Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default The Constitution of the United States

    Was declared in "full force and effect" by the US Congress, on this day, March 4th, 1789. At that time they were meeting in Federal Hall in NYC, March 4th being thier first scheduled meeting day under the newly ratified document. Sometimes refered to as the Original 7 Articles.

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

    Signers:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...n.signers.html

    Benjamin Franklin signed both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    Delaware was the first state to ratify it, hence the state nickname, "The First state". That makes sense!

    Now permanently housed in the National Archives in Washington, DC.

    It is in the central case of the Rotunda, the Declaration of Independence in the case on it's left and the Bill of Rights in a case to it's right. I have been to DC many times in my life and have toured the Archives every time.


    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...stitution.html

    Meant to replace the failed Articles of Confederation, arguably America's 1st Constitution, it has survived for, now, 220 years to this day.

    Drafted and signed in Philadelphia at the Constitutional covention of 1787.

    George Washington was President of the Convention, and the chair he sat in is original to Assembly Hall/Declaration hall in Independence Hall.

    The Constitution "facially" states many provisions. The SC is entrusted with it's interpretation.

    Take, for instance:

    Article 1:

    Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.


    The bolded clause refers to arrest on the Civil Process and has never been interpreted to exclude any criminal offense not listed either.

    The Full Faith and Credit clause also has never been interpeted to apply across the constitutional board state to state.

    Under the Constitution the SC has "Original" jurisdiction in certain matters, such as suits between states. Some of these over the years have been "boundary" disputes.

    One was a legal battle between New York and New Jersey to decide who owned Ellis/Liberty Island.

    When we get into the Bill of Rights then the case law really heats up.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    471

    Default Re: The Constitution of the United States

    Is it correct to say 'The Constitution exists', or 'it's sole purpose' is to limit governmental power?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: The Constitution of the United States

    Quote Quoting kist
    View Post
    Is it correct to say 'The Constitution exists', or 'it's sole purpose' is to limit governmental power?

    The main argument of some Constitutionalists is, that Congress has exceeded thier enumerated powers designated in Article 1, sec 8 and read many implied powers in.

    Although the Elastic and General welfare clauses are of course interpretive, IMO, Congress at times far exceeds what the Framers envisioned.

    If we look at the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

    The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    This was a direct statement that the Congress wished the feds to have a limited role in government and leave most of the "general welfare" to the states, as under the doctrine of the "New Federalism".

    I have no qualms though about the US SC incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states, as most of it applies now. Though the Vicinage clause does not, states do not have to indict by grand jury, the ecessive bail provision is not applicable to the states.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    471

    Default Re: The Constitution of the United States

    I'm still processing this:

    "This was a direct statement that the Congress wished the feds to have a limited role in government and leave most of the "general welfare" to the states, as under the doctrine of the "New Federalism".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: The Constitution of the United States

    Quote Quoting kist
    View Post
    I'm still processing this:

    "This was a direct statement that the Congress wished the feds to have a limited role in government and leave most of the "general welfare" to the states, as under the doctrine of the "New Federalism".
    Here is an overview of such.

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

    I first read the term "New Federalism" in an Ohio Supreme Court ruling.

    Robinette was decided and remanded back to the Ohio SC. The crux of it was they decided the Federal constitution mandates an officer tell a motorist s/he is "free to go" before doing such. The US SC ruled, it does not mandate it and remanded.

    ...A state may impose greater restrictions on police activity pursuant to its own state constitution than is required by federal constitutional standards. California v. Greenwood (1988), 486 U.S. 35, 43, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 1630, 100 L.Ed.2d 30, 39; Oregon v. Hass (1975), 420 U.S. 714, 719, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 1219, 43 L.Ed.2d 570, 575. This movement toward enforcing state constitutions independently has been called the New Federalism....



    State v. Robinette (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 234.


    It basically is a movement by states to seperate themselves from the "awesome" power of big brother.

    Take the New London eminent domain case a few years back. States took a great dislike to this power under the federal takings clause and apply thier takings clause when such comes into question.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Removal (Deportation) and Reentry: Layover in the United States
    By pupps09 in forum Immigration Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-10-2010, 05:58 PM
  2. Removal (Deportation) and Reentry: When Can My Father Reenter the United States
    By Leal in forum Immigration Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2009, 12:37 PM
  3. Removal (Deportation) and Reentry: Re-Entering The United States After A Five Year Ban
    By love_canada in forum Immigration Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-03-2008, 03:40 PM
  4. Removal (Deportation) and Reentry: File I-212 in United States
    By inslaw in forum Immigration Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-24-2006, 06:59 AM
  5. Naturalization: Form N-400 and Time Outside the United States
    By mosellv in forum Permanent Residency and Naturalization
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-04-2006, 11:01 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources