Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 181 to 200 of 200

Thread: The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The Constitution is not voluntary. That is not debatable. An involuntary agreement is immoral and impossible to enforce.
    I don't agree with that. Please explain how we are being forced to do anything due to the Constitution? The tyranny we are under, i.e., the police state, and the theft of our money, is not Constitutional - they are products of the subversion of the Constitution. For example, the 16th amendment has been conveniently misused over the years (read: Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?), much like the 1st amendment has been misused to stifle freedom of religion (ex: breaking crosses off of mountains), free speech (no more 'RedSkins' ala FCC), free assembly (we now have 'free speech zones'), and free press (which is now essentially the 4th branch of gov't). And that's not even mentioning what this behemoth has done to the 2nd amendment...

    You are correct. The common man is unable to refrain from corruption. That means two things: 1) the Constitution can never work since the common man will always outnumber those who wish to abide by it. 2) the common man can't be trusted to vote since they will only vote for others who are also corrupt
    OR, it can mean that we have a ways to go in reaching our full potential. Just because the "noble experiment" is failing, doesn't mean we should just chuck our foundation, or that we shouldn't continue to strive to better ourselves as a people. This also speaks to why any other system, including voluntarism, won't necessarily work either. Man's inability to rise above the temptation of corruption will rear its ugly head no matter the system we choose. That's not to say it isn't worth moving in that direction. In fact, even with the existing Constitution, with the exception of the many amendments which should now be thrown out (Bill of Rights notwithstanding), voluntarism would be perfectly acceptable and allowable. The goal, I believe, is individual happiness, and self realization. I think that can be achieved, even with strict adherence to the Constitution.
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    In other words, the Constitution doesn't protect us at all. Only WE protect us.

    We do not need a constitution. We need the proper apprehension of the Principles of Proper Human Relations. If one wishes to enshrine those in writing and call it a "constitution", I would warn that it may be a bad idea because with such instruments does the mind begin to shift its posture such that the individual begins to regard it as an entity unto itself. Then comes "government", to which the lazy meaner eventually pawns of his personal responsibility. Once that happens in the least measure, the trot downward into hell has begun.

    A vast plurality of people want what can never be: freedom provided to them reliably and perpetually by third parties. It is the equivalent of dancing all night to the music, expecting to call the tunes, and not having to pay the band. Mr. Cake, meet Mr. Eatitoo. When matter and anti-matter meet, they mutually annihilate. That is what happens to freedom when it meets with the refusal to personally maintain it. <POOF!> And here we are; welcome to the 21st century. Ain't it grand?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  4. #183
    Osan, do you believe that you can personally maintain freedom all on your own? Or, do you believe your freedom, and thus your happiness, is reliant upon a community?
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!

  5. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    Osan, do you believe that you can personally maintain freedom all on your own? Or, do you believe your freedom, and thus your happiness, is reliant upon a community?
    I think my local church FAR more meaningfully counts as a community than the US...



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech;5661859
    what was [the Constitution's
    intended purpose?
    In the final analysis the Constitution's intended purpose is irrelevant. What counts are the results that have been precipitated under its imprimatur. Those results have been, by and large, deleterious on an increasing basis with respect to time. Lysander Spooner had it bullseyed all those years ago.

    People need to have a strong training in the fundamentals of proper human relations. We have a strong training in how to be proper serfs under the will of tyrants. This is not acceptable. Just as the tyrants and their seemingly limitless army of useful idiots have subverted youth for endless generations, so must we now unsubvert ourselves that we may see the truth that is common to all men. It is a small, compact, and eminently elegant truth, but its implications are not always very pleasant. It is this fact that has empowered the tyrant through the ages. People demand weal with the one hand and reject its cost with the other. The tyrant understands this with great perfection and employs this weakness against the common man with amazing effect and efficiency. The tyrant promises that which can never be. All he demands from his fellow man is consent, and he gets it almost universally while almost never delivering on his promises. The common man sees it, but his general state of personal corruption cements his inertia, which in turn cements his overweight butt in his easy-chair.

    This is why the man who loves actual freedom is so rare and why his fight against those who would thwart his sovereign rights is likely certain to fail. But if it is to have any hope of success, his corrupted, disease-ridden fellows must be first healed to a point where they want to fight for their own sovereign claims. Without the desire, there is not will, and without the will there is no action.

    The task is staggering in its monumentality. I honestly cannot tell if there is so much as a snowball's chance in hell that tyranny might be rubbed from the earth for more than a brief historical moment, for that is all that men appear to have been able to achieve thus far since the rise of the first tyrant.

    Achieving freedom is not the trick, for killing enough of the bad people can lead to that goal. Holding on to it is where the magic lies precisely because people are so endlessly attracted to the corruptions that lead to their enslavement. This small but profound truth leads me to question the intention behind the design of the human spirit.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  8. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    Osan, do you believe that you can personally maintain freedom all on your own?
    In the absence of Empire, mostly yes. When the threats of whatever form and degree to one's freedoms source from single individuals, we may generally say that the ability for the average man to successfully defend against encroachment and destruction is far and away greater than when one faces groups seeking to commit some violation.

    Or, do you believe your freedom, and thus your happiness, is reliant upon a community?
    This could be answered from any of several points of view. From the purely pragmatic angle and holding all else equal, I would say that the larger a community becomes, the more dependent becomes the Individual upon it to render all aid and comfort in the preservation of his rights. It is a mutual exchange in the very real sense that I respect your claims and you mine. Additionally, by our mutual vigilance regarding each's rights better ensures that everyone plays nicely. It also legitimizes everyone's claims. Consider the opposite: I claim fundamental rights x, y, and z and expect everyone to respect them. If I expect that when someone violates me that one of my fellows should come to my defense, I have no basis for avoiding the same responsibility from those fellows of me when they are under attack. This should be fairly plain to any dull second grader, and yet the world is literally choking on the wad of grotesquely hypocritical adults who fail to accept this, wanting aid but refusing to render it.

    So yes, the long term viability of one's freedom does indeed depend in a very direct and central way upon the willingness of the members of one's community simply because of the reality of the relative strengths of the Individual vis-ŕ-vis the group. A paradox there, in case you do not see it, it that the health of the group depends directly on the health of the Individual in many very real senses. Sadly, most members of most groups appear to refuse or otherwise fail to see this. They appear to hold a very myopically lopsided perception that tells them the group is all that matters, the Individual be damned. This is pure mental illness and it has proven genocidally dangerous.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  9. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    In the final analysis the Constitution's intended purpose is irrelevant.
    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    that seems pretty darn clear to me.

    the constitution did NOT fail the people, the people failed the constitution.
    let me explain, we are a republic. (democracy is illegal here) china, is a republic. so was the USSR.
    do you see where I am going with this?
    in a republic, the "rule of law" can be based on ANYTHING. today, we are a crony republic. why?

    because today, people do not even know what the constitution IS. much less what it's intent was.

    I hope I wrote that in a constructive, non belligerent manner.
    peace.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  10. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    I don't agree with that. Please explain how we are being forced to do anything due to the Constitution? The tyranny we are under, i.e., the police state, and the theft of our money, is not Constitutional - they are products of the subversion of the Constitution. For example, the 16th amendment has been conveniently misused over the years (read: Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?), much like the 1st amendment has been misused to stifle freedom of religion (ex: breaking crosses off of mountains), free speech (no more 'RedSkins' ala FCC), free assembly (we now have 'free speech zones'), and free press (which is now essentially the 4th branch of gov't). And that's not even mentioning what this behemoth has done to the 2nd amendment...
    Article 1, Section 8 is a positive grant of powers to the federal government. There are eighteen grants that I have to pay for and live by. I never voluntarily agreed to any of them.

    Who subverted the Constitution? Isn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a check on Congress and the President? The court is the worst offender of violating the Constitution. We can go all the way back to 1803 with Marbury vs. Madison to find the Supreme Court creating new powers for itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    OR, it can mean that we have a ways to go in reaching our full potential. Just because the "noble experiment" is failing, doesn't mean we should just chuck our foundation, or that we shouldn't continue to strive to better ourselves as a people. This also speaks to why any other system, including voluntarism, won't necessarily work either. Man's inability to rise above the temptation of corruption will rear its ugly head no matter the system we choose. That's not to say it isn't worth moving in that direction. In fact, even with the existing Constitution, with the exception of the many amendments which should now be thrown out (Bill of Rights notwithstanding), voluntarism would be perfectly acceptable and allowable. The goal, I believe, is individual happiness, and self realization. I think that can be achieved, even with strict adherence to the Constitution.
    How much further do "we" need to go? How long will it take? The country has regressed by leaps and bounds since the signing of the Constitution. That's quite a hole you need to climb out of. Again, immediately after the signing, the Constitution was being violated. It's baffling that I should support a system that has failed since day one and only gotten worse over 200 years.

    Have you ever owned or managed a business? I currently do both with two different businesses. Let's say you implement a new set of rules and regulations for your business. Several years later you find that your business is losing money hand over fist. What you're doing is blaming the employees and customers for not understanding or following the new guidelines. What I am doing is questioning the policies themselves.

    Again, there are only three ways to understand this:

    1) If human beings are fundamentally corrupt, we can't have a government. The government will be controlled by corrupt human beings.
    2)If human beings are inherently good, we don't need a government.
    3) If only some human beings are corrupt, we can't have a government. The corrupt will seize control of the government for their own nefarious purposes and enslave the uncorrupted.

  11. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I think my local church FAR more meaningfully counts as a community than the US...
    And that is as it should be.
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!

  12. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    that seems pretty darn clear to me.

    the constitution did NOT fail the people, the people failed the constitution.
    let me explain, we are a republic. (democracy is illegal here) china, is a republic. so was the USSR.
    do you see where I am going with this?
    in a republic, the "rule of law" can be based on ANYTHING. today, we are a crony republic. why?

    because today, people do not even know what the constitution IS. much less what it's intent was.

    I hope I wrote that in a constructive, non belligerent manner.
    peace.
    And the vast majority of Amerikan children are schooled where?

    http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com.../DDDoA.sml.pdf
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 10-02-2014 at 01:51 PM.

  13. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    Not sure of your point here, but I will say that the 10A is crap. The real meat of the BoR lies in the 2A and 9A. The rest take a distant back seat to those.

    that seems pretty darn clear to me.
    Yes and no. "Or to the people" guarantees the Individual nothing because "the people" is an undefined term. The failure to define jargon is a major failing in the design and construction of the Constitution. Because of the absence of definition, Theye who are in power are at their leisure to lend whatever meaning to the term that may suit them at any given moment. This is precisely what Theye do, over and over again, and as the average man plummets ever more deeply into the black abyss of his ignorance, the tyrant is able to embark upon ever bolder semantic excursions, which they also do endlessly. The mean man does absolutely nothing of substance to correct this.

    The use of "or" leaves the question of who, exactly, retains those unenumerated rights wide open and up for grabs. Very poor use of logical sentence structure and I would be surprised to find that it was done from ignorance. That doesn't leave much wiggle room for inferences. The individual is small. The "state" is large. In a one-on-one, the individual usually loses. These days, they usually end up dead as stone.

    the constitution did NOT fail the people, the people failed the constitution.
    We agree, but I maintain that the design spec of the document is sadly lacking in robust character, largely due to the gross absence of specificity. It may be possible that the Framers were unable to do a better job at that time for any of a number of understandable reasons. But we now have the benefit of 200++ years experience in observing the weaknesses of the instrument. Ideally, the best thing we could do is rewrite the document to correct the deficiencies in the extant work. Well, ideally we would be anarchic, but the practical realities of a dangerous and technologically-enabled world preclude this option for any people wishing to avoid either being slaughtered or enslaved by one of their covetous neighbors.

    As I have mentioned in years past, I wrote my own constitution about 25 years ago as an academic exercise. It is a quantum leap beyond what we now have, but one thing that became quickly apparent to me was that the instrument itself is nothing. It does nothing, in sé, save to serve as a framework, guide, and reminder for good people on the precepts of proper human relations and the practice of self-governance.

    let me explain, we are a republic. (democracy is illegal here) china, is a republic. so was the USSR.
    do you see where I am going with this?
    in a republic, the "rule of law" can be based on ANYTHING.
    Which is precisely why the broadly touted concept of "rule of law" is nothing better than rank and childish nonsense for its vagary.

    because today, people do not even know what the constitution IS. much less what it's intent was.
    Here we agree completely.
    Last edited by osan; 10-02-2014 at 03:05 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  14. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Article 1, Section 8 is a positive grant of powers to the federal government. There are eighteen grants that I have to pay for and live by. I never voluntarily agreed to any of them.

    Who subverted the Constitution? Isn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a check on Congress and the President? The court is the worst offender of violating the Constitution. We can go all the way back to 1803 with Marbury vs. Madison to find the Supreme Court creating new powers for itself.
    I would agree that the SCOTUS has been the biggest perpetrator of subverting the Constitution with their UN -constitutional interpretations. As to your 18 grants you must pay for and live by, are you aware of how many laws the Amish are exempt from, solely based on their 1st amendment right to freedom of religion?

