Wow!!! the founding fathers were right........ by kaneman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Wow!!! the founding fathers were right........

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Sunday, July 15, 2007 18:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2667
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 5:21 AM

KANEMAN

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 10:26 AM

LEADB

That's really excellent. Thanks for sharing the link.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 10:44 AM

ALLIETHORN7

That was... uplifting.
I have a whole new faith in America as a country...
And have more reason to be against Bush.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!

-Danny

Could it have been something I said,
Or was it something that I did,
Did I ruin my chance, have you written me off?
Tell me, where did I cross the line,
And can I work my way back this time?
Will I always regret this decision...
THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!
My Master went to the Moon in a Rocket of Flamin' Cheese!

I LIKE CHEESE!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 10:49 AM

REAVERMAN

Great video. Very thought-provoking.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 3:23 PM

TRAVELER

Our Founding Fathers took a big risk. A government that no one ever dreamed of before. The American Revolution was hard enough and now they had to prove it was worth it. I wish more people would read our history and understand what this country has stood for and how it has seen its mistakes and made laws to correct them. That is the wonderful thing about our Constitution. It actually was designed so it could be changed to correct itself. It took wisdom to put that in the Constitution. And it takes wisdom to use it correctly.

So learn from this video and read. Learn about this country called the United States. Amazing things have been done here and I believe even more amazing things will happen if we take the time to learn.

Thanks for the video Kaneman.
Traveler

Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 9:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Our Founding Fathers were wise, this is true.. however...

If they had been a little less idealistic and a little more realistic, this situation would not be upon us.

One of the original arguments against the Constitution, which lead to the Bill of Rights being added to pacify Patrick Henry and his followers is that it did not go far ENOUGH in protecting the rights of the States and Citizens from potential abuse at the hands of the Fedgov, and there was no truly effective recourse or check against it save armed revolt, which would fail utterly in that the enemy of liberty, a standing army, was downright guaranteed by the nature of the thing.

While our Founding Fathers we're wise and for the most part, decent folk, no one likes to be told they are wrong, and if they had actually listened to and acted on most of the things that the Anti-Federalists pointed out we'd be in better shape, but most of them took the line of thought Madison expressed about standing armies.
"No one would ever dare stoop so low, so there is no need to explicitly forbid it."
Which is the summary of his argument and for that, Madison, may you quiver in the purgatory of offensive ringtones for a coupla decades.

The AF's pointed out certain flaws.

#1 - Naming certain rights for protecting would cause the Fedgov to exclude every one not listed.

#2 - With the insufficient controls upon it, it would lead to a bloating, evergrowing runaway FedGov monster that would "eat out our substance" and exist in the end only to serve itself at our expense.

#3 - State sovereignity would all but evaporate in spite of the amendments reserving *ALL* powers not specifically given to the States because they were easily ignored and unenforceable.

#3A - If a State or collective of such got the upper hand and used this process to strongarm the rest, a civil war would explode upon us, and quickly so.

#4 - That NO power to tax ever be given the FedGov, because it would run rampant with it at the very moment ambition made it possible to do so.

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/index.html

I cite that almost every single argument against The Constitution as written at the time, has been entirely correct and came back to bite us.

Federalist Side - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Federalist_Papers

All that bein said, while the Constitution ain't perfect, it's more than "Just a damned piece of paper" and should it ever be, yanno, actually OBEYED, actually ENFORCED - you could lock up most of the DC population and throw em UNDER the damned jail.

I do not call us a Constitutional Republic anymore and to pretend we are is polite fiction at the very best, we ARE a Corpo-Fascist Oligarchy with Totalarian leanings, to be downright honest about it - and admitting that is the first step towards changing it.

Yes, I would very much like to see us return to being a Constitutional Republic, but in the meantime be damned if imma pretend we are - that's just bullshit.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 3:55 AM

KANEMAN

"not go far ENOUGH in protecting the rights of the States and Citizens from potential abuse at the hands of the Fedgov, and there was no truly effective recourse or check against it save armed revolt, which would fail utterly in that the enemy of liberty, a standing army, was downright guaranteed by the nature of the thing."

Not sure what you are saying here...Can you elaborate?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 6:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Don't need to, read them links if you need elaboration, the core of the AntiFederalist argument is more valid today than it was even then.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 6:08 AM

KANEMAN

"against it save armed revolt, which would fail utterly in that the enemy of liberty, a standing army, was downright guaranteed by the nature of the thing."

Did read, just not getting that. Isn't the standing army made up of the very citz. that would and could revolt?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 6:52 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"against it save armed revolt, which would fail utterly in that the enemy of liberty, a standing army, was downright guaranteed by the nature of the thing."

Did read, just not getting that. Isn't the standing army made up of the very citz. that would and could revolt?

Yes; but keep in mind that standing armies are trained to follow orders. Unless the abuse of the Fedgov is sufficient to really convince them to do otherwise, they will "protect the constitution of the US", which is generally interpreted to be the sitting government. The problem is the erosion is occuring so slowly that folks, especially young idealists who would join the army, tend to perceive the status quo as what they are there to defend.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 11:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA

No Kane, it is not - in fact it is *expressly* unconstitutional to even HAVE a standing army loyal to the FedGov alone.

And it's danger was not one bit understated, as I will show you.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 11:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Patrick Henry
June 14, 1788

Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.

The honorable member who has risen to explain several parts of the system was pleased to say, that the best way of avoiding the danger of a standing army, was, to have the militia in such a way as to render it unnecessary; and that, as the new government would have power over the militia, we should have no standing army — it being unnecessary. This argument destroys itself. It demands a power, and denies the probability of its exercise. There are suspicions of power on one hand, and absolute and unlimited confidence on the other. I hope to be one of those who have a large share of suspicion. I leave it to this house, if there be not too small a portion on the other side, by giving up too much to that government. You can easily see which is the worst of two extremes. Too much suspicion may be corrected. If you give too little power to-day, you may give more to-morrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power to-day, you cannot retake it to-morrow: for to-morrow will never come for that purpose. If you have the fate of other nations, you will never see it. It is easier to supply deficiencies of power than to take back excess of power. This no man can deny.

But, says the honorable member, Congress will keep the militia armed; or, in other words, they will do their duty. Pardon me if I am too jealous and suspicious to confide in this remote possibility. My honorable friend went on a supposition that the American rulers, like all others, will depart from their duty without bars and checks. No government can be safe without checks. Then he told us they had no temptation to violate their duty, and that it would be their interest to perform it. Does he think you are to trust men who cannot have separate interests from the people? It is a novelty in the political world (as great a novelty as the system itself) to find rulers without private interests, and views of personal emoluments, and ambition. His supposition, that they will not depart from their duty, as having no interest to do so, is no satisfactory answer to my mind. This is no check. The government may be most intolerable and destructive, if this be our only security.

My honorable friend attacked the honorable gentleman with universal principles — that, in all nations and ages, rulers have been actuated by motives of individual interest and private emoluments, and that in America it would be so also. I hope, before we part with this great bulwark, this noble palladium of safety, we shall have such checks interposed as will render us secure. The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. But then, he says that the power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause which relates to it.

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress, has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry on into endless absurdity — that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, and that the State governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, Let me put it in another light.

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, ; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms ? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without. limitation or bounds, how will your militia be afraid? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states Shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.

The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have.

The honorable gentleman, in endeavoring to answer the question why the militia were to be called forth to execute the laws, said that the civil power would probably do it. He is driven to say, that the civil power may do it instead of the militia. Sir, the military power ought not to interpose till the civil power refuse. If this be the spirit of your new Constitution, that the laws are to be enforced by military coercion, we may easily divine the happy consequences which will result from it. The civil power is not to be employed at all. If it be, show me it. I read inattentively, and could see nothing to warrant a belief that the civil power can be called for. I should be glad to see the power that authorizes Congress to do so. The sheriff will be aided by military force. The most wanton excesses may be committed under color of this; for every man in office, in the states, is to take an oath to support it in all its operations. The honorable gentleman said, in answer to the objection that the militia might be marched from New Hampshire to Georgia, that the members of the government would not attempt to excite the indignation of the people. Here, again, we have the general unsatisfactory answer, that they will be virtuous, and that there is no danger.

Will gentlemen be satisfied with an answer which admits of dangers and abuses if they be wicked? Let us put it of their power to do mischief. I am convinced, there is no safety in the paper on the table as it stands now. I am sorry to have an occasion to pass a eulogium on the British government, as gentlemen may object to it. But how natural it is, when comparing deformities to beauty, to be struck with the superiority of the British government to that system! In England, self-love — self-interest — powerfully stimulates the executive magistrate to advance the prosperity of the nation. In the most distant part, he feels the loss of his subjects. He will see the great advantage of his posterity inseparable from the felicity of his people. Man is a fallen creature, a fallible being, and cannot be depended on without self-love. Your President will not have the same motives of self-love to impel him to favor your interests. His political character is but transient, and he will promote, as much as possible, his own private interests. He will conclude, the constant observation has been that he will abuse his power, and that it is expected. The king of England has a more permanent interest. His stock, his family, is to continue in possession of the same emolument. The more flourishing his nation, the more formidable and powerful is he. The sword and purse are not united, in that government, in the same hands, as in this system. Does not infinite security result from a separation?

But it is said that our Congress are more responsible than the British Parliament. It appears to me that there is no real, but there may be some specious responsibility. If Congress, in the execution of their unbounded powers, shall have done wrong, how will you come at them to punish them, if they are at the distance of five hundred miles? At such a great distance, they will evade responsibility altogether. If you have given up your militia, and. Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity. If Congress are to arm us exclusively, the man of New Hampshire may vote for or against it, as well as the Virginian. The great distance and difference between the two places render it possible that the people of that country can know or pursue what will promote our convenience. I therefore contend that, if, Congress do not arm the militia, we ought to provide for it ourselves.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 11:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Patrick Henry
June 5th, 1788

This, sir, is the language of democracy--that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I can not help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone for ever.

We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the House of Commons of England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body can not continue oppressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of the one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited--an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

The honorable gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland, which, according to the substance of the notes, he attributes to the present feeble government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are contemptible people; the time has been when we were thought otherwise. Under the same despised government we commanded the respect of all Europe; wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid government, a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government--for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; liberty, sir, was then the primary object.

We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, "we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble." Would this constitute happiness or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects.

Consider our situation, sir; go to the poor man and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society; you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people; it is for them I fear the adoption of this system. I fear I tire the patience of the committee, but I beg to be indulged with a few more observations.

When I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I shall be told I am a designing man, that I am to be a great man, that I am to be a demagog; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be thrown out; but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs those things with me. I see great jeopardy in this new government. I see none from our present one. I hope some gentleman or other will bring forth, in full array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them. I have said that I thought this a consolidated government; I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered? Our Bill of Rights declares that "a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity the transactions of the present times; and tho I confess my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty, for I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally--that is, after non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man that I am a lover of the American Union; that, in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of our customhouses and the whole regulation of trade shall be given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing and furnished the last soldier.

Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union and take away from us all federal privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this and you will find this State more particularly interested to support American liberty and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers given to Congress are accompanied by a judiciary which will correct all. On examination you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed, your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress.

This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your president may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design, and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely--and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion--have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the president, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I can not with patience think of this idea. If ever he violate the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of the army to carry everything before him, or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything and being ignominiously tried and punished powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your president! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Constitutional Info

See, here's where folks get it wrong - the US Constitution is NOT a list of rights we have with every single other thing reserved to the FedGov, in fact the opposite is true, it is a list of the express powers delegated to the FedGov, and anything not explicitly and expressly given unto them belongs to US, the States and People respectively.

What that means, you ask ?

Signing Statements - Unconstitutional

Executive Orders - Unconstitutional

Resolutions - Unconstitutional

Making new govt offices (FEMA, CIA, NSA) - Unconstitutional

Federal Law Enforcement (FBI, SS, DHS) - Unconstitutional

In Fact, the Gov only really has a few duties, and everything beyond that is Unconstitutional usurpation, period.

Direct Taxation was intended to be expressly forbidden, however this was in theory altered by the 16th Amendment, however it's ratification process is under suspicion of quite a bit of Fraud at the hands of Philip Knox, and with substantive evidence, although there's no way in hell the FedGov would ever admit that, it'd be chewing off their own arms.

