Is the Constitution Important?

[ronpaulforprez2008]

Is the real purpose of the Obama birth-location-meme to demonstrate America's nonchalance with its own Constitution?. We're hearing much now from all angles that the Constitution is no longer valid. Notably Obama himself has said he will 'update' it. In other words, is this more about a collective attack on the Constitution? Pretty obviously in this climate of fools thinking Obama is more important to America than some 'silly old' Constitutional law. Unfortunately, in today's world, the Constitution doesn't even have to be tested for real...nowadays the memes are enough to do the damage. The psychological attacks eat away at public need for the Constitution.


Will the Country Survive? Soon We Shall Know
http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/will_the_country_survive_soon_we_shall_know/

If Hussein does indeed have proof he is natural born, why has he withheld it? The only speculation I can think of is he has waited all this time to reveal it in order to embarrass lawyers Phil Berg and Leo Donofrio and many others who have filed suits. By revealing it now he could play the injured party and leave lots of egg on their faces, but the new question would arise of why he has been playing games all along and wasted so much of the nation’s time, when he could have put the matter to rest long ago. So far he still qualifies as Illegal-Alien Elect.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in his favor – in the face of the metastasizing evidence – I shall conclude that the Constitution now is dead and therefore that the country is no more, because the High Court says so. Remember, this is not a case with evidence and arguments on both sides, in which the court must find the preponderance. There is nothing on the other side, except counterfeits and forgeries.
.
.
.
.
What would it mean if the Constitution were dead? Even before the interment, the effects are apparent, as in an approaching hurricane. The Constitution is our basic, organic law, from which all written law descends. Without it, there would be lip service, not law. The government would simply issue arbitrary decrees. There would be dictatorship. The concept of legality would evaporate. How could you tell right from wrong? Something would be right if you could get away with it. If you could not, it would be wrong.

Meanwhile, remember that it was not just the superb campaign the Obamatrons mounted – including funding, organization, election fraud, etc. – that elected Hussein. Without the collaboration of the national Communist media, left and right, Hussein could not have been elected, however much funding, organization and fraud he employed. On the left there was sickening degenerate Chris Matthews, who feels a thrill run up his leg during wet dreams about Hussein. There was Katie Kook and the Communist Broadcasting System. On the right, there were Limbag, Loopy Laura and sissy puke Levin, who helped conceal the real story of Hussein, all the things we tell you here.

You may recall that, more than once, I called the people in the national Communist media traitors, enemies of this country just as much as an invading Wehrmacht division would have been in World War II, except that because these propagandist agents of a foreign power do not fight in uniform, they are terrorists and therefore are not protected by the Geneva Convention. A reader responds to those comments as follows:

“I would like to expand on your comment about the media traitors and their treatment by the people. These traitors can move freely about this country without ever a concern for their own personal safety. What if the anger against these elite and their pawns reaches a boiling point and their mobility of reporting anywhere in this country is no longer an option. The public can stop their propaganda and force them to stay in their secured studios only (kind of like the Baghdad Green Zone).

(read entire article at link above)

[AggieforPaul]

Im against the Constitution in principle, but out of political expediency I will fight for it, because the Hamiltonian big government douches weren't as imaginative in the 1700s as their counterparts in 2008 (like Obama) are. The Constitution is a lot better than letting Obama and Pelosi write the laws

[nate895]

Im against the Constitution in principle, but out of political expediency I will fight for it, because the Hamiltonian big government douches weren't as imaginative in the 1700s as their counterparts in 2008 (like Obama) are. The Constitution is a lot better than letting Obama and Pelosi write the laws

What would you be in favor of? If it is the Articles of Confederation, I am with you.

[Truth Warrior]

It seems to depend on who you ask.<IMHO> ;) :)

[AggieforPaul]

What would you be in favor of? If it is the Articles of Confederation, I am with you.

Yes, because the AoC was established legally unlike the Constitution.

[Kotin]

What would you be in favor of? If it is the Articles of Confederation, I am with you.

I would love to be a confederation again.

[nate895]

I would love to be a confederation again.

So would I, the only change I'd make would be for Congress to have the power to levy taxes on the states and establish a free trade zone in the United States. It is funny when I hear people say that the Constitution granted sweeping new authorities, because those are the only two new powers explicitly granted in the Constitution.

[Kotin]

So would I, the only change I'd make would be for Congress to have the power to levy taxes on the states and establish a free trade zone in the United States. It is funny when I hear people say that the Constitution granted sweeping new authorities, because those are the only two new powers explicitly granted in the Constitution.

yes well, I guess you cant get past the 100's of millions of "implied" powers..


:rolleyes:

[mport1]

The Constitution is not important. It is a terrible, anti-liberty document.

Listen to a great, short book on the Constitution - No Treason: Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner in audio format (http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/images/stories/audio/spooner_no_treason_full.mp3).

[Matt Collins]

It seems to depend on who you ask.Naaw... it's "just a quaint goddamn piece of paper...now quit throwing it in my face" :mad:

[Truth Warrior]

Naaw... it's "just a quaint goddamn piece of paper" :mad:

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html) :D

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

[mport1]

Naaw... it's "just a quaint goddamn piece of paper" :mad:

I agree. It is just a goddamn piece of paper:) It's good to point out when the "government" doesn't follow their own piece of paper but that's all it is.

[Matt Collins]

Please realize I am quoting the GW the lesser -
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm




And AG Gonzalaez called the Constitution "quaint"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/19/leavitt.gonzales/

[Truth Warrior]

Please realize I am quoting the GW the lesser -
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm




And AG Gonzalaez called the Constitution "quaint"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/19/leavitt.gonzales/

And Lysander was writing and complaining about the CONstitution about 150 years ago. It has NOT gotten ANY better since, by a long shot.<IMHO> :p :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

And Lysander was writing and complaining about the CONstitution about 150 years ago. It has NOT gotten ANY better since, by a long shot.<IMHO> :p :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior, where's your article about the Constitution being dead? I was so expecting you to post that. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior, where's your article about the Constitution being dead? I was so expecting you to post that. :D :cool: Since you asked so nicely, I'll happily give you a bonus one too. :D

Who Killed the Constitution? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods92.html)

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

[mediahasyou]

The constitution is not important because it is illegitimate.

[Theocrat]

:cool: Since you asked so nicely, I'll happily give you a bonus one too. :D

Who Killed the Constitution? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods92.html)


The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

That's better. :)

[Truth Warrior]

That's better. :) Pax vobiscum! ;) :D

[SeanEdwards]

It's worthless crap.

It can't even serve as functional bum wiping material because it's made of parchment that would surely tear your ass up.

The vast majority of politicians and American public do not know what's in it, or give a damn about it. It's a quaint historical artifact now, without about the same value as some saint's preserved toenail.

[nate895]

The AoC was a complete failure. Why in the hell should we go back to it.

That is a load of bullshit taught by government propaganda centers. The AoC's only shortcomings was the lack of authority to tax to provide for a Navy, and the lack of authority to establish a free trade zone in the United States. Those both could have been changed by simply amending the document. They decided to start over because they didn't like how Congress voted (state-by-state).

[freedom-maniac]

I would prefer to have a constitution rather than not. As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

For those who prefer the Articles, I think they offer more danger to our liberty. For one the ingenious "divison of powers" and "checks and balances" are not present. The sole body of government was a unicarmal legislature. The lack of a judiciary was quite scary. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 22, "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation." Also, without another house of legislature, or an executive holding veto power, too much power was vested in the hands of too few people.

As for those who prefer anarchy to either the Constitution or the Articles, I laugh. I am no fan of our government, but it is a lot better than all the other governments that could have swept in and replaced it. It is a natural course of history for tyranny to follow anarchy. Anarchists overthrew the French Monarchy and ended up with Napoleon. They overthrew the Czar and ended up with Lenin and Stalin. They overthrew the liberal Italian government and ended up with Mussolini. Even if the nation was to remain in anarchy, it certainily wouldn't be a libertarian paradise, as some claim. Just look at the chaos in Somalia, which is officially an anarchy.