    How much further do "we" need to go? How long will it take? The country has regressed by leaps and bounds since the signing of the Constitution. That's quite a hole you need to climb out of. Again, immediately after the signing, the Constitution was being violated. It's baffling that I should support a system that has failed since day one and only gotten worse over 200 years.
    'Supporting this system' is not the same thing as supporting the Constitution. This system no longer represents its foundation. How long will it take? I can't answer that except to say that corruption is a moral defect, how do you eradicate moral defects? The only hope we have is through appealing to one's intelligence, and sense of reason. That might be done through education and informing, and enlightening, although total eradication of moral defects is a very lofty goal.

    Have you ever owned or managed a business? I currently do both with two different businesses. Let's say you implement a new set of rules and regulations for your business. Several years later you find that your business is losing money hand over fist. What you're doing is blaming the employees and customers for not understanding or following the new guidelines. What I am doing is questioning the policies themselves.
    Well, first of all, you'll know before several years go by, and a lot of money loss, if your policies are a failure. And if they are, the goal should be to amend them until they work. And yes, I have owned and managed several businesses.

    Again, there are only three ways to understand this:

    1) If human beings are fundamentally corrupt, we can't have a government. The government will be controlled by corrupt human beings.
    2)If human beings are inherently good, we don't need a government.
    3) If only some human beings are corrupt, we can't have a government. The corrupt will seize control of the government for their own nefarious purposes and enslave the uncorrupted
    Sorry but I view this as a gross oversimplification.
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by NIU Students for Liberty View Post
    Why should I protect something that was designed to restrict individual freedoms in the first place?
    Would you mind referring me to the sources that have you concluding that the founders chucked the AoC for the Constitution, not because the AoC failed its intended purpose, but because there was a concerted plot to enslave the new nation?
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!

  17. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    I would agree that the SCOTUS has been the biggest perpetrator of subverting the Constitution with their UN -constitutional interpretations. As to your 18 grants you must pay for and live by, are you aware of how many laws the Amish are exempt from, solely based on their 1st amendment right to freedom of religion?
    I am not exempt from paying interest on state debt. I am not exempt from the regulation of interstate commerce. I am not exempt from the Post Office. I am not exempt from paying for the military. The Bill of Rights do nothing to exempt from Article 1, Section 8. I do not understand what you are trying to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    'Supporting this system' is not the same thing as supporting the Constitution. This system no longer represents its foundation. How long will it take? I can't answer that except to say that corruption is a moral defect, how do you eradicate moral defects? The only hope we have is through appealing to one's intelligence, and sense of reason. That might be done through education and informing, and enlightening, although total eradication of moral defects is a very lofty goal.
    Enlightenment thinkers started appealing to reason and evidence several hundred years ago. If all we needed to do was educate and inform, then we would be living in a completely different world by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    Well, first of all, you'll know before several years go by, and a lot of money loss, if your policies are a failure. And if they are, the goal should be to amend them until they work.
    We've had evidence since...well, immediately after the Constitution was signed that it didn't work to restrain the state. It's only gotten worse. Yet we see people continue to say it will work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    Sorry but I view this as a gross oversimplification.
    Perhaps you could provide an analysis on why it is an oversimplification.

  18. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Perhaps you could provide an analysis on why it is an oversimplification.
    or, perhaps, you could do your own frickin homework?

    what IS the constitution? why was it created in the first place?
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  19. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    or, perhaps, you could do your own frickin homework?

    what IS the constitution? why was it created in the first place?
    http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/07/rp_7_5.pdf

  20. #197
    ..
    Last edited by robert68; 10-04-2014 at 10:51 AM.

  21. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    Would you mind referring me to the sources that have you concluding that the founders chucked the AoC for the Constitution, not because the AoC failed its intended purpose, but because there was a concerted plot to enslave the new nation?
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/an...listpapers.pdf

  22. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    or, perhaps, you could do your own frickin homework?

    what IS the constitution? why was it created in the first place?
    Um, homework on what?

    I find it interesting when I ask a question and people tell me to go find out for myself. It says a lot.

  23. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567


Similar Threads

  1. Ron Paul - Our Constitution...has failed.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 07-07-2020, 03:58 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-19-2014, 08:03 AM
  3. Ron Paul: 'Our Constitution Has Failed' to restrain government
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 11-20-2012, 05:55 PM
  4. Is the Constitution a failed experiment?
    By Matt Collins in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 08-18-2010, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •