The U.S. Constitution: Pro-Freedom?

[osan]

The current Regime is your other option..

Precisely. This is the corner into which we and our predecessors have allowed ourselves to be painted. We are now in the unenviable position of having to choose the lesser evil. This is OUR fault as much as it is that of those who have maneuvered us here.

The insistence of so many to do Nothing has given the current seat warmer.

This is exactly so. Apathy, lassitude, and good old-fashioned bull$#@! have managed to find us in a most undesirable circumstance, "circum" being an operative term here.

This year I will be Voting a Straight Republican Ticket.. I have never done that..

A palliative measure, at best, but still better than doing nothing. That said, it will not remain palliative for much longer, given the new patterns arising in the general political circumstance. Between the scum's ceaseless assault on our rights, election tampering, and all the other elements of trespass that now assault us, the window is closing fast.

Some will cite favorable SCOTUS rulings re: 2A, and how some things are getting "better". To that I say HOGWASH! The possibilities as to what all that really means are vast. For example, imagine that the view is that restoring 2A NOW is an essentially meaningless gesture because the mean American is now so utterly domesticated into a paper tiger, it matters no whit what we allow him to possess because he will never step up to use it. He just wants the ability to bloviate about how badass-free he is, as he meekly kow-tows to the Almighty State. This is eminently plausible.

How about this: Theye WANT us to fight, so that when China lands three million troops in friendly Mexico and they march up the Sonora into CA, AZ, NM, and TX, we actually get to shooting at them, the perfect pretext for going all scorched-earth on us. Now, before anyone pulls out the example of the Minutemen v. the redcoats, let me just nip that one in the bud. The Brits were looking for the quick fix - put them down fast, and in time for tea and crumpets, all the while underestimating our determination and sneakiness, not to mention that we had LOTS of help from an established state: the French.

The Chinese, I must assume, are smarter than that. If a real Chinese army were to sweep through the southwestern USA in blitzkrieg fashion, AND if they have actual IQs, they go no more than 100 miles inward and stop dead. They sit literally for years as they import Chinese into the captured areas, possibly liquidating ALL remaining Americans they find. In five years they have established a solid beach head, then push inward, say another 50 miles all along the new border. Another 20 million chinks supplant the American corpses. Rinse, repeat until... And once the silos are secured, America as a military consideration will have been mostly de-fanged.

With a compliant fedgov, this is eminently doable, assuming the right level of patience. Once the great plains are hit, they can go 300 miles at a clip. If we give no military resistance, China could have the entire NA continent in under 50 years as they slaughter every non-chink they find. What would they care if we escaped to Europe?

Sure, this is unlikely, but it's not so much so that we should dismiss it out of hand. And more ot the point, these are only two of a vast many more possibilities, some twists on what I've listed, while others are wholly different.

Trust NOTHING Theye say or do. This is all smoke and mirrors designed to keep us in our Lay-Z-Boiz.

but it is my statement that I have had enough of Democrats.

And yet, every day you take another bite of the Democrat $#@!-sandwich, as do we all.

The tyrant is waggling his willie in all our faces, laughing most hysterically as we idly complain about it all.

Who's the real culprit here? Do we deserve our freedoms when we willfully fail to assert them in any meaningful way? I'm thinking that we do not. For Pete's sake, we have more weaponry than the rest of the world put together, yet here we sit in manacles and cuffs of our own making, content to bitch and moan while DOING nothing to improve our lots. $#@!... we can't even get it up to engage in minor civil disobedience, much less massive levels of same.

At least the otherwise good-for-nothing lefties peel their sorry asses off their mom's basement couches and go out to loot and burn and beat and occasionally murder those against whom they profess complaint. Credit where due, and condemnation where due.

The fact is, we ALL suck. The left for being utter dumbasses, and the rest of us for knowing better, yet doing aboslutely NOTHING of good effect to bring this bull$#@!, bald-faced, dick-waggling-on-the-end-of-our-noses tyranny to its proper end. We're so far gone now, I'm not even sure it's possible to prevail against Themme, given the tech that now lies securely in their hands. Bio-weapons alone leave me wondering. Covid is but a pale reflection of what may be waiting in the wings. Had we not complied with the idiotic fiats of Fauci and CDC, what might have been the Theire response? Theye may have simply backed off, I readily admit. But what if Theye were of a differing mood? Release another pathogen, one notch more dangerous? Perhaps, and likely the case. But what if Theire patience was found threadbare and they decided to say "$#@! it" and release the Kraken, worldwide 90% fatal pathogen that strikes like lightning, leaving no hope for the infected? Unlikely, but again not so much so that we may dismiss out of hand.

My point is that we may have passed the tipping point without even becoming aware. Theye don't need nukes when they have biologicals and literally tens of millions of willing acolytes who would take up arms against you, and I'm not talking just small arms, but crew-serviced technicals that, if wielded in the manner of true warfare and not this anemic nonsense we have called "war" since Viet Nam, me-suspects that things could go very badly for us, very quickly. If an enemy seeks to exterminate you with no regard for the preservation of anything of the ground upon which he stands, things take on a very different timbre; one no American readily conceives in his imagination, regardless of having watched Terminator forty-seven times.

Not only have we invited the vampire into our rooms, we have bared our necks for it. When it bites, we will have no valid basis for complaint as our lives drain away to oblivion. We don't want to fight for that which we otherwise seem to feel entitled. OK. Then don't complain when it is all swept away in the wake-torrents of some contrived new crisis, because that is the likely form in which it will be delivered unto is, the coup de grace.

Seriously, we Americans need to alter our ways and we need to do it yesterday, if even that can help us because we seem so utterly trained to dropping everything the moment a "crisis" is announced. Imagine we actually come to some minimal level of self-respect and begin disobeying Themme in growing fashion. I guaRONtee Theye will unleash a new crisis, whether biological, political, economic, or what have you. The sky will be falling yet again and unless we stay our courses with sufficiency, the movement will reduce to just another flash in the pan, all thought of resistance forgotten for the sake of our knocking knees as the fear of losing our stuff outstrips the fear of losing out liberties and our very souls. You can set the atomic clocks to this predicable outcome and it will be the end of us all.

So think on it a mite. Unfortunately, thinking is all any of us are likely to do. After all, that sixpack in the fridge, in combination with the football game, is mighty compelling. Inconvenience can wait another day, can it not?

[osan]

"a gross generalization"? What I said was a pretty $#@!ing accurate generalization, considering that specific performance is almost never applied, precisely because it is such an extreme measure. The fact that it so rarely is used and only with so many restrictions only serves to enhance my point. One of those restrictions, is it shouldn't be used for personal service!! (because that would be $#@!in' slavery)

You are bending yourself over backwards doing mental gymnastics to try to explain how forcing someone to perform services against their will, is not "slavery".

Because you are a petty tyrant, and that's what petty tyrants do.

If one cannot exit, it cannot be a contract. Intent is an element. Once intent is gone, the contract is broken. If the parties of the second part are smart, they will have written into the contract the cost penalties for breaking faith. If not, then they can always sue, but they cannot immediately force the other party to perform - not without a court decree to that effect, and those don't usually come, because after all, what's the point of having an unwilling partner? He shows up, does shoddy work, and ultimately proves a drag on endeavors, so why force such a situation?

But this all does indeed raise questions regarding what "contract" really even means, as well as the value of a man's word and hand.

[osan]

Except you didn't limit your claim to personal service contracts. You even acknowledged that one can be forced to convey real property via specific performance (presumably without becoming a slave). Nice try, but no cigar.

Your meaning here is not quite clear. If I sell you my house for $X, you bet that someone can compel me to hand over the property in question, at the end of a rifle, if need comes to that.

And, BTW, how in the world is a State that has joined a union analogous to someone who has promised to render personal services? And how can a State possibly complain that it's a slave if it's forced to abide by the Constitution?

It is closely analogous. That union over there looks good. I want to join. OK, in order to join, I have these lines to toe. They seem reasonable, so here's my application. I'm in? Cool.

<years go by>

Wow, I guess I'm in a different space now... I want out. I should be able to leave, so if I am prevented, I am become an effective slave to said union. This is not good.

That said, getting out should not perforce be an easy things because the particulars of the relationship may not be so simple. For example, TX decicedes "you AND the dildo you rode in on." OK, fine. What happens to Pantex? They make all the nuclear weapons and have a fair inventory of materials. Do they remain in TX or does the fedgov seize them for purposes of "national security". My dollar says tough $#@! to the feds, who should have run their affairs such that TX had no reason to leave. Others will disagree, so which shall it be?

How's about all the BLM land in AZ, which is about 50% of the state? I say it's Arizona's, but the fedgov will tell me "no, $#@! YOU, it's ours." Which shall it be?

How's about the so-called "national debt"? Does TX carry it's portion of it, or do they deliver unto the fedgov yet another lovely strain of "you and the dildo you rode in on"?

The interrelationships are not simple and you know there would be tons of precisely this sort of wrangling. TX's only hope is to point lots of guns at DC and make it clear that they are going, free and clear and that Theye'd better play nice or there will be hell to pay.

[TheTexan]

If one cannot exit, it cannot be a contract. Intent is an element. Once intent is gone, the contract is broken. If the parties of the second part are smart, they will have written into the contract the cost penalties for breaking faith. If not, then they can always sue, but they cannot immediately force the other party to perform - not without a court decree to that effect, and those don't usually come, because after all, what's the point of having an unwilling partner? He shows up, does shoddy work, and ultimately proves a drag on endeavors, so why force such a situation?

But this all does indeed raise questions regarding what "contract" really even means, as well as the value of a man's word and hand.

For most of my dealings, any contracts only serve the purpose of documentation for the governments various bureaus should they choose to come a-lookin.

An understanding between gentlemen needs no contract.

[osan]

For most of my dealings, any contracts only serve the purpose of documentation for the governments various bureaus should they choose to come a-lookin.

This is normatively reasonable. That does not, however, protect you from parties of the second part.

An understanding between gentlemen needs no contract.

I do not disagree.

[TheTexan]

This is normatively reasonable. That does not, however, protect you from parties of the second part.

I do not disagree.

Which is why it's particular laughable that people compare the Constitution to a "contract".

A contract provides means of remedy for people who don't trust each other.

"United" States, indeed.

[CCTelander]

[Sonny Tufts]

The interrelationships are not simple and you know there would be tons of precisely this sort of wrangling. TX's only hope is to point lots of guns at DC and make it clear that they are going, free and clear and that Theye'd better play nice or there will be hell to pay.

Texas would first need to convince its own citizens that secession is worth the loss all of the federal benefits that the state and its people currently receive (e.g., Social Security).

[Sonny Tufts]

An understanding between gentlemen needs no contract.

A written contract provides greater assurance that there will be no misunderstanding later on regarding exactly what the parties' understanding was. A gentlemen can die or become mentally incompetent, and his executor, the beneficiaries of his estate, or his guardian will demand proof of what the original understanding was.

As film mogul Louis B. Mayer is reputed to have said, an oral contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[TheTexan]

A written contract provides greater assurance that there will be no misunderstanding later on regarding exactly what the parties' understanding was. A gentlemen can die or become mentally incompetent, and his executor, the beneficiaries of his estate, or his guardian will demand proof of what the original understanding was.

Sure, and I would argue that this is the primary reason most people use contracts. To agree on terms and document it for the various bureaucracies involved.

Very few people sign contracts with an intention to bring it to court, even in the case of a breach. Which makes the vast majority of contracts that are in use, much more similar to "gentlemen's agreements", than actual contracts, when the ability to take the agreement to court for remedy, is not a required feature of the agreement.

As film mogul Louis B. Mayer is reputed to have said, an oral contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I don't know who film mogul Louis B. Mayer is, but he is likely to have chosen his business relationships very poorly, if that's his point of view.

[TheTexan]

If the parties of the second part are smart, they will have written into the contract the cost penalties for breaking faith.

This is pretty much the first thing I look at before signing a contract. How do I get out of it and what does it cost?

Back when I still had gym memberships, I always made revisions to ensure I could close the contract via phone or email. None of that "certified letter" bull$#@! that they usually require. Surprisingly, this revision was always honored without issue.

[TheTexan]

Texas would first need to convince its own citizens that secession is worth the loss all of the federal benefits that the state and its people currently receive (e.g., Social Security).

I'm curious, do you agree that Texas has the unilateral right to secede, provided it makes a good faith effort to address any specific and legitimate damages the separation causes?

I ask because I am curious whether or not you are a tyrant, and this is how I determine that.

[Sonny Tufts]

I'm curious, do you agree that Texas has the unilateral right to secede, provided it makes a good faith effort to address any specific and legitimate damages the separation causes?

As a purely legal matter, there isn't a right to secede, just as there is no legal right to commit treason. Compare the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution's definition of treason and consider the fact that many people were involved in both documents. Consider also that while the DOI approves of revolution under certain circumstances, it also acknowledges that the colonies were free and independent states -- i.e., governments that had the power "to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." The DOI wasn't a blueprint for an anarchic society.

As a moral matter, you're really asking if any group of people, no matter what the size -- from a state to an individual -- has the right to disassociate from government. It seems to me it depends on the reason for the disassociation. Did South Carolina and the other states of the Confederacy have the right to secede so they could maintain the institution of slavery? Would Warren Jeffs and his Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have had the right to secede from federal, state, and local govenment so he could rape children?

But even if the argument for or against secession is based on morality, who gets to decide the issue? There is no Supreme Court of Ethics, so as a practical matter it ultimately depends on which side has the greater force to maintain its desires. And the loser will always cry "tyrrany!"

I doubt that you believe that it would be wrong under any conceivable circumstance for a group of people to use force to impose their will on another group or an individual. But if you agree that sometime it's necessary, then under what circunstances would the use of force be justified and, more important, who gets to decide?

It's obvious I'm not an anarchist. Men are not saints, and government is a necessary evil. Moreover, I doubt that anarchy can ever exist in a society of more that a handful of people. When folks band together, as they inevitably will, there will always be rules and punishments for breaking those rules.

[osan]

Which is why it's particular laughable that people compare the Constitution to a "contract".

A contract provides means of remedy for people who don't trust each other.

"United" States, indeed.

Ignorance of contracts is almost universal.

Constitution is NOT a contract.

Then there are the idiotic references to the "social contract", another utter fantasy.

Generally speaking, human beings are rotten-stoopid.

[TheTexan]

As a purely legal matter, there isn't a right to secede, just as there is no legal right to commit treason. Compare the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution's definition of treason and consider the fact that many people were involved in both documents. Consider also that while the DOI approves of revolution under certain circumstances, it also acknowledges that the colonies were free and independent states -- i.e., governments that had the power "to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." The DOI wasn't a blueprint for an anarchic society.

As a moral matter, you're really asking if any group of people, no matter what the size -- from a state to an individual -- has the right to disassociate from government. It seems to me it depends on the reason for the disassociation. Did South Carolina and the other states of the Confederacy have the right to secede so they could maintain the institution of slavery? Would Warren Jeffs and his Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have had the right to secede from federal, state, and local govenment so he could rape children?

But even if the argument for or against secession is based on morality, who gets to decide the issue? There is no Supreme Court of Ethics, so as a practical matter it ultimately depends on which side has the greater force to maintain its desires. And the loser will always cry "tyrrany!"

I doubt that you believe that it would be wrong under any conceivable circumstance for a group of people to use force to impose their will on another group or an individual. But if you agree that sometime it's necessary, then under what circunstances would the use of force be justified and, more important, who gets to decide?

It's obvious I'm not an anarchist. Men are not saints, and government is a necessary evil. Moreover, I doubt that anarchy can ever exist in a society of more that a handful of people. When folks band together, as they inevitably will, there will always be rules and punishments for breaking those rules.

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask from a "legal perspective". I asked from an ethical perspective: specifically, your ethical perspective.

What do you believe?

Do you believe that Texas has the unilateral right to secede, provided it makes a good faith effort to address any specific and legitimate damages the separation causes?

It's a yes or no question... it does not require a thesis paper.

[osan]

Texas would first need to convince its own citizens that secession is worth the loss all of the federal benefits that the state and its people currently receive (e.g., Social Security).

Well certainly that is so. I'm not sure it would take all that much convincing.

That said, secession is the punk move. Making what we have into a workable free land is the right move, but we won't do it because we are all too rotten to commit and remain intelligent about it all.

[osan]

Surprisingly, this revision was always honored without issue.

Not really surprising. Few understand contracts and either kowtow, or walk, most doing the former.

So if the occasional smart guy crosses their path, their inner pragmatists enjoin them to let it go because it just isn't worth the fight.

[TheTexan]

Making what we have into a workable free land is the right move, but we won't do it because we are all too rotten to commit and remain intelligent about it all.

Unfortunately, there are very few people who have the fortitude to even imagine doing, what would be required, to make what we have into a workable free land.

[RJB]

Just to remind people what forum this is.

[TheTexan]

Just to remind people what forum this is.

To answer his questions starting at 3:28....

nope, no, no, no, nope, no, nope, no, no, no, nope, no, no, no, and .... no

[PAF]

Just to remind people what forum this is.

Ron needed a platform of which to speak, hoping that the indoctrinated people would come around and begin to think. Sure, it would be good to return to the CONstitution temporarily, which at that point discussions could be had among a more educated people:

Please refrain from embarrassing yourselves, by claiming that the so-called Amendments to the Constitution, protect you from loss of freedom or the unlimited power of government. These claims are nothing more than strawman arguments, for if the unlimited taxation powers in Article 1 were purposely left intact, as they were, any amendment would be little more than a ruse meant to fool, as contradictory language can always be used in order to achieve any outcome desired by those holding power. One does not have to rely on this single abuse however, because of all the other unlimited powers granted to Congress by the designers of the Constitution. (Thieves and criminals)

In the same power’s clauses, those in government granted themselves the power:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; (no limits)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; (no limits)

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; (no limits)

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; (no limits)

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; (no limits)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (no limits) and;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (Blanket protection of no limits)


These are not the entirety of the powers given, but should be enough so that even the most obtuse among the crowd, can understand the unlimited nature of what are falsely called the “Laws of the Land,” when in fact, these are only laws against the land and against the people.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ted-Government!

[RJB]

To answer his questions starting at 3:28....

nope, no, no, no, nope, no, nope, no, no, no, nope, no, no, no, and .... no

Meh, enjoy your People's Free Democratic Republic of Austin.

[RJB]

I'm surprised that you are not claiming to have had a secret conversation that nobody else heard where he renounced his defense of the constitution.

Ron needed a platform of which to speak, hoping that the indoctrinated people would come around and begin to think. Sure, it would be good to return to the CONstitution temporarily, which at that point discussions could be had among a more educated people:

[PAF]

I'm surprised that you are not claiming to have had a secret conversation that nobody else heard where he renounced his defense of the constitution.

I don’t put words into peoples mouths like some people enjoy to do. Listening and reading between the lines are what intelligent people do, especially when it comes to self-responsibility and individual liberty.

With that said, and I’ll read between the lines, keep hoping .gov will save you ;-)

[RJB]

I don’t put words into peoples mouths like some people enjoy to do. Listening and reading between the lines are what intelligent people do, especially when it comes to self-responsibility and individual liberty.

With that said, and I’ll read between the lines, keep hoping .gov will save you ;-)

Hey, could you wash your black skinny jeans before your next antifa meeting?

[PAF]

Hey, could you wash your black skinny jeans before your next antifa meeting?

With that said, keep hoping .gov will save you ;-)

[RJB]

With that said, keep hoping .gov will save you ;-)

As much as it sucks now, I have read enough about the French and Bolshevick Revolutions to know that things can get a whole lot worse. Your false sanctimony does not fool me in the slightest.

[PAF]

As much as it sucks now, I have read enough about the French and Bolshevick Revolutions to know that things can get a whole lot worse. Your false sanctimony does not fool me in the slightest.

Keep waiting… maybe in your lifetime.

[RJB]

Keep waiting… maybe in your lifetime.

You too. Maybe your Marxist revolution will occur and you won't have to play this role on the Internet.

[PAF]

You too. Maybe your Marxist revolution will occur and you won't have to play this role on the Internet.

Not drinking Reading before posting is fundamental:

Please refrain from embarrassing yourselves, by claiming that the so-called Amendments to the Constitution, protect you from loss of freedom or the unlimited power of government. These claims are nothing more than strawman arguments, for if the unlimited taxation powers in Article 1 were purposely left intact, as they were, any amendment would be little more than a ruse meant to fool, as contradictory language can always be used in order to achieve any outcome desired by those holding power. One does not have to rely on this single abuse however, because of all the other unlimited powers granted to Congress by the designers of the Constitution. (Thieves and criminals)

In the same power’s clauses, those in government granted themselves the power:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; (no limits)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; (no limits)

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; (no limits)

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; (no limits)

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; (no limits)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (no limits) and;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (Blanket protection of no limits)


These are not the entirety of the powers given, but should be enough so that even the most obtuse among the crowd, can understand the unlimited nature of what are falsely called the “Laws of the Land,” when in fact, these are only laws against the land and against the people.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ted-Government