Ron Paul - Our Constitution...has failed.

[Anti Federalist]

The Anti Federalists and yes, even the anarchists, are right, and Ron Paul agrees.

The Constitution, as written, is a failure.

It did not prevent, even with the written absolute prohibitions of the Bill of Rights, tyranny and bankruptcy.

Secession, now!


Congressman Ron Paul: ‘America Is Broke’

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/ron-paul-america-is-broke.html

The US “cannot go on much longer” if it continues to spend and consume in the existing way, according to Ron Paul, who made his farewell speech to the Congress earlier on Wednesday, as the 77-year-old will be retiring at the close of this term.

His address wasn’t a summary of his long political career. On the contrary, the congressman from Texas, who is known for his critical views of American policies, this time exceeded all experts’ expectations, by the direct criticism of the existing situation in the United States, as he posed several key questions, which have been in the air for a long time.

In his sharp 52-minute speech Paul lambasted American government, dollar crisis, fiat money, federal debt and borrowing, the power of the Federal Reserve system, politicians and special interests by a limited circle of people, who are behind the country’s authorities.

“The government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive as a prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without a congressional declaration. Deficits rise to the sky, poverty is ramping and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history. All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities, that common sense tells us: it cannot go on much longer,” said the congressman.

Paul also criticized America for being the world’s biggest consumer. In his opinion, it has already damaged the country.

“The spending continues, as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy, that makes us less safe. The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke,” pointed out the republican.

“We can expect the continuous and dangerous march to a corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for our large middle class though will become an abstract dream,” he also added.

The congressman said that during his years of being on the political scene, from 1976 to 2012, the government had “accomplished very little.” It is an open secret, that the American foreign debt is the biggest in the world. The country owes more than $16 billion in total and that enormous figure is constantly growing. The enduring politician had a clear word on that too.

“We have ended up with the system, that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends. If this is not recognized, recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class and in a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue,” added the congressman.

The retiring politician also admitted the failure of the country’s chief law:

“Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed."

"The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified,” Paul said.

The congressman left the podium, offering an answer to all of these problems, saying that people should choose liberty and limit government, and seek change within themselves.

“We need an intellectual awakening. Without an intellectual awakening the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current under-control system to its knees,” concluded Paul.

Reprinted with permission

[Travlyr]

Yesterday morning on CSPAN, Ron Paul said that the idea of succession is valid but nullification was the right answer.

[Anti Federalist]

Yesterday morning on CSPAN, Ron Paul said that the idea of succession is valid but nullification was the right answer.

Damn, wish I could watch videos where I am, I had heard that, wished I could see it.

At any rate, yes, the two go hand in hand.

Secession would be the logical next step if nullification failed.

Which I would have to say it would, I have no illusions that Mordor on the Potomac would honor the 10th any more than it would the other nine.

[Travlyr]

Damn, wish I could watch videos where I am, I had heard that, wished I could see it.

At any rate, yes, the two go hand in hand.

Secession would be the logical next step if nullification failed.

Which I would have to say it would, I have no illusions that Mordor on the Potomac would honor the 10th any more than it would the other nine.

We are going to find out here in Colorado. Industrial hemp and marijuana will be legal to grow in 2013. We'll let everyone know if nullification fails.

[AuH20]

"The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified,” Paul said.

Virtue and morality has been gradually replaced with envy and narcissism.

[Anti Federalist]

We are going to find out here in Colorado. Industrial hemp and marijuana will be legal to grow in 2013. We'll let everyone know if nullification fails.

You're in CO?

I didn't know that.

You haven't posted under the screename JT Coyote on other forums, have you?

I wish Kenny (speciallyblend) would check in.

He must be ecstatic...:D

[Travlyr]

You're in CO?

I didn't know that.

You haven't posted under the screename JT Coyote on other forums, have you?

I wish Kenny (speciallyblend) would check in.

He must be ecstatic...:D
No, I always use Travlyr. I bet Kenny is quite ecstatic. A lot of us are. It is going to get interesting here.

[Anti Federalist]

No, I always use Travlyr. I bet Kenny is quite ecstatic. A lot of us are. It is going to get interesting here.

Gotcha, I knew a fellow that had a similar writing style and view that went by that name who lived in CO.

You'll have a whole lot of people pulling for you, myself included.

Get seated on federal grand juries and refuse to indict. ;)

[Odin]

Unfortunately you can't nullify the income tax.

If any state wants freedom, secession is the only way apart from electing a government that will restore liberty and constitutionality.

[GunnyFreedom]

Don't forget that he said the reason for the failure of the Constitution was that it is only fit to govern a virtuous and moral people, and that as liberty and responsibility take root, it will continue to be fit for such a virtuous and moral people. As also said the people who wrote it in the first place. He also said that the essence of this morality is to denigrate aggression, and do not give the State authority to aggress.

I've seen the major media take all kinds of rorschach blots out of Paul's farewell speech, and this is been one of the heaviest hit, because they hope it will demoralize the Pauler movement.

They forget that we look deeper than one sentence or a headline.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Don't forget that he said the reason for the failure of the Constitution was that it is only fit to govern a virtuous and moral people, and that as liberty and responsibility take root, it will continue to be fit for such a virtuous and moral people. As also said the people who wrote it in the first place. He also said that the essence of this morality is to denigrate aggression, and do not give the State authority to aggress.

I've seen the major media take all kinds of rorschach blots out of Paul's farewell speech, and this is been one of the heaviest hit, because they hope it will demoralize the Pauler movement.

They forget that we look deeper than one sentence or a headline.

Taking cues from Ron, we should replace "virtuous and moral people" with "those who reject the initiation of all aggression," or at the very least define virtuous and moral as such whenever we use that phrase.

[Anti Federalist]

Don't forget that he said the reason for the failure of the Constitution was that it is only fit to govern a virtuous and moral people, and that as liberty and responsibility take root, it will continue to be fit for such a virtuous and moral people. As also said the people who wrote it in the first place. He also said that the essence of this morality is to denigrate aggression, and do not give the State authority to aggress.

I've seen the major media take all kinds of rorschach blots out of Paul's farewell speech, and this is been one of the heaviest hit, because they hope it will demoralize the Pauler movement.

They forget that we look deeper than one sentence or a headline.

A valid observation.

But I could make the case that one of the reasons for the failure was the lack of accounting for the Hobbesian nature of man and his lust for power.

That people are not usually given to virtue and morality.

A serious question: what can be done, beyond the usual catch all response of education, what can be done to instill virtue and empathy and morality as we are addressing it here?

That is, morality as we are defining it, not as being free from vices or perversions, but having empathy for and not wanting to murder and torture our fellow man.

How do we inculcate that into a people that boo the "Golden Rule" and eat pizza and cheer as phosphorus bombs incinerate thousands of people?

(Shock and Awe night, Baghdad, 2003)

[GunnyFreedom]

Taking cues from Ron, we should replace "virtuous and moral people" with "those who reject the initiation of all aggression," or at the very least define virtuous and moral as such whenever we use that phrase.

Well, that is in fact the very essence of morality. The Golden Rule. It's clear though that Americans by and large do not know what moral or virtue are anymore.

[Feeding the Abscess]

A valid observation.

