I didn't realize there are so many people that are openly anti-Constitution

[Jeremy]

People think the Constitution doesn't apply to today???

This is what people said to me at another forum:


Sure, you can return to 'constitutional values'. But it'll only work if you also return to a coupla million self-sufficient farmers and a few settlements the size of Montpelier, Vermont spread down the Eastern Seaboard. Have fun with that!


I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse or really don't understand. Either way, it's easy to clear the air. The Constitution was written in 1787...that makes it an 18th century document. The document as written works best for an 18th century agrarian society with little education beyond the absolute basics.

Our society today is massively industrialized, extremely well educated (compared to the 18th century), highly urbanized, highly mobile, extremely interconnected, and has technologies undreamt of even as little as 50 years ago. In short, the Constitution can be a starting point for modern government and acts as the spiritual guidance, but we also need to account for what our society needs now.

Certain things we will always need: free speech, freedom of religion, right to associate and protest, gun rights (though with the appropriate restrictions--what Founder would have thought of the firepower we possess now?), etc.

My response:


I'm afraid it is you who doesn't understand. The Constitution still applies today and it is a very rare opportunity for me to come across somebody who doesn't beleive that, like yourself. Without the United States Constitution, this country would be nothing. Every last piece of freedom we have been able to hold on to was protected by the Constitution and our republic. How would the courts operate without a Constitution? Also, how can you pretend to support these "rights" when you don't support the keeper of those rights?

It's almost as if these people never went to highschool. Or maybe it's a good example of how poorly public schools teach...

[AJ Antimony]

Save your breath. Tell them they don't know what the hell they're talking about until they read the Federalist papers.

[Jeremy]

Save your breath. Tell them they don't know what the hell they're talking about until they read the Federalist papers.

Well now they're saying I don't understand rights and are attempting to make me look stupid. And I'm sure they'll succeed because I got a lot of people disagreeing with me when I bashed both McCain and Obama at once... so now they all hate me =o

One person even tried to say that all of the candidatse follow the Constitution, but then it looks like they changed to fit the other people and essentially say that "the Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore". Well which is it? =O People are desperate do disagree and I am outnumbered.

[libertythor]

In most high school history classes more than half of the text is skipped over or brushed upon quickly.

[Jeremy]

In most high school history classes more than half of the text is skipped over or brushed upon quickly.

My government class in highshcool actually only did two chapters of the book. I didn't take the final exam because I was exempt, but I was told the teacher had to give away a third of the answers on the test because the topics were never covered. lol =O

Actually, that's not funny at all...

[weslinder]

The funny thing to me is that Progressives run to the Constitution to defend themselves against neoconservative ideas like domestic spying. But then they say it's antiquated when they try to defend the big government that enables the domestic spying. They really want to eat their cake and have it, too.

[Truth Warrior]

Darn that LRC for poisoning all of those minds against the Constitution. :D

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

The power of TV is incredible.

[Working Poor]

Hey stormcommander-

Get back over to that other forum and wake some people up!!! Do not be afraid that someone might try to make you look bad. Be humble stick to the principals of freedom you have a great opportunity give it your best shot!!

[Truth Warrior]

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

[mport1]

The Constitution was never and is not a legitamite document. We should move beyond it.

[powerofreason]

What, specifically, don't they like about the Constitution? You need specifics to argue against. If they're just saying, "The Constitution is old." Well, I think everyone agrees that a document written over 200 years ago is old. Are they neocons? Libs? You need to be able to attack from a certain angle.

[Andrew-Austin]

What, specifically, don't they like about the Constitution? You need specifics to argue against. If they're just saying, "The Constitution is old." Well, I think everyone agrees that a document written over 200 years ago is old. Are they neocons? Libs? You need to be able to attack from a certain angle.

Yes. Are they libs asserting a "living constitution" or what? If they are just ranting about "how old" the constitution is then I would just thoroughly express your view on the subject matter and be done with it.

[LibertyEagle]

The Constitution was never and is not a legitamite document. We should move beyond it.

What do you have in mind?

