I do solemnly swear...

quote:

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."---Thomas Jefferson

hmmmm

If Boehner keeps his word about the changes, you may see that constitution 'reborn'.

I can hope.

quote:

f

quote:

Posted 05 January 2011 03:55 PM Hide Post
If

That is a big word. A politician keeping their word?

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:
If Boehner keeps his word about the changes, you may see that constitution 'reborn'.

I can hope.

The constitution is alive and well.

The trouble with the constitution is that there are too many self-assumed "constructionists" who are playing free and loose at constitutional law, such as the insipid poseur, David Barton, who has gone all over the country delivering false "quotations" of the founders and framers and promoting his notions of Christian nationism to anyone who will ante up his speaker's fee.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:
If Boehner keeps his word about the changes, you may see that constitution 'reborn'.

I can hope.

The constitution is alive and well.

The trouble with the constitution is that there are too many self-assumed "constructionists" who are playing free and loose at constitutional law, such as the insipid poseur, David Barton, who has gone all over the country delivering false "quotations" of the founders and framers and promoting his notions of Christian nationism to anyone who will ante up his speaker's fee.

Maam, it looks to me like you do not like the idea of one exercising their right of free speech,ecspecially if they can get paid for it, and even more so if the happen to be conservative. I'll bet you just love Micheal Morbidly Obese Moore, though don't you little lady?

quote:

Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:
If Boehner keeps his word about the changes, you may see that constitution 'reborn'.

I can hope.

The constitution is alive and well.

The trouble with the constitution is that there are too many self-assumed "constructionists" who are playing free and loose at constitutional law, such as the insipid poseur, David Barton, who has gone all over the country delivering false "quotations" of the founders and framers and promoting his notions of Christian nationism to anyone who will ante up his speaker's fee.

Maam, it looks to me like you do not like the idea of one exercising their right of free speech,ecspecially if they can get paid for it, and even more so if the happen to be conservative. I'll bet you just love Micheal Morbidly Obese Moore, though don't you little lady?

Well, Lady,

I have no notion whatsoever of interfering with anyone's freedom of speech. But I feel free, in this free land, to use MY freedom of speech to freely criticize David Barton or anyone I might disagree with.

You got a problem with THAT, Little Lady?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The constitution is alive and well.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The Constitution as understood and intended by the founding generation and ratified by the original states is long dead...sorry to say.

Save a copy for yourself.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/constitution.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The constitution is alive and well.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The Constitution as understood and intended by the founding generation and ratified by the original states is long dead...sorry to say.

Then tell why it is long dead and just who dilled it and how.

Your just saying it is dead does not make it dead.

I believe it is alive because I find no loss of any of its benefits or protections. I read about them in the constitution and I see them at work in my life and in society in general. How have you missed out on them?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The constitution is alive and well.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The Constitution as understood and intended by the founding generation and ratified by the original states is long dead...sorry to say.

Then tell why it is long dead and just who dilled it and how.

Your just saying it is dead does not make it dead.

I believe it is alive because I find no loss of any of its benefits or protections. I read about them in the constitution and I see them at work in my life and in society in general. How have you missed out on them?

Well the idea the Constitution “provides” anything other than limiting the federal government is flawed. The Constitution, federal government, judges, politicians, etc do not give us rights, we have them by nature.

The Constitution protects these rights (originally) by limiting the federal government to very few and specific things. If you don’t think that our liberty shrinks every time the federal government (congresses, presidents, judges) assumes and usurps power outside constitutional parameters since 1800 to the present—then you sir are woefully naïve.

How and why is the Constitution dead? Well you say you’ve “read about the benefits”…surely when you read the Constitution you noticed the 3 main, basic attributes: republicanism, federalism, and limited government.

Now I ask you, as you look around and see the Constitution “at work in my life and in society in general”, where is republicanism, federalism, and limited government?

I say the Constitution as originally understood and intended is dead because that system has given way to a centralized, nationalistic system in which virtually all matters of any importance are decided by federal policymakers and not by local people.

This is nothing less than a betrayal of the American Revolution.

The Revolution was fought not to “make” some great nation, but to reestablish home rule in the colonies.