But I could make the case that one of the reasons for the failure was the lack of accounting for the Hobbesian nature of man and his lust for power.

That people are not usually given to virtue and morality.

A serious question: what can be done, beyond the usual catch all response of education, what can be done to instill virtue and empathy and morality as we are addressing it here?

That is, morality as we are defining it, not as being free from vices or perversions, but having empathy for and not wanting to murder and torture our fellow man.

How do we inculcate that into a people that boo the "Golden Rule" and eat pizza and cheer as phosphorus bombs incinerate thousands of people?

(Shock and Awe night, Baghdad, 2003)

We don't. We have to live it ourselves, pass it along to our children, and hope others will follow our example.

[AuH20]

A valid observation.

But I could make the case that one of the reasons for the failure was the lack of accounting for the Hobbesian nature of man and his lust for power.

That people are not usually given to virtue and morality.

A serious question: what can be done, beyond the usual catch all response of education, what can be done to instill virtue and empathy and morality as we are addressing it here?

That is, morality as we are defining it, not as being free from vices or perversions, but having empathy for and not wanting to murder and torture our fellow man.

How do we inculcate that into a people that boo the "Golden Rule" and eat pizza and cheer as phosphorus bombs incinerate thousands of people?

(Shock and Awe night, Baghdad, 2003)

Well, for one, you're never going to eliminate the wanton delusions of those perched at the top of society. They are clearly situated there for a reason. With all that said, the common people are slowly becoming infected with the same strain of narcissism and immorality that their feckless leaders have exhibited for centuries. It's a stunning phenomenon which can be traced specifically to the breakdown of the nuclear family unit, thanks in large part to the implementation of the Prussian School of Indoctrination. A strong government cannot exist without a diminished family unit.

[GunnyFreedom]

A valid observation.

But I could make the case that one of the reasons for the failure was the lack of accounting for the Hobbesian nature of man and his lust for power.

That people are not usually given to virtue and morality.

A serious question: what can be done, beyond the usual catch all response of education, what can be done to instill virtue and empathy and morality as we are addressing it here?

That is, morality as we are defining it, not as being free from vices or perversions, but having empathy for and not wanting to murder and torture our fellow man.

How do we inculcate that into a people that boo the "Golden Rule" and eat pizza and cheer as phosphorus bombs incinerate thousands of people?

(Shock and Awe night, Baghdad, 2003)

Inculcate and plant as deeply and broadly as possible, that 'it is wrong for anybody to initiate aggression. You, me, police, military or civil authorities. The Golden Rule is the essence of all morality. America doesn't function unless we are moral.' Love your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, the reason America is collapsing, is because Ye Only True (tm) Christian Church booed Jesus's own Golden Rule in South Carolina. That's actually a true statement. All the Christians who think they are His, need to be connected to that moment and decide if they stand with the Pharisees or with God.

The fastest and surest way to restore the Constitution, is to instill voters with an understanding of morality and a desire to embrace it. Fortunately the message is pretty simple, and can be distilled into abrupt and powerful talking points.

It is wrong for anybody to initiate aggression.

That's also the essence of freedom, no?

Liberty, nonaggression, responsibility, morality, virtue, --> a Constitutional Republic.

[fr33]

Don't forget that he said the reason for the failure of the Constitution was that it is only fit to govern a virtuous and moral people, and that as liberty and responsibility take root, it will continue to be fit for such a virtuous and moral people. As also said the people who wrote it in the first place. He also said that the essence of this morality is to denigrate aggression, and do not give the State authority to aggress.

I've seen the major media take all kinds of rorschach blots out of Paul's farewell speech, and this is been one of the heaviest hit, because they hope it will demoralize the Pauler movement.

They forget that we look deeper than one sentence or a headline.

I like to think that we look deeper than the constitution too and deeper into what we are trying to do and what we could even be able to accomplish (considering the odds are so much against us).

I think we all know the constitution isn't perfect. Ron Paul himself has called it imperfect all throughout his career.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Inculcate and plant as deeply and broadly as possible, that 'it is wrong for anybody to initiate aggression. You, me, police, military or civil authorities. The Golden Rule is the essence of all morality. America doesn't function unless we are moral.' Love your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, the reason America is collapsing, is because Ye Only True (tm) Christian Church booed Jesus's own Golden Rule in South Carolina. That's actually a true statement. All the Christians who think they are His, need to be connected to that moment and decide if they stand with the Pharisees or with God.

The fastest and surest way to restore the Constitution, is to instill voters with an understanding of morality and a desire to embrace it. Fortunately the message is pretty simple, and can be distilled into abrupt and powerful talking points.

It is wrong for anybody to initiate aggression.

That's also the essence of freedom, no?

Liberty, nonaggression, responsibility, morality, virtue, --> a Constitutional Republic.

The Constitution authorizes taxation and other aggressions. If the goal of instilling the rejection of all initiated aggression is achieved, the Constitution will be seen as an evil document.

Other than that, I'm with you - time to hammer the philosophical arguments rather than Constitutional arguments.

[Odin]

Inculcate and plant as deeply and broadly as possible, that 'it is wrong for anybody to initiate aggression. You, me, police, military or civil authorities. The Golden Rule is the essence of all morality. America doesn't function unless we are moral.' Love your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, the reason America is collapsing, is because Ye Only True (tm) Christian Church booed Jesus's own Golden Rule in South Carolina. That's actually a true statement. All the Christians who think they are His, need to be connected to that moment and decide if they stand with the Pharisees or with God.

The fastest and surest way to restore the Constitution, is to instill voters with an understanding of morality and a desire to embrace it. Fortunately the message is pretty simple, and can be distilled into abrupt and powerful talking points.

It is wrong for anybody to initiate aggression.

That's also the essence of freedom, no?

Liberty, nonaggression, responsibility, morality, virtue, --> a Constitutional Republic.

The family is the essence of all morality. Because the family is the only legitimate source of obligation and thus the moral principles that derive from that purpose are the only things that can legitimately restrict your absolute freedom. It so happens that the "golden rule" follows from that imo. But that is only 1 moral principle. There are several others, and they are perfectly outlined in the 10 commandments imo.

I also don't agree with the principle of non-aggression, because there are non-violent assaults against our freedom as well. Unless you define those as aggression, then I would not subscribe to that principle. Adultery would be one example.

[Odin]

Here are the 10 commandments, I will bold the parts relevant to secular government:


“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Freedom - God commands us not to put ourselves back into slavery, giving the government power over your life is having and serving a different god.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Liberty and Freedom, do not 'bow down' or 'worship' politicians and leaders.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Basically, honor your obligations.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Property rights established. But you need time to fulfill other obligations as well.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. Family

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” And maybe the most relevant to our present time, such wisdom! I wonder what liberals think when they read this. Anyway this plainly says that you may not assert a right to something that belongs legitimately to others.

[fr33]

Here are the 10 commandments, I will bold the parts relevant to secular government:

[quote]“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Freedom - God commands us not to put ourselves back into slavery, giving the government power over your life is having and serving a different god.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Liberty and Freedom, do not 'bow down' or 'worship' politicians and leaders.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Basically, honor your obligations.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Property rights established. But you need time to fulfill other obligations as well.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. Family

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” And maybe the most relevant to our present time, such wisdom! I wonder what liberals think when they read this. Anyway this plainly says that you may not assert a right to something that belongs legitimately to others.The first 4 are all the same thing. An insecure god clouded up the list of morals because the propagandists felt threatened by reason. Never mind that in the same chapter God justified slavery, torture, wife & children beating, and other forms of immorality.....

[Odin]

[QUOTE=Odin;4738594]Here are the 10 commandments, I will bold the parts relevant to secular government:

The first 4 are all the same thing. An insecure god clouded up the list of morals because the propagandists felt threatened by reason. Never mind that in the same chapter God justified slavery, torture, wife & children beating, and other forms of immorality.....

lol ok whatever. The first 4 are not all the same.

Btw I'm not someone who believes in the Bible literally but I think the 10 commandments are a very fundamental basis of moral principles. If you want to argue over that I'm happy to do so.

[fr33]

lol ok whatever. The first 4 are not all the same.

Btw I'm not someone who believes in the Bible literally but I think the 10 commandments are a very fundamental basis of moral principles. If you want to argue over that I'm happy to do so.Remove the 4 that demand worship of the insecure god and I might agree with you. Except for the demand of children to honor their parents regardless of how bad their parents might be. The fact remains that the 10 commandments are taken from a chapter that commands more horrendous things in addition to the 10 commandments.

[Odin]

Remove the 4 that demand worship of the insecure god and I might agree with you. Except for the demand of children to honor their parents regardless of how bad their parents might be. The fact remains that the 10 commandments are taken from a chapter that commands more horrendous things in addition to the 10 commandments.

Obviously parents have to earn the respect of their children, by fulfilling their duties. No one has a 'right' to be respected, parents instead have obligations toward their children.

The first 4 commandments effectively establish these 4 secular principles:

1. No other human being can tell me what to do, without my consent.
2. No other human being can compel me to serve what he has created, without my consent.
3. No other human being can compel me to enter into any obligation, without my consent.
4. No other human being can compel me to work for him, or take my income or property, without my consent.

Referring to the 10 commandments is just one way to show how these principles are established but we could do so through reason as well.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Point of interest, . . . .why would a virtuous and moral people need a government/constitution in the first place?

[Travlyr]

Point of interest, . . . .why would a virtuous and moral people need a government/constitution in the first place?

They wouldn't. In a world of angels and saints no government would be needed. In our world, some people claim the right to kill lists. That is not angelic or saintly. This is Earth. Whoever has the biggest baddest weapons wins! On Earth government is a necessary institution authorized by the state to quell the unruly.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

They wouldn't. In a world of angels and saints no government would be needed. In our world, some people claim the right to kill lists. That is not angelic or saintly. This is Earth. Whoever has the biggest baddest weapons wins! On Earth government is a necessary institution authorized by the state to quell the unruly.

"On Earth, government is a necessary institution authorized by the sate to quell the unruly."

Government is authorized by government? yup, i agree. Which is why all government is illegitimate.

And if people are not saintly angels, why would 'we the people' (or according to you, the 'state') create a monopoly on violence? Wouldn't the evil people simply take over this monopoly in order to perpetrate more violence than they would have been able to do without it? In other words, if there are evil people in the world, why would we give them an army?

[GunnyFreedom]

Point of interest, . . . .why would a virtuous and moral people need a government/constitution in the first place?

You wouldn't need a government if society were perfectly moral. However, with our Constitution, you really only need a majority of voters to be moral to make everything work the way it's supposed to.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

You wouldn't need a government if society were perfectly moral. However, with our Constitution, you really only need a majority of voters to be moral to make everything work the way it's supposed to.

But they will still be voting for evil people who lust for power. Moral people don't want power over others.

[GunnyFreedom]

But they will still be voting for evil people who lust for power.

Why would a majority of moral voters vote for evil sociopathic power-driven politicians?


Moral people don't want power over others.

Which is the whole point, yes, and why when you have a majority of voters who are properly moral, then the Constitution works, and secures freedom. Even if the simple majority of all population are immoral, you can create a free environment in the US by driving up morality to a majority of voters.

Morality specifically highlighted as 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression.'

Get 51% of voters on board with 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression,' and we'll start to see liberty oriented changes and reforms so fast it'll make our heads spin.

KNOW RIGHT NOW that there will be an enormous monetary crisis in the US anywhere from September to December 2014. It may be a good idea to start sowing the seed now that initiating aggression, and claiming a right to initiate aggression (the collapse of morality) has led to the Banksters, the Federal Reserve, QE-Whatever; and the only way back is to enforce the Constitution...which in =turn can only be done by a moral people (those who reject the initiation of violence).

What I mean is that we KNOW we have a hyperinflationary crisis brewing in some odd 24 months from today. If we know about it ahead of time, can't we prep the ground now so that when it happens we can use it as a "teaching moment" to spread the ideals of liberty and nonaggression?

If expanding morality (nonaggression) is the surest path back to liberty, and we have a known-impending cataclysm of aggression's own making, then couldn't that event be used to turn people on to the philosophy of no initiation of aggression and personal liberty? Thus in turn capturing a larger segment of the voting block morally, and so in turn restoring freedom to the United States.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, for one, you're never going to eliminate the wanton delusions of those perched at the top of society. They are clearly situated there for a reason. With all that said, the common people are slowly becoming infected with the same strain of narcissism and immorality that their feckless leaders have exhibited for centuries. It's a stunning phenomenon which can be traced specifically to the breakdown of the nuclear family unit, thanks in large part to the implementation of the Prussian School of Indoctrination. A strong government cannot exist without a diminished family unit.

This is kind of a chicken vs egg question, really. Did the breakdown of the family contribute to the breakdown of society or vice versa? Probably both, but which cause initiated the spiral?

Do you restore society by restoring the family, or do you restore the family by restoring society?

Personally, I suspect you restore both of them, by restoring the moral core of nonaggression and liberty.

[Odin]

This is kind of a chicken vs egg question, really. Did the breakdown of the family contribute to the breakdown of society or vice versa? Probably both, but which cause initiated the spiral?

Do you restore society by restoring the family, or do you restore the family by restoring society?

Personally, I suspect you restore both of them, by restoring the moral core of nonaggression and liberty.

That's a good question, and my guess would be the breakdown of society contributed to the breakdown of the family. Specifically society and individuals within it being infected with philosophies from Bentham, Mill, Locke, and Hobbes, either consciously or unconsciously. The "pursuit of pleasure" as the ultimate moral good - hedonism - is largely responsible imo and those responsible for pushing it on us are mostly the progressives, but Republicans as well.

Whereas the tenth commandment tells us - "“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Yet that is what Obama's campaign was premised on. Envy of others, and therefore taking what they have to enrich yourself. This turns people selfish and inwardly interested - and that breaks down the family imo. It's shameful to see how petty and selfish some humans are.

[Odin]

Why would a majority of moral voters vote for evil sociopathic power-driven politicians?



Which is the whole point, yes, and why when you have a majority of voters who are properly moral, then the Constitution works, and secures freedom. Even if the simple majority of all population are immoral, you can create a free environment in the US by driving up morality to a majority of voters.

Morality specifically highlighted as 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression.'