[nate895]

I would prefer to have a constitution rather than not. As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

For those who prefer the Articles, I think they offer more danger to our liberty. For one the ingenious "divison of powers" and "checks and balances" are not present. The sole body of government was a unicarmal legislature. The lack of a judiciary was quite scary. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 22, "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation." Also, without another house of legislature, or an executive holding veto power, too much power was vested in the hands of too few people.

As for those who prefer anarchy to either the Constitution or the Articles, I laugh. I am no fan of our government, but it is a lot better than all the other governments that could have swept in and replaced it. It is a natural course of history for tyranny to follow anarchy. Anarchists overthrew the French Monarchy and ended up with Napoleon. They overthrew the Czar and ended up with Lenin and Stalin. They overthrew the liberal Italian government and ended up with Mussolini. Even if the nation was to remain in anarchy, it certainily wouldn't be a libertarian paradise, as some claim. Just look at the chaos in Somalia, which is officially an anarchy.

None of the other branches were necessary in the articles because otherwise it was quite clear that the states would leave the Union if they felt that the Federal government was going beyond its range of powers. The powers of the Confederation were clearly enumerated, and there was nothing that could be interpreted as elastic.

[Minlawc]

The US Constitution should matter to those who swear by it.

[mport1]

The constitution is not important because it is illegitimate.

Yep. Wish people within this movement would realize this.

[freedom-maniac]

None of the other branches were necessary in the articles because otherwise it was quite clear that the states would leave the Union if they felt that the Federal government was going beyond its range of powers. The powers of the Confederation were clearly enumerated, and there was nothing that could be interpreted as elastic.

True, but that's what our Constitution was understood to be like when it was first ratified. However, the right to seceed and the enumeration of powers were gradually forgotten under the Constitution.

Since the AoC had basically the same powers, what makes you think the same thing wouldn't happen? Eventually, as usually happens with history, liberty would yield and government would gain ground, to paraphrase Jefferson.

The difference would be once a ruling majority could be found in the Congress of the AoC, there would be no checks and balances to prevent them from establish an absolute tyranny. There would be no executive to veto their decisions, or an indepedent judiciary to declare their actions unconstitutional.

[nate895]

True, but that's what our Constitution was understood to be like when it was first ratified. However, the right to seceed and the enumeration of powers were gradually forgotten under the Constitution.

Since the AoC had basically the same powers, what makes you think the same thing wouldn't happen? Eventually, as usually happens with history, liberty would yield and government would gain ground, to paraphrase Jefferson.

The difference would be once a ruling majority could be found in the Congress of the AoC, there would be no checks and balances to prevent them from establish an absolute tyranny. There would be no executive to veto their decisions, or an indepedent judiciary to declare their actions unconstitutional.

The Federal government has used instruments within the Constitution to make its power grabs. There are no clauses in the AoC that can be interpreted as elastic, like the "General Welfare," "Interstate Commerce," and "Necessary and Proper" clauses in the Constitution of 1787. The Constitution can be interpreted its way out of existence, but the AoC cannot be interpreted out of existence, it would take blatantly unconstitutional acts to be destroyed, and you'd never get 9/13 of the states to agree to a law against the AoC, and you'd never get all 13 to amend it beyond necessity.

[Printo]

Its more important than the Bible!

[nate895]

Its more important than the Bible!

For crying out loud, you simply can't escape this BS can you. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I will now be looking to open up a new forum to avoid all this BS. I will still come here and all, but we shouldn't have to deal with insults to the Christianity in a thread that has absolutely 0 to do with Religion.