[Jeremy]

I think he's one of those people that interrupts the Constitution lightly. aka "liberally"

Here was a post from someone else:


Oh, I don't think anyone disputes the spirit of the Constitution: Government by consent for the 'general welfare', basic rights and dignities for all the citizens of the USA. That's just hunky dory. What I am saying is that the Founder's vision in this area was limited to what a C18 state could do (actually, to be honest, to me it just looks like an idealised version of the contemporary British system, with a few extra elections bolted on). No one had even thought of the concept of a welfare state. No one new that massive urbanisation and industrialism was just a century away. Hell, no one knew that the USA would expand beyond the Appallachians. The bits referring to what the Government can and can't do are therefore a bit outdated. Like the Post Roads bit, for example. It looks to me that what they actually meant was 'The Federal Government will be responsible for major national transportation'. Not, literally, Post Roads (presumably you don't actually object to the National Highway System?).

At least this person (above) spoke maturely and made sense, unlike the other guy. =o

[Jeremy]

What do you have in mind?

Uh... he's probably an anarchist. Am I right?

[mport1]

Uh... he's probably an anarchist. Am I right?

Yes, as of the beginning of this year.

[noxagol]

I object to the national highway system. It's the reason we are fighting for oil right now. If the interstate system was never forced in, we would be using trains for most of our transportation probably powered by dedicate power plants, probably nuclear, and saving shit tons of money by not buying oil.

[Lord Xar]

People think the Constitution doesn't apply to today???

This is what people said to me at another forum:





My response:



It's almost as if these people never went to highschool. Or maybe it's a good example of how poorly public schools teach...

There is a growing Mantra among the left and the neo-conic circles on that right that the constitution isn't valid. And the ONLY argument they have is its age.
Its almost saying "well grandma, your wisdom and knowledge is no longer pertinent cause your 90yrs old and I'm 20. Different times and a different era."

This is being sung over and over - its a weird thing that is happening. I see the SAME argument over and over. It is being preached and regurgitated. Its hundreds of years old, it no longer applies.

What would be funny is - you say "Do you believe in god? Do you follow the bible? So, a book written thousands of years ago is still pertinent, BUT the the document that defines this great country does not? Rights have an expiration date?"

[SeanEdwards]

I hear exactly the same crap. I find it particularily amusing to hear the pompous "we're more educated today" commentary. Any cursory examination of the writings and backgrounds of the founders will show in an instant that they were vastly more educated and intellectual than probably 99% of today's college graduates.

I recall reading in McCullough's biography of John Adams, that Adams learned four languages, the highest mathematics of his day, and the natural sciences while attending a one room unheated New England schoolhouse. He didn't have a computer, he didn't even have freakin paper to work with. And yet the smug lazy youth of today think they know more than some long dead chump. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and today's pygmies think their high vantage point comes solely from their own efforts and ability. We are now a degenerate society that treats "ebonics" and "alternative lifestyle studies" as equivalent to study of classics like Newton's Principia. It's pathetic.

[ninepointfive]

sigh...


yes, I've heard the constitution isn't valid anymore from many of my democrat "friends".

I just tell them they are wrong. That this form of government is what allowed us to be free and prosperous, and that "I hope you enjoy the coming police state".

idiots

[mello]

I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse or really don't understand. Either way, it's easy to clear the air. The Constitution was written in 1787...that makes it an 18th century document. The document as written works best for an 18th century agrarian society with little education beyond the absolute basics.

Our society today is massively industrialized, extremely well educated (compared to the 18th century), highly urbanized, highly mobile, extremely interconnected, and has technologies undreamt of even as little as 50 years ago. In short, the Constitution can be a starting point for modern government and acts as the spiritual guidance, but we also need to account for what our society needs now.

Certain things we will always need: free speech, freedom of religion, right to associate and protest, gun rights (though with the appropriate restrictions--what Founder would have thought of the firepower we possess now?), etc.

The idea of the constitution being a useless document because it's old is a stupid argument. Euclid created the basis of Euclidian Geometry in 300BCE. People have been doing geometry based on Euclid's writings for over 2300 years. The first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum was in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. Good ideas and principles are timeless. If that doesn't work, tell 'em to live in a country that doesn't have the rights that are forefathers fought & died for & see how that works out for them. :)

[Truth Warrior]

I hear exactly the same crap. I find it particularily amusing to hear the pompous "we're more educated today" commentary. Any cursory examination of the writings and backgrounds of the founders will show in an instant that they were vastly more educated and intellectual than probably 99% of today's college graduates.

I recall reading in McCullough's biography of John Adams, that Adams learned four languages, the highest mathematics of his day, and the natural sciences while attending a one room unheated New England schoolhouse. He didn't have a computer, he didn't even have freakin paper to work with. And yet the smug lazy youth of today think they know more than some long dead chump. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and today's pygmies think their high vantage point comes solely from their own efforts and ability. We are now a degenerate society that treats "ebonics" and "alternative lifestyle studies" as equivalent to study of classics like Newton's Principia. It's pathetic.

And then the government got into the "schooling" business.:p Gotta just keep on churning out all of those "good citizens". ;)

[AJ Antimony]

Also, use the Constitution to your advantage. Hopefully some of those morons live in small states, then you can say stuff like...

"Ok, let's agree for a second. The Constitution is old and therefore isn't needed anymore. I see you live in Vermont. Do me a favor and say bye bye to the Senate! Yeah you heard me. Without the Constitution there is no need for a Senate. Nothing authorizes one. Wow. There goes your state's voice in the Union. I hope you guys like California, Texas and New York policies!

Hmm I guess you can also say goodbye to the House of Representatives. Won't need that either since nothing will authorize it. I hope you like a dictatorship! I hope you like bureaucracy! Oh yeah and I hope you don't care much for the Bill of Rights either.

You're right! The Constitution IS old!"

[malkusm]

I've never understood the short-sightedness of those who are so quick to claim that the Constitution is an "old" document. It literally was revolutionary. It caused many governments to shift their mode of thinking to the new form of government that we created, because we proved it worked through the prosperity of our first 100 years.

Monarchies are old, dictatorships are old, rule by force and plunder and the violation of man's free will are old. Freedom is new. To damn the Constitution as a thing of the past, is to return to ideals that are much older still, ideals that have time and again failed societies who have adapted them.

[menoname]

Every generation has the right to choose what kind of government they want. No generation has the authority to bound the future generations with their existing laws. Think Thomas Jefferson said that, but could be wrong.

[malkusm]

Every generation has the right to choose what kind of government they want. No generation has the authority to bound the future generations with ther existing laws. Think Thomas Jefferson said that, but could be wrong.

Thomas Jefferson counted on the citizens of a free nation to use their freedoms to educate themselves, which was an end now more attainable than ever. He did NOT count on the citizens who would elect their government to be brainwashed by a few in power, who have driven them to intellectual sloth and the nanny state. The will of the "majority" as we see it today, is really the will of those at the top of the societal food chain.

[SweetMona]

What, specifically, don't they like about the Constitution? You need specifics to argue against. If they're just saying, "The Constitution is old." Well, I think everyone agrees that a document written over 200 years ago is old. Are they neocons? Libs? You need to be able to attack from a certain angle.

I heard of that same line "The Constitution is old". My argument with those ignorant people would be that we cannot have our Judicial Branch operate without Constitution. It has all amendments and ratified languages which are pretty much updated and applied to our daily lives. What's the matter with them? Isn't ignorance a bliss? :o

[speciallyblend]

sigh...


yes, I've heard the constitution isn't valid anymore from many of my democrat "friends".

I just tell them they are wrong. That this form of government is what allowed us to be free and prosperous, and that "I hope you enjoy the coming police state".

idiots

so you going to minnesota? i have one seat open in my car if you want to go;) Colorado is coming to minnesota:)

[Mr. Coolidge]

People think the Constitution doesn't apply to today???

This is what people said to me at another forum:

My response:

It's almost as if these people never went to highschool. Or maybe it's a good example of how poorly public schools teach... Did you give the obvious (almost vending-machine-like) answer that the nature of man is still fundamentally the same? That the applications of those principles should (must) change with the times, but the principles themselves have always been this way?