Get 51% of voters on board with 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression,' and we'll start to see liberty oriented changes and reforms so fast it'll make our heads spin.


I think most people agree with that in theory but in practice they are more than willing to get someone else to do the aggression for them. Just like people won't kill their own food but don't mind eating it after someone else has killed it.

At the risk of sounding like a Bible nut, which I'm not, I'll cite the 10th commandment again - "“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”"

If you want to know how close we are to anything, ask how close we are to 51% of the people obeying this commandment, that will tell us imo.

[2young2vote]

It failed because it wasn't specific enough. Want to argue with me? Look at reality and you will know that I am correct. The fact that they can even interpret it differently is a major problem. It should have been clear as day, "this is how it is, the end". Take the first sentence of the 22nd amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." There is no possible way for people to misinterpret this to the point that they can be elected three times. There is no odd sentence structure, there are no words that may hold different definitions. This is how the entire constitution should should have been written, and some of it was, but obviously not enough. No liberal can sit there and say that it is constitutional to elect someone 3 times because the wording is 100% specific. Now lets look at some other part. How about the most controversial, the commerce clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" So we have the 10th amendment saying all powers not given to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states and the people, then it opens up this can of worms with the commerce clause. "Regulate Commerce"? If the constitution was worded in a way that could not be misinterpreted then this wouldn't even be an issue like with the presidential term limits. Instead we have multiple groups of people claiming it means multiple different things. It doesn't matter what you say it is, the fact is that other people are saying it means something else which is a failure on the constitutions part. It should be impossible to interpret it as something other than what it is.

The first and second amendments are both more specific than most of the constitution, and even THOSE can be taken advantage of. An anti-gun nut in the federal government can ban all guns except, maybe, a hunting shotgun that is heavily regulated when you purchase it and can claim "oh yeah, see? you can still purchase a gun so you still have the second amendment!" That is EXACTLY what they are doing right now. Slowly taking away your second amendment rights by misinterpreting it. Whether it is on purpose or not doesn't matter, they shouldn't be able to do this. And how about the first amendment? This is probably most respected of the bill of rights by the federal government. This is because it is written quite clearly. However, even this has been attacked by the federal government in several ways, the most recent of which is the federal government trying to force christian hospitals to provide contraception. The difference between this situation and something like the commerce clause is that it is a heck of a lot more specific. They are having trouble convincing people that it is constitutional because it specifically says in the constitution that they will " make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I even know big government liberals who agree that the hospitals shouldn't be forced to provide contraception because it is a violation of the first amendment.

[GunnyFreedom]

The Constitution is not as ambiguous as at first it may seem. Understand that the language itself has changed, and at the time of it's writing it was a lot more definitive than it appears taking the language today. That's why all of the "Strict Construction" and "Original Intent" groups only reveal basically one well-agreed to meaning. they use the meanings of words from when the words were actually written.

For example, the word "Regulation" had a far deeper and insidious meaning in 2012 than it did in 1789. At the time the Constitution was written, 'regulation' simply meant to 'make regular.' This is the dead opposite of what regulation does today, create roadblocks and barriers to commerce. It's a blatant violation of original intent, because the word 'regulation' itself has evolved into something the Framers never contemplated.

The main reason the later amendments were more clear, is because the language has had less time to 'evolve' since they were written.

[GunnyFreedom]

I, for one, would be open to amending the Constitution to tighten up the ambiguities that have resulted from the shifting of the language around it, BUT it would be a fruitless endeavor until and unless we have a 2/3 majority of original intent Constitutionalists in Congress and simple majorities in the legislatures of 3/4 of the States.

Like Ron Paul said, we aren't going to get there until we affect real change in the morality of the people at large to reject the initiation of aggression at all levels.

It's possible, and it's even possible within our lifetimes, but we have to be pounding the public at large with the hard and heavy message that the initiation of aggression is wrong for individuals, and it's wrong for individuals to ask their government to initiate aggression on their behalf.

Give me 51% of the population that thinks this way, and we can start moving in this direction at full speed ahead. Give me 67% of the voting public that thinks this way (could technically be done with only 35% of the at large public on board) and we'll get a set of amendments out of Congress to do it. Give me 76% of the voting public that feels this way (could technically be done with only 40% of the at large public on board) and we will sweep these amendments through the States like a freight train.

Until we are close to those numbers, then an effort to cast amendments tightening up the US Constitution back to original intent is an academic and ultimately fruitless exercise.

[AuH20]

This is kind of a chicken vs egg question, really. Did the breakdown of the family contribute to the breakdown of society or vice versa? Probably both, but which cause initiated the spiral?

Do you restore society by restoring the family, or do you restore the family by restoring society?

Personally, I suspect you restore both of them, by restoring the moral core of nonaggression and liberty.

But let's examine a key factor in the descent of the family unit. As the regulatory & taxation noose has tightened, one parent's income is no longer enough to live a satisfactory existence. So now, we have often both parents working full time and the state assumes a much larger role as the primary teacher. That is why I feel that full economic freedom and private property rights are the two greatest solutions towards escaping this dystopian grid that has been set up.

[GunnyFreedom]

But let's examine a key factor in the descent of the family unit. As the regulatory & taxation noose has tightened, one parent's income is no longer enough to live a satisfactory existence. So now, we have often both parents working full time and the state assumes a much larger role as the primary teacher. That is why I feel that full economic freedom and private property rights are the two greatest solutions towards escaping this dystopian grid that has been set up.

And at the root of all of that is the willingness to initiate aggression. In this specific case, the aggression necessary to force other people into compliance with an excessively burdensome tax code, and regulatory register.

So, how I see it, and the primary point I was trying to make, is that the immorality that leads to initiated aggressiveness, is deeper to the root than the nuclear family issue, because if we were somehow able to deal with the initiation of aggression and 'fix' that problem, then 90% of the negative pressure on the family unit will abate.

[jay_dub]

I, for one, would be open to amending the Constitution to tighten up the ambiguities that have resulted from the shifting of the language around it, BUT it would be a fruitless endeavor until and unless we have a 2/3 majority of original intent Constitutionalists in Congress and simple majorities in the legislatures of 3/4 of the States.

Like Ron Paul said, we aren't going to get there until we affect real change in the morality of the people at large to reject the initiation of aggression at all levels.

It's possible, and it's even possible within our lifetimes, but we have to be pounding the public at large with the hard and heavy message that the initiation of aggression is wrong for individuals, and it's wrong for individuals to ask their government to initiate aggression on their behalf.

Give me 51% of the population that thinks this way, and we can start moving in this direction at full speed ahead. Give me 67% of the voting public that thinks this way (could technically be done with only 35% of the at large public on board) and we'll get a set of amendments out of Congress to do it. Give me 76% of the voting public that feels this way (could technically be done with only 40% of the at large public on board) and we will sweep these amendments through the States like a freight train.

Until we are close to those numbers, then an effort to cast amendments tightening up the US Constitution back to original intent is an academic and ultimately fruitless exercise.

I'm of the opinion that the SCOTUS has been responsible for much of our decline.

We are a nation of laws. We follow the rule of law. The SCOTUS is the law of the land.

Just in doing research on some of my areas of interest, none of which is the SCOTUS, I've seen how that body has been instrumental in steering us away from the Founders' intent. One of the problems is that convoluted precedents are used as the basis for justification for further bastardization of our Constitution.

The SCOTUS, with Chief Justice Salmon Chase, in 1869 ruled that secession never happened and could not happen; that all the seceding states were in rebellion. This, while in 1867, Chase advised that Jefferson Davis not be tried because secession was not rebellion.

Social Security was sold to the people as insurance, yet became a tax due to a SCOTUS ruling. ObamaCare is much the same.

A minimum wage law was struck down by the SCOTUS in the 1920's, but was later implemented in the 30's under Roosevelt. This shows just how susceptible the SCOTUS is to political influence. Even now one of the biggest reasons for voting for a given 'lesser of 2 evils' is the prospect of who they may appoint to the Court.

The SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS is not above politics; it is the ultimate brass ring of power for a political party. This, IMO, is the wellspring for the failures of the Constitution.

EDIT: Also, I think it's absurd for a simple majority to be able to determine the law of the land. How many times has what is Constitutional been determined by a 5/4 ruling?

With the country fairly evenly split among ideologies, it's easy to see that political influence, exerted through the SCOTUS, has made our founding document nothing more than a political yo-yo. This corruption is an edifice that is constantly being built upon to allow even further corruption through precedent.

[robert68]

It failed because it wasn't specific enough...

It had to be that way to be acceptable to the "states" in it's initial (extralegal) adoption.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm of the opinion that the SCOTUS has been responsible for much of our decline.

We are a nation of laws. We follow the rule of law. The SCOTUS is the law of the land.

Just in doing research on some of my areas of interest, none of which is the SCOTUS, I've seen how that body has been instrumental in steering us away from the Founders' intent. One of the problems is that convoluted precedents are used as the basis for justification for further bastardization of our Constitution.

The SCOTUS, with Chief Justice Salmon Chase, in 1869 ruled that secession never happened and could not happen; that all the seceding states were in rebellion. This, while in 1867, Chase advised that Jefferson Davis not be tried because secession was not rebellion.

Social Security was sold to the people as insurance, yet became a tax due to a SCOTUS ruling. ObamaCare is much the same.

A minimum wage law was struck down by the SCOTUS in the 1920's, but was later implemented in the 30's under Roosevelt. This shows just how susceptible the SCOTUS is to political influence. Even now one of the biggest reasons for voting for a given 'lesser of 2 evils' is the prospect of who they may appoint to the Court.

The SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS is not above politics; it is the ultimate brass ring of power for a political party. This, IMO, is the wellspring for the failures of the Constitution.

But of course, that happens because of a perversion of intent in the first place. The Constitution never gave SCOTUS judicial review. If we are going to have any hope of revoking the falsely claimed power of judicial review, then we have to work from the roots up to emplace a majority of strict constructionists.

Also, I did want to add that if we had the ability to consistently put strict Constitutionalists up for general election, we may be surprised at how well they did. Although Paul was correct that the fundamental problem is a loss of popular morality, the effect of that has been multiplied by a two party duopoly that almost never gives the voters anything that they actually want in a General Election.

Sure, we will never have majorities until we have reversed the trend of declining morality amongst the American people. That much is clear. However, if we had a fair electoral system, we'd own a heckuvalot more right now than 5%, this I guarantee. So part of the problem is the illicit partisan duopoly restricting potentially popular choices from the General ballots.

[jay_dub]

But of course, that happens because of a perversion of intent in the first place. The Constitution never gave SCOTUS judicial review. If we are going to have any hope of revoking the falsely claimed power of judicial review, then we have to work from the roots up to emplace a majority of strict constructionists.

Also, I did want to add that if we had the ability to consistently put strict Constitutionalists up for general election, we may be surprised at how well they did. Although Paul was correct that the fundamental problem is a loss of popular morality, the effect of that has been multiplied by a two party duopoly that almost never gives the voters anything that they actually want in a General Election.

Sure, we will never have majorities until we have reversed the trend of declining morality amongst the American people. That much is clear. However, if we had a fair electoral system, we'd own a heckuvalot more right now than 5%, this I guarantee. So part of the problem is the illicit partisan duopoly restricting potentially popular choices from the General ballots.

Yep...you're right in that. Lots of problems.....lots of remedies needed.

Personally, I like to view the Constitution as the best we will ever do as a foundation. Strict adherence to it is far better than saying it has failed.

I'd hate to see the meme going out that the Constitution has failed. We may open the door for a Newt Gingrich/Alvin Toffler style of remaking of the entire document in doing so.

The Constitution was born out of a charge to amend the Articles of Confederation. In that regard, the men at Philadelphia overstepped their bounds. I'd hate to think what may happen if we attempted that again.

[UMULAS]

The purpose of the constitution was to be interpretated different on many people. There are some who have strict interpretations and some others with loose interpretations. For me, I believe that there should be both strict and loose (necessary and proper clause).

[Brian4Liberty]

"In the opinion of the Chair, rules, laws and the Constitution are for mundanes."

[Philhelm]

Point of interest, . . . .why would a virtuous and moral people need a government/constitution in the first place?

Roads and firefighters. Always roads and firefighters.

[Anti Federalist]

Unfortunately you can't nullify the income tax.

Sure you can.

Get seated on federal grand juries and refuse to indict.

Get seated on criminal juries and refuse to convict.

[GunnyFreedom]

The purpose of the constitution was to be interpretated different on many people. There are some who have strict interpretations and some others with loose interpretations. For me, I believe that there should be both strict and loose (necessary and proper clause).

That may be what ended up happening, but it certainly wasn't the purpose of it. In the language of the day it was written, it wasn't even remotely ambiguous.

[Anti Federalist]

Exeter, June 2d, 1775.
To the Inhabitants of the Colony of New Hampshire :

Friends and Brethren : You must all be sensible that the affairs of America have at length come to a very affecting and alarming crisis. The Horrors and Distresses of a civil war, which, till of late, we only had in contemplation, we now find ourselves obliged to realize. Painful beyond expression have been those scenes of Blood and Devastation which the barbarous cruelty of British troops have placed before our eyes. Duty to God, to ourselves, to Posterity, enforced by the cries of slaughtered Innocents, have urged us to take up Arms in our Defense. Such a day as this was never before known, either to us or to our fathers. You will give us leave therefore — in whom you have reposed special confidence — as your representative body, to suggest a few things which call for the serious attention of everyone who has the true interest of America at heart. We would therefore recommend to the Colony at large to cultivate that Christian Union, Harmony and tender affection which is the only foundation upon which our invaluable privileges can rest with any security, or our public measures be pursued with the least prospect of success.

We also recommend that a strict and inviolable regard be paid to the wise and judicious councils of the late American Congress, and particularly considering that the experience of almost every day points out to us the danger arising from the collection and movements of bodies of men, who, notwithstanding, we willingly hope would promote the common cause and serve the interest of their country, yet are in danger of pursuing a track which may cross the general plan, and so disconcert those public measures which we view as of the greatest importance. We must, in the most express and urgent terms, recommend it that there may be no movements of this nature, but by the direction of the Committees of the respective Towns or Counties; and those Committees, at the same time, advising with this Congress or with the Committee of Safety in the recess of Congress, where the exigence of the case is not plainly too pressing to leave room for such advice.

We further recommend that the most industrious attention be paid to the cultivation of Lands and American Manufacture, in their various branches, especially the Linen and Woolen ; and that the husbandry might be particularly managed with a view thereto — accordingly that the Farmer raise Flax and increase his flock of sheep to the extent of his ability.

We further recommend a serious and steady regard to the rules of temperance, sobriety and righteousness, and that those Laws which have heretofore been our security and defense from the hand of violence may still answer all their former valuable purposes, though persons of vicious and corrupt minds would willingly take advantage from our present situation.

In a word, we seriously and earnestly recommend the practice of that pure and undefiled religion which embalmed the memory of our pious ancestors, as that alone upon which we can build a solid hope and confidence in the Divine protection and favor, without whose blessing all the measures of safety we have or can propose will end in our shame and disappointment.
MATTHEW THORNTON,
President.

[Anti Federalist]

////

[Lucille]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m83gd7r4L01qjc44oo1_500.jpg

[truelies]

We are going to find out here in Colorado. Industrial hemp and marijuana will be legal to grow in 2013. We'll let everyone know if nullification fails.

Hmmmm, are the Guard and State Police prepared to arrest at gun point Feds who harass Colorado growers in violation of Colorado law?

[Travlyr]

Hmmmm, are the Guard and State Police prepared to arrest at gun point Feds who harass Colorado growers in violation of Colorado law?

The sheriffs are. The Feds are fucked.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm of the opinion that the SCOTUS has been responsible for much of our decline.

We are a nation of laws. We follow the rule of law. The SCOTUS is the law of the land.

Just in doing research on some of my areas of interest, none of which is the SCOTUS, I've seen how that body has been instrumental in steering us away from the Founders' intent. One of the problems is that convoluted precedents are used as the basis for justification for further bastardization of our Constitution.

The SCOTUS, with Chief Justice Salmon Chase, in 1869 ruled that secession never happened and could not happen; that all the seceding states were in rebellion. This, while in 1867, Chase advised that Jefferson Davis not be tried because secession was not rebellion.

Social Security was sold to the people as insurance, yet became a tax due to a SCOTUS ruling. ObamaCare is much the same.

A minimum wage law was struck down by the SCOTUS in the 1920's, but was later implemented in the 30's under Roosevelt. This shows just how susceptible the SCOTUS is to political influence. Even now one of the biggest reasons for voting for a given 'lesser of 2 evils' is the prospect of who they may appoint to the Court.

The SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS is not above politics; it is the ultimate brass ring of power for a political party. This, IMO, is the wellspring for the failures of the Constitution.

EDIT: Also, I think it's absurd for a simple majority to be able to determine the law of the land. How many times has what is Constitutional been determined by a 5/4 ruling?

With the country fairly evenly split among ideologies, it's easy to see that political influence, exerted through the SCOTUS, has made our founding document nothing more than a political yo-yo. This corruption is an edifice that is constantly being built upon to allow even further corruption through precedent.
This is an important point, especially if we're assuming the various constitutionalist presuppositions. Originally, SCOTUS was supposed to be kept in check by a jury. IIRC, John Jay wrote an essay or two about this.

[gwax23]

Wow I said the same thing about the constitution on these very forums and got attacked and lambasted for it. Oooo Shucks.

Glad to here it come from our dear and glorious leader Ron Paul though maybe this will wake people up.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Why would a majority of moral voters vote for evil sociopathic power-driven politicians?



They do all the time! Politicians lie. They lie because they need good people to not know the truth about them. Do you think everyone who voted Obama is immoral? Is that the only reason? Because if you are going that route, then you can make the argument that ANYONE who votes AT ALL is immoral.




Which is the whole point, yes, and why when you have a majority of voters who are properly moral, then the Constitution works, and secures freedom. Even if the simple majority of all population are immoral, you can create a free environment in the US by driving up morality to a majority of voters.

Morality specifically highlighted as 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression.'

Get 51% of voters on board with 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression,' and we'll start to see liberty oriented changes and reforms so fast it'll make our heads spin.

KNOW RIGHT NOW that there will be an enormous monetary crisis in the US anywhere from September to December 2014. It may be a good idea to start sowing the seed now that initiating aggression, and claiming a right to initiate aggression (the collapse of morality) has led to the Banksters, the Federal Reserve, QE-Whatever; and the only way back is to enforce the Constitution...which in =turn can only be done by a moral people (those who reject the initiation of violence).

What I mean is that we KNOW we have a hyperinflationary crisis brewing in some odd 24 months from today. If we know about it ahead of time, can't we prep the ground now so that when it happens we can use it as a "teaching moment" to spread the ideals of liberty and nonaggression?

If expanding morality (nonaggression) is the surest path back to liberty, and we have a known-impending cataclysm of aggression's own making, then couldn't that event be used to turn people on to the philosophy of no initiation of aggression and personal liberty? Thus in turn capturing a larger segment of the voting block morally, and so in turn restoring freedom to the United States.

So what you're saying is that 51% of American voters must be on board with the NAP in order for the Constitution to work for Americans to enjoy a good amount of freedom? Has there ever been a 51% moral majority? How would we know if there is a 51% moral majority? Isn't that just straight up democracy? The Constitution, which is supposed to set up a Republic that protects the minority, only works if there is a democratic majority?


I'm sorry, Gunny. It doesn't make logical sense.

[GunnyFreedom]

They do all the time! Politicians lie. They lie because they need good people to not know the truth about them. Do you think everyone who voted Obama is immoral? Is that the only reason? Because if you are going that route, then you can make the argument that ANYONE who votes AT ALL is immoral.

Of course they lie. That's what poly-tic-tians do. As long as only 5%-10% are on board with NAP, moral voters don't matter. Anybody who voted for Obama is either immoral or deceived, because that man has a strong and blatant penchant for initiating violence and aggression. Anybody who knows exactly what Obama did and voted to re-elect him, yes, I'd say they were immoral. Likewise Romney, but there is a small window for duopoly voters who thought they had no other choice but to remove Obama, but the vast vast majority of Romney voters were likewise sanctioning the initiation of aggression, and are also immoral. I can hope that there are more desperate moral people in that window than I think, but I'm not betting on it.

Plenty of people voted against aggression in 2012, but bear in mind more people didn't vote than did. The old saw about "the moral majority" is very related to the "silent majority" and don't ordinarily vote until a Ron Paul type appears in the General.

How you get from there to the anarcho-capitalist "all voting is violence" mantra, I cannot fathom.



So what you're saying is that 51% of American voters must be on board with the NAP in order for the Constitution to work for Americans to enjoy a good amount of freedom? Has there ever been a 51% moral majority? How would we know if there is a 51% moral majority? Isn't that just straight up democracy? The Constitution, which is supposed to set up a Republic that protects the minority, only works if there is a democratic majority?


I'm sorry, Gunny. It doesn't make logical sense.

A lot of Americans are already there but do not vote because all of their choices (or so they perceive) are immoral. And you do not need 51% of America to start the reconstruction of government, only 51% of voters.