Republicanism, federalism, and limited government.

How about just one specific example of the Constitution being dead? Pick any alphabetically named government bureaucracy...doesn’t matter, EPA, FDA, FCC…when they right a “rule” and individuals, businesses, and corporations have to follow these “rules” under threat of penalty, these bureaucracies have basically legislated law. That is absolutely, with no debate, a power given exclusively to congress and congress alone.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Then tell why it is long dead and just who dilled it and how.

Who killed it? It’s a long list. The Constitution’s legs were definitely knocked out from under it by Lincoln…Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson kicked it while it was down…FDR sat his fat ass on it to keep it down and just about every activist federal judge in the last 80 years had a hand in driving nails into the coffin.

WHO KILLED THE CONSTITUTION

Obama's inauguration should have gone something like this if he was being honest:
"I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemly swear that will faithfully execute the United States, so help me whatever supreme being's name you wish to insert."

So your contention is that you have a better understanding of Constitutional law than thousands of members of Congress, various state legislatures and members of the judiciary???

When you constantly look around and think everyone but you is insane, its not them, its you.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
So your contention is that you have a better understanding of Constitutional law than thousands of members of Congress, various state legislatures and members of the judiciary???

When you constantly look around and think everyone but you is insane, its not them, its you.

Ummm...short answer...yes. But no, I'm not alone...

HERE

HERE

HERE

Should I go on?

As far as "Constitutional law" is concerned, Kevin Gutzman, author of THIS BOOK...which is a short book with more info on Constitutional law than most memebers of congress know...

He had this to say about so-called "Constitutional law":

"...there is virtually no relationship between "constitutional law" and the Constitution adopted and formally amended by the people through their representatives. In other words, it illustrates the woeful difference between republican self-government and the system under which we now live..."

Once again, I'm not presenting a "wacky" view of the Constitution...just one that runs counter to nationalists, statists, fascists, etc.

I'll end my rant by highlighting from my signature below:

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”---Ron Paul

Arrogance is a sin.

I'm sensing that there is no limit to what you dont know. The final result is that it does not matter. This is the nation that we all built and there will be no returning to the ideals that you think existed 200 years ago. Its time to live in the present.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Arrogance is a sin.

I'm sensing that there is no limit to what you dont know. The final result is that it does not matter. This is the nation that we all built and there will be no returning to the ideals that you think existed 200 years ago. Its time to live in the present.

Pretty typical...no logical argument...resort to personal attacks...

No actually I'm very humble and yes there is a limit to what I know.

But you seem to insinuate that the original intent of the Constitution is "unknowable"...that one must be a "sainted" constitutional scholar...Hogwash I say.

It's very easy to know the original intent and anyone with any sort of minimal intelligence can see the system we live under is a bare shell of the system the Constitution lays out.

I do live in the present and my goal is not to harken back to some acient time, but to show the hypocrisy of anyone today claiming any sort of reverence or dedication to the Constitution.

By the way, those "ideals" of 200 years ago are what built this country...

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
So your contention is that you have a better understanding of Constitutional law than thousands of members of Congress, various state legislatures and members of the judiciary???

When you constantly look around and think everyone but you is insane, its not them, its you.

I'm not going to get into a large spitting contest on this, But yeah right here is the problems in this country.

Reading Comprehensibly.
So what does some people do? They let other tell them what is on the paper and never look to see if they are telling the truth.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America is written in very simple form.
It is not the bible, It is not so hard it has to be interpreted. It does not take a Law Degree to figure out what it states.

It was not written for the government it was written for You and I that are Citizens of these United States. Letters of the fathers tells us this.

Any other belief of this simple truth is believing a lie.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Arrogance is a sin.

I'm sensing that there is no limit to what you dont know. The final result is that it does not matter. This is the nation that we all built and there will be no returning to the ideals that you think existed 200 years ago. Its time to live in the present.

Pretty typical...no logical argument...resort to personal attacks...

No actually I'm very humble and yes there is a limit to what I know.

But you seem to insinuate that the original intent of the Constitution is "unknowable"...that one must be a "sainted" constitutional scholar...Hogwash I say.