[pdavis]

Every generation has the right to choose what kind of government they want. No generation has the authority to bound the future generations with their existing laws. Think Thomas Jefferson said that, but could be wrong.

Thomas Jefferson did hold such beliefs. He thought that no current generation should be bound to the previous generation's laws, constitution, and debt.

The Earth Belongs to the Living:

To James Madison Paris, Sep. 6, 1789


DEAR SIR,

-- I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals. To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the 1st., the 3d. of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence. At 21. years of age they may bind themselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at 22. for 33: at 23 for 32. and at 54 for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs. But a material difference must be noted between the succession of an individual and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child, on condition he satisfies his creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculty of paying.

What is true of a generation all arriving to self-government on the same day, and dying all on the same day, is true of those on a constant course of decay and renewal, with this only difference. A generation coming in and going out entire, as in the first case, would have a right in the 1st year of their self dominion to contract a debt for 33. years, in the 10th. for 24. in the 20th. for 14. in the 30th. for 4. whereas generations changing daily, by daily deaths and births, have one constant term beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality, corrected by the circumstances of climate, occupation &c. peculiar to the country of the contractors.Take, for instance, the table of M. de Buffon wherein he states that 23,994 deaths, and the ages at which they happened. Suppose a society in which 23,994 persons are born every year and live to the ages stated in this table. The conditions of that society will be as follows. 1st. it will consist constantly of 617,703 persons of all ages. 2dly. of those living at any one instant of time, one half will be dead in 24. years 8. months. 3dly. 10,675 will arrive every year at the age of 21. years complete. 4thly. it will constantly have 348,417 persons of all ages above 21. years. 5ly. and the half of those of 21. years and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8. months, or say 19. years as the nearest integral number. Then 19. years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt.

To render this conclusion palpable by example, suppose that Louis XIV. and XV. had contracted debts in the name of the French nation to the amount of 10.000 milliards of livres and that the whole had been contracted in Genoa. The interest of this sum would be 500 milliards, which is said to be the whole rent-roll, or nett proceeds of the territory of France. Must the present generation of men have retired from the territory in which nature produced them, and ceded it to the Genoese creditors? No. They have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generations had. They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature. They then and their soil are by nature clear of the debts of their predecessors. Again suppose Louis XV. and his contemporary generation had said to the money lenders of Genoa, give us money that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of 19. years, you shall then forever after receive an annual interest of (*) 12.'5 per cent. The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the living, eaten, drank, and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labour to replace their dissipations? Not at all.

I suppose that the received opinion, that the public debts of one generation devolve on the next, has been suggested by our seeing habitually in private life that he who succeeds to lands is required to pay the debts of his ancestor or testator, without considering that this requisition is municipal only, not moral, flowing from the will of the society which has found it convenient to appropriate the lands become vacant by the death of their occupant on the condition of a paiment of his debts; but that between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another."

The interest of the national debt of France being in fact but a two thousandth part of it's rent-roll, the paiment of it is practicable enough; and so becomes a question merely of honor or expediency. But with respect to future debts; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19. years? And that all future contracts shall be deemed void as to what shall remain unpaid at the end of 19. years from their date? This would put the lenders, and the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty of borrowing within its natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to which too free a course has been procured by the inattention of money lenders to this law of nature, that succeeding generations are not responsible for the preceding.

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19. years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

This principle that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead is of very extensive application and consequences in every country, and most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the questions Whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail? Whether they may change the appropriation of lands given antiently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity? whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue ecclesiastical and feudal? it goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions; to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations; to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts or sciences; with a long train of et ceteras: and it renders the question of reimbursement a question of generosity and not of right. In all these cases the legislature of the day could authorize such appropriations and establishments for their own time, but no longer; and the present holders, even where they or their ancestors have purchased, are in the case of bona fide purchasers of what the seller had no right to convey.

Turn this subject in your mind, my Dear Sir, and particularly as to the power of contracting debts, and develope it with that perspicuity and cogent logic which is so peculiarly yours. Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity of producing it to public consideration, of forcing it into discussion. At first blush it may be rallied as a theoretical speculation; but examination will prove it to be solid and salutary. It would furnish matter for a fine preamble to our first law for appropriating the public revenue; and it will exclude, at the threshold of our new government the contagious and ruinous errors of this quarter of the globe, which have armed despots with means not sanctioned by nature for binding in chains their fellow-men. We have already given, in example one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay. I should be pleased to see this second obstacle held out by us also in the first instance. No nation can make a declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts so disinterestedly as we, since we do not owe a shilling which may not be paid with ease principal and interest, within the time of our own lives. Establish the principle also in the new law to be passed for protecting copy rights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19. instead of 14. years

[a line entirely faded]

an instance the more of our taking reason for our guide instead of English precedents, the habit of which fetters us, with all the political herecies of a nation, equally remarkable for it's encitement from some errors, as long slumbering under others. I write you no news, because when an occasion occurs I shall write a separate letter for that.

[SeanEdwards]

Yeah, take a quick look at that routine letter (no doubt written with a feather and impeccable penmanship) by Jefferson and then try to assert that today's youth are better educated than those old dead fuckers. What an atrocity.

[Imperial]

Don't get me wrong. It is good to debate the efficacy of the Constitution. Debate brings about the stronger ideas.

However, these people shut their minds to avoid the truth. If they learned about the situation the Constitution was made under, and the debate over ratification of the Constitution, including the Federalist Papers, they would understand far more.

So, I would say in your arguments just make sure you don't assume the Constitution is the greatest document on earth. Whether it is or not, you still have to prove your case. Use logic to show that the situation the Constitution was made followed both overly-centralized rule and intrusions of rights; however, the Articles of Confederation failed in allowing any centralized power whatsoever, as proved especially in Shay's Rebellion and the failure of the legislature.

As such, its principles of governance apply today, where the same need exists.

Also, if the Constitution is so old, point out that all law derives from somewhere. Most law is even older(save communism, which itself is fairly old and has morphed from Marxism, to Leninism, split between Trotsky and Stalin, to Mao. All different types, but all basically fail). The Constitution leaves many openings to change, particularly in the amendments but also in more subtle ways.

Finally, challenge them to create a document of law that covers practically all important issues as the Constitution does. You can blow it off all you want, but until you have an alternative your sillyness means nothing.

[Truth Warrior]

Any Hamilton worshipers here?

[Jeremy]

Any Hamilton worshipers here?

Are you aware we're at RPF? D:

[Truth Warrior]

Are you aware we're at RPF? D:
Well he kinda headed up the Federalist coup cabal. ;)

[Charles Wilson]

People think the Constitution doesn't apply to today???

This is what people said to me at another forum:





My response:



It's almost as if these people never went to highschool. Or maybe it's a good example of how poorly public schools teach...

The vast majority of Americans do not have a clue when it comes to the Constitution and how the law protects the rights of "we the people". George W. Bush has been quoted as referring to the Constitution as a "GD piece of paper". I have heard the "old" arguments used against the Constitution and the Holy Bible. As any born again Christian knows, the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are documents drafted by individuals who believed in the Holy Bible, therefore those documents were indirectly inspired by the Word of God.

It is very difficult to debate the issues with someone who has a closed mind -- especially when the closed mind is based on ignorance of the facts. Arguments for and against the relevance of the Constitution have been hashed over ad nauseam. Therefore I find it a waste of time.

Ron Paul's voting record in Congress shows that he has followed the Constitution 100% when casting his vote. For all Ron Paul Republicans who are interested in the value of the Constitution and want to know where he stands, please check out the following links: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul155.html.

[Truth Warrior]

Who Killed the Constitution? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods92.html)
Tom Woods on its stranglers.

[SeanEdwards]

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are documents drafted by individuals who believed in the Holy Bible, therefore those documents were indirectly inspired by the Word of God.



The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

[hope7134]

Stormcommander,
Do the people on the other forum like having the right to vote for elected officials?
Do they like the right to not have the government read their mail, listen to their phone calls, enter their homes without a warrant?
Do they like the idea of the government not being able to randomly seize their property?
Do they like the ability to freely speak their minds?
Do they like the ability to protest their government?
Do they like the freedom to worship however they want?
Do they like living in the United States or are they willing to live in the North American Union?
Do think like the freedom to move around or do they want to go through military checkpoints just crossing state lines?

If they do like any of these freedoms, then I guess the Constitution is not an old document, because it is the Constitution that GUARANTEES these rights. Without the Constitution there is no law to stop the government from removing every single one of these rights! See that's the problem we are facing now, they don't know without the Constitution, THERE IS NO OTHER LAW to keep the government in check. Now either they have those rights guaranteed to them by the old worn out Constitution or they have no rights guaranteed to them, which one is it?

[tod evans]

There is a growing Mantra among the left and the neo-conic circles on that right that the constitution isn't valid. And the ONLY argument they have is its age.
Its almost saying "well grandma, your wisdom and knowledge is no longer pertinent cause your 90yrs old and I'm 20. Different times and a different era."

This is being sung over and over - its a weird thing that is happening. I see the SAME argument over and over. It is being preached and regurgitated. Its hundreds of years old, it no longer applies.
"

ya` know when i was 20 i knew most things....when i turned 30 i questioned most things.....when i turned 40 i studied the things i found relevant i`m not yet 50 but i now realize how uneducated and ignorant i am......
for young folks to discount the wisdom of their elders is plain foolish.

[SLSteven]

It's almost as if these people never went to highschool. Or maybe it's a good example of how poorly public schools teach...


"The document as written works best for an 18th century agrarian society with little education beyond the absolute basics."

He might be surprised if he could compare his education with that of the 18th century agrarians.

[liberteebell]

There is a growing Mantra among the left and the neo-conic circles on that right that the constitution isn't valid. And the ONLY argument they have is its age.
Its almost saying "well grandma, your wisdom and knowledge is no longer pertinent cause your 90yrs old and I'm 20. Different times and a different era."

This is being sung over and over - its a weird thing that is happening. I see the SAME argument over and over. It is being preached and regurgitated. Its hundreds of years old, it no longer applies.

What would be funny is - you say "Do you believe in god? Do you follow the bible? So, a book written thousands of years ago is still pertinent, BUT the the document that defines this great country does not? Rights have an expiration date?"


+2008

Not to mention the fact that most people believe government grants rights rather than protecting them.

I'd like to add that the Constitution is the Rule of Law with provisions for altering it if necessary. Laws are necessarily static. Otherwise, judges, juries and anyone in authority could just make up laws as they go along and change laws without anyone's consent or knowledge. Sheesh, if these people ever took their lame arguments to their logical conclusions...

[Akus]

This is why it was about Ron Paul winning. You can beat stupid laws, but there is no way on Earth you will ever beat stupid people. When a person votes for Obama, knowing full well of Ron Paul and agreeing with him, logic and common sense are no good. When people think that US Constitution is a "goddam piece of paper that some sheep farmers wrote", logic and common sense are powerless, too.

[SLSteven]

Sheesh, if these people ever took their lame arguments to their logical conclusions...

They are more interested in knee-jerk reactions than logical conclusions.

[fr33domfightr]

The Constitution was the agreement whereby The People created our union, the United STATES. The government has no actual powers to begin with, it only has the power which is granted to it. Now it would seem, the federal government acts like its King, and its not.

The agreement, created many many years ago, is the document that issues power, by the people, and for the people.


FF

[Truth Warrior]

Keep going folks some of your comments on easily verifiable US history are absolutely hilarious amd are just really cracking me up. I'm loving this. :D

If you don't know what you're talking about or even have a clue, just make some crap up and maybe someone will buy it. Is that how it's supposed to work.?

[invisible]

Do the people on the other forum like having the right to vote for elected officials?

Just like the Nevada convention, right?


Do they like the right to not have the government read their mail, listen to their phone calls, enter their homes without a warrant?

The "patriot act" and FISA took care of that one.


Do they like the idea of the government not being able to randomly seize their property?

Ask the people in New London, CT.


Do they like the ability to freely speak their minds?
Do they like the ability to protest their government?

Then we've got a "free speech zone" for you!


Do they like the freedom to worship however they want?

Ask the FLDS what happened to them.


Do they like living in the United States or are they willing to live in the North American Union?

We'll build the NAFTA superhighway whether you want it or not, and steal your land to do it.


Do think like the freedom to move around or do they want to go through military checkpoints just crossing state lines?

If so, you better get one of those real id cards.


Without the Constitution there is no law to stop the government from removing every single one of these rights!

Are you sure that they haven't been removed yet?

[Charles Wilson]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: - that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator (capital C) with certain inalienable rights ....."

Signers of the Declaration of Independence: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/signers/index.htm.

Recorded history tells us that the first settlers in America were Christians and believed in God almighty. The fact that all of the great leaders who signed the document acknowledged God is proof enough for me to conclude that the Holy Bible inspired their actions. Also, the fact that our founding fathers included "freedom of religion" in the First Amendment is further proof that our founding fathers believed in a supreme being.

Thomas Jefferson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views

BTW: Ron Paul -- another great leader, akin to the founding fathers -- is a Christian and believes in God almighty.

[Truth Warrior]

The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: - that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator (capital C) with certain inalienable rights ....."

Signers of the Declaration of Independence: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/signers/index.htm.

Recorded history tells us that the first settlers in America were Christians and believed in God almighty. The fact that all of the great leaders who signed the document acknowledged God is proof enough for me to conclude that the Holy Bible inspired their actions. Also, the fact that our founding fathers included "freedom of religion" in the First Amendment is further proof that our founding fathers believed in a supreme being.

Thomas Jefferson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views

BTW: Ron Paul -- another great leader, akin to the founding fathers -- is a Christian and believes in God almighty.

What Supreme Being do the Masons believe in?

[dude58677]

If they are neocons, ask them if Bill Clinton should be indicted in an American courtroom for violating the Bill of Rights.

If they are democrats, ask them if they think that George Bush should be indicted for violation of the Constitution(He was by Battleboro, VT and Marlboro, VT)?

[Charles Wilson]

What Supreme Being do the Masons believe in?

My original post stated that our founding fathers were inspired by the Holy Bible and their belief in God when they drafted and approved the Constitution. I do not know very much about the Masons and their beliefs. I suppose that individual Masons, in their particular brotherhood/organization, have common religious beliefs. I do know that they profess a belief in God. The Masons that I know are Christians.

[Truth Warrior]

My original post stated that our founding fathers were inspired by the Holy Bible and their belief in God when they drafted and approved the Constitution. I do not know very much about the Masons and their beliefs. I suppose that individual Masons, in their particular brotherhood/organization, have common religious beliefs. I do know that they profess a belief in God. The Masons that I know are Christians.

Given their significant roles, in the establishment of the USA, do you feel any sense of obligation to find out ENOUGH about who the Masons are, and what are their core beliefs? Just curious!

Thanks! :)

[Ozwest]

America's founders were the most remarkable, self-reliant, truth sayers ever!

Please read this quote by Thomas Paine...

" Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the farmer promotes our happiness positively by writing our affections, the latter by negatively restraining our vices.

The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil. "

[Truth Warrior]

America's founders were the most remarkable, self-reliant, truth sayers ever!

Please read this quote by Thomas Paine...

" Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the farmer promotes our happiness positively by writing our affections, the latter by negatively restraining our vices.

The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil. " Nah, they just got some good press coverage, PR, and overblown coverage in the "official" history books.

[Ozwest]

Nah, they just some good press coverage, PR, and overblown coverage in the "official" history books.

Yeah,

I'm sure Thomas Paine, would have bowed his head, completely cowed, and asked Barbara Walters for a autograph.

Mommie dearest, may I speak? :D

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah,

I'm sure Thomas Paine, would have bowed his head, completely cowed, and asked Barbara Walters for a autograph.

Mommie dearest, may I speak? :D

Thomas Paine: "Origin of Free Masonry"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/origin_free-masonry.html

;)

[Ozwest]

America and France are blood brothers.

This is "common sense."

[Truth Warrior]

America and France are blood brothers.