You do need a clear majority of Americans to restore a full-on moral society, but you only need a simple majority of voters to start reforming government to restore liberty. And taking our liberty back from government is what we are after, right?

And no, it's not democracy I am talking about, it's a Constitutional Representative Republic. A 51% moral majority will elect representatives like themselves, and if they have lied, then they will be replaced.

Our Republic cannot protect the minority until and unless we have moral (NAP) representatives making (repealing) laws and executing them, which is why I have seized on the shortest path to wrenching liberty from the jaws of a tyrannical government.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Of course they lie. That's what poly-tic-tians do. As long as only 5%-10% are on board with NAP, moral voters don't matter. Anybody who voted for Obama is either immoral or deceived, because that man has a strong and blatant penchant for initiating violence and aggression. Anybody who knows exactly what Obama did and voted to re-elect him, yes, I'd say they were immoral. Likewise Romney, but there is a small window for duopoly voters who thought they had no other choice but to remove Obama, but the vast vast majority of Romney voters were likewise sanctioning the initiation of aggression, and are also immoral. I can hope that there are more desperate moral people in that window than I think, but I'm not betting on it.

Plenty of people voted against aggression in 2012, but bear in mind more people didn't vote than did. The old saw about "the moral majority" is very related to the "silent majority" and don't ordinarily vote until a Ron Paul type appears in the General.

How you get from there to the anarcho-capitalist "all voting is violence" mantra, I cannot fathom.




A lot of Americans are already there but do not vote because all of their choices (or so they perceive) are immoral. And you do not need 51% of America to start the reconstruction of government, only 51% of voters.

You do need a clear majority of Americans to restore a full-on moral society, but you only need a simple majority of voters to start reforming government to restore liberty. And taking our liberty back from government is what we are after, right?

And no, it's not democracy I am talking about, it's a Constitutional Representative Republic. A 51% moral majority will elect representatives like themselves, and if they have lied, then they will be replaced.

Our Republic cannot protect the minority until and unless we have moral (NAP) representatives making (repealing) laws and executing them, which is why I have seized on the shortest path to wrenching liberty from the jaws of a tyrannical government.

To sum up this post...

"We cannot protect the minority until we have the majority."


I don't even know how to respond to that. Especially since it's coming from liberty supporter. Do you hear what you're saying? "Give us the power and we'll be good rulers!"

It doesn't work, Gunny.

[GunnyFreedom]

To sum up this post...

"We cannot protect the minority until we have the majority."


I don't even know how to respond to that. Especially since it's coming from liberty supporter. Do you hear what you're saying? "Give us the power and we'll be good rulers!"

It doesn't work, Gunny.

Really? Because that doesn't even remotely resemble what I said.

So how about stop cramming your own words into my mouth and try again? :)

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Really? Because that doesn't even remotely resemble what I said.

So how about stop cramming your own words into my mouth and try again? :)

Dude, I read it three times before I posted. Would you sum up what you were saying so that I can better understand?

[GunnyFreedom]

Dude, I read it three times before I posted. Would you sum up what you were saying so that I can better understand?

Well then you read it wrong, and I'm still pissed about having someone else's words rammed down my throat, so I'm not predisposed to do your work for you.

The other thing I found interesting about your post was the assumption that moral Constitutionalists like Ron Paul are no better than John McCain.

Doesn't feel very good when someone does it to you, now does it?

And I didn't even use pretend quotation marks like you did.

ETA - and my characterization even directly follows from what you said, and it still sucked, didn't it? What you claimed I said, didn't even follow from my post, which makes it even worse.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Well then you read it wrong, and I'm still pissed about having someone else's words rammed down my throat, so I'm not predisposed to do your work for you.

The other thing I found interesting about your post was the assumption that moral Constitutionalists like Ron Paul are no better than John McCain.

Doesn't feel very good when someone does it to you, now does it?

And I didn't even use pretend quotation marks like you did.

No, I'd agree with that. I have no respect for politicians. Sorry Gunny. I like you as a person and think you're a good guy, but I seriously disagree with the course of action you've taken (being involved in politics). I love Ron Paul as a person and believe now that he is out of congress he'll be able to do far more good (it also important to note that Ron Paul was a terrible politician; his own words no less!). Sorry that you're pissed, but it is not my intention to blow smoke up your rear. I am an atheist, but my best friend is a Christian. That doesn't mean I don't respect and love him. It also doesn't mean I'm going to pull punches when we talk about "touchy" subjects.

Anyway, what doesn't feel good is that you're acting offended. I feel like I didn't understand your words and, therefore, asked you to clarify. But apparently you don't respect me enough to continue the debate. One sentence would have been ok. It wasn't a tall favor I was asking. In fact, i thought I was being respectful by making sure that I got a full understanding of your position instead of continuing to debate a misunderstanding.


It's late. Don't worry about it.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, I'd agree with that. I have no respect for politicians. Sorry Gunny. I like you as a person and think you're a good guy, but I seriously disagree with the course of action you've taken (being involved in politics). I love Ron Paul as a person and believe now that he is out of congress he'll be able to do far more good (it also important to note that Ron Paul was a terrible politician; his own words no less!). Sorry that you're pissed, but it is not my intention to blow smoke up your rear. I am an atheist, but my best friend is a Christian. That doesn't mean I don't respect and love him. It also doesn't mean I'm going to pull punches when we talk about "touchy" subjects.

Anyway, what doesn't feel good is that you're acting offended. I feel like I didn't understand your words and, therefore, asked you to clarify. But apparently you don't respect me enough to continue the debate. One sentence would have been ok. It wasn't a tall favor I was asking. In fact, i thought I was being respectful by making sure that I got a full understanding of your position instead of continuing to debate a misunderstanding.


It's late. Don't worry about it.

Try asking for clarification BEFORE cramming your words into someone else's mouth.

I've been on these boards now since 2007, is there anybody here who is a regular that doesn't know that's my biggest pet peeve in a debate? Don't tell me what I said. I'm rather in a better position to know what I said than you are, no?

Less than half of America votes, period. the fraction that does, if you can instill morality in a majority of those, (at the end of the day only ~20ish% of Americans) enough to bring real numbers of moral Constitutionalists in government, when we can start affecting the kinds of reforms in government to restore liberty to America.

If repealing the drug war is some kind of tyranny just because a group of elected people do it, then I don't really know what to tell you except that I disagree vehemently. The drug war is tyranny. Eliminating it will restore some measure of liberty. I understand that that's not good enough, that some won't be happy until every inhabitant of the continent is defending their compounds from bandits at rifle point, but while you try to eradicate government without using politics, I will be using politics to eradicate the drug war, and every other offense to liberty that I encounter along the way.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Which I would have to say it would, I have no illusions that Mordor on the Potomac would honor the 10th any more than it would the other nine.

Hahahaha! Mordor on the Potomac! Awesome...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Try asking for clarification BEFORE cramming your words into someone else's mouth.

I've been on these boards now since 2007, is there anybody here who is a regular that doesn't know that's my biggest pet peeve in a debate? Don't tell me what I said. I'm rather in a better position to know what I said than you are, no?

Less than half of America votes, period. the fraction that does, if you can instill morality in a majority of those, (at the end of the day only ~20ish% of Americans) enough to bring real numbers of moral Constitutionalists in government, when we can start affecting the kinds of reforms in government to restore liberty to America.

If repealing the drug war is some kind of tyranny just because a group of elected people do it, then I don't really know what to tell you except that I disagree vehemently. The drug war is tyranny. Eliminating it will restore some measure of liberty. I understand that that's not good enough, that some won't be happy until every inhabitant of the continent is defending their compounds from bandits at rifle point, but while you try to eradicate government without using politics, I will be using politics to eradicate the drug war, and every other offense to liberty that I encounter along the way.

I joined the boards 23 days before you did. Why on earth should I know your preferences? It was one sentence which I politely asked you to correct since it was incorrect. Sheesh.

The drug war is tyranny, of course. Eliminating it will restore some measure of liberty, I agree. I'd love to see the drug war eliminated. But how do you really do that? Do you really think electing politicians will shut down an industry that brings in trillions for government control? You hold up Ron Paul as a moral Constitutionalist, but he even said that politics is not the way to bring about change, unless you use it to educate. And it's not even that great as an education tool.

If you choose to use politics to try and bring about changes through policy, that is, of course, your choice. But please don't be dishonest and try to lump yourself in with Ron Paul any longer. In his last speech to congress, Ron Paul said his entire political career was a failure. What we will see from Dr. Paul in the coming years will do more for Liberty than he's done in his entire life.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Do you really think electing politicians will shut down an industry that brings in trillions for government control? You hold up Ron Paul as a moral Constitutionalist, but he even said that politics is not the way to bring about change, unless you use it to educate. And it's not even that great as an education tool.

For myself (and ONLY myself) as a Voluntaryist, I look on voting as a defensive measure. I'm doing it because, given the choice of having the shit beaten out of me 365 days a year as opposed to 1 time a year....I'll take the once a year. That doesn't mean I like having the shit kicked out of me. It doesn't mean I agree with having the shit kicked out of me. It just means I'm doing it on the off chance I can get a reprieve. Its about breathing room.

[GunnyFreedom]

I joined the boards 23 days before you did. Why on earth should I know your preferences? It was one sentence which I politely asked you to correct since it was incorrect. Sheesh.

The drug war is tyranny, of course. Eliminating it will restore some measure of liberty, I agree. I'd love to see the drug war eliminated. But how do you really do that? Do you really think electing politicians will shut down an industry that brings in trillions for government control? You hold up Ron Paul as a moral Constitutionalist, but he even said that politics is not the way to bring about change, unless you use it to educate. And it's not even that great as an education tool.

If you choose to use politics to try and bring about changes through policy, that is, of course, your choice. But please don't be dishonest and try to lump yourself in with Ron Paul any longer. In his last speech to congress, Ron Paul said his entire political career was a failure. What we will see from Dr. Paul in the coming years will do more for Liberty than he's done in his entire life.

I guess people just hear what they want to. No point in even addressing the rest of your post if that's what you took from his farewell speech. After all, even if I tried to answer you will just see what you want to and not what I'm actually saying. Waste of effort.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I guess people just hear what they want to. No point in even addressing the rest of your post if that's what you took from his farewell speech. After all, even if I tried to answer you will just see what you want to and not what I'm actually saying. Waste of effort.

This was really disappointing, Glen.

[nobody's_hero]

I doubt if any document would have been successful in defending liberty, given that it's not the paper itself that must do that.

It's the people's responsibility to restrain their governments.

I always kind of LOL at the 'constitution is a failure' threads. It's a piece of paper. It's not like it was ever going to come to life and put on the boxing gloves. 'That stupid constitution let us down.'

If we wanted to be more accurate, we'd say that the American people are a failure.

However, I do believe it is in some ways prophesized that the Constitution will be a starting point in returning our fed.gov to its proper, limited role. Jefferson said it himself:


"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802

Think about that for a moment. I can't think of anything more descriptive of the Ron Paul movement.

Who are we? The watchful. What are we doing? Rallying and recalling all who will listen.

[GunnyFreedom]

This was really disappointing, Glen.

Yes, yes it was. Perhaps some reflection is in order, Nate.

[BAllen]

The reason for the moral decline is very simple. The marxists of The Frankfurt School in New York. They deliberately destroyed us with their demoralization plans. They created the hippie to oppose the Authoritarian personalities of the conservatives. They spoke of freedoms, but it was a lie, a trojan horse. People like Jane Fonda have been useful idiots.

[Pericles]

I doubt if any document would have been successful in defending liberty, given that it's not the paper itself that must do that.

It's the people's responsibility to restrain their governments.

I always kind of LOL at the 'constitution is a failure' threads. It's a piece of paper. It's not like it was ever going to come to life and put on the boxing gloves. 'That stupid constitution let us down.'

If we wanted to be more accurate, we'd say that the American people are a failure.

However, I do believe it is in some ways prophesized that the Constitution will be a starting point in returning our fed.gov to its proper, limited role. Jefferson said it himself:



Think about that for a moment. I can't think of anything more descriptive of the Ron Paul movement.

Who are we? The watchful. What are we doing? Rallying and recalling all who will listen.

Winner - those who expected the Constitution to protect them have expected what never was and never can be. The Constitution serves as the ruling guide, which the active and brave citizenry use as the standard for government conduct, which they monitor and control via the states and their militias. To change the basics concepts of having powers split among different parts of the body politic has been disrupted, and has led to ruin.

[DamianTV]

All paper doctrines will fail if no one is willing to enforce them.

Thus, by the same token, we could easily say that the Bible had failed just as hard because, although many people know the material contained in the Bible (and its various flavors), the words themselves do not prevent those very same people from committing those exact heinous atrocities.

That goes for every system, every book, every law, every doctrine, every rule, statute, contract, and even simple verbal agreements. They are all meaningless if they are not observed. Not only does our Government flat out refuse to observe our Constitution, they do everything in their power to subvert its meaning.

[nobody's_hero]

All paper doctrines will fail if no one is willing to enforce them.

Thus, by the same token, we could easily say that the Bible had failed just as hard because, although many people know the material contained in the Bible (and its various flavors), the words themselves do not prevent those very same people from committing those exact heinous atrocities.

That goes for every system, every book, every law, every doctrine, every rule, statute, contract, and even simple verbal agreements. They are all meaningless if they are not observed. Not only does our Government flat out refuse to observe our Constitution, they do everything in their power to subvert its meaning.

Exactly. And there is certainly a serious lack of willingness to enforce our constitution, a document which might not actually be that bad if it were actually, you know . . . followed.

We can also observe how things work in countries that have no constitution at all. Having something written down is perhaps slightly better. You don't have to be a lawyer to see the wisdom in 'putting something in writing.' But, even there, I must admit that we have many contracts that aren't worth the paper they're written on, because no one will honor or enforce them.

[UMULAS]

I want a social contract theory that would have both strict and loose interpretations of the constitution, oh wait....

And when I mean loose interpretation, I mean the proper and necessary clause, it has to be both of them, yet congress takes everything proper and necessary.

For EX: Thomas Jefferson contradicted himself during the Louisiana Purchases yet he did it and admitted that it was unconstitutional, though there can be a refute that he just expanded the executive powers, he looked at it in a strict view of the constitution.

[Anti Federalist]

///