American Constitution

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
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.

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.
UNQUOTE
It all makes sense.

 

Department of Justice
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.

 

Due Process Clause
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]

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  
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]

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
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. 

 

Nevada Counties Go Constitutional  [ 15 June 2021 ]
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.

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.
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.