/etc. us.

[Greed and Death]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit. If they did, that'd be the case unless the Supreme Court at a later date reversed itself.

Individuals have a duty to disobey laws they feel violates morality, or what they see as constitutional.

While I agree, the government will still imprison/kill/etc. us.

But if Enough people do it you can pretty much invalidate a law.

They can also resist imprisonment. How they resist imprisonment is a matter of personal conscious.

[Czardas]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit.

If at least five of the nine justices had no understanding whatsoever of constitutional law and even less common sense, yeah.

<.<

[SF Penguins]

All I know is that your county Sheriff doesn't have to do anything the president tells him to if it does go against the Constitution cause that is what the Sheriff takes his oath to, not the president.

[Cecilia Penifader]

While I'm all for natural rights (though they certainly don't come form some non-existant supernatural being), the biggest problem is that there simply isn't anything to take from the declaration in terms of jurisprudence. It doesn't set out any legal standards or express any actual sentiment on how the US government itself should run, but is instead a laundry list of everything Jefferson could think of to whine about that all the people present at the convention would agree to (coincidentally, one of the few portions I WOULD agree to is the one they cut on slavery).

So in short, like everyone else has said, the DOI doesn't tell anything about how the country should run so it by definition is really sort of legally meaningless (independence of the US being granted and and recognized in the Treaty of Paris).

Yeah, this. ^

[Goath]

All I know is that your county Sheriff doesn't have to do anything the president tells him to if it does go against the Constitution cause that is what the Sheriff takes his oath to, not the president.

If the President is giving orders to Sheriffs directly we've got bigger problems, I'd guess, than the constitutionality of a potential order.

Deciding that something "goes against the constitution" is something for the federal court system to decide.

[Goath]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit. If they did, that'd be the case unless the Supreme Court at a later date reversed itself.

Individuals have a duty to disobey laws they feel violates morality, or what they see as constitutional.

That's fine.

But that doesn't change the fact the Supreme Court is the final arbiter as to whether something is constitutional. Just because you believe something is doesn't always make it so. though, if the court does find differently than you believe it should- for instance, you believe abortion isn't actually a constitutionally protect medical procedure, you can always start the process of amending the Constitution to "fix" the problem.

If the government banned all guns and the court decided that didn't violate the 2nd Amendment, you could amend the Constitution to make sure you do have the right to a gun and sue again. Or you can wait until the Supreme Court changes its mind on its own. Until then the law is the law and you'll either have to abide by it or suffer the consequences.

Though I you should always work against laws that you think are unjust, absolutely.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

The real key to the argument is the Ninth Amendment:

“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”

A right doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be a right. It only has to be retained by the people.