Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

suston96

(4,175 posts)
44. Dunno much about "subordinate".......
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 01:43 PM
Jun 2013

But what follows is in the Constitution and it "ordinates" the establishment of the United States and the framework - repeat: FRAMEWORK of government required to establish how and why the United States were ordained into a nation:

We the people of the 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.


What then follows, I repeat, is only a FRAMEWORK or structure of government, guided by principles and practices of those days and the good sense and inspirations when the Constitution was written by the blessed Founders.

You won't find the precise words and phrases that cover every detail of the government operations to date.

That's NOT what Constitutions do!

Eloquently stated, and well written. I applaud your position and agree with every point. Melinda Jun 2013 #1
constitution kardonb Jun 2013 #70
History is replete with fallen republics; with "terrorism" and oppressive govts. Melinda Jun 2013 #92
Well, go on, try it.... ReRe Jun 2013 #103
Thank you for making it an OP! Hydra Jun 2013 #2
Perfectly stated magellan Jun 2013 #3
Hear, hear! woo me with science Jun 2013 #4
This needs to be spread damnedifIknow Jun 2013 #5
Well stated. 99Forever Jun 2013 #6
What's the scariest is the selection of the term "terrorism". Perfect for morphing into snappyturtle Jun 2013 #7
Yep. Already KeystoneXL protesters have been so labeled Myrina Jun 2013 #61
I agree...OWS? nt snappyturtle Jun 2013 #89
I would not be surprised one bit... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #104
The 1st Amendment... ReRe Jun 2013 #106
What a superb post. You speak for me. n/t Psephos Jun 2013 #8
It's the amendment where a bunch of people mindwalker_i Jun 2013 #9
K&R JDPriestly Jun 2013 #10
Very well said. Thank you for understanding the meaning of a free society. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #11
K&R for truth. nt Mnemosyne Jun 2013 #12
Oh yes, I'm fully aware that it's a sham... markpkessinger Jun 2013 #13
I had a feeling you probably did. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #14
Things that make you go hmmm.... SammyWinstonJack Jun 2013 #118
Very well put. JayhawkSD Jun 2013 #15
Seriously... ReRe Jun 2013 #16
Well said. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #17
Exactly right TheKentuckian Jun 2013 #18
It's simply a matter of courage. Maedhros Jun 2013 #19
Where are the Obamabots? MsPithy Jun 2013 #20
They are trying to figure out LondonReign2 Jun 2013 #40
Daisy....daisy.... Safetykitten Jun 2013 #122
It's right there in the fourth amendment. ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #21
Actually, the question of what is or is not Constitutional . . . markpkessinger Jun 2013 #23
Brilliant LondonReign2 Jun 2013 #41
Um, the same John Adams who passed the Alien and Sedition Act? Moonwalk Jun 2013 #71
You speak of the Phucking Phounding Phathers of Philadelphia as if they could envision . . Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #46
Bullshit! MsPithy Jun 2013 #55
+ 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #56
George Washington owned slaves. Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #58
Wow! News flash! People are complicated! MsPithy Jun 2013 #119
The fact that the we even have any Amendments is proof that the original Constitution is NOT DontTreadOnMe Jun 2013 #123
Or terror or the atomic bomb! treestar Jun 2013 #77
Excellent point about reanimating James Madison or John Adams. MsPithy Jun 2013 #63
It is strictly the courts that decide treestar Jun 2013 #76
Madison and Adams already were in favor of a court with no accountability or check ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #85
Keep it real! randome Jun 2013 #28
+1. Most reasonable answer of the day. graham4anything Jun 2013 #30
I just posted my question as a separate OP and would be thrilled if you would comment. reusrename Jun 2013 #32
As I just posted elsewhere, this is rather thin gruel. reusrename Jun 2013 #31
What our government is doing is unreasonable RC Jun 2013 #33
So why has the Patriot act in effect made them NOT reasonable by tearing down FISA and warrants? cascadiance Jun 2013 #35
You highlighted "unreasonable"... Prospero1 Jun 2013 #42
Do a law review article on it treestar Jun 2013 #79
... more caterwauling. MsPithy Jun 2013 #50
Until the Supreme Court deems the secret FISA courts unconstitutional... kentuck Jun 2013 #53
You conveniently avoided addressing an important part: bvar22 Jun 2013 #62
Actually, I didn't. Because it's a moot point. ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #100
More embarrassing blather and diversion. bvar22 Jun 2013 #108
I'm sorry you feel so embarrassed... ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #125
Lol, and what does any of this have to do what actually happened? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #133
It is clear you didn't take my advice to avoid making shit up... ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #135
That Onion piece is great. treestar Jun 2013 #74
C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community agent46 Jun 2013 #80
You are technically correct...... Swede Atlanta Jun 2013 #90
Except . . . TomClash Jun 2013 #98
The courts decide is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" sibelian Jun 2013 #102
I applaud your post and agree with what you say but iemitsu Jun 2013 #22
Thank you -- an excellent addendum! n/t markpkessinger Jun 2013 #24
Where are the guys who said "give me liberty or give me death?" thesquanderer Jun 2013 #25
There are some people who would rather die than have the government treestar Jun 2013 #81
The only terrorists around here are the cops! xtraxritical Jun 2013 #26
The Classified One MNBrewer Jun 2013 #27
Which amendment says specifically, bullets and today's guns and stand your ground is legal? graham4anything Jun 2013 #29
I think you are misunderstanding how the bill of rights works... hughee99 Jun 2013 #43
You're right ..... oldhippie Jun 2013 #52
Just playing to G4A's love of heredity rule. n/t hughee99 Jun 2013 #54
The Fight for Freedom is Joined pmorlan1 Jun 2013 #34
You've got to be kidding me... mzteris Jun 2013 #37
Seriously? markpkessinger Jun 2013 #94
I'm only blithely dismissing mzteris Jun 2013 #109
Is this intrusion on your freedom treestar Jun 2013 #83
Excellent post malaise Jun 2013 #36
I think it's called the Patriot Amendment. Or something like that. nt Zorra Jun 2013 #38
Just fyi...the Patriot Act is not an amendment to the Constitution. DearHeart Jun 2013 #121
lol! I know that very well; my post was intended as sardonic humor. Zorra Jun 2013 #124
The founders wrote a special FISA-type version of the constitution, that we're not allowed to see. hughee99 Jun 2013 #39
Dunno much about "subordinate"....... suston96 Jun 2013 #44
All of the Amendments are subject to subordination, interpretation, bending just a bit... AndyA Jun 2013 #45
It's under the Amendment OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #47
+100000000000000000 woo me with science Jun 2013 #120
Until the Congress has taken every plausible step to constitutionally keep safe us from gun indepat Jun 2013 #48
If they didn't suspend Constitutional rights, they'd have to face a truth they do not want to gtar100 Jun 2013 #49
Bruce Cockburn came up with a nice lyric that examines this phenomenon Maedhros Jun 2013 #59
A great and insightful tune. FiveGoodMen Jun 2013 #96
Excellent post. Just scroll down to the bottom where it says "Kissinger Amendment" n/t Catherina Jun 2013 #51
Finally, someone timdog44 Jun 2013 #57
Best essay ever. Thank you. Myrina Jun 2013 #60
This... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #64
K&R! Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #65
The one that has yet to be leaked. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #66
Hear, hear ybbor Jun 2013 #67
the Cheney-Bush amendment carolinayellowdog Jun 2013 #68
How much azmom Jun 2013 #69
They didn't have these problems in 1787 treestar Jun 2013 #72
'The “general welfare” clause is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution, elleng Jun 2013 #73
Legally, there is no prior protectio from criminal acts n/t markpkessinger Jun 2013 #75
Maybe/Maybe not: elleng Jun 2013 #82
Yes. There must be some balance between the extremes treestar Jun 2013 #84
I am not familar with the latter position, if you can think of the name of the person that made GoneFishin Jun 2013 #111
It follows with the ones who think all leaks are good treestar Jun 2013 #115
Wow - Standing up for the Bill of Rights is now an "extreme" position . . . markpkessinger Jun 2013 #114
those are your labels treestar Jun 2013 #116
Ye of little faith nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #78
Clarity. Thank you. Kick! glinda Jun 2013 #86
. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #87
The Constitution is being held hostage. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #88
Very well said. 1-Old-Man Jun 2013 #91
Obviously, there isn't any such amendment FiveGoodMen Jun 2013 #93
Indeed n/t markpkessinger Jun 2013 #95
Well that's a long post but you apparently dont understand that the terrorist will get us rhett o rick Jun 2013 #97
Where in the constitution does it say Zimmy can shoot a kid coward style and it would have not even graham4anything Jun 2013 #101
Did you miss my sarcastic intent? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #107
Pass the Ranch, please. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #113
The 'Oligarchy' clause... NorthCarolina Jun 2013 #99
The cost of freedom Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #105
It's kinda like looking for that part thefool_wa Jun 2013 #110
"Security" appears in the Second Amendment, but it is no irony... Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #112
Ask Congress Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2013 #117
There isn't one, and the Constitution was very obviously not subordinated. gulliver Jun 2013 #126
Thank you for this excellent exposition, I just joined the Du because my friend in St Louis sent me hoodunit Jun 2013 #127
Thank you and welcome! n/t markpkessinger Jun 2013 #129
Welcome to DU, hoodunit! Rhiannon12866 Jun 2013 #134
Safety was elevated to #1 priority for PROFITS, not for safety's sake grasswire Jun 2013 #128
Precisely! n/t markpkessinger Jun 2013 #130
I suggest an omnibus/blanket amendment to the constitution. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2013 #131
LOL! n/t markpkessinger Jun 2013 #132
The reason phone call CONTENT is considered 'covered' under the 4th is because of the Courts ... brett_jv Jun 2013 #136
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So which Amendment is it ...»Reply #44