PDA

View Full Version : Federalists vs. Anti Federalists - Josie the Outlaw




DamianTV
02-03-2015, 05:07 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rlp-AfiCXNU

Decent, but not "out of the park". But there is a very good point, what did our Founding Fathers get right, and what did they get wrong?

Debate.

Mach
02-03-2015, 05:43 PM
I liked it, not much to debate for me, as far as I can see, I'm an anti....... it just seems that anyone that is a Federalist has personal blinders to which their agendas feed.

Talk about taxation without representation......

DamianTV
02-03-2015, 06:12 PM
I liked it, not much to debate for me, as far as I can see, I'm an anti....... it just seems that anyone that is a Federalist has personal blinders to which their agendas feed.

Talk about taxation without representation......

Maybe we need more talking points? Such as why would Federalists oppose a Bill of Rights and Anti Federalists support it?

Im still waiting for AF to pop in and explain better...

acesfull
02-03-2015, 06:28 PM
I often wondered, Did, "WE, the people include Woman and Negros? I think not.. Hence the Constitution is flawed in the first verse...

My .02

CCJ

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2015, 07:13 PM
I often wondered, Did, "WE, the people include Woman and Negros? I think not.. Hence the Constitution is flawed in the first verse...

My .02

CCJ
+rep ...or landless/poor folks of all sorts who couldn't elect delegates to the convention to amend the AoC.

HVACTech
02-03-2015, 07:27 PM
I often wondered, Did, "WE, the people include Woman and Negros? I think not.. Hence the Constitution is flawed in the first verse...

My .02

CCJ

yes, it did. although the founders could not correct all the ills of the world. they did put something in place that could.

your query is like suggesting, that "all men are created equal" means that only "men" are created equal.
clearly a false and misleading dichotomy.

as it is very clear that all men are not created equal. you have to define your terms.

and btw. "we the people" is in the declaration.
the Constitution is simply our version of the rule of law in a republic.
they are two separate and distinct things.
peace.

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2015, 07:40 PM
It's amusing and borderline creepy how HVAC stalks me on RPFs. ^^ :D :eek:

HVACTech
02-03-2015, 07:49 PM
It's amusing and borderline creepy how HVAC stalks me on RPFs. ^^ :D :eek:

have a piece of cake. rabbit.
thou art flatter thyself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mi9MLL8QOY0

Danke
02-03-2015, 07:51 PM
It's amusing and borderline creepy how HVAC stalks me on RPFs. ^^ :D :eek:

Part of his specialty is Fluid mechanics and improving ventilation and air quality, so I can see where he might be trying to improve RPFs.

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2015, 08:09 PM
Smart kid (in the OP vid). :)

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2015, 08:10 PM
Part of his specialty is Fluid mechanics and improving ventilation and air quality, so I can see where he might be trying to improve RPFs.

lulz :)

acesfull
02-03-2015, 09:00 PM
yes, it did. although the founders could not correct all the ills of the world. they did put something in place that could.

your query is like suggesting, that "all men are created equal" means that only "men" are created equal.
clearly a false and misleading dichotomy.

as it is very clear that all men are not created equal. you have to define your terms.

If the Founders did not define the terms then why should I?

Also I see no mention of WE THE People in the DOI, however the Preamble states as follows--- WE the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America....

Now my query,,, were black folks and woman part of WE THE PEOPLE in the Preamble? I say NA, they were not..

I await your rebuttal...

Regards

Acefull

and btw. "we the people" is in the declaration.
the Constitution is simply our version of the rule of law in a republic.
they are two separate and distinct things.
peace.


SEE my reply in this post above,

acesfull
02-05-2015, 03:30 PM
yes, it did. although the founders could not correct all the ills of the world. they did put something in place that could.

your query is like suggesting, that "all men are created equal" means that only "men" are created equal.
clearly a false and misleading dichotomy.

as it is very clear that all men are not created equal. you have to define your terms.

and btw. "we the people" is in the declaration.
the Constitution is simply our version of the rule of law in a republic.
they are two separate and distinct things.
peace.

Where is "we the people" in the Declaration? I believe you must mean the "Premble" ..

" WE, the people. " It is a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787 I was not included in that "We, the people.. " I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, just left me out by mistake. But though the process of amendment, interpretation and court decisions I have finally been included in" We, the people.
Cite---Barbara Jordan( July 25th 1974)

In my opinion Ms. Jordan and many other woman and man of color felt the same...

Regards

Ender
02-05-2015, 03:43 PM
Where is "we the people" in the Declaration? I believe you must mean the "Premble" ..

" WE, the people. " It is a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787 I was not included in that "We, the people.. " I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, just left me out by mistake. But though the process of amendment, interpretation and court decisions I have finally been included in" We, the people.
Cite---Barbara Jordan( July 25th 1974)

In my opinion Ms. Jordan and many other woman and man of color felt the same...

Regards

Ms Jordan wasn't around in 1787 when "man" was used for mankind in general. Also- Thomas Jefferson was wanting to free the slaves then.

Anti Federalist
02-05-2015, 03:45 PM
Maybe we need more talking points? Such as why would Federalists oppose a Bill of Rights and Anti Federalists support it?

Im still waiting for AF to pop in and explain better...

The Anti Federalists were right.

About everything.

acesfull
02-05-2015, 04:07 PM
yes, it did. although the founders could not correct all the ills of the world. they did put something in place that could.

your query is like suggesting, that "all men are created equal" means that only "men" are created equal.
clearly a false and misleading dichotomy.

as it is very clear that all men are not created equal. you have to define your terms.

and btw. "we the people" is in the declaration.
the Constitution is simply our version of the rule of law in a republic.
they are two separate and distinct things.
peace.


Let me define my terms.." Wherever there is a human being, I see God-given rights inherent in that being whatever may be the sex or complexion."

Regards
Acesfull

Southron
02-05-2015, 04:26 PM
Patrick Henry was right.
Who authorized them to speak the language 'we the people'?

heavenlyboy34
02-05-2015, 04:34 PM
The Anti Federalists were right.

About everything.
You thread winnar, you! :)

DamianTV
02-05-2015, 05:34 PM
Patrick Henry was right.
Who authorized them to speak the language 'we the people'?

Just for a point of debate, how can a person who did not sign the Declaration of Independence be a party to it if the Declaration both creates and operates on its own concept of "Contract Laws"? Did you sign it? Nope. I didnt either so no worries on that. Can we say that we are truly "bound" to a "contract" that we did not sign? Again, I think the answer is "no". Im sure that eventually that will also be used against us by our current Tyranny.

I think people in general want the "Protections" that the DOI, BOR, and Constitution provide for without signing, but do NOT want to have to work to achieve those very same "Protections". Constitution is the framework of a structure of Govt that is limited in its Scope, Power, and Authority and tries to place the power into the hands of the people that also "didnt sign". The "People" as in "We the People" (notice the Proper) chose to not keep their Power over Govt in their hands and gave that "Power" right back to the Govt which creates a self regulating beast that can only grow in size and scale.

And again, its just a point of debate. There are always two types of people, dividing in many different ways, so here are a couple ways I think people have divided themselves. One group that wants power, and one group that does not want power. For those who want power, the Bill of Rights and other important documents are a nuisance. For those who do not want power, this group points to those Documents that limits how much power those that want power can take. Both groups focus on "the Documents" and if these things are to be "Living Documents" the best ideas of these documents must be held in the hands of the people. The real power has always existed in the hands of the People. The Paper Documents merely states that. Just as the Bill of Rights is not the Source of our Rights, our Rights exist because we exist and the Bill of Rights only specifies that Rights come from the People, not Paper. This concept is much like the Human Resources Department of any company. There are tons of words on paper, but the real power lies in the actions that the employees themselves take. Whether to continue employment, whether to hire or fire, whether to produce, whether to work, whether and how much to pay, etc. Real Power is ALWAYS found in the hand of the People. Hence the concept of Unions, Governments and even Cell Phone Contracts. Today, we have surrendered almost all of our power to Paper. Paper has become more important than the People. Coopreation has been pushed to the wayside who place power on Paper then point to that paper. That is to surrender your own Power to the Paper in what ever form the Paper may take, a Contract, a Law, a Ticket, an Employee Handbook, a Work Order, a Religious Scripture, a Poem, a Screenplay, or even a Doodle.