It's very easy to know the original intent and anyone with any sort of minimal intelligence can see the system we live under is a bare shell of the system the Constitution lays out.

I do live in the present and my goal is not to harken back to some acient time, but to show the hypocrisy of anyone today claiming any sort of reverence or dedication to the Constitution.

By the way, those "ideals" of 200 years ago are what built this country...

Your logic is refudiated by a cursory examination of modern life in America. The ideals of 200 years ago including subjugating women, and slavery of fellow humans, two of the most reprehensible traits any human could ever have. Americans do not want the original intent of the COnstitution to be part of modern America, hence there is no hypocrisy.

By the way...

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
...The final result is that it does not matter. This is the nation that we all built and there will be no returning to the ideals that you think existed 200 years ago...

Really?

Just when exactly did we repeal the Constitution?

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Arrogance is a sin.

I'm sensing that there is no limit to what you dont know. The final result is that it does not matter. This is the nation that we all built and there will be no returning to the ideals that you think existed 200 years ago. Its time to live in the present.

I wish someone would give me a present big enough to live in.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Your logic is refudiated by a cursory examination of modern life in America. The ideals of 200 years ago including subjugating women, and slavery of fellow humans, two of the most reprehensible traits any human could ever have. Americans do not want the original intent of the COnstitution to be part of modern America, hence there is no hypocrisy.

At the risk of sounding "arrogant", this just shows your total lack of understanding of what the Constitution is.

All those things you mentioned did not exist because of the Constitution's original intent. Those things were done by people, society.

The Constitution is simply a charter for a central government (a very limited one) between existing sovreignties (the states).

It's to be changed for "modern" societies by way of amendment...NOT by usurpation...this is the crux of my entire argument that you seemed to have missed.

Original intent leaves most everything...abortion, women, gay, marriage,etc, etc...outside the scope of FEDERAL control and leaves it where the founding generation wanted it...at home.

quote:

All those things you mentioned did not exist because of the Constitution's original intent. Those things were done by people, society.

They were done by the people you idolize. The people that wrote a Constitution based on those values. When the states refused to grant equal rights to blacks merely 50 years ago, what agent stepped up and corrected that wrong?

quote:

They were done by the people you idolize. The people that wrote a Constitution based on those values. When the states refused to grant equal rights to blacks merely 50 years ago, what agent stepped up and corrected that wrong?

Juan you should really study history it would serve you well. The Civil war was not started because of slavery. It became apart of the cause later.

And Juan once again please study some you need to badly
Because your reply of slavery was taken care of in the Constitution on 12/6/1865
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Everything else that is not in the constitution is left to the states. I will let you read it and find that!

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
They were done by the people you idolize. The people that wrote a Constitution based on those values. When the states refused to grant equal rights to blacks merely 50 years ago, what agent stepped up and corrected that wrong?

It never ceases to amaze me the ridiculous lengths nationalists, statists, fascists, etc. will go to disparage anyone who promotes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and try to make them out to be racist, homophobes, sexists, etc...

It is laughable to think that a gigantic, bureaucratized, centralized, behemoth of a government filled with power hungry politicians could actually provide MORE liberty, than a person living free, on his own accord, free and unencumbered by some one who thinks they KNOW better...

Good folks like Ron Paul and company don't wish for a constitutionally limited federal government because they long for a return to such crimes against liberty that Juan maliciously implies.

They do not trumpet "states rights" over huge a centralized government because they think the "states" are "better".

They (and I) want a return to a constitutionally limited government because of what thousands of years of civilization has taught us...it's really a very simple lesson:

More government = less individual liberty.

Less government = more individual liberty and prosperity.

I like to quote the founding generation but this time, in honor of the channel "Ovation" running a marathon today, I'll quote from one of my favorite TV shows...the short lived "Firefly".

Capt. Mal Reynolds played by Nathan Fillion:

"That's what governments are for... get in a man's way"

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
I like to quote the founding generation but this time, in honor of the channel "Ovation" running a marathon today, I'll quote from one of my favorite TV shows...the short lived "Firefly".

Capt. Mal Reynolds played by Nathan Fillion:

"That's what governments are for... get in a man's way"

Best danged show in the entire 'verse.