When did the 2nd US Constitution die? 1911 or 1933?

[HVACTech]

Chris Brown and I have a flame war over this issue, he seems to think that it had to do with Woodrow Wilson.
and something that he calls the "expanded rights" theory... and of course the federal reserve "system". 1911

I say it died very clearly when FDR seized our Gold. 1933

[willwash]

Or 1861?

[HVACTech]

Or 1861?

well, the 2nd stood unamended until at least 1865.
taps, was played in, 1933.
after the civil war, it could be argued that it was pretty much intact, grievously wounded, but mostly functional?
what am I missing?

https://youtu.be/WChTqYlDjtI

[willwash]

I would answer 1861-1865. I think state sovereignty was a fundamental principle of the original government/Constitution, and when push finally came to shove over slavery (which is highly unfortunate that something as important as state sovereignty versus the reach of the federal government had to be tried over the issue of slavery) that fundamental principle was abandoned in favor of might makes right. Everything that followed (1911, 1933, 1964, etc) was just the death rattle of what was already dead.

My .02

[HVACTech]

I would answer 1861-1865. I think state sovereignty was a fundamental principle of the original government/Constitution, and when push finally came to shove over slavery (which is highly unfortunate that something as important as state sovereignty versus the reach of the federal government had to be tried over the issue of slavery) that fundamental principle was abandoned in favor of might makes right. Everything that followed (1911, 1933, 1964, etc) was just the death rattle of what was already dead.

My .02

that's a pretty good argument. but, until the 17th (1913) made the senators impotent..
the states role was still intact?
I think the question is really, when does a man become a slave? when you tax 35% of the fruits of his labor, or 65%?
we still today, have the vestiges of the original structure.

[heavenlyboy34]

1790.

[HVACTech]

1790.

1 year before the bill of rights?

curses!! what kind of anti-federalist shenanigans is that!

[Anti Federalist]

Each epoch undid things a little more than the last.

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and I'd include LBJ/Nixon.

Both of the last gave us the modern welfare state and the regulatory/administrative state.

[HVACTech]

Each epoch undid things a little more than the last.

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and I'd include LBJ/Nixon.

Both of the last gave us the modern welfare state and the regulatory/administrative state.

does this mean... HB is RIGHT?
or.
was it the "anti-federalists" who turned a pure document.. into a "social contract"?

who, sir. added the bill of rights?
(the founders understood AnCaps,) they were playing charades.(that is why they used pseudonyms, Brutus, the farmer etc)

I submit that it was NOT a "social contract" until the anti-federalists $#@!ed it up.

the DOI and constitution made it clear enough.

if you argue that the BOR, was instructions for dummies. I will accept that.
peace.

[Anti Federalist]

does this mean... HB is RIGHT?
or.
was it the "anti-federalists" who turned a pure document.. into a "social contract"?

who, sir. added the bill of rights?
(the founders understood AnCaps,) they were playing charades.(that is why they used pseudonyms, Brutus, the farmer etc)

I submit that it was NOT a "social contract" until the anti-federalists $#@!ed it up.

the DOI and constitution made it clear enough.

if you argue that the BOR, was instructions for dummies. I will accept that.
peace.

The notion that the constitution is a social contract comes right from the preamble:

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.

Which, to my knowledge, the antifeds had nothing to do with.

In fact, IIRC, they objected to that language as well.

Oh and by the way, the Federalist papers were published under a pseudonym also, Hamilton used "Publius".

[TheTexan]

huh? 2nd amendment is alive and well. Last I checked, we still have the privilege of owning weapons high powered enough to shoot cans at a distance, assuming that we're not shooting the cans within city limits.

[TheTexan]

If anything, the 2nd amendment has only grown with time. Olympic target shooting, for example, didn't even exist at the time the 2nd amendment was created, and that sport is protected by it

[TheTexan]

Clay pigeon shooting is another popular activity that is still very much actively enjoyed, thanks due to the 2nd amendment.

[TheTexan]

My bad I thought this thread was about the 2nd amendment. There was a constitution before our current constitution? Fancy that!

[Christopher A. Brown]

Chris Brown and I have a flame war over this issue, he seems to think that it had to do with Woodrow Wilson.
and something that he calls the "expanded rights" theory... and of course the federal reserve "system". 1911

Truthfully I'd not heard of the "expanded rights theory", had to search it out and didn't really find much.

So it seems HVAC refers more to my focus on 1911 when 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V convention, and congress didn't call one.

The states obviously were trying to stop the federal reserve system and what FDR eventually did.

The titanic and the loss of 40 of Americas most wealthy against leaving gold and fiat currency, clearly was a blow to that effort which caused the 1913 federal reserve act.

Therein is an absent issue of secret collusion present at each point of usurpation mentioned in this thread.

With that it seems we could divide out economic cause and effect from the rest of the damage to the intent of the constitution.

This is a good way to avoid "all or nothing thinking" and create a structure to address the dynamics of constitutional usurpation.

Comprehensively, a legal mechanism, Article V was violated and it was done to hijack national economics. That formally started in 1913 and culminated into something resembling the current system in 1933.

I say it died very clearly when FDR seized our Gold. 1933

So yes, that was a defining moment,

The constitution is a set of dynamic ideals that lives within us which we use to create unity that then imposes limits on a central government. With that, our increasing dependency on government or it's branches of commerce it empowers, often in violation of the ideals, is the real diminishment of the constitution and our willingness with inherent capacity to enforce it.

So the dynamic and tangible ideal of an economy based in something that can be held, such as gold, absolutely has control over willingness and capacity.

At this juncture, I need to mention that the valuation of gold in our and other societies is very much in question. It is really not very useful. Different discussion, and a fat red pill. But I thought it should be injected.

I need to underscore that I can find only one valid constitution and consider the discussion to be more about the various stages of usurpation and the degree of damage they inflicted to the operation of the original ideals within the public body, the enforcers.

Heavenly Boy brought an excellent Jefferson quote into a thread today. Something like, "A man who reads newspapers is less educated than one who does not". This is another, separate human dynamic with tremendous influence on enforcement of the constitution. More than any other factor.

Despite Willwash's compelling argument that culminated with the act of 1871, that war would not have been possible without the collusion between newspapers and the economic forces that financed the union army.
There is no doubt in my mind that Lincoln's speeches, had they been published, would have defined the impetus that stopped the war through an article V convention.

Accordingly, when Heavenly Boy says "1790", a year before the Bill of Rights, an overwhelming factor of constitutional enforcement is indicated within the 1st amendment. And that indication is consistent with the notion that free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling unity of the people adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

With the first amendment as written as it was, deficient of any mention of a purpose for free speech,a huge element of confusion was introduced into public discourse and it extended to the press which had wide influence.

The constitution is not dead, but is dying as we fail to agree upon the definition of its priorities and intents. As we fail, the license of usurpers is renewed and extended. When we give up completely upon agreement upon its principles it's dead.

Currently, for obvious reasons of covert manipulation here in the forum and in other forums, confusion is rampant so revival is impaired.

[HVACTech]

confusion is rampant so revival is impaired.

thank you for participating in this effort.

when "rights" are expanded BEYOND those of natural law...
the trouble begins.
I was pretty darn sure that YOU would have NO idea what I was talking about. thanks for confirming that.

when you expand "rights" beyond the parameters of Natural Law.
you no longer have a "right" to pursue happiness.

you have a "right" to BE Happy!!

and if YOUR "right" to be Happy. requires the fruits of another mans labor?
so what.

expanded rights killed our Constitution.

[Christopher A. Brown]

thank you for participating in this effort.

when "rights" are expanded BEYOND those of natural law...
the trouble begins.
I was pretty darn sure that YOU would have NO idea what I was talking about. thanks for confirming that.

when you expand "rights" beyond the parameters of Natural Law.
you no longer have a "right" to pursue happiness.

you have a "right" to BE Happy!!

and if YOUR "right" to be Happy. requires the fruits of another mans labor?
so what.

expanded rights killed our Constitution.

I hope you are not implying that the purpose of free speech is an expansion. It is the unwritten natural law reason free speech is in the first amendment. Unwritten because of loyalists working to keep it, or its basis, out of the framing documents so the nations people would be weak.

I just re-read what you wrote and think you are not saying that. You've changed context, without saying so, to describe welfare, entitlement etc.

Perhaps there is truth in that, but it would only be because of other "constitution killing" actions that preceded it. All of those go back to the act of 1871 and the unconstitutional government existing after it. Giving corporations individual rights took the peoples independence from them. Such is a gross "expansion of rights".

Suddenly groups of people could collude, lie, steal and corrupt, then get away with it because they had far more money than almost any individual to defend themselves in court, while they were innocent until proven guilty as an individual, and of course the courts were less and less constitutional after 1871 also.

[Uriel999]

Or 1861?

Thread.

[Aratus]

i am an optimist. i say 2oo5 rather than 1911, 1912 or 1913 or even 1932 or 1933... i am looking at
what our War on Terror did to our Bill of Rights before it totally bollixed up our economy in a big way.

[HVACTech]

i am an optimist. i say 2oo5 rather than 1911, 1912 or 1913 or even 1932 or 1933... i am looking at
what our War on Terror did to our Bill of Rights before it totally bollixed up our economy in a big way.

I am thinking 1871 is the correct answer.
the difference between a Police officer and a sheriff, is that one works for a corporation, the other does not.

if your local city can be a corporation, why not the fedgov?

IS your local city a corporation?

When the town of Hot Springs incorporated in 1851

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.ne...px?entryID=887

[Aratus]

Good Point. U.S Grant did not prevent the watering down
of our Bill of Rights and Constitution. They both tended to
survive our Civil War but not its aftermath. The "W" is very
easy to blame but he's never one with an original idea at all.

[heavenlyboy34]

The notion that the constitution is a social contract comes right from the preamble:



Which, to my knowledge, the antifeds had nothing to do with.

In fact, IIRC, they objected to that language as well.

Oh and by the way, the Federalist papers were published under a pseudonym also, Hamilton used "Publius".

Yup.

And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor, I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government.

This will probably go right over our brother HVAC's head, but everyone else will understand it, methinks.

[HVACTech]

Good Point. U.S Grant did not prevent the watering down
of our Bill of Rights and Constitution. They both tended to
survive our Civil War but not its aftermath. The "W" is very
easy to blame but he's never one with an original idea at all.

corporations and fiat monetary systems are BOTH Legal fictions.
they are the true enemy.

our founders understood this.

[HVACTech]

Yup.

This will probably go right over our brother HVAC's head, but everyone else will understand it, methinks.

not much "goes over my head" HB.
Master Electricians and master Plumbers know of me.

Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?

wow, that sounds pretty COMPLICATED for sure!
in fact,
it is MIND boggling in it's COMPLEXITY!

Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?

answer. the people.

we need protection for our shenanigans in a world full of statist clowns.

or do you disavow my statement of fact?

You must therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation

it was YOUR post dude, not mine.

[Anti Federalist]

The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration - Patrick Henry

And this is why an Article V convention is a disastrous proposition.

[acptulsa]

Chris Brown and I have a flame war over this issue, he seems to think that it had to do with Woodrow Wilson.

I hate to admit to agreeing with him, but Woodrow Wilson. Specifically, 1920.

1913, year of funny money and income tax, was bad. But by 1920 Wilson and House had nationalized the railroads and shoved Prohibition through in the face of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the populace did not approve. And there was no general uprising.

After Wilson got away with that, they knew they could get away with anything at all eventually.

[r3volution 3.0]

1861-1865

1913

1914-1918

1933-1945

All good choices. Personally, I'd say 1861-1865. That set the ball rolling toward an unlimited federal leviathan.

[otherone]

1791

[HVACTech]

I hate to admit to agreeing with him, but Woodrow Wilson. Specifically, 1920.

1913, year of funny money and income tax, was bad. But by 1920 Wilson and House had nationalized the railroads and shoved Prohibition through in the face of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the populace did not approve. And there was no general uprising.

After Wilson got away with that, they knew they could get away with anything at all eventually.

looks like I am going to have to agree with you...
I think the defining moment, HAD to be when the word "rights" were redefined.

it is clear to me, that the founders only included those "rights" granted to you by your "creator".
these are few and easily enumerated.
to bind the fedgov and the states in such a manner is wise.

I am of the studied opinion, that the founders were indeed AnCaps. like myself.
they also understood that the human race is VERY much still not ready for that. and barring something like Aldous Huxley's vision...
probably never will be.
we are going to HAVE to defend ourselves from the statists.

this is how I understand "Original intent"

[kcchiefs6465]

answer. the people.

The People*

*Absent some what, four fifths of the population?

Just technicalities, I'm sure. Why? Because of a legal theory that ascribes obligations to all based on the particulars about their birth.

And this , this, is the work of the Anti-federalists!?