[Truth Warrior]

The AoC was a complete failure. Why in the hell should we go back to it. Because as utter failures go, it was still much preferable to the Federalist coup of 1789, utter failure. :D

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

[mellamojuana]

Nate895, how 'bout this? Let's let Printo and others discount, disdain, disparage, insult, and profane the Hebrew scriptures and Christian scriptures. God does not need our defense, and perhaps Printo doesn't need God; we believe God can do nicely without him/her, and without any of us.

Like you, I am having to learn to desensitize myself to the insensitivities of others. We are not the problem; we're working on the problem. Freedom used to hurt and provoke others is not what Christian Congressman Ron Paul, physician, advocates.

With tongue in cheek, I'll get back to the topic, "Is the Constitution important?"

Without benefit of history lessons and lectures, I say, in true Republican loyalty although I am registered Independent, "Of course, the Constitution is important. It's a living document, isn't it, and isn't all life, sacred and deserving of our best protection?"

Tongue in cheek, devil's advocate, etc., etc., etc.

P.S. Campaign for Liberty offers opportunities for discourse that is usually amicable and, at least, more dependably respectful than rpforums. C4Lers aren't perfect conversationalists, but most of the time are polite. :)

[nate895]

Nate895, how 'bout this? Let's let Printo and others discount, disdain, disparage, insult, and profane the Hebrew scriptures and Christian scriptures. God does not need our defense, and perhaps Printo doesn't need God; we believe God can do nicely without him/her, and without any of us.

Like you, I am having to learn to desensitize myself to the insensitivities of others. We are not the problem; we're working on the problem. Freedom used to hurt and provoke others is not what Christian Congressman Ron Paul, physician, advocates.

With tongue in cheek, I'll get back to the topic, "Is the Constitution important?"

Without benefit of history lessons and lectures, I say, in true Republican loyalty although I am registered Independent, "Of course, the Constitution is important. It's a living document, isn't it, and isn't all life, sacred and deserving of our best protection?"

Tongue in cheek, devil's advocate, etc., etc., etc.

P.S. Campaign for Liberty offers opportunities for discourse that is usually amicable and, at least, more dependably respectful than rpforums. C4Lers aren't perfect conversationalists, but most of the time are polite. :)

I simply wish to have a forum where I can go to hash out some projects, and discuss issues without someone constantly attacking my beliefs. I don't mind being challenged, I just don't want a thread to discuss the importance of the Constitution, and threads about other unrelated issues, to constantly become vitriolic matches between either atheists and theists, or anarchists and small government people.

And, if I didn't respond, as Theocrat mentioned to me in a PM last night, I'd be breaking 1 Peter 3:15


But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

[Truth Warrior]

I simply wish to have a forum where I can go to hash out some projects, and discuss issues without someone constantly attacking my beliefs. I don't mind being challenged, I just don't want a thread to discuss the importance of the Constitution, and threads about other unrelated issues, to constantly become vitriolic matches between either atheists and theists, or anarchists and small government people.

And, if I didn't respond, as Theocrat mentioned to me in a PM last night, I'd be breaking 1 Peter 3:15

http://www.bcbsr.com/books/eph6b.html (http://www.bcbsr.com/books/eph6b.html)

[heavenlyboy34]

For crying out loud, you simply can't escape this BS can you. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I will now be looking to open up a new forum to avoid all this BS. I will still come here and all, but we shouldn't have to deal with insults to the Christianity in a thread that has absolutely 0 to do with Religion.

+1

[nate895]

http://www.bcbsr.com/books/eph6b.html (http://www.bcbsr.com/books/eph6b.html)

I have a statue about that verse.

[BagOfEyebrows]

The federal constitution isn't functioning correctly (in the small government way it was intended) because most stopped reading, abiding by and following the detailed instructions found in their state constitutions.

When states started turning to the federal government to take care of state issues, the downward spiral began - and it's been that way for many generations, not just our generation.

State constitutions are far more powerful than the federal constitution, and we, the people, are far more powerful than even our state constitutions - the principles themselves and/or the creator of life (re: god, or whatever you call him) is the supreme law of the land, and the most powerful of all - we only need to grasp that concept in order to get things back to working order.