The first three words do not say "We the Papers" but "We the People". It isnt because we signed or didnt sign the Paper because the Real Power is in the hands of the People and has ALWAYS existed in the hands of the People. We have Rights because we exist, not because there is a piece of Paper in the world that says "Your Rights are as follows". When we surrender OUR POWER to the Paper, we are just as enslaved to the Paper as we can allow ourselves to become enslaved to other People. The entire idea of "Rights are Granted" has to go out the window as those who crave to weild power over People will always claim that Rights come from some other fact than the person exists, which creates a sort of loophole by which those Rights become Permissions subject to the authority of someone other than the individual, and can in turn result in Permissions to be Denied. You do have and will aways have Total Authority over yourself. No other Man or Document or Word from ANY source can ever revoke your true Power. Likewise, you can not have Total or even Partial Authority over another Man. This is to expect Obedience in place of Cooperation, and again, it comes from no other outside source other than yourself and whoever else you may seek to interact with. The specific terms of these agreements can be enumerated on Paper, but as always, the real power exists and has always existed in the hands of Men. This includes the power to change the world around them as well as the power to change themselves. Freedom of the Body can not exist without True Freedom of the Mind. You are Free, even if others that point at Papers and Words and Symbols do not think you are. Badges and Papers do not grant Authority any more than Pencils misspell Words. Authority results from the Chains of Obedience, not the Chain of Command. If a person believes they are NOT Free, then they are correct and they are not. But if a man believes they ARE Free, then they are also correct and are Free. Free to shape themselves and the world around them. Free to choose to achieve what ever may lie in their hearts either through Coersion or Cooperation. Free to Think or to NOT Think for themselves. Free to choose to fulfill things listed by Papers or fre to choose to not do so. Free to try to remove the chains that bind ones hands and just as Free to leave the Chains of Obedience to bind their bodies. Free to choose to Surrender and equally Free to defend themselves.

The only part of a Man that can never truly be bound is the Mind of that Man, but only if he so chooses. Choose to be Free Men because you know it to be so.

(end \inspirational and \point_of_debate)

osan
02-05-2015, 06:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rlp-AfiCXNU

Decent, but not "out of the park". But there is a very good point, what did our Founding Fathers get right, and what did they get wrong?

Debate.

"It's no secret that power corrupts..."

Power does no such thing. People corrupt. Much of what this girl says in her videos is close enough to the bullseye to call it good, but there are problems. Little tidbits like this, while seemingly innocuous, do give rise to perceptual problems that in turn lead to errors in assessment. Lord Acton was probably coming from a good place when he wrote his famous words in a letter to his acquaintance, but that does not mean he had it quite right. He didn't, and neither does this "Josie"... who I keep half expecting to put on cat ears and start singing at any moment.

She criticizes the Framers for having allowed slavery to stand. Had they not, there would be no America. Whether that would be a better or worse historical result is open to widely ranging speculation. Personally, I tend to think the likelihood that it would have been worse because even in the new America the people were ready to set into place a king. The people just didn't get it and the smarter among them needed to keep the meaners on the path. Forget not that those commoners were the product of at least 15 centuries of breeding to the king's hand and word. One doesn't often shed that to which they were bred in the blink of an eye. I can readily see how the Framers had to compromise if there was to be any hope for a free land. I think they did a pretty good job, under the circumstances. I also think they could have done better - but is that really true? My readings on the convention suggest that sausage production is a far more palatable process than were the wranglings and chicanery that went on in Philadelphia at that time. Those men were, after all, men. I doubt they were 100% saintly in their interests, and so at least some - enough - were looking out for #1 to the extent that they were not going for the full monty, so to speak. Therefore, compromises had to be made and they were.

The one are where the Framers pooched things pretty badly, whether by error or malice, was in the structure and language of the Constitution. How could it have been that men who recognized the rotten character of the king failed to assume the same in the common man? Those times must have been very different, indeed, for them to have assumed that the meaner of that time was somehow less prone to going full-tyrant once vested with power, than was the typical king. As I have written before, the Constitution was written for a land of men far better than those now typically peopling these shores and, apparently, than those peopling it then, as well.

The fact is, we are in a corner - a catch-22 of sorts. Ideally, I would like to see an Article V convention and a new constitution written by people who know how to write and would do so, speaking to the lowest possible denominator of humankind. The only safe and proper assumption when writing such a document, if one insists on having one, is to assume every man is a demon of such character that the falling of but one of an individual's nail clippings into hell would drive the devil out forthwith and to the door of heaven, on his knees, pleading with God to let him in, ready to promise anything but that he be spared exposure to men. This is the only assumption that is rational and appropriate because it is precisely this sort of man who typically pines for the reins of power. But it is precisely because the average man is so low of character that we dare not convene pursuant to Article V, for were we to do so, the billions - even trillions - would flow as cheap wine to every palate of interest. Those with the power of money would literally buy this land, literally for nothing.

This leaves but a small number of options. We could risk a convention, but IMO that would prove an instantaneous disaster. We could lie down and just let Themme do as they please - equally unappealing to me. We could revolt in arms, hang every member of Congress, the president, his entire cabinet, and shoot the nation up like Swiss cheese. While some of that holds real appeal for me, the overall outcome would be far less tasty, I strong suspect.

The lone option remaining, and the one that seems most strategically rational, if not very tactically accessible, is to use the tools that remain in place but which so few are willing to devote themselves. We could literally amend the Constitution into correctness. By the process, we could in theory and in piecemeal fashion remove, add, or otherwise alter those parts of the Constitution that have allowed evil men to do what they have done against us. But I do not see this happening so long as people are still willing to get so worked up about the idiocies that are so common here, like the Stuporbowl. Really? The land is falling into ruin everywhere about our ears and people have their tights in a knot over a stupid football game? God better help us, because apparently we are insufficiently willing to help ourselves.

I am given pause to wonder how things might have turned out, had we not established this federation of independent states. While I have my moments of doubt, those are few and far between. I tend to believe that had the colonies remained separate, chances may have been greater that liberty would have been established and preserved. But I may be wrong. The overarching framework that is our Constitution is a two-edged sword. Taken one way, it is a unifying framework for liberty and prosperity. Taken another, it is a prison wherein its cells each state is trapped and manacled, an inmate.

Federalist - anti-federalist - none of it is terribly relevant. Each has its advantages and its shortcomings. Neither produces anything good when the people are afflicted with rot of mind and spirit, and on that account the American meaner is in stage IV metastasis. We could probably still pull this rabbit from our colons - the opportunities still rest before us, on a shelf, ready to go into action. My fear is that they will be taken beyond our common reach before enough of us realize that they need them at hand. To that, I have no idea what to say. I can lead the horse to the stream. I can even tie it to a nearby tree and whip the living snot out of it in an attempt to make it drink. But in the end, the choice is the horse's.

I really do not care if people choose to live as slaves to other men. What disturbs me endlessly is that those who choose otherwise are not shown the courtesy and respect to be left to their own, peaceable devices. There's the rub.

Anti Federalist
02-05-2015, 07:25 PM
Just for a point of debate, how can a person who did not sign the Declaration of Independence be a party to it if the Declaration both creates and operates on its own concept of "Contract Laws"? Did you sign it? Nope. I didnt either so no worries on that. Can we say that we are truly "bound" to a "contract" that we did not sign? Again, I think the answer is "no". Im sure that eventually that will also be used against us by our current Tyranny.

The DoI was not a binding article of law.

It was a manifesto binding, really, only those who signed it.

Anti Federalist
02-05-2015, 07:27 PM
I really do not care if people choose to live as slaves to other men. What disturbs me endlessly is that those who choose otherwise are not shown the courtesy and respect to be left to their own, peaceable devices. There's the rub.

And thus it has ever been.

Most men prefer polite slavery to the risks of liberty.

Why we continue to kowtow to that base human nature is beyond me.

Southron
02-05-2015, 07:30 PM
Osan. I agree that amending the Constitution is the best course. But I just dont see it happening apart from an Article V convention. Even that may prove impossible.

kcchiefs6465
02-05-2015, 08:16 PM
Just for a point of debate, how can a person who did not sign the Declaration of Independence be a party to it if the Declaration both creates and operates on its own concept of "Contract Laws"? Did you sign it? Nope. I didnt either so no worries on that. Can we say that we are truly "bound" to a "contract" that we did not sign? Again, I think the answer is "no". Im sure that eventually that will also be used against us by our current Tyranny.

I think people in general want the "Protections" that the DOI, BOR, and Constitution provide for without signing, but do NOT want to have to work to achieve those very same "Protections". Constitution is the framework of a structure of Govt that is limited in its Scope, Power, and Authority and tries to place the power into the hands of the people that also "didnt sign". The "People" as in "We the People" (notice the Proper) chose to not keep their Power over Govt in their hands and gave that "Power" right back to the Govt which creates a self regulating beast that can only grow in size and scale.

