The American Constitution of 1787 followed on from their Declaration of Independence from England in 1776. It includes the Bill of Rights, which is a great basis for civilized government, one now being systematically perverted by the criminals in the White House, Congress, Senate & the Supreme Court. See The 545 People Responsible For All Of America on the point. When the southern states seceded they produced their own version, the quite similar Confederate States Constitution. The Wikipedia does not approve.
Various politicians with agendas claim that America has a #Living Constitution. This is a fraudulent approach to the law, one claiming that judges, especially the Supreme Court can pretend that it means whatever they want it to mean this week. It is blatant corruption used to bypass the fact that the Constitution is written down and widely available. However the #Fourteenth Amendment Bans Vague Law. If real people cannot understand the law then it should not be enforcable. The fact of the 14th Amendment existing imply that the first Ten Amendments were not enough.
American Constitution ex Wiki The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and
ratified by conventions in eleven
States.
It went into effect on March 4, 1789.[2] Since the Constitution was adopted, it has been
amended twenty-seven times. The first ten of amendments (along with two
others that were not ratified at the time) were proposed by Congress on
September 25, 1789, and were ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the
States on December 15, 1791.[3]
These first ten amendments are known as the
Bill of Rights. The Constitution is interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large
body of
constitutional law. The Constitution of the United States was the first
constitution of its kind, and has influenced the constitutions of many other
nations.
Department of Justice
Due Process Clause
The
U.S. Supreme Court interprets these clauses to guarantee a variety of
protections:
procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings);
substantive due process (a guarantee of some fundamental rights); a
prohibition against
vague laws;
incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state governments; and
equal protection under the
laws of the federal government. NB An American Court chose to allege that
this bit of law does not apply to prisoners in GITMO.
See
THE SINS OF GUANTANAMO ARE STILL WITH US
Living Constitution ex Wiki
While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally
be broken into two categories. First, the
pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in
accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as
a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary.[3]
The second, relating to
intent, contends that the
constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and
flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the
idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through an
amendment process because allowing judges to change the Constitution's
meaning undermines democracy. Another argument against a living constitution
is that legislative action, rather than judicial decisions, can better
represent the will of the people in a constitutional republic since periodic
elections allow individuals to vote on who will represent them in Congress
and members of Congress should (in theory) be responsive to the views of
their constituents. This argument relies, in part, on the fact that federal
judges (who are not elected, but rather appointed by the President) have
life tenure and are far less at risk of losing their jobs than members of
Congress (who must be elected). The primary alternative to a living
constitution theory is "originalism".
Some supporters of the living method of interpretation, such as
professors
Michael Kammen and
Bruce Ackerman, refer to themselves as organists.[4][5][6][7]
Fourteenth Amendment Bans Vague Law
Nevada Counties Go Constitutional [ 15 June 2021 ] According to a resolution approved in Elko County on June 2, abuse of the
constitutionally protected rights of citizens in Elko and Lander counties will
be “dealt with as criminal activity.” Officials in Lander County approved a
similar effort. Under the leadership of constitutionally minded sheriffs and elected
commissioners, the two rural counties in Nevada decided to become
“constitutional counties” where the rights of citizens will be protected from
all attacks. That means local authorities intend to uphold the entire
Bill of Rights in those jurisdictions, and that
even federal and state officials must comply with the U.S. Constitution there,
they said.
Errors & omissions, broken links,
cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if
you find any I am open to comment. Updated on
16/02/2024 09:13
QUOTE
The Constitution of the United States is the
supreme law of the
United States of America.[1]
The Constitution originally consisted of seven Articles. The first three
Articles embody the doctrine of the
separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three
branches: the legislature, consisting of the
bicameral
Congress; the executive, consisting of the
President; and the judiciary, consisting of the
Supreme Court and other federal courts. The fourth and sixth Articles frame
the doctrine of
federalism,
describing the relationship between State and State, and between the several
States and the federal government. The fifth Article provides the procedure for
amending the Constitution. The seventh Article provides the procedure for
ratifying the Constitution.
UNQUOTE
It all makes sense.
The name is an advertising prospectus. The reality is rather different.
Being part of the Deep State means being
political manipulators; they are Subverting the
American Constitution &
Donald Trump, albeit they are coming unstuck
with Don.
A Due Process Clause is found in both the
Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life,
liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively,
without due process of law.[1][2][3]
In United States
constitutional interpretation, the living Constitution or
loose constructionism is the claim that the
Constitution and other constitutions, holds a dynamic meaning, evolving
and adapting to new circumstances, without being formally amended. A living
Constitution is said to develop alongside the needs of a society, providing
a more malleable tool for governments. The idea is associated with views
that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting
key constitutional phrases.[1]
The constitution referred to as the living law of the land as it is
transformed according to necessities of the time and situation.[2]
Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding
Principles for Constitutional Challenges to Uninterpreted
State Statutes
Stuart Buck*
and
Mark L. Rienzi**
I.
INTRODUCTION
When a state statute is challenged in federal court as
unconstitutionally
overbroad
or vague,
the
federal court
is
caught between
two
fundamental
principles of constitutional law. On the
one hand, federal courts
have been
instructed numerous times that they should invalidate a state statute
only when
there is no other choice. The Supreme Court has noted that it is a
"cardinal
principle" of statutory interpretation that a federal court must accept
any plausible
interpretation such that a state statute need not be invalidated.
Moreover, the
doctrines of abstention, certification, and severance all exist in order
to show
deference to a state's power to interpret its own laws and to allow as
much of a
state law to survive as possible. With these doctrines in mind, a
federal court
might view its role as deferential, circumspect, and even reverent
towards state
law.
On the other hand, federal courts are the chief guarantors of individual
constitutional rights under the Federal Constitution. As such, they have
a duty to
protect citizens from state laws that criminalize or chill
constitutionally protected
activity (overbroad laws), or that subject citizens to unclear or
arbitrary exercises
of state power (vague laws). With these doctrines in mind, a federal
court might
view itself as the last bulwark of protection against overreaching state
legisla-
tures, and therefore decide that only complete invalidation will
suffice.
The result is a clash between overbreadth and vagueness doctrines on one
side and the principles of avoidance, abstention, and severance on the
other. This
conflict is exacerbated by the fact that federal courts are not the
authoritative
interpreters of state law. Because of this, even if a federal court were
to adhere
to the "cardinal principle" and adopt a narrow interpretation of a state
statute (or
sever an application or provision), there is no guarantee that
subsequent state
courts would follow that federal interpretation. Thus, a federal court
that rejects
*Law clerk, Judge Stephen F. Williams, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,
2001-2002; former
law clerk to Judge David A. Nelson, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
2000-2001;
J.D.,
Harvard Law
School, 2000; editor,
HarvardLaw Review,
1998-2000. We would like to thank Professor Richard
Fallon, Judge Nelson and Judge Williams for their insightful comments.
**J.D., Harvard Law School, 2000; editor,
Harvard Law Review,
1998-2000; prospective law
clerk to Judge Stephen F. Williams, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,
2002-2003.
QUOTE
Elected officials have declared that the Bill of
Rights will be upheld in their
jurisdictions, even if it means standing against unconstitutional acts by state
and federal authorities.
UNQUOTE
This is good news. It means that the officials will obey their
Oaths, that they will uphold the
American Constitution, that
Free Speech will be free, that the
Right To Keep And Bear Arms will mean what it says. Only
two counties have done this to date. It's a movement that's time has come.
Email
me at Mike Emery. All
financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep
it private, use my PGP Key. Home
Page