We need the constitutions, federal and state, to stay in place, in spite of how horribly they are ignored, defiled and obnoxiously tortured by words and deeds, because we need documents around that will bring people back to the principles of logic and compassion this nation was intended to be founded upon ... but simply lost its way.

It's pretty clear that attempts are going to be made to bring forth a 'new constitution' by the Obama gang - the bright side of things is that no matter how many subscribe to the 'ideas' Obama suckers them in with, no matter how passionately they rally to kill the current constitutions - the principles themselves, and the ideas of liberty and freedom are not capable of being destroyed. We will always have them. Always.

And we will have many decisions to make in a system that will be bent on making criminals of those who seek only to follow the supreme law of the land, to follow a set of principles and to desire that their governments also follow those set of principles, and many will find themselves in really crappy situations because of their unwavering stance. So be it - they will bite the hand that feeds them, should they incarcerate us all. We're the producers, after all. We're the ones that take direct action. We're the volunteers. We're the ones that decide how to proceed.

One thing I'm absolutely positive of is that we have to stop clammering for the seperation of church and state - the folks at the top, those elite who own most of everything, they enjoy our debates on seperating government and 'religious' principles.

But the principles aren't religious! Even most atheists subscribe to the basic principles of a constitutional republic -

To those who seek to destroy the Republic, when we ask for seperation of church and state, or church and nation, we are requesting that there not be a foundation of moral principles at the helm of government - the word 'morality' isn't religious, either, but most of us have been led to believe it is.

Can you be gay and not lie, cheat or steal, and without force? Yep. Ok, then, you're moral.

Can you smoke pot and not lie, cheat or steal, and without force? Yep. Ok, then, you're moral.

Can you get naked with another person and bounce around for a few hours under some sheets with a bunch of helium balloons and a pancake spatula without lying, cheating, stealing, and without force? Yep. Ok, then, you're moral, too.

Can you do all those things without infringing on anyone's rights to life, liberty, property and the seeking and obtaining of happiness? Yes. Yes, you can. You can even do all three at once and not break the code of morality.

You've followed the natural law - you're moral.

That's all our founding fathers hoped to achieve - getting people on the same page with some basics. Just don't lie, cheat or steal. Don't force anyone to do anything. Respect people's rights. That's all. The religious stuff was supposed to be on a town level - towns could get all big on rules and mandates and ban abortion and ban alcohol and ban whatever they thought their God wouldn't approve of - and that would lead to a lot of different little towns and cities to choose from. You'd naturally gravitate towards the town that best reflected your own thoughts and sacred beliefs.

You personally, maybe, wouldn't select to live in a town that didn't allow folks to wear banana suits to gay weddings while sipping wine and grabbing four huge stuffed mushrooms to play around with as some cute waiter goes by, and that would be your right - cuz that town couldn't force you to live there. Only anti-banana suit folks and former FDA employees would be living there. So be it, let them live there in peace! A few towns away, you could find your gay wedding allowing banana suit stuffed mushroom utopia. You could go live there -

The only term those 'in charge' understand, at this time, to represent moral principles is: religion and/or God - so my suggestion is to start calling the principles we are all fighting to protect "God", no matter what your religious affiliation is, or even if you haven't a religion - because we're not fighting for a peaceful, sound money, realistic budgets, non-interventionalist nation, with a bunch of folks who understand morality and logic and true compassion using any other word - they only see it as 'God' and/or religion, which is why they have worked so hard to seperate church and state - and why they have attacked Christian and Catholic religion in their media. They have played the agnostics and atheists for their own agendas - stop falling for it, when what you want is a government with those very principles you've been fooled into believing are 'religious' - they aren't!

But we better start referring to them as religious, or spiritual, or God - cuz it's the only way we can win without another bloody revolution.

Those in charge may have gone to the 'best' schools and all, but they don't understand, at all, the lengths mankind will go to in order to protect the principles - and they don't understand, at all, the incredibly huge amount of 'silent witnesses' who sit, waiting for those of us out here to show them the way back to things making sense again. Those in charge are greatly, greatly outnumbered - and greatly out-resourced. And greatly out-principled.

Just do the math on this - it adds up to the principles winning. Every time. Without fail. Maybe there is a God - maybe it's just a scientific force that demands things get back to being sustainable and following universal law. Maybe God just is an easier way of explaining the formula of life - cuz if it isn't 'intelligent design', then it's math or science - and in both math and science, a formula or equation. Still a design, of sorts. Still a set way things have to follow in order to make sense and/or add up. So - call it God. If that's the only term they know, call it that - we bypass a lot of destructiveness if we do that, crazy as it sounds. It's the most logical way, and the least violent.

And get a copy of your state constitution from your secretary of state.

Ramble for last day of November.

[Truth Warrior]

I have a statue about that verse. Make it personal. ;) :) Crank it up.

[dude58677]

The Federal government has used instruments within the Constitution to make its power grabs. There are no clauses in the AoC that can be interpreted as elastic, like the "General Welfare," "Interstate Commerce," and "Necessary and Proper" clauses in the Constitution of 1787. The Constitution can be interpreted its way out of existence, but the AoC cannot be interpreted out of existence, it would take blatantly unconstitutional acts to be destroyed, and you'd never get 9/13 of the states to agree to a law against the AoC, and you'd never get all 13 to amend it beyond necessity.


Agree, and on top of this there is no executive and judicial branch to enforce congressional laws under the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution is what we have to work with so I would start with the preamble of the bill of rights.

[BeFranklin]

Yes, because the AoC was established legally unlike the Constitution.

Oh, dare I say it after saying the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, AND 17th amendment weren't legally ratified on other threads (and a bunch of states weren't legally admitted either)... :cool:

I agree. The Constitution was also never legally ratiffed because the Articles of Confederation required confirmation by every state, and the Constution claims it only required 9 States to ratify it... This is similar to the problem with the 17th amendment.



Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

[BeFranklin]

So would I, the only change I'd make would be for Congress to have the power to levy taxes on the states and establish a free trade zone in the United States. It is funny when I hear people say that the Constitution granted sweeping new authorities, because those are the only two new powers explicitly granted in the Constitution.

I once cut and pasted the Constitution and Articles of Confederation together to see how much difference there was. You're right, there isn't that much difference.

The argument that the Constitution may be more losely worded on purpose is something that can be debated awhile. The writings of the anti-federalists as well as the federalists and notes on the debates makes good reading.

[BeFranklin]

I would prefer to have a constitution rather than not. As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

For those who prefer the Articles, I think they offer more danger to our liberty. For one the ingenious "divison of powers" and "checks and balances" are not present. The sole body of government was a unicarmal legislature. The lack of a judiciary was quite scary. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 22, "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation." Also, without another house of legislature, or an executive holding veto power, too much power was vested in the hands of too few people.


True, but all that is less necessary under the Articles, because the federal government is smaller and the States have more power and operate more like independent Stat.. countries.

[BeFranklin]

bump for the Articles of Confederation discussion

[UtahApocalypse]

"If Hussein does indeed have proof he is natural born"

I read no more then the first line. What honestly unbiased reporter uses ONLY the persons middle name. this is a straight up attack article.

No, we do not agree with Obama. Yes, We do have issues we want clarified. Using complete NON-Issue tactics such as ONLY his middle name is petty, childish, and makes us all look like fools and kooks.

[Truth Warrior]

I read no more then the first line. What honestly unbiased reporter uses ONLY the persons middle name. this is a straight up attack article.

No, we do not agree with Obama. Yes, We do have issues we want clarified. Using complete NON-Issue tactics such as ONLY his middle name is petty, childish, and makes us all look like fools and kooks. Unless he was born in Kenya. THAT makes the Dems AND most of the voters look like the fools they ARE. ;)