Our US Constitution is NOT a social contract.

[Henry Rogue]

thank you,

now, lets move on to the meaning of the word "STATE" shall we?
"I am in a Texas state of mind".

we have a "state" called Virginia. was this "state" always known thusly? no, it was NOT.
before it became the "state" of Virginia, it was probably in another state. or, perhaps not in any state at all. (wilderness)

as an HVACTech, I DO know the meaning of the word "state"



I am STILL waiting for the double ought secret meaning of this word for you.
please enlighten me sir.

You are asking Proindividual to elaborate on something he never wrote. You confused Proindividual with A Son of Liberty.

[fr33]

what do I do now?
spin around and chant it again?

Shove it up your ass for all I care. Is there a point to this post?

[Christopher A. Brown]

No,
No, it isn't. That's where you're mistaken. A lot of people here know who I am. And they know me well enough to call me if they need help with anything productive.

I'm calling you because I need help with something productive.

HVAC has not been accountable to accept that free speech has a specific and ultimate purpose nor has he explained why he does not agree and accept that purpose. He has not explained what sacrifices or compromises making said agreement and acceptance would constitute. He's been asked several time and refuses. Many have.

Before I ask you if you agree and accept that such purpose is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, I should ask you if you understand the potential product of prime constitutional intent shared, understood and agreed upon and accepted by American people related to Article V as the codified method, under the law of the land, to alter or abolish?

[Ender]

I'm calling you because I need help with something productive.

HVAC has not been accountable to accept that free speech has a specific and ultimate purpose nor has he explained why he does not agree and accept that purpose. He has not explained what sacrifices or compromises making said agreement and acceptance would constitute. He's been asked several time and refuses. Many have.

Before I ask you if you agree and accept that such purpose is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, I should ask you if you understand the potential product of prime constitutional intent shared, understood and agreed upon and accepted by American people related to Article V as the codified method, under the law of the land, to alter or abolish?

Dude- the Constitution was a coup- the only viable American document is the Declaration- start there.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Dude- the Constitution was a coup- the only viable American document is the Declaration- start there.

Maybe you are missing that the term "alter or abolish" is of the Declaration.

Maybe you don't know that the Declaration is not considered law.

Maybe you've missed how I use the a Declaration to show constitutional intent.

Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".

QUESTION:

If the framers intended for the American people to have the right to alter or abolish, they obviously intended for them to have enough power available to prevail in that manner over government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights. Obviously the unity of the American people is the only way they can have that power.

What did the framers intend to serve the purpose of creating that unity amongst the people?

[acptulsa]

If the framers intended for the American people to have the right to alter or abolish, they obviously intended for them to have enough power available to prevail in that manner over government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights. Obviously the unity of the American people is the only way they can have that power.

It isn't obvious. It doesn't even follow. The Constitution does not require unanimity to effect change, whether among the electorate, in Congress, or when it comes to amendments.

What did the framers intend to serve the purpose of creating that unity amongst the people?

Obviously nothing in the Bill of Rights, considering the document was framed, debated and ratified before the Bill of Rights even existed as such.

[TheTexan]

Maybe you don't know that the Declaration is not considered law.

Phrased differently, the Declaration of Independence is illegal

[otherone]

Phrased differently, the Declaration of Independence is illegal

Repped.
Please lend me some reps for Mr. Annoying. One of the most spot-on comments I've read on RPF in some time.
Kudos, sir.

[Suzanimal]

Repped.
Please lend me some reps for Mr. Annoying. One of the most spot-on comments I've read on RPF in some time.
Kudos, sir.

Gladly. I like bxm042.

[Anti Federalist]

third-ed

[CCTelander]

Repped.
Please lend me some reps for Mr. Annoying. One of the most spot-on comments I've read on RPF in some time.
Kudos, sir.

Got it covered.

[Anti Federalist]

Phrased differently, the Declaration of Independence is illegal

Well deserved rep.

I can think of number of instances where, an open reading of the DoI, in modern english usage, would get you arrested.

Or at least SWATTed.

[HVACTech]

It isn't obvious. It doesn't even follow. The Constitution does not require unanimity to effect change, whether among the electorate, in Congress, or when it comes to amendments.



Obviously nothing in the Bill of Rights, considering the document was framed, debated and ratified before the Bill of Rights even existed as such.

correct. both constitutions were created to protect the DOI. as it simply could not stand on it's own.

the DOI contained ALL of the "rights" that are necessary and proper. the bor served as a distraction from the DOI and also a tool for the fedgov to increase it's power.

I am in NO WAY shape or form suggesting that we should not keep them, we should.
we have the ONLY system of government ever devised by mankind with the expressed purpose of limiting government.
it has, somehow, fallen on OUR shoulders to restore it.
our great grand fathers lost the constitution before any of us were born.
they can claim ignorance or lack of education.

ignorance in todays world is a choice.

[erowe1]

correct. both constitutions were created to protect the DOI. as it simply could not stand on it's own.

The US Constitution directly opposes the DOI.

[Danke]

Gladly. I like bxm042.

Ya, but you are also fond of the teachers you had in school too.

[Anti Federalist]

the DOI contained ALL of the "rights" that are necessary and proper. the bor served as a distraction from the DOI and also a tool for the fedgov to increase it's power.

Please post the section of the DoI that specifically prohibits the federal government from establishing a national, mandatory, church.

Or using cruel and unusual punishment in criminal cases.

Or passing a law requiring that you board soldiers in your home.

[Suzanimal]

Ya, but you are also fond of the teachers you had in school too.

I like just about everyone. Even you, Danke. You know you're one of my favorites.

[Danke]

I like just about everyone. Even you, Danke. You know you're one of my favorites.

$#@!, what am I doing wrong.

[HVACTech]

The US Constitution directly opposes the DOI.

really?
that would seem a trifle odd to me. 1776 to 1791 = 15 years.
they had plenty of time for consideration. and yet!
they missed the gem that you are now about to share with us? or, did you just state (I hate that word!) this as a point of known fact?

[Danke]

The US Constitution directly opposes the DOI.

Can you elaborate?

[HVACTech]

Please post the section of the DoI that specifically prohibits the federal government from establishing a national, mandatory, church.

Or using cruel and unusual punishment in criminal cases.

Or passing a law requiring that you board soldiers in your home.

uh, you, are asking me... to defend the DOI?

THAT was the original purpose of both US constitutions.



the founders chose an enumerated powers document in a Republic.
brilliant in MY opinion.

HOW would YOU defend it sir?

[PierzStyx]

Even if it was, it would be a Lockean Social Contract, and Locke specifically said the public's obligation to the government ceased when their rights were violated and revolution was justified.

[Anti Federalist]

uh, you, are asking me... to defend the DOI?

THAT was the original purpose of both US constitutions.



the founders chose an enumerated powers document in a Republic.
brilliant in MY opinion.

HOW would YOU defend it sir?

You stated the the Bill of Rights is a "distraction and a tool for the FedGov to increase its power".

You stated that the DoI "contained ALL of the "rights" that are necessary and proper".

I am asking you to post the specific passages in either the DoI or the 1787 Constitution that prohibits the federal governemnt from passing a law establishing a national church. (for example)

[Christopher A. Brown]

It isn't obvious. It doesn't even follow. The Constitution does not require unanimity to effect change, whether among the electorate, in Congress, or when it comes to amendments.

Obviously nothing in the Bill of Rights, considering the document was framed, debated and ratified before the Bill of Rights even existed as such.

Unanimity? Unity of the people upon constitutional intent is nothing so formal.

Dude, you are SO against a lawful and peaceful revolution you forget that constitutional intent is defined by the people. Your position is exactly the position an infiltrating agent will take who is working to prevent the people from understanding the latitude the people have when they are in agreement upon constitutional intent.

We can derive our agreements upon intent from any of the framers writings. We can infer, we can derive implication on our deductions of what they intended for us to use to form government best suited for our safety and happiness. When those are agreed upon by a number of them, and do not contradict any other stated intents, it's a done deal.

Go back to your masters and lick their boots. We are not buying any of your peasant musings.

[acptulsa]

Dude, you are SO against a lawful and peaceful revolution you forget that constitutional intent is defined by the people.

So what is it the Democrats say? If you're not for the federal Department of Education, you're anti-education and pro-ignorance? If we aren't for education their way we aren't for education at all? If you don't want to do what doesn't work you don't want the job done?

Why didn't you just tell us from the start that you're just another arrogant Democrat? We'd have understood.

[Christopher A. Brown]

So what is it the Democrats say? If you're not for the federal Department of Education, you're anti-education and pro-ignorance? If we aren't for education their way we aren't for education at all? If you don't want to do what doesn't work you don't want the job done?

Why didn't you just tell us from the start that you're just another arrogant Democrat? We'd have understood.

Your analogy does not work, but your mistake in attempting to use it indicates your cognitive failure to grasp natural law.

If you are not recognizing the purpose of free speech as being to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish, you are not supporting understanding, which is the key to real education.

It is fully possible to "convince" someone without creating an understanding in them of the true situation. That is misleading, whether intentional or not.

You've been convinced of something you cannot actually describe. If you could, you would have been able to accurately describe the problem as well as the solution, OR certainly recognize it when described to you!

The uses of cognitive distortions are certainly to blame. Observe your effort in the close of your post to apply "all or nothing thinking".

[acptulsa]

Your analogy does not work...

It works just fine. For every purpose except yours, which is to remain in denial.

You've been convinced of something you cannot actually describe. If you could, you would have been able to accurately describe the problem as well as the solution, OR certainly recognize it when described to you!

You're trying to sell a snake oil miracle drug that you haven't the articulation to describe. Which is why you keep going off your sales talk to attack everyone who asks you a question about it.

Failure is blaming the customer for the fact that the product, the salesman, or both suck.

[HVACTech]

You stated the the Bill of Rights is a "distraction and a tool for the FedGov to increase its power".

You stated that the DoI "contained ALL of the "rights" that are necessary and proper".

I am asking you to post the specific passages in either the DoI or the 1787 Constitution that prohibits the federal governemnt from passing a law establishing a national church. (for example)

WHY is it necessary for me to educate you?
the fedgov has CLEARLY turned into a MONSTER that it was never intended to be. how did this happen?
we are not working together to find answers, you and your MANY cohorts are running interference and sowing obfuscation.

YES! a very good argument can be made that it was in fact the BOR that gave unscrupulous men the leverage that they needed to expand power beyond the scope of the "enumerated powers" granted.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

does this FULLY answer the question? no, it does not.
the other PRIMARY factor is widespread IGNORANCE and the basic lack of education that you display.
would I mind having this conversation with a new member? no, I would not.

but YOU are not a new member are you?
you are in fact, THE member with the most chevrons and laurels.
YOU are the leader sir, like it or not.

this website was created to promote and provide a platform for the dissemination of Ron's message. Ron's message was about the constitution, Liberty and sound money.
anti-federalist and anti-constitution are synonyms.
this places you in DIRECT opposition to myself, and both Ron and Rand Paul. relating to matters of the constitution.
you have made a farce out of one of Dr Pauls main pillars.

under YOUR leadership, you have drawn vast minions to your cause on this website.
my own efforts here are waning as a result.

[Christopher A. Brown]

WHY is it necessary for me to educate you?

. . .IGNORANCE and the basic lack of education that you display.
would I mind having this conversation with a new member? no, I would not.

but YOU are not a new member are you?
you are in fact, THE member with the most chevrons and laurels.
YOU are the leader sir, like it or not.

under YOUR leadership, you have drawn vast minions to your cause on this website.
my own efforts here are waning as a result.

Your efforts are not waning, but they have not born fruition either. There is a period of confusion, of indecision resting upon the sincere here.

Appropriate words to AF btw.

The below is something I've seen before, which I understand and see as being a reason for your non acceptance of the purpose of free speech.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

Yes, that is all true. However, the unmentioned powers which is assumed in that perspective to exclude others, is not exactly clear after generations who have never overtly known the purpose of free speech.

The effect of the first amendment within the general implications of the quoted quoted, essentially defines what the government cannot do. What the people can do is not defined either. What covert government enabled power can do is also not defined.

So the secret control over media and the effective purpose of free speech is artificially separated from government control, as if covert factions CANNOT THEREFORE act in the interests of an infiltration of the government.

In our case, an infiltration seeking to destroy the protections from government the people need to remain free.

My point is that NOT stating what one entity is prohibited from doing does not create awareness of what is needed by another entity, the people, and what they can do, or the purpose of rights they have for doing it.

[HVACTech]

Your efforts are not waning, but they have not born fruition either. There is a period of confusion, of indecision resting upon the sincere here.

Appropriate words to AF btw.

The below is something I've seen before, which I understand and see as being a reason for your non acceptance of the purpose of free speech.



Yes, that is all true. However, the unmentioned powers which is assumed in that perspective to exclude others, is not exactly clear after generations who have never overtly known the purpose of free speech.

The effect of the first amendment within the general implications of the quoted quoted, essentially defines what the government cannot do. What the people can do is not defined either. What covert government enabled power can do is also not defined.

So the secret control over media and the effective purpose of free speech is artificially separated from government control, as if covert factions CANNOT THEREFORE act in the interests of an infiltration of the government.

In our case, an infiltration seeking to destroy the protections from government the people need to remain free.

My point is that NOT stating what one entity is prohibited from doing does not create awareness of what is needed by another entity, the people, and what they can do, or the purpose of rights they have for doing it.

dude, YOU are doing what Hamilton warned against, in your efforts to "weaponize" "free speech"

from the DOI.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

does THIS sound familiar in today's world?

the constitution was designed to prevent this from happening by NOT giving them the power to do so. at the federal level.
at the state level it was a bit more flexible on this matter.
and at the Local level. it was pretty much anything goes.

a system of enumerated powers in a Republic is what they chose. in fact ALL states AND the fedgov are required to be Republics.
they included the democratic PROCESS only as a means for the people to provide "consent"
other than that, Democracy is illegal in this country.

use the KISS principle to spread enlightenment.

this will probably be my last post.