And again, its just a point of debate. There are always two types of people, dividing in many different ways, so here are a couple ways I think people have divided themselves. One group that wants power, and one group that does not want power. For those who want power, the Bill of Rights and other important documents are a nuisance. For those who do not want power, this group points to those Documents that limits how much power those that want power can take. Both groups focus on "the Documents" and if these things are to be "Living Documents" the best ideas of these documents must be held in the hands of the people. The real power has always existed in the hands of the People. The Paper Documents merely states that. Just as the Bill of Rights is not the Source of our Rights, our Rights exist because we exist and the Bill of Rights only specifies that Rights come from the People, not Paper. This concept is much like the Human Resources Department of any company. There are tons of words on paper, but the real power lies in the actions that the employees themselves take. Whether to continue employment, whether to hire or fire, whether to produce, whether to work, whether and how much to pay, etc. Real Power is ALWAYS found in the hand of the People. Hence the concept of Unions, Governments and even Cell Phone Contracts. Today, we have surrendered almost all of our power to Paper. Paper has become more important than the People. Coopreation has been pushed to the wayside who place power on Paper then point to that paper. That is to surrender your own Power to the Paper in what ever form the Paper may take, a Contract, a Law, a Ticket, an Employee Handbook, a Work Order, a Religious Scripture, a Poem, a Screenplay, or even a Doodle.

The first three words do not say "We the Papers" but "We the People". It isnt because we signed or didnt sign the Paper because the Real Power is in the hands of the People and has ALWAYS existed in the hands of the People. We have Rights because we exist, not because there is a piece of Paper in the world that says "Your Rights are as follows". When we surrender OUR POWER to the Paper, we are just as enslaved to the Paper as we can allow ourselves to become enslaved to other People. The entire idea of "Rights are Granted" has to go out the window as those who crave to weild power over People will always claim that Rights come from some other fact than the person exists, which creates a sort of loophole by which those Rights become Permissions subject to the authority of someone other than the individual, and can in turn result in Permissions to be Denied. You do have and will aways have Total Authority over yourself. No other Man or Document or Word from ANY source can ever revoke your true Power. Likewise, you can not have Total or even Partial Authority over another Man. This is to expect Obedience in place of Cooperation, and again, it comes from no other outside source other than yourself and whoever else you may seek to interact with. The specific terms of these agreements can be enumerated on Paper, but as always, the real power exists and has always existed in the hands of Men. This includes the power to change the world around them as well as the power to change themselves. Freedom of the Body can not exist without True Freedom of the Mind. You are Free, even if others that point at Papers and Words and Symbols do not think you are. Badges and Papers do not grant Authority any more than Pencils misspell Words. Authority results from the Chains of Obedience, not the Chain of Command. If a person believes they are NOT Free, then they are correct and they are not. But if a man believes they ARE Free, then they are also correct and are Free. Free to shape themselves and the world around them. Free to choose to achieve what ever may lie in their hearts either through Coersion or Cooperation. Free to Think or to NOT Think for themselves. Free to choose to fulfill things listed by Papers or fre to choose to not do so. Free to try to remove the chains that bind ones hands and just as Free to leave the Chains of Obedience to bind their bodies. Free to choose to Surrender and equally Free to defend themselves.

The only part of a Man that can never truly be bound is the Mind of that Man, but only if he so chooses. Choose to be Free Men because you know it to be so.

(end \inspirational and \point_of_debate)
I'd agree with everything aside from a couple of lines. The Rights of people are not reserved by the People. They are reserved by the people, themselves. It is no less illegitimate for a person to vote away, or restrict the freedom of others, than it is for a group of people to vote away, or restrict the freedom of others. You said that even, so perhaps it is simply semantics on my part, or I mistook your meaning.

Probably the most common piece of paper people live their lives by would be the one they debase regularly. At least, more so than most contracts, even with special consideration of the nonsensical "social compact" theory. They violate their compact daily. The majority of Americans could not differentiate the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution, to the Preamble from the 18th Amendment. None were alive to sign it, few know its legal meaning, even fewer care, and as well, politicians don't even abide by it anyways. It would be one thing for them to say We are obligated to obey the Constitution (even with consideration to the bad of it) because They obeyed the Constitution. That because they took an oath and acted with the American public in mind, as well as respected rights, well, one not might be so offended at the audacity of their implications. Instead it is that they ignore the Constitution, react to monetary gain and power, and regard the general population as fools, too ignorant to know what is best for them. They say that quite often, actually. All one has to do is listen.

acesfull
02-05-2015, 08:54 PM
"It's no secret that power corrupts..."

Power does no such thing. People corrupt. Much of what this girl says in her videos is close enough to the bullseye to call it good, but there are problems. Little tidbits like this, while seemingly innocuous, do give rise to perceptual problems that in turn lead to errors in assessment. Lord Acton was probably coming from a good place when he wrote his famous words in a letter to his acquaintance, but that does not mean he had it quite right. He didn't, and neither does this "Josie"... who I keep half expecting to put on cat ears and start singing at any moment.

She criticizes the Framers for having allowed slavery to stand. Had they not, there would be no America. Whether that would be a better or worse historical result is open to widely ranging speculation. Personally, I tend to think the likelihood that it would have been worse because even in the new America the people were ready to set into place a king. The people just didn't get it and the smarter among them needed to keep the meaners on the path. Forget not that those commoners were the product of at least 15 centuries of breeding to the king's hand and word. One doesn't often shed that to which they were bred in the blink of an eye. I can readily see how the Framers had to compromise if there was to be any hope for a free land. I think they did a pretty good job, under the circumstances. I also think they could have done better - but is that really true? My readings on the convention suggest that sausage production is a far more palatable process than were the wranglings and chicanery that went on in Philadelphia at that time. Those men were, after all, men. I doubt they were 100% saintly in their interests, and so at least some - enough - were looking out for #1 to the extent that they were not going for the full monty, so to speak. Therefore, compromises had to be made and they were.

The one are where the Framers pooched things pretty badly, whether by error or malice, was in the structure and language of the Constitution. How could it have been that men who recognized the rotten character of the king failed to assume the same in the common man? Those times must have been very different, indeed, for them to have assumed that the meaner of that time was somehow less prone to going full-tyrant once vested with power, than was the typical king. As I have written before, the Constitution was written for a land of men far better than those now typically peopling these shores and, apparently, than those peopling it then, as well.

The fact is, we are in a corner - a catch-22 of sorts. Ideally, I would like to see an Article V convention and a new constitution written by people who know how to write and would do so, speaking to the lowest possible denominator of humankind. The only safe and proper assumption when writing such a document, if one insists on having one, is to assume every man is a demon of such character that the falling of but one of an individual's nail clippings into hell would drive the devil out forthwith and to the door of heaven, on his knees, pleading with God to let him in, ready to promise anything but that he be spared exposure to men. This is the only assumption that is rational and appropriate because it is precisely this sort of man who typically pines for the reins of power. But it is precisely because the average man is so low of character that we dare not convene pursuant to Article V, for were we to do so, the billions - even trillions - would flow as cheap wine to every palate of interest. Those with the power of money would literally buy this land, literally for nothing.

This leaves but a small number of options. We could risk a convention, but IMO that would prove an instantaneous disaster. We could lie down and just let Themme do as they please - equally unappealing to me. We could revolt in arms, hang every member of Congress, the president, his entire cabinet, and shoot the nation up like Swiss cheese. While some of that holds real appeal for me, the overall outcome would be far less tasty, I strong suspect.

The lone option remaining, and the one that seems most strategically rational, if not very tactically accessible, is to use the tools that remain in place but which so few are willing to devote themselves. We could literally amend the Constitution into correctness. By the process, we could in theory and in piecemeal fashion remove, add, or otherwise alter those parts of the Constitution that have allowed evil men to do what they have done against us. But I do not see this happening so long as people are still willing to get so worked up about the idiocies that are so common here, like the Stuporbowl. Really? The land is falling into ruin everywhere about our ears and people have their tights in a knot over a stupid football game? God better help us, because apparently we are insufficiently willing to help ourselves.

I am given pause to wonder how things might have turned out, had we not established this federation of independent states. While I have my moments of doubt, those are few and far between. I tend to believe that had the colonies remained separate, chances may have been greater that liberty would have been established and preserved. But I may be wrong. The overarching framework that is our Constitution is a two-edged sword. Taken one way, it is a unifying framework for liberty and prosperity. Taken another, it is a prison wherein its cells each state is trapped and manacled, an inmate.

Federalist - anti-federalist - none of it is terribly relevant. Each has its advantages and its shortcomings. Neither produces anything good when the people are afflicted with rot of mind and spirit, and on that account the American meaner is in stage IV metastasis. We could probably still pull this rabbit from our colons - the opportunities still rest before us, on a shelf, ready to go into action. My fear is that they will be taken beyond our common reach before enough of us realize that they need them at hand. To that, I have no idea what to say. I can lead the horse to the stream. I can even tie it to a nearby tree and whip the living snot out of it in an attempt to make it drink. But in the end, the choice is the horse's.

I really do not care if people choose to live as slaves to other men. What disturbs me endlessly is that those who choose otherwise are not shown the courtesy and respect to be left to their own, peaceable devices. There's the rub.

+1 Great articulate post... However, please ponder this query.. Can any of us seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee..

My 02

Regards