“The constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

Mike, Mike, Mike I thought you loved and revered the Constitution. I am shocked. You will never serve in public office anywhere in this great land if you cannot be loyal to the Constitution. Do you actually claim to be an American citizen, Sir! Or just someone who likes to thumb their nose at law, any law, any where, and at all times, if so I find the attitude so childish.

lol Waffler, I just won't move to Rhode Island. I can see how you would love the above cite since individual freedom and liberty are not part of your totalitarian fascist theocracy. My state's Constitution and the U.S.'s Constitution rejected such totalitarian notion and guaranteed otherwise. Oh, and by the way, though I am extremely loyal to the Constitution, being a pre-14th sovereign, I don't have to be loyal to the Constitution, or even be born in the U.S., to serve in the current government that infests this land. By way of example, look who's serving as president, what he's doing, where his loyalties lie, and what his oath is worth. Disloyalty to the Constitution is now the prerequisite to holding office in the current government, that is why I couldn't hold office. Under such current prerequisites, you should move to Rhode Island and start in state office and move up to the union of totalitarian states.

I'm confused :-( Sounds good, but maybe the wording is a bit too declaratory -- is there any representative body which can declare certain rules to be obligatory to all? The general context of state constitutions is as a rule book for the government, not the people. Perhaps that is what Mike is alluding to.

Archer thanks, said well, that's exactly what I was trying to say. The Constitution is not law, that it would be obligatory on me. The Constitution is not a compact or contract that I've voted on or agreed to. The Constitution is a structuring document that, besides giving organizational structure to a united association of States, it is also a subject matter limitation on which codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. can be put into place to best define law for a representation of the individual.

Waffler, you are a big advocate of Obama who openly seeks to destroy the constitution. He made his intensions clear even before elected.

Sounds like double talk to me Mike, pure and simple double talk. Your avowal of love for the Constitution clears it all up for me. Unless you are the type of guy who will tred upon, abuse or beat up something he loves. If you love it I think it puts you intot the same sentiment expressed by the Rhode Islanders. Warren I have advocated for no one during this quote. You just trying to start a fight with moi?

The Constitution is a constraining document. It limits the power of the Federal Government. If you look at "is sacredly obligatory upon all.", the all means the government, and its agencies. And the People must explicitly change it...not allow it to be morphed and bent by politicians.

It is a little bit deeper than that Chris. There is a presumption in this land that all laws (including locla and state) must meet the Constitutional muster or test. There is also a presumption that they do until they have been challenged. Thus upholding the Constitution also means abiding by and living by and respecting all law until changed.

Actually, Chris, you've made the proper distinction. Waffler, on the other hand, shows his arbitrary 'presumption' as law rather than the actual 'law.' Any unconstitutional statute is null and void and does not have to be obeyed -- that is the only way unconstitutional laws get reviewed, by people breaking them, not following them. Those that worship authority and totalitarian collectivism will ever try to beat into us to 'obey, obey, obey.' But the individual is free to decide for himself what battles he will fight -- and it would be gullible at the least to think that we can trust those with power to keep within their proper spheres without checks and balances. The Constitution sets the limits and jurisdictions of our government administrators and representatives -- it is a rule book FOR THEM, and OBLIGATORY to all of them until changed by an authentic act of the People, not the presumptions of guys like Waffler who only want everyone to follow his master -- being free and independent is not even a goal of Waffler, unless he can regulate what the rest of us can do.

You are free to make your presumtions Archer, you are correct! The fight over constitutionality can come from either side of the argument. I feel certain however that some like maybe you and especially Mike from Norwalk would wish to test every single statute or law with a court fight, hell Mike even complains about driving on the left side of the street or stopping at stop signs. I like my friends and neighbors, villagers, and citizens and enjoying going along with their reasonable requests for an orderly co-existence.