From all those who may read this post. My questions to you are: 1) What is wrong with the Constitution of the United States? 2) What do YOU believe CAN (not SHOULD) be done to bring the United States to what it should be? 3) What do YOU believe SHOULD be done to bring the United States to what it should be?
What's wrong with the Constitution is that the language is too broad or too general--too many windows accidentally left cracked open when all windows and doors need to be locked tightly. Why is this important? So corrupt politicians and bad leaders are blocked from being able to further shove all their bad laws and sneaky tactics (like the USA PATRIOT ACT) on good-hearted, but unsuspecting, people.
What can and should be done? Normally I'd say, "If something's not broke, don't fix it." But something is broken--America's very heart is broken and she isn't as grand, safe or happy as she once was. So my proposal would be to stick wtih the basic ideas of the old Constitution, but give it a facelift so that "everything old is new again." New and powerful once again. I like many of the ideas described in the Philosophy Of Law & Government section at this web site. That looks like a great place to begin--a good road map for the future. Or a compass so we don't lose our way.
To bring the U.S. to what it should be, first you must convince a large enough group of people to become what THEY should be. Improve the moral fabric of a nation by going for its heart--the people. However, they will need to be won back in the same manner as they fell--one person at a time. But each time you persuade even one person to improve and to return to traveling on the high road, avoiding all low roads, that's one giant step forward to restoring America to her former strength and glory. Because one person boosts another and another until slowly America's sore wounds can begin to heal.
Unfortunately, Eden, there will undoubtedly have to be a major humbling experience in order for any substantial attitude shift in the general public. We've had it too easy for too long. Convenience and "leisure time" tend to cause idleness--the devil's playground.
I'm skepical about any attempts to improve upon the current system. The system is fine for good, moral people, and insufficient for immoral, lazy people. Change the people, and you won't have to change the constitution. Now all we need is a major humbling experience!
Since people refuse to be humbled by choice, I think they will soon be changed by force, as in a horrible war on our own soil. The problem is that too many of our current bad leaders trample all over the current Constitution. They practically choked the life out of it already so that it continually must gasp for air and struggle to stay alive. I think we need a way to better defend those old principles, not by throwing out the basics outlined in the old Constitution, but by adding new, tougher rules that will protect, not necessarily change, the grand ideas that launched America as a great nation in the first place.
I'm with Eden. I like most of the ideas I read in the Philosophy of Law and Government section at this site. At the very least, a forum like this gives thinking minds a great place to get to the bottom of problems and compare opinions to chisel away at details until we can find and agree on solutions.
But I think when conservatives refuse to call a spade a spade, such as if they are foolish enough to believe lying leaders who regularly deceive them by pretending to be religious, or if they believe America will never fall because our current Constitution is a mighty, indestructible fortress, they're in for a rude awakening soon.
This debate reminds me of an abused wife stuck in a bad marriage. She enters into the marriage with high hopes, as America sparkled with delight and high expectations, in past years. Life and the partnership works fine until the husband starts sneaking out, cheating on his good wife. A neighbor reports his infidelities, but the wife is loyal to her husband. She refuses to believe he'd betray her, so she remains in denial. Evidence builds that he's sold her and their marriage down the river, but she feels an obligation to keep defending his immoral actions. Finally he starts beating her, and again, she covers up for him. She convinces herself, "Well, all marriages require a little sacrifice. A little give and take," so she continues to be tolerant. Then comes the day when he pounds her so badly that she's bleeding and bruised, all her bones broken--as America will be if Joel's Russia-China analysis ends up being correct and "the mother of all terrorist attacks," as he refers to it, comes to pass.
When the wife is dead and perhaps goes on to be a spirit on the other side, reflecting on the horrid events she endured on earth, she would undoubtedly wish then with all her heart and soul that she'd accepted the truth and defended herself or asked for help from those qualified to give it while she still had the chance to save herself.
Summary: If a foundation is badly cracked and already shows obvious signs of crumbling, there's no room for denial or rationalizations. The only smart thing to do is get busy working on fixing it as quickly as possible to try to prevent further disasters from happening.
AB, I partially agree with you, too, that "change the people, and you won't have to change the Constitution." Problem is I have no faith that the people will ever change as long as we continue to have such unscrupulous leaders in charge. Even moral, good, intelligent people still look for and need the stability of strong, principled leaders. Right now we have mostly foxes guarding the henhouse (America). If it weren't for that, I'd agree with AB. But all I see are hungry, greedy foxes surrounding the henhouse, so I'm afraid I must concur with Eden.
Points well taken. If we could change the constitution now, the principles of the ideal state would make sense. Unfortunately, Joel's whole premise for the Ideal State--if I'm not mistaken--is to have a plan ready to go when the original constitution falls (as the result of this great humbling event). If that's the case, then why not simply uphold the original constitutional principles with this newly humbled populace?
I guess the answer to my own question would be that since many have already witnessed how to dilute the current constitution, it wouldn't take long for power hungry individuals to take advantage of the "humbled populace", and even more quickly degrade those same constitutional ideals.
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Rep. Ron Paul Denounces 'Hostile' U.N.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has long been a champion of national sovereignty and critic of the United Nations. Ever since the globalist body failed to enforce its own resolutions against Saddam Hussein, the anti-U.N. movement in the U.S. has grown, and Paul is speaking out more than ever.
The congressman gave a rousing speech Tuesday in the House. By popular demand, here's the text:
Mr. Speaker:
I rise to urge the leadership of this body to bring a very important vote to the House floor. I recently reintroduced HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would end our participation in the United Nations. Millions of Americans have begun to question why we continue to spend $300 million each year funding and housing an organization that is actively hostile to American interests. Surely Congress, which routinely spends 15 minutes renaming post offices, can spare 15 minutes to vote on this fundamental issue of American sovereignty.
Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.
Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty.
If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported "authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make "laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I’m merely asking House leadership to schedule vote on HR 1146. Americans deserve to know how their representatives stand on the critical issue of American sovereignty."
This is worth our support.
Can anyone think of what can be done to bring the US Senators back under responsibility of the State legislatures? The 17th Amendment really brought the United States closer to a real democracy and with the games that are currently being played in the Senate, our Federal government is becoming even more of a democracy!
Also, in State government there exists a Senate but they seem to be the same as the representative-side of the legislature, but with a greater voting district. Can anyone think of a system that would bring balance to the legislative system?
My thought would be to have one half of the Legislature be made up of representatives of equally porportioned districts. The other half would be made up of say one hundred individuals who have proven certain things such as:
1) They are the top one hundred individuals who have owned a successful enterprise for the longest period of time.
2) They are the top one hundred individuals who have employed the greatest number of residence for a particular state.
3) They are the top one hundred individuals who have generated the greatest amount of revenue within, or for, a particular state.
What Is Your Constitutional IQ?
A quiz for you.
http://etherzone.com/2003/nath052003.shtml
Here is a press release from Rep. Tancredo of Colorado on his web page regarding what should be an issue of great concern to Americans:
The issuance of "Matricula Consular" identification cards to illegal aliens in the United States by the Mexican government is a frontal assault on America's system of laws and sovereignty. Peddled to Mexican illegals through the Mexican government's many consular offices in the United States, these documents serve one purpose alone: to falsely confer legitimacy upon those who are in this country illegally. These cards are then used by illegals to attain driver's licenses, to open bank accounts, and increasingly to access government services to which they have no legal right in the United States.
But it doesn't stop there. Earlier this year it was revealed that a pilot program was underway in San Francisco to have these phony identification cards accepted at a U.S. federal building. These cards are issued to individuals who go to a Mexican consulate, pay a fee, and present some proof of birth in Mexico. The press has subsequently reported numerous times on the black market of phony Mexican birth certificates. Literally anyone with the will could enter this country, purchase a phony birth certificate, and receive a free pass from the Mexican government into U.S. government facilities. Talk about an open door for potential terrorists! Wisely the program to accept these cards as valid identification in San Francisco's federal building was suspended, but the issuance of these cards for other purposes continues. Most importantly, there is no law in place to stop other such ill-advised government acceptance of the "Matricula
Consular" cards.
What these cards represent is an overt attempt to subvert U.S. immigration laws by the Mexican government -- and to top it off, the government of Mexico is actually lobbying state and local governments in the United States to accept these cards as legitimate and legal identification. Not surprisingly, several other countries have noted this heretofore successful way of sneaking illegals through the back door and began issuing their own version of the "Matricula Consular" card. The situation is becoming absurd.
That is why Congressman Tom Tancredo and twelve other members of Congress introduced H.R. 502, a bill to put a stop to the acceptance of these phony identification cards. Congressman Tancredo's legislation simply prohibits any federal entity, in providing a federal public benefit or service, from accepting, recognizing, or relying on "any identification document not issued by a Federal or State authority and that is not subject to verification by a Federal law enforcement, intelligence, or homeland security agency."
As I understand the Treasury Dept is attempting to get the President to issue an executive order to allow the broad based legitimacy of these ID cards to obtain services for illegals in this Country. This is sheer lunacy to circumvent immigration laws and allow the acceptance of these tactics being employed by the Mexican Govt. Americans had better wake up to these power plays soon or we will reap the whirlwind.
We Need A New Crop Of Founders
By Henry Lamb, June 26, 2003
“The people who agree with Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the other founders of this nation, will be outraged, should they read HB 422, introduced into the Illinois State Legislature…”
http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20030602/land.shtml
Constitution: America's Ultimate Battleground
WND explores whether USA’s founding document is still the law of the land
While terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, crime, corruption and plagues dominate the headlines, a far greater conflict threatens America – namely, the raging war over the United States Constitution – according to the newest edition of WND’s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33272
"We Need A New Crop Of Founders". That's what I was getting at when I wrote elsewhere "The greatest challenge this effort will face is the selection of leaders to keep it moving in the right direction. Those who contributed so much to the framing of the US Constitution had lots of well documented disagreements along the way. And I reckon it will be at least as tough the next time around. Let's hope we can be led by men and women of equal stature." I believe the original "founders" were prepared and sent by God. And God may send us another similar group, but I don't think we ought to sit back and wait. It may be we will have to find them, very possibly teach them some basics to get them started, and encourage them. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the other founders of this nation had to start somewhere.
Here’s a picture that reflects your comments, Ralph. I agree with this author that: “Every person involved in the cause of freedom needs a pocket-size copy of the U.S. Constitution.” Why? To find out what's right with it and what's wrong with it (as in where are its vulnerable spots that may need toughened with tighter legal language? Or do we need to start from scrap and vow to do better next time?). Also, you never know when or where you might need a copy to defend yourself or others or to prove your point in a discussion. These people offer pocket-sized Constitutions for only $1 each when purchased in quantities of 20. Other places on the Internet have them available as well. But check out the picture at:
http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20030602/con.shtml
“George Washington graces the cover of this booklet, extending a quill as if to ask you to sign your name to the document. The back cover contains Washington's appraisal of the Constitution. He says:
‘The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid, its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order and its defenses are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may greatly aspire to such a title.
It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly and corruption or negligence of its only keepers, the people. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and the profligates are rewarded because they flatter the people in order to betray them.’”
Has America fallen already—and she doesn’t know it yet? Is she about to fall? If so, are we up to the challenge that the early founders faced as we attempt to heal America’s sore wounds? Time alone will tell.
The US Flies The Jolly Roger--With Skull & Bones Leaders At The Helm
By Dorothy Anne Seese, June 25, 2003
Excerpt:
“Why doesn't America live by and within the boundaries of its Constitution? Because that Constitution is diametrically opposed to everything today's political insiders advocate. The leaders want no part of an America where the leaders must have the consent of the governed, and the blatant and insulting manner in which they ignore the voice of the people attests to this fact. Our courts have been politicized, so it is apparent that anyone who holds any position of authority in the government system either toes the line or loses his/her hope for job security and advancement…
“In the eyes of the world, America is no longer the kindly red white and blue, but the nation that flies the Jolly Roger, the skull and crossbones flag of the pirate ships who captured, looted and killed on the merchant vessels they overtook…
“… Maybe they will actually have to see the Jolly Roger fly on American flagpoles. Only it won't be the skull and crossbones, it will be the flag of the New World Order. Then it's too late to take America back except by force.”
Full story at: http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1080
Your Rights—How Well Do You Know Them?
Five tests of your freedoms
“Speech. Religion. Press. Petition. Assembly. You learned all those First Amendment rights in basic civics class. But how well do you really understand them? The results of our scientific poll may surprise you . . . The poll results clearly show some serious confusion among Americans about their First Amendment protections and how they apply to a diverse and sometimes divided society.” See full story and poll results at:
http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/030629/030629rights.html
United States Documents
http://www.law.emory.edu/erd/docs.html
Constitution of the United States
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/
Keyword Constitution Search
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconser.html
Constitution Finder
This index offers constitutions, charters, amendments, and other related documents. Nations of the world are listed alphabetically, and each is linked to its constitutional text posted somewhere on the Internet. Point and click to jump from the name to the text. Use the alphabetical listing search keys for more convenient maneuvering.
http://confinder.richmond.edu/
Constitutions, Statutes, and Legislative Information - By State
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
http://www.constitution.org/cons/usstcons.htm
Know Your Rights
Misc. documents
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/states.html
Quotations from the writings of Thomas Jefferson
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/
No Right Of Self-Defense In Blair’s Barbaric Britain
By Ilana Mercer
Excerpt:
The "Rights of Englishmen" – the inspiration for the American founding fathers – are no longer cool in Cool Britannia. The great system of law the English inherited, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which entails the right to possess arms, is in tatters. The sovereign and his elites, most of whom enjoy taxpayer-funded security details, have disarmed law-abiding Britons, who now defend themselves against the protected criminal class at their own peril. A right that can't be defended is a right that exists only in name. In Britain there is, in effect, no right to life or property . . .
Since Blair's 1997 total ban on armed self-defense, things have gone from bad to worse. "You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York," avers Malcolm. "Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them ... A study found American burglars fear armed homeowners more than the police." The most dangerous burglaries – the kind that occur when people are at home – are much rarer in the U.S. ... only 13 percent, in contrast to 53 percent in England . . .
Read the rest of this commentary at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33945
Comparing the US and the EU Constitutions
A successful working constitution, like that of the US, is concise and provides a clear political and legal framework -- unlike the counterpart proposed for the EU.
Full story at: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/08/04/2003062289
Supreme Court Internationalists
Joseph Farah blasts justices for weighing US Law by foreign scales.
“As if it weren't bad enough that the U.S. Supreme Court majority pays little heed to the U.S. Constitution, now it is becoming clear five or six members of the court are being influenced by the constitutions and courts of foreign countries . . .”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33989
What I say might offend some here. The Constitution has much good in it. But the problem is that it makes no mention of God, and specifically Christ the King. There can be no separation of Church and State since eventually this leads to the State dictating Morality which is NOT its place (ie, as with Abortion).
I know its not Sunday, but this is a sermon good for anyday. ALL power, both Church and State, is rooted in the Kingship of Jesus Christ to Whom all authority in Heaven and on earth is given. The Pope and bishops; the President and Congress must give an account to Jesus Christ at their death as to how they used their authority.
The Bible tells of a Great Apostasy before the end of the world. Apostasy is defined as a falling away from the faith. Since the French Revolution, the modern State says it is indifferent on matters of Religion. Well, another word for indiffernce is lukewarmness. Our Lord is clear that He will vomit these souls since they are "neither hot nor cold."
So I am saying that God will NOT save America unless America declares Jesus Christ as its King. The Church and State are NOT enemies. True peace exists when the 2 powers work in harmony with each respecting the other's domain.
The New World Order seeks to impose the "multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious" cosmopolitan world view on every single being on the face of the earth. It will be presented to the mind controlled masses by our lying media as "progress and liberty." But we must echo the words of Jesus Christ "apart from Me, you can do nothing."
In 1517, Martin Luther said yes to God, yes to Jesus, and NO to the Catholic Church.
In 1717, Freemasonry said yes to God, NO to Jesus Christ, and NO to the Catholic Church.
In 1917, Lenin said NO to God.
Where does it end? With the Antichrist enslaving billions of souls. I don't intend this to "turn off" my protestant neighbors. I only want to wake them up. The "Reformation" in hindsight has been a failure!!! It only served to DIVIDE the Christian kingdom, and the Protestant sects only further splintered among themselves. Now both Catholic and Protestant churches are overrun with homosexuals and freemasons with a pantheistic agenda. WE MUST UNITE under the banner of Christ the King! Then we can take America back from these Globalists thugs.
Good points, Mike, but you wrote, “In 1717, Freemasonry said yes to God, No to Jesus Christ . . .” I view Freemasonry as saying “yes” to Lucifer and taking oaths to worship him, not God. How do you conclude that Freemasonry says “yes” to God?
Rex,
As Pope Leo XIII said about Freemasonry "their god is the Devil." Since they can only advance their plan for world domination thru DECEPTION, they must seduce the unwary with a religious appeal. St. Paul told Timothy that in the last days men would hold to the outward form of our religion while rejecting its true power.
So Masons use a pretense of religion - its a facade. Not all Masons know which God they truly serve. But Albert Pike said to only reveal their God (ie, Lucifer) "to the brethren of the 30th, 31st, and 32nd degrees."
The Masonic "yes to God" would be defended by the brotherhood much like the God in various 12 step programs - namely "God as I understand him to be".
Its an attack on Divine Revelation while pretending that "the Great Architect of the universe" is the great unknowable one. Well, Rex, we worship a Creator God, not a mere architect!
Re: "We worship a Creator God, not a mere architect!"
You'll get no argument from me there. Thanks, Mike, for your quick and insightful response.
Our church has recently distributed a notice to its members asking, among other things, that w "support enforcement of constitutional antipornography laws."
How can I determine if an antipornography law is constitutional or unconstitutional?
I had come to believe that the U.S. Constitution forbids welfare assistance to individuals, groups, regions, and foreign nations because it gives the FedGov authority to do only 20 things which are clearly spelled out, and welfare is not one of them. I have just today discovered that the stated belief of Alexander Hamilton that the "welfare clause" in the Preamble allows the FedGov to do anything it thinks is for the welfare of anyone or any part of the country, even if it is not included in the above mentioned enumerted powers, and even if it is for local or special welfare instead of for the general welfare, and is used to justify the kind of welfare we have in America today. I also discovered that in 1936, Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts , in the Butler Case, wrote the opinion that apparently settled the issue in favour of Hamilton's concept of welfare, which is what we have today.
I'm at a loss to argue against the appllication of this interpretation because of the precedent set by Justice Owen Roberts. Can anybody help me out?
I would just say that there were different camps in constitutional opinion (Federalist, Anti-Federalist, communist, libertarian) and during the time you have used - 1936 - the New Deal-welfare-socialists won out.
Interesting that what took the Soviet Union life and blood to accomplish, we have done willingly.
Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives. Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The full text of the letter is at: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congressman_writes_White_House_Did_President_0315.html
There was a Constitutional revolution in 1937 as any basic student of Constitutional development knows. It was in that age that The People sold their birthright, that their ancestors bled and died to obtain, for a mess of pottage because they were hungry during the Depression.
Now we have leaders who make declarations like this:
On January 29, 1991 in The State of the Union address President George H. W. Bush declared the gargantuan scope of this short war with “What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind -- peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law.” http://tinyurl.com/6n9fk
After the cessation of Operation Desert Storm in an address to a joint session of Congress on March 6, 1991 President George H. W. Bush stated, “Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. … A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.” http://tinyurl.com/hjzgz
What happened in 1937 that could be blamed on "the People"? I'm aware of the "New Deal" and the Butler Case, but that, along with the depression, was engineeered by the PTB of the time.
All governmental authority under the US Constitution derives from The People.
The people voted for FDR, the Senate and the House.
‘The year 1937 marks a major divide in the constitutional jurisprudence of the American nation and in the decisional philosophy of the Supreme Court. This is so much the fact that future histories of the Supreme Court may well divide the Court’s development since 1790 into two fundamental periods, pre- and post-1937’ (Leuchtenburg p. 233).
Massive amounts of legislation was passed. FDR took much executive action under the ‘emergency’ powers. However, FDR ran into strong opposition with the Supreme Court. He bullied the Court until finally it relented and rubber stamped all his Socialistic policies. In one case, “Justice McReynolds dissented in such vitriolic terms that parts of his comments did not appear in the formal record. At one point he bitterly commented that “This is Nero at his worst. The Constitution as we know it is gone!” (Urofsky page 678)
FDR served 4 terms, 16 years, and appointed 8 of 9 Justices. To tie up the loose ends and make sure The People could not go back the Presidential term was limited to 2 terms, or 8 years.
Consulting those two leading authorities on Constitutional History will be very enlightening. Urofsky is currently considered the leading Constitutional Historian. He is very highly respected in academia.
1937 is merely when this battle culminated and the tide turned. This fight is what the Revolutionary War was all about and has raged from then until now and will openly rage again.
The spark of freedom will not be snuffed out.
Melvin I. Urofsky & Paul Finkelman, A March of Liberty: A Consitutional History of the United States Volume II From 1877 to the Present 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2002.
William E. Leuchtenburg, The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Excellent posts. Yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. What goes around comes around--and war will definitely be back around. Jonah, I hope you are correct--that the spark of freedom will not be snuffed out.
The spark of freedom will NOT be snuffed out. Those unworthy of it will be snuffed out, those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety... or even the PROMISE of security.
The Constitution is NOT defective; Congress is defective! And who is responsible? THE PEOPLE; those who elected them!
The one thing that these socialist-minded, slaves-in-waiting cannot, will not, accept is responsibility for their own actions, whether it be at the polls or in their own lives. Their over-weening pride absolutely forbids them to admit error or bad decisions. When things go bad (often as a result of their own foolish choices), they immediately look for someone to blame.
Of them I ask:
"What will you do in the day of reckoning
when the holocaust overtakes you from afar?
To whom will you flee for help?
Where will you leave your wealth?
"There shall nothing remain
but to kneel among the captives
or fall among the slain..."
- Isaiah 10:3, 4 (New Translation)
Repentance is our only salvation from the terror from afar.
Cyrus35
I'm trying to figure out how the granting of amnesty to illegal immigrants violates the US Constitution. Best I can come up with is granting of social security benefits would be a violation, but beyond that I'd appreciate any suggestions
I agree with AB in SC. The system is fine the way it is. I respect Joel's efforts in presenting an ideal Constitution, but if Joel's plan is to be implemented it AFTER our current system falls (as AB in SC stated) then I do not believe his plan will work.
Unfortunately, anyone wishing to stand up for liberty needs to do it now, with this current system. If this system fails, NOBODY is going to permit someone to institute a system very similar to the one that has just proved to be a disaster.
If this system fails, a more ideal system for patriots will not replace it. The system will be replaced by Islamic Law, or Communism. Those are the threats that we are facing, and they too have systems planned for when the United States falls.
The bottom line is that if you want to stand for liberty you need to stand with your country now. Joel's books are great, but there is no way to secure your home from an invading military threat for a sustained period of time. Make your homes safe for your families, but if you wish to defend your liberty, there are many patriots fighting around the world right now that you can support (or join). Defending the freedoms of oppressed people in foreign lands is also a good thing. God did not only endow Americans with unalienable rights. We should fight oppression in foreign lands now, instead of leaving it for our children to fight in America later.