This is "common sense." I'd say WERE. The French lost the thread and dropped the ball somewhere along the line.<IMHO> :rolleyes: :p Hunh, so have we, well son of a gun. ;)

:D

[Ozwest]

My original post stated that our founding fathers were inspired by the Holy Bible and their belief in God when they drafted and approved the Constitution. I do not know very much about the Masons and their beliefs. I suppose that individual Masons, in their particular brotherhood/organization, have common religious beliefs. I do know that they profess a belief in God. The Masons that I know are Christians.


So, you would be pleased with a Theocracy, Aya:Dtollah?

[Charles Wilson]

So, you would be pleased with a Theocracy, Aya:Dtollah?

Nah. Where did that come from? If you have followed my posts then you know that I do not support a theocracy or a godless government. I support freedom of religion and freedom from religion -- First Amendment. God gave us free will to live our lives the way we see fit and reap the consequences -- good or bad.

However, if I had to make a choice between living in a theocracy or a godless society, I would choose theocracy. If you think we have problems now, think what it would be like if there were no moral restraints -- the law of the jungle is not my cup of tea!

[Ozwest]

Nah. Where did that come from? If you have followed my posts then you know that I do not support a theocracy or a godless government. I support freedom of religion and freedom from religion -- First Amendment. God gave us free will to live our lives the way we see fit and reap the consequences -- good or bad.

However, if I had to make a choice between living in a theocracy or a godless society, I would choose theocracy. If you think we have problems now, think what it would be like if there were no moral restraints -- the law of the jungle is not my cup of tea!


I agreed with you totally, until you assumed that a weak-assed atheist such as myself is incapable of moral restraint.

I hate outside authority, and prefer to be self-reliant.

I do not require your moral compass.

[Charles Wilson]

Given their significant roles, in the establishment of the USA, do you feel any sense of obligation to find out ENOUGH about who the Masons are, and what are their core beliefs? Just curious!

Thanks! :)

Nope, not interested. At the age of 70 I have too much information to sort through as is without adding more stuff that will only serve to clutter up my brain. If it would help restore our Constitution then I would consider it but, as of now, I do not see how it would do any good toward that end.

[Truth Warrior]

Nope, not interested. At the age of 70 I have too much information to sort through as is without adding more stuff that will only serve to clutter up my brain. If it would help restore our Constitution then I would consider it but, as of now, I do not see how it would do any good toward that end.
You aren't that much older than me. Perhaps your goals would change with a little more Founders information. It's always good to find an open mind. ;)

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

[Sematary]

Where is this forum? It sounds like it needs a Ron Paul invasion.

[Charles Wilson]

I agreed with you totally, until you assumed that a weak-assed atheist such as myself is incapable of moral restraint.

I hate outside authority, and prefer to be self-reliant.

I do not require your moral compass.

The moral compass is not mine. It belongs to all of us who are moral -- you included. I too prefer self-relience but I also recognize my human limitations and lean on a higher power to guide my actions. I acknowledge that in some ways you are stronger than I am. Having said that, my relience on God provide opportunities that do not exist for you. I say that because I have many tangible accomplishments in my life that I would not have attempted without my faith in a higher power.

As for being an atheist, that is your personal choice. I choose to believe. That is what free will is all about. As you know, the First Amendment of the Constitution works for both of us.

[Ozwest]

Where is this forum? It sounds like it needs a Ron Paul invasion.

Can you twist the fate of those around you by affecting the slightest changes in the environment?

:)

[Ozwest]

The moral compass is not mine. It belongs to all of us who are moral -- you included. I too prefer self-relience but I also recognize my human limitations and lean on a higher power to guide my actions. I acknowledge that in some ways you are stronger than I am. Having said that, my relience on God provide opportunities that do not exist for you. I say that because I have many tangible accomplishments in my life that I would not have attempted without my faith in a higher power.

As for being an atheist, that is your personal choice. I choose to believe. That is what free will is all about. As you know, the First Amendment of the Constitution works for both of us.


No power struggle mate.

I respect you. My Mom and Dad are Christians, and I love and respect them.

I get pissed off when others assume I am less moral and civic than them because I choose to be an atheist.

Those who disagree with atheists by labelling them as anti-Christian, stifle free speech and informed debate.