The 16th also come out of the financial flakery of FDR with the bank holidary and moving from a real currency backed by gold to a fiat currency backed by faith and promises, so there's a whole metric ton of crapola that goes along with it to dig through in order to make sense of that whole period, none of it Constitutional by any degree.

Of course, as Mr. Henry so effectively pointed out, now that us people have been disarmed and exist under threat of force from fifty-plus "Alphabet Agencies" AND a Standing Army, AND Federal Law enforcement, where is your State now ? think they would issue you arms to recitify the situation ? yeah, right.

And so we are at the impasse that's been coming since 1788, any useful suggestions, then ?
(Other than electing Ron Paul, cause it ain't gonna happen folks, even if we DID vote him in, they'd kill him, fudge the results, or just plain refuse to seat him or acknowledge him)

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 3:44 PM

KANEMAN

Fred,
Thank you for elaborating... I have a different outlook on this....

Love always kaneman

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:50 PM

KANEMAN

Bump...watch that video.......Then register and vote Ron Paul

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:35 PM

KANEMAN

cock bump

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:33 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
....
Signing Statements - Unconstitutional
....

A little piece by Ron Paul on how Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance:

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/index.php?articleid=11272

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 13, 2007 5:36 AM

GEOSPACEMONKEY

Awesome babyee - I'm going to share this. Ron Paul is the closest thing I know to a Browncoat leader.
Thanks, Geo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 13, 2007 5:50 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And so we are at the impasse that's been coming since 1788

Frem, if I never said it before, I say it now: You are da MAN!!!
You need to be a teacher, dude. Set these kids in school learning about the cherry tree straight.

98% of the history I now know was learned AFTER High School and college!!!!!

Equilibrium here we come Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 13, 2007 6:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA

They'd fire me in less than a week, Chris.

Can't have kids learning real history instead of the sanitized, propagandized public school versions, oh the horror - you'd have an armed revolt in less than a decade!

For the record tho, I *do* teach em, just not in some public school classroom.

Here, various other places, anywhere they gather to listen.

I'm sure there's at least one public school "history" teacher cursing me (although not by name since thankfully they don't know I exist) every single day, when one of thier students springs any of those 'trap-door' questions that blows up the whole premise of their argument in an eyeblink.

A big part of what I *do* is mentally arming the next generation to crush this one into the morass of history as a bad example - teaching them to think, to question, to regard with bitter and justified suspicion anything the State tells them.

As I've stated before, I intend to leave my nieces a better legacy than the sum of my generations failures and debts.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 13, 2007 6:25 AM

CHRISISALL

I find Dennis Leary's rant in Demolition Man to be approriate to this topic:

"I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener.""

Cracks me up every time Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 13, 2007 5:56 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

I just find it rather frightening that in this day and age one almost has to be anonymous or speak from the underground to protest the government for fear of being spied upon and arrested for "TREASON." Think about the 60's and how open those people could be about Vietnam and Nixon and not fear anything more than some days incarceration (ok, maybe mace in the face, a hit from a billie club or two and a permanant record, not that it did anything) the point is people felt free enough and had NO FEAR to say "We don't believe in our gonvernment or President or this damn war and we want it stopped." People could gather in large numbers at campases or public areas, chanting and demanding change, and they got it. They made a difference. History showed that THE PEOPLE REALLY DO HAVE THE POWER TO HOLD THEIR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE.

But these days if you even utter the words, then your Anti-American, Treasonist, worst, against God (I don't think God really want's to be known as supporting these people) I've watched from the beggining and I can only say, from what I've seen, the policies that have been implemented and the measures taken to lessen peoples liberties day in and out and the power that's shifted more towards the government corporation, your headed for date with George Orwell. You might want to consider that revolt.

All we are saying, is give peace a chance (and give us back our right's you fascist copo's)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*Peter* Peter*; power *re-peater*~
`@/
/Y
/_)

*Petrelli for President. Together we can soar.*
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HEROE'S IS MY CRACK!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 13, 2007 6:59 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
98% of the history I now know was learned AFTER High School and college!!!!!

Heh.... Pretty much 98% I know about anything period I learned after I went to school.

Quote:
Frem:
For the record tho, I *do* teach em, just not in some public school classroom.

Here, various other places, anywhere they gather to listen.

A modern day Socrates.

Chrisisall.... great rant man. Great movie too.

Great post MistressSahara.

You're right.... Think the only reason why I haven't had a visit from the thought police myself yet is because I'm as open about my thoughts in real life as I am here and there would be people very suspicious of my dissappearance, or should i have an "accident" of sorts.

Needless to say, I have about as many friends in real life as I do in the blogs that I post. The few I do, I place a great deal of faith in and I feel are some of the finest people I've had the pleasure of knowing. People don't want to hear the truth, at least the truth the way I see it, as long as they have some money in their pocket and a new Super Hero movie or sporting event to watch.

Lotsa times I post something and wonder if I've gone too far. I know all of these posts are being read by somebody at some alphabet agency, or at the very least, archived to be read later... on taxpayer dollars, no doubt. That and I got my big mug right there watermarking every post of mine. If they come for me, I hope that they do it in front of people and I will muster all of my courage and take up my best Ghandi stance while I wish them to brutalize me so it can be captured on cell phones and put on YouTube.

But I know better.... If they ever really wanted me, I'd just won't wake up one morning after my heart mysteriously stopped beating in the middle of the night.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:47 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Screw Ghandi, I'd go Leonidas.
Molon Labe.

Ask yourself why Ed Brown is still kickin and the Branch Davidians ain't.

Then go read The Weapon Shops of Isher, by A.E. Van Vogt.

That's why the feddies hate the 2nd amendment, cause when it comes right down to it, facing someone both willing and ABLE to resist, that they must then invest *enough* effort to take them, and pull the nice polite mask off for all to see.

Financially, Politically, and Logistically, they simply cannot afford to do that, and they know it.

Much easier to remove the means of that resistance, than to crush it with force, and so under many guises, that is what they do.

They WANT you to knuckle under and defeat yourself, to bend the knee, kiss the ring, and take the kings shilling while you bend over the sawhorse for em.... cause when they DO come up against someone who will go down swingin, all the polite bullshit comes apart, and they're exposed as what government really is, pure force, aimed at YOU, and ME... to make US do THEIR will.

Cause in the end, that's all it really is.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Decent video, but it really does some major reaching with its misplaced and covnoluted associations of quotes to modern day events. Still, all Americans or anyone, could do themselves a favor and become familiar w/ the Founding Fathers, what they said,what they MEANT, and what they risked to give us this great nation.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:56 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Still, all Americans or anyone, could do themselves a favor and become familiar w/ the Founding Fathers, what they said,what they MEANT, and what they risked to give us this great nation.

*Agreeing with AU...checking for fever, disorientation...*

...Chrisisall....{?)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 12:21 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Take his post in entire context Chris.

Sounds like more of the "Yeah, that's what they SAID, but what they REALLY meant is..." kinda stuff to me.

I could be wrong, and if so, apologies, but same as Pat Henry, my feet are guided by the lamp of previous experience in this case.

The Founding Fathers put it pretty plain for posterity where they stood on many issues and why, and for that we should be very grateful, for this makes it difficult for future administrations to silence them.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:22 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
The Founding Fathers put it pretty plain for posterity where they stood on many issues and why, and for that we should be very grateful, for this makes it difficult for future administrations to silence them.

-Frem

And it should also be remembered that the same Founding Fathers, didn't all agree on all issues all the time. Just so you had some perspective.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Of course, did I not point that out at the very beginning of this thread ?

Hell, those very arguments were the anvil this goverment was originally hammered out on, so they're a key part of our history that really should be present, in detail, in our classrooms.

Not that I agree with Hamilton or Madison, mind you, but all of our founders raised good points worthy of inspection, and unlike current leaders, explained both the point and the reasoning behind it in great detail - THAT is something we should demand from current leaders and develop the patience to listen to.

It's not whether folks agree, it's whether they understand.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:08 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

When a government believes they are beyond culpability and reproach, that's when it's time to worry. Because it's heading towards an elite regime. And Histories shown what happens when elite regime's are in control.

I worry for our American cousin's, and converesley for us all.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~Peter*Peter*Power>~re-peater~

HEROES IS MY CRACK!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE