Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Let’s Abandon The Constitution, Says Professor

January 8, 2013 by  

Let’s Abandon The Constitution, Says Professor
PHOTOS.COM

No, not because it cedes too much power to the Federal government. Surely, that opinion would not be allowed in The New York Times.

Anticipating objections, I agree with the Spoonerite criticism of the Constitution; but in what follows, I am acting as a historian and a logician evaluating claims.

Georgetown University’s Louis Michael Seidman writes in The Times:

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago…. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

The issue is not what Madison would have wanted. The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could impose their own preferences on the public instead.

As even Alexander Hamilton put it, “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”

Back to Seidman:

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience.

So two wrongs make a right?

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

But because there was a 1st Amendment (and a 10th Amendment; you didn’t expect Seidman to mention that it was also on 10th Amendment grounds that dissidents objected to the Alien and Sedition Acts, did you?), it was easier to criticize Adams. The government isn’t even following its own rules, people could say.

Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation.

Not true. He mentioned an idea similar to this exactly one time and then, when its logical problems and impracticalities were described to him, never brought it up again.

He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

In this he was virtually alone among his party, members of which assured him that the treaty power included the power to purchase additional territory.

Seidman then lists a bunch of examples of Presidents who disobeyed the Constitution. This is supposed to amount to an argument for doing so now. Couldn’t it just as easily be an argument for deciding, once and for all, to abide by the principles of republican government and actually obey the Constitution? Surely, we wouldn’t say that the Soviet Union’s long list of atrocities became more legitimate over time because of customary practice.

The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution — in landmark cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to Bush v. Gore – should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled.

They cannot be reconciled. That is true. Could one of them be right and the other wrong? This possibility Seidman does not consider. In which of the ratifying conventions were the people told that they would be governed by judges’ subjective decisions as to how the Constitution ought to be adapted to “modern demands”? Nowhere. Therefore, this theory is at odds with republican government; and, thus, the existence of competing theories does not mean that application of constitutional principles to current issues is a hopeless task. It means some people are right and others wrong, as in any other field of endeavor.

Note, too, how Seidman describes originalism with the word “divining,” as if in order to figure out that most decisions were intended to be left to the States we would need tea leaves, Tarot cards or sheep entrails.

Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

One might cite the incarceration of the Japanese, the sedition decisions after World War I and other obvious cases, or even the civil-liberties problems of today, but “helped us to grow and prosper”? Franklin D. Roosevelt, who scarcely even pretended to follow the Constitution, gave us the slowest recovery from a depression in U.S. history. The post-Civil War growth in the U.S. economy was the most robust ever, and most Americans can barely name two of the Presidents from that period.

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

So it would be better not to have written rules for government in these cases and just rely on our wise leaders’ good judgment? If we’re going to have a Federal government, I’d rather have explicit rules governing its behavior, since when it violates those rules an important pedagogical moment presents itself to us: See, the thing won’t even obey its own rules. What does that tell you about this institution?

The President would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief.

Seidman has been a constitutional law professor for 40 years (which explains a lot), and he actually thinks the issue of Presidential war powers is debatable or that it’s the Constitution that is causing our problems when the President asserts robust powers over foreign policy. He is saying that if only we could get the Constitution behind us, we could have a discussion about this issue. To the contrary, it is the Constitution and the whole testimony of American history through the mid-20th century that stand against the President. See my treatment of Presidential war powers.

OK, that’s all I can do.

–Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Tom Woods

is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Learn real history and economics at his Liberty Classroom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Let’s Abandon The Constitution, Says Professor”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • GALT

    I wonder if there is a future here………….premised by a claim of REAL HISTORY and REAL ECONOMICS ( austrian )……this presentation seems rather circular and familiar………with a lot of questions posed by Mr. Woods, regarding the excerpts he has chosen to examine from Mr. Seidman……….which makes this a rather “selective presentation” of a topic whose theme might suffer from a “prejudicial premise” which is suggested by the author…………

    “Seidman has been a constitutional law professor for 40 years (which explains a lot), “

    A quick bio check, takes us to Liberty Classroom, which offers 4 REAL HISTORY courses ( which covers all of history ), REAL ECONOMICS and a LOGIC course. ( olde )

    The Logic course is an interesting addition and I’ll take a stab that olde means Aristotle, rather than Quine……(any is better than none) but I have a serious problem with anything described as REAL…….but it is a claim, so one assumes that challenging that claim would be expected?

    Constitution: Living or Dead……..does Mr Woods suffer from the same affliction as Mr. Seidman? Was it ever a real question?

    Winners write history, temporarily. So let’s take a look at one of Seidman’s excerpts………….

    ” with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves “

    and Mr. Woods response:

    The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions.

    If we eliminate the rhetoric from Seidman’s (new history) we get “white propertied men acted illegally under existing law ( some of whom ) owned slaves.”
    Mr Woods takes a little more rhetorical liberty, since the idea of consent, is tied to the “just powers” of all “governments”, and the “consent” in this instance requires a little more light in terms of REAL history…………no one at that little “illegal gathering” was happy with the result………but they were desperate, so this document was presented as and all or nothing, up or down, take it of leave, no changes, choice.

    And that’s when the fun starts…….and there is some REAL history, which makes Mr. Woods “interpretation” of “the peoples consent” seem rather matter of fact when it was anything but.

    If we take just the information here, and consider the dynamic of the people at the illegal gathering, who were all “propertied men” and the utter chaos of the result, you can imagine what the ratifying conventions were like. ( although, depending on how much attention this topic gets……what emerges here at the end of the day will probably be quite representative of the chaotic interests of the various factions involved.)

    My problem is the question itself……Living or Dead…….how is that possible…….we have Article V, change all or part, anytime there is the political will to do so, and given the present result, why has it only happened so few times?

    “The winners write history, temporarily.”

    ” To conquer, first DIVIDE!” ( and then HANG, separately.)

    • FreedomFighter

      “I’m quite sure that the concept of a Government-run reservation… seems to be what the socialists are working for now — to have everyone cared for from cradle to grave…. But you can’t whine and bellyache ’cause somebody else got a break and you didn’t, like those Indians are. We’ll all be on a reservation soon if the socialists keep subsidizing groups like them with our tax money.”- John Wayne

      John Wayne on liberals
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btvSE6tVHzQ&feature=related

      “your being conned into socialism and communism right now” – John Wayne

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • GALT

        “Objection; Relevance?” Sustained!!!!!

      • FreedomFighter

        Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control – CNN 1/7/2013
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=player_embedded

        Alex Jones ‘debates’ CNN’s Piers Morgan on gun control. Things get a little heated

        Alex makes Piers Morgan look like the globalist hachetman he really is…

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • GALT

        Same objection……what does any of it have to do with either side of
        this article or my post concerning it.

        I have several posts on Article Two of the Bill of Rights….

        “The purpose of that article is to kill cops and any other person in government
        that exceeds their authority or violates the oath they have taken to the
        supreme law of the land.”

        There is usually no response to these posts……because I am saying something you
        believe you want to hear…….even though you really have no clue why.

        And I mean every word of what you see above……

        But it would seem to suggest that whatever other labels you have ready to assign
        would be inconsistent with “this position”……..not that you all pay any attention to ‘consistency’…….

        There are no short cuts…….you need to pay attention to what is actually said…..
        you need to understand it in context……..you need to clarify what you do not
        understand……..and you need to be sure the facts are facts…..

        After you have done all that……you have to ask yourself, does this article
        actually have a point……

        My answer to that is the subject of my post.

        What was the subject of yours?

      • Kathy Jo Wistert

        SO, that college professor would like to and demands that we do away with the US Constitution BILL of Rights, does he? Then I say that he should be promptly and immediately be removed from his job as college professor,AT ONCE and he shoul and must be charged, arrested,tried,convicted for treason and inciting and suborning treason in his students against the United States of America and the American people and be either executed for treason or be immediately deported out of this country for the traitor that he is. We don’t need or want him and his kind or any more like him in this country,let alone teaching and influencing our young people in society. He and people like him is part of a good reason and cause of why our country is in such a big mess that it is.

      • http://naver samurai

        Great video Freedom Fighter, fellow patriot. Here is one that deal with what Reagan thought about libtards and progtards:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iShCXx_xZDQ

        He sure had it right. He describes less intelligent beings, like GALT, to a “T”. I’m glad that Bob Livingston decided to make a thread about this, but I have already posted things about this subject on the last 2 prior threads. I hope people are listening now. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves GALT out.

        “If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”

        Ronald Reagan

      • granny mae

        Galt seems to be long on words and short on everything else ! I understand that there was a provision put in the health care bill of all things, by sir Harry Read , that no-one can touch the gun rights if the bill is passed and signed. Not even the president ! Is this right? and if so how we going to stop the liar in office from doing what he pleases ! Maybe we need some Congressmen with the right stuff to start impeachment ! Leave the constitution alone . The problem withj it is too many people have already monkey’d around with it. I’m just saying !

      • Nick Czudy

        the constitution was penned 225 years ago. It has been a guide to the operating of the republic. It needs to be modernized to suit our current times and technology. So much of it is out of touch with our modern world. Some effort should be made to modernize it.

        The Alex Jones interview with Pierce Morgan. illustrated the rabid gun lobby that believes in the rise of another Hitler. He needs to be the first to get a phychological examination to see if he is fit to bear arms. For this small percentage of paranoid patriots, Americans are being held ransome by the gun lobby to come up with some positive amendments to reduce the mass numbers of deaths and murders that take place in the USA. Mr Jones really scares me. I have also had numerous chats on this site with like minded fanatics. It is scary.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Thank you, I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time. The US Constitution is not “out of touch with our modern world”. You jsut do not even understand it or you are a paid shill – if you say it enough times people begin to think it is true. Let me teach you about our US Constitution using an anaolgy. The Constitution assigns duties to the three branches.
          You are assigned to keep your room clean. First your room has s dirt flloor – to velan it you grab a branch with some leaves onit and sweep. Your next room is house, and you use a broom to clean up your room. The next place you live is in a palace, and there you se a vacuum cleaner to get your room clean. The last place you live is on a spaceship, youset the timer on the cleaner robot to sweep your room – duty is taken care of.

          Your assigned duty was the same, the things you used to get it accomplihsed changed, and the surroundings around you. But your assigned duty was the SAME.

          Their Constitutionally assigned duties are the same. The way they implement them chagned, and he surroundings changed – but the assigned duties are the same.

          So you are incorrect on almost all points. Remember, the Constitution of the United States of America IS our government. The people we put into office are the ones who are to carry out the duties assigned to each branch. They are just highpriced-with-a-better-lifestyle-and-retirement temp workers who are overstepping thier boundarys by lies, deceit, and treason.

          • Nick Czudy

            Kansas, Thanks for your effort to try and give me an analogy of how the Fed government operates. It did not work. No problem. each of the branches has a different duty and job. I do agree with you that the ones that were voted in and hired to operate the government are over paid for what they do. regards Nick

      • sam1966

        Wrong, wrong, wrong GALT. Remember that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution says that the government can offer things to the people but it cannot force anyone to pay into something, buy something, or penalize someone for opting out. This last part is what makes it unconstitutional. I see that GALT falls short on knowledge of the Constitution. But alas! What else could we expect from him/her? Here is something both funny and interesting:

        http://www.nbclatino.com/2013/01/08/outrage-after-taco-restaurant-gives-employees-how-to-catch-an-illegal-immigrant-t-shirts/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        “A patriot must be a religious man.”

        Thomas Jefferson

      • sam1966

        Now that was really ignorant of you Kick. Why do we need to change the Constitution? Why do we need to change how our government is supposed to do things with checks and balances, the laws of the land, presidential term limits (Which a libturd/ progturd congressman from NY introduced into legislation, maybe giving Obama bin Laden a 3rd term.), the vision of our Christian founding fathers, and our Christian founding? Anyone that wants to change the Constitution is un-American and a traitor in my book. Here is something about how the libturds, progturds, and the 5th column (Especially Dianne Feinstein) are trying to do things against our 2nd Amendment rights:

        http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/former-marine-on-assult-weapons-ban-unconstitutional-laws-arent-laws/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves nick out.

        “The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don ‘t think we emphasize that enough these days.”

        Harry S. Truman

        • Nick Czudy

          sam. I am neither religious and do not believe in any of that God stuff that you spouted. It is a free world after all. Isn’t this freedom part of the Constitution?
          And i would not be proud to take the name of Patriot. To me it has a negative connotation. It seems it is the phrase used by tea party and ultra right wings. That seem to have a nostalgia for living in the past.
          The Constitution could use an update. I do not suggest that the 4 branches of government be changed. But I would like the idea of a 3rd term for Obama. He is poised to be the greatest president of all time. If he had another term, the USA would be back at the top of the heap in prosperity, education, technological superiority and quality of life and freedoms. great idea. Thanks.
          We need gun amendments and clarification of the second amendment. I agree that you should be able to have as many muskets as you want. regards. Nick Czudy

          • Motov

            Wow that must be some powerful drugs you are on! OhBozo is by far the worst ever POTUS, Just wait until INFLATION hits us and when it does,…Our dollar will be worthless,
            because of his spending. BTW the last time I checked there are just three branches of our Government not four, Executive Branch (POTUS) Judicial Branch (Supreme Court), and Legislator Branch (Congress, both Senate and House of Reps)
            OhBozo needs to be IMPEACHED ASAP!

          • Nick Czudy

            Motov. the 4 branches of government. as I counted them separated Congress and the Senate., as they are independent and are a check against each other. Laws must pass each and each can kill a law or motion. Then there is POTUS and SCOTUS.
            There is no doubt that Obama is well on his way to becoming the best president every. He has signed more new laws and controversial laws than any other President. This is even with Congress blocking everything.

            Cannot the Members of Congress be impeached for causing damage to the country?
            Our current GOP congress should be fired or actually be charged for causing harm to our country.

            Hey a note to Kansas bright. That was a nice explanation. More than needed. But could you repeat it please. :) haha Nick Cz

          • http://naver samurai

            Ah yes! An ignorant 5th columner has returned. Since our government is divided into 3 branches (executive, legislative, and judiciary), where do you get 4? Just another paid troll. The Constitution is good, the one the Christian founding fathers wrote, and is the law of the land. Only a traitor would say to get rid of it for a more modern version. Though the government will not get rid of or modernize the Constitution, but the current COOTUS is trying to circumvent the Constitution. He neeeeeds to be impeached and neeeeeds to be making that popping sound. Obama bin Laden a 3rd term and a great POTUS? Ha, ha, ha, ha! Sorry boy, but he cannot override the 22nd Amendment which limits the terms as president to 2 terms. The GOP Congress needs to be impeached for damage to this country? Ha, ha, ha, ha! Just look at what the libturds and progturds have done to this country since 2007. More damage there than by any GOPer in the Congress. In fact, do you mean GOP or RINO? There is a difference. You sound like a miguided person I knew named KANG. He was a misguided person who also believed this way and still comes to this site using many different names. You sound just as less intelligent as he does. But alas! He is a secularist and atheist and they have no possibility of learning. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

            “By means of schrewd lies unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell – and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.”

            Adolf Hitler
            Mein Kampf

            *Hitler was right about you and your ilk.

          • Nick Czudy

            Motov, if you check on everything that Obama has accomplished and then even in the obstruction of the last two years, he will certainly have accomplished more that any other predent. He rescued the USA from the deep recession and kept us from plunging into a depression, he saved the US auto industry, he brought women’s rights up to date. repealed Don’t ask DT, a step towards a universal health care system, and has balanced out the taxes that he weathy have .been avoiding for decades. If he manages to do what he wants in the next 4 years, he will certainly go in the history books as the greatest president of all times. I know you are foaming at the mouth now. Your hatred is so obvious from the way that you talk. No one will take you seriously if that is how you reply.
            Who do you think was a better POTUS? I am interested. regards Nick Cz

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Actually Obama, along with Bush 1 (if he stays alive), Clinton, and Bush 2 will go down in history as the first presidents (and their administrations) prosecuted for Treason, Murder, Mass Murders, War Crimes, and various other criminal and civil offenses.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      You sound too much like an a liar, oops I’m sorry I mean an attorney.

      • grannymae1

        hey sounds like councel, judge and jury to me! He thinks a lot of himself ! lol !

        • Helmut Froeber

          Please subscribe me with all your e-mails

      • Gordon

        This guy won the Pullet Suprise:

        Bear with me. You will love this:
        (Bork was a Supreme Court Judge 1987>)

        Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper, Weds. Jan 2, ’13, Editorial page 4B, Column titled, “Robert Bork, Verb”, By Pulitzer Prize winning editor, Paul Greenberg….

        “…..Scholar and logician that Robert Bork was, he wound up making an idolatrous doctrine of ORIGINAL INTENT, insisting that the intent of the Founders is all when it comes to constitutional interpretation, which gave his law a brittle and vulnerable character. For a constitution that cannot change cannot grow. And all living things must grow or die.

        Judge Bork never recognized that the Constitution lives, too, and that his suffocating literalism would not save it so much as mummify it. (‘A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation’- Edmund Burke)……

    • Howard C

      Galt, your incoherent and ridiculous babble is astounding. You really do think that you are smart don’t you??

      • GALT

        Actually, Howard…..what you have to say requires no response to your question.

        You see, if it were true, then you would have no problem demonstrating that
        claim……

        So all I see is another “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”.

        ( which makes most of the scenery here boringly redundant.)

      • sam1966

        Well GALT, you can always just leave. We won’t mind a bit. In fact, I’ll even hold the door open for you. Here is something that describes the current administration and you 5th columners:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jQ_JD3QiHU

        One reason that the current administration, the atheist communist looney liberal union, libtards, progtards, GALT, truesoy, Jeff, Robert Smith, AS, RBT, and many others, want our Constitution to be replaced is because of how every article and section of our Constitution are actually compacts (promises) between God and man. They may say it is outdated, needs to be updated, is too old, holds us back to the thinking of the 1780′s, etc., but we know that it is only to try to push God back into the church and not be a part of public life. Such thinking shows ignorance, immaturity, irresponsibility, and just plain wrong for an American to think. All of our rights, written in the first 10 Amendments, are God-given rights and CANNOT BE TAKEN FROM US BY ANYONE EXCEPT GOD. People like GALT just babble on about needless subjects and redirect the conversation when they find themselves in a corner they can’t get out of. We were founded on Christian principles and shall continue to be that way now, and forever more, let freedom ring! If it means a nation whose founding fathers were Christians and had a respect for God, Jesus, and the Bible, then yes, that nation is Christian. This is an UNDENIABLE FACT of history.No one can deny that our founding fathers were men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and faith in God and Christ Jesus. They used their faith in the writing of the Constitution and instilled Biblical Law and the Doctrines of Jesus into every Article, Section, and Amendment. To believe otherwise is foolish and is what is leading to this country’s demise. An undeniable historical fact would be that out of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 29 held Seminary or Bible school degrees. 12 – 20 of them were ministers, also anoth undeniable fact of our history. Both Christians and non-Christians throughout the ages realize that the Christian faith provides the only foundation needed for nations to be free, and retain our God-given liberty. If you don’t belive me, just go to Saudi Arabia, Iran, any Muslim nation, India, Vietnam, North Korea, etc., and you’ll see what I’m saying is true. Since either their religion is not Christianity or they go by some false doctrine that brainwashes them to act a certain way, like the Quaran, or they believe in diefied humans like Buhdda, Confucious, Dao, or Sinto. None of these beliefs offer the freedom we have in America. Since it says in the Declaration of Independence, “…with certain unalienable rights, endowed by their Creator (GOD), of these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.”, this tells us where our liberties come from and these same beliefs are the foundation for the Constitution. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves GALT out.

        “This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countrues, in all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered (permitted) to contradict these.”

        William Blackstone
        English Jurist 1723 – 1780

        *This covers the laws of God embedded in our Constitution.

      • GALT

        All this has been covered sam………your fantasy, regardless of variant is “irrelevant”.

        I do not care what you believe and if you actually had the power to understand
        what is written in the Declaration, where you think CREATOR, means your “god”,
        you might want to take a closer look?

        But the real problem with 99% of you that show up on this site, spouting that
        nonsense……….is that you have absolutely no clue of the effect you are having
        and impression you are actually making.

        In terms of whatever christian sect you claim to be representing, all you accomplish
        is to demonstrate that you are a hypocrite and show no understanding of what
        being a christian really means. You all come across as raving bloodthirsty lunatics
        who can’t seem to wait for the killing to start……

        Which is really sad, because most of those who think that this site is home to
        libertarians, patriots, etc. come off exactly the same way, claimed christian or not,
        so with a few exceptions, like Time or Kate8, none of you demonstrates any degree
        of compassion or concern for your fellow human beings.

        For all the grief you give those you have labeled, liberal, progressive,
        commie/socialists……..as misguided as you might believe them to be,
        they all seem to be motivated by at least some understanding and compassion
        for the plight of the “victims” of this mess we are in……..

        You think they are “parasites”, and in doing so, you are simply “puppets”
        of those that are “responsible” for everything that is going on…….which means
        that for every voice that thinks “government” is the problem, for which
        THEY have a solution…….you are just one more distraction from the
        REAL PROBLEM…….and “business as usual” continues.

        So you can keep being a distraction, and things will continue on their
        present course………and you have no idea how dangerous this path is,
        or how little time you have left to alter it……after which you will not be able
        to alter it. Wake up while you still have time….and stop wasting mine.

      • sam1966

        Care to site a source on this galt? No? I didn’t think so. Talking about a distraction, have you ever reread any of your posts? Like this last one of yours having nothing to do with the topic at all. Don’t forget galt, we patriots are trying to preserve the Constitution, our Christian founding, our way of life, and fighting against the ever increasing size of government. You and your ilk are against all of these. I’ve found something that describes you 5th columners very well.

        “Over and over, we have seen that liberal and secular bias is primarily accomplished by exclusion, by leaving out the opposing position. Such a bias is much harder to observe than a positive vilification or direct criticism, but it is the essence of censorship. It is effective not only because it is hard to observe – it isn’t there – and therefore hard to counteract, but also because it makes only the liberal, secular positions familiar and plausible.”

        Paul C. Vitz
        Censorship evidence of bias

        I know you can’t prove him nor his book wrong, can you? Your kind also go by the ways of deconstructionism. Here is the definition of deconstructionism:

        “A steady flow of negatives about Western institutions, beliefs, and values in order to tear down the old certainties upon which Western Culture was founded.”

        This means when you say less intelligent things like, “What God?” or “Which God?”, is covered in this definition. Since beliefs in God, Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity are the basis of which Western Civilization is based on, to count America, and built on, when you ask such ignorant questions as these, it shows you are also part of said 5th column. If you take everything out of what America, and the West, were built on, the country will cease to exist as the USA, but it may become the USSA. I guess you 5th columners love living under dictatorships or large, intrusive government. You say the ones you’ve posted care about the victims? Since when? They only care about people to make themselves, their party, or their ideals look good. If they cared for the people as it says to do in the Bible, then that would be real caring, for only God and Jesus would be thanked and not the ego of some 5th columner. Enough said! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        “General Washington, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith.”

        Chief Justice John Marshall

      • GALT

        You seem to be in the habit of asking and answering your own questions,
        which begins to border on the miraculous, since after you have finished,
        what the question was referring to, is still not known.

        Cite a “source” for what?

        Which god? Which faith? Which principles? Christian you say?These
        wouldn’t be the ones you “christians” manage to demonstrate you have
        absolutely no conception of?

        Beliefs? You mean “faith” in things for which no evidence exists, and which
        your actions and words signify that you are simply a hypocrite?

        Not a whole lot of deconstruction involved there…….simply repetition.

        As for ole George, he believed in money, fame and fortune and when
        the path to them, by joining the present elite was blocked, he joined
        forces with the other side, overthrew the olde, and became part of
        the new.

        Always nice to spend time with you Sam……….

    • Teri

      Philosophical principles are what the constitution is about. The founders were THINKERS (obviously unlike the professor). Individual rights and limited government with NO rights…
      Majority “rule” / minority rights.

      The Constitution stands between the individual and creeping tyranny. Life, liberty, and property for the individual are the founding truths contained in the Constitution. There is everything right about those truths and absolutely NOTHING wrong…therefore there is NO NEED to abandon the Constitution.

      There IS a need for every citizen to understand and apply the Constitution to his/her own life. As long as you aren’t hurting another person or that person’s property you are free to act in your own self-interest.

      This is what Ayn Rand was trying so hard to get across to us. Too bad so many people vilify her…she’s correct.

      • GALT

        Actually they were: “white propertied men acted illegally under existing law
        ( some of whom ) owned slaves.”

        What they produced and why, is completely explained by what you just read.

        And not contested by Mr. Woods.

        The Declaration, The Confederation, the Constitution were the “results” of
        this description……not its cause. The history that followed is also a direct result
        of that description………and for a brief period, from 1945 to 1970, there was
        a slight reversal in the trend……..

        The reason can be found here:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Association

        When this was written these men were not the “elites”, after the revolution
        they were.

        Nothing has changed……..when George Washigton died, his estate
        was valued at 100 million dollars, in today’s dollars.

        This country is about business as usual and a lot of stuff to steal on the way
        to the pacific……..any benefit to the “people” was purely by accident and
        temporary………it is also “your history”, and you are completely ignorant of it.

        You are now paying the price……and remain clueless as to the cause.

      • sam1966

        You are right Teri, someone must stand up for our Constitution. That is what we patriots are attempting to do now, despite the 5th column’s presence here on this site. Here is an article that may help you:

        http://www.patriotupdate.com/articles/note-to-conservatives-never-stop-fighting-for-individual-liberty/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves GALT out.

        “A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”

        Benjamin Franklin

        *Boy do Obama bin Laden and the 5th columners fit that description of ignorance.

      • Smilee

        Teri says:
        January 8, 2013 at 3:52 pm

        You write:
        Philosophical principles are what the constitution is about. The founders were THINKERS (obviously unlike the professor). Individual rights and limited government with NO rights

        My Respose:

        No, the Constitution was designed as a framework of our government and rule of law and how it would operate. “ limited government without rights” What? I assume you mean right to be the same as power and the constitution give much power to the US Government and limited only to the powers defined within it and when not defined within in it then it gives power to to the states or the people but to say a government is without NO power clearly illustrates your lack of understanding of the Constitution.

      • Smilee

        sam1966 says:
        January 8, 2013 at 11:31 pm

        Sammie my boy, still around I see and I see you are still getting all you info from those far right propaganda sites as he one you refer us to here. .Because of that your still being kept in the dark and devoid of the truth and thus spouting off these lies. based on that BS. Will you ever see the light ????????????

      • sam1966

        Ah yes! Now I see that it is smilee’s turn to try to take a swipe at the samurai, hmmm? Are you and galt a tag team? But that’s fine. Though I cannot disagree with what you said about the Constitution, but the thing I have a problem with is you, galt, jeff, and others trying to make it fit to your own interpretations. As Kansas Bright told you before, and jeff on a prior thread, the Constitution is written in a simple, straightforward style. It is easy to understand and all our founding documents (Articles of Confederation, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Articles of Association) are all based on the Bible and Christian beliefs. Since this is true, quit trying to make it fit your less intelligent secular, atheist ways. Our founders would be rolling over in their graves by reading some of the trash you post here. Read what I posted to galt about censorship and deconstructionism, for they describe what you are doing. Just another 5th column traito trying to change our Christian founding and out Constitution. Here is something that will educate you and galt:

        http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/the-united-states-constitution-designed-to-lay-down-the-law-of-the-land/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        “He was a firm believer in the Christian religion; and at his first entrance on his civil administration, he made it known, and adhered to his purpose, that no secular business could be transactec with him, on the day set apart by Christians for the worship of the Deity (GOD).”

        J. M. Sewall
        Portsmouth, NH 1799
        In relation to George Washington

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Actually there is a lot of relevance in what he said. UN’s Agenda 21, which has been being implemented does exactly that. People will be put in “human habitats”, none in rural areas, so that the UN can steal (harvest) US Natural resources. Much worse, all people will own NOTHING, The government will supply all as long as you do what they say. They will make all decisions for you: when you get to sleep and for how long, eat -and what food you get, you will be assinged to work where they need you – breaks and lunch will be up to whoever the ‘overseer’ is. Getting married – is up to them, and who you will be allowed to mate with.

      The plan is to “FREE” everyone from the responsibilities of taking care of themselves. To make bigger profits (because they own everything) while you do the labor for NOTHING – because you no longer need anything as it is supplied – of course they decide what YOUR needs are, not you.

      This is just slavery under a new name – same old, same old.

      • Kate8

        Kansas Bright – I don’t believe there has ever actually been a time when we were not slaves… At least, not for long.

        I came across this article asking why do we need income tax when the government can simply print unlimited money. The answer that it neglects to point out is the most obvious: debt slavery. If government were to print its own, debt-free, money, we’d prosper and be independent as we once were, prior to the (unlawful) act of turning this over to the Federal Reserve. That is not what the elite have ever wanted. They want slaves and control.

        http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/if-government-can-just-create-trillion.html

        The best way to enslave is through debt, and the more debt, the more hopeless the cause for freedom. We have monied elite who simply print worthless paper, loan it to us as if it were actually worth something, and then collect interest forever. So they have become obscenely wealthy for doing absolutely nothing…and have funded all sides of all wars and have prospered and destroyed government after government for their own ends (and amusement).

        They’ve even convinced countries to had over their gold to them for “storage”, which they never did intend to EVER return.

        With this system, there is no way to EVER have enough assets to pay off infinite debt, and it was never intended that anyone does. It’s an unsustainable situation…if only it were real.

        Since it was nothing but a scam and a scheme from the start, and since the American people never had a say in it (or were even really informed of it), we could, theoretically, boot the financiers (and their minions) out (like Iceland did), and start over, printing our own debt-free currency.

        In fact, this IS what we’d do, if we had a real government of the people. And IF the Constitution were actually followed.

      • GALT

        Kate, did you bother to read the link contained in that post?

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/be-ready-to-mint-that-coin/

        BTW Economics doesn’t work. See Debt The First 5000 Years, Economics Unmasked,
        Econned, Extreme Money, Power, Inc,

        And there is no such thing as “sound money”……….

      • Gordon

        Kate8=

        Exactly. Since government can print money at will, then all personal taxing/ taxes should should cease immediately, and let government make their own money….. 49% of the US population already believes that “money grows on trees”…..

  • r b

    the author gives nothing more than the normal personal interpretation of the constitution as a means to validate one’s actions or ideals.

    • DaveH

      But a learned opinion. What did you offer, rb?

      • FreedomFighter

        JFK secret society speech
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj3AECSKmhU

        The constitution was designed to stop totalitarian goverment take over of America. No wonder they want to remove it.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • http://gravatar.com/cbgard Carlucci

        And look what they did to JFK….

      • nc

        Dave H. to a lot of people The Communist Manifest, Mein Kampf and that Mises crap were “learned opinions”! To billions of others, not so much!

      • DaveH

        To me, and no doubt to many others on this board, NC, your opinions are not only ignorant but also unsupported by any semblance of truth.

      • DaveH

        And please explain some specific “crap” that you know Mises Institute to state?
        Surely you can come up with something since you claim to know what they say is “crap”?

      • NC

        Dave H,There were many people who thought the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf and Mises were” learned opinions”! Then there were millions who though otherwise!

      • momo

        Snappy comeback N(ut)C(ase).

      • GALT

        What could possibly have inspired our “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”,
        DavidH to give voice to that brilliant “logically fallacious” riposte?

        Must be the “shared blind loyalty” to the REAL ECONOMICS stated in Mr Woods bio.

        It is going to be interesting to see what Mr. Woods relationship to P.L.D. actually is.

        A brief guest appearance? Or a continued feature? Given that the quality of
        offerings so far has matched the prediction offered, it will be also be interesting
        to see if he will be an active participant…….or if he has any idea the nature of
        what awaits him here should he actually choose to engage?

        He does have something to market, and the price while not as efficient as the
        “Good Will Hunting” approach……at cheaper than a movie ticket, which includes
        a course in Logic, would definitely be of great benefit for all of you…..after all,
        if the instruction in LOGIC is competent, it would allow the possibility of undoing
        the damage of the REAL HISTORY and REAL ECONOMICS.

        They seem to have their own discussions boards, for the courses, which if nothing
        else MIGHT improve your ability to develop a bit more focus and discipline, regarding
        the subject material and a bit of remedial help with the “functional illiteracy”
        epidemic.

        Oops, my sincere apologies……the price is less than a movie ticket a month,
        $99. total so that probably lets DavidH out……….too bad.

        And there is a qualifier regarding the REAL HISTORY and REAL ECONOMICS.

        “The history and economics they didn’t teach you.”

        After the LOGIC’s course, you would have the potential to understand that
        the questions that raises regarding content…..punches holes big enough to
        drive a truck through while towing the space shuttle.

        But there is still hope for you DavidH, because they have an “affiliate program”,
        which provides $30 for every one you sign up ( way to go, Bob )……..which
        represents an entrepreneurial opportunity, actually THE opportunity for
        the present economic environment…….”skills required” ( and obtainable )
        but it is fraught with danger and “mushrooms” tend to fare badly, in
        the REAL BUSINESS world.

        Well with a little luck, Mr. Woods will be an active participant here, and
        provided he is not a “mushroom feeder”, he does offer some potential
        in improving the quality of discourse……although he is not off to a good
        start.

      • DaveH

        Galt says — “or if he [Tom Woods] has any idea the nature of
        what awaits him here should he actually choose to engage?”.

        I’m sure, Galt, that Mr. Woods, being a Freedom Fighter, is well acquainted with the self-serving, conjectural, and illogical arguments that come from the mouths of Liberal Progressive Socialists. I doubt that he would bother slogging through your disjointed personal-attacking grammatically-bereft comments in an effort to glean that rare bit of wisdom that might be buried somewhere deep in them.

      • DaveH

        I would advise that you seek help, Galt, but I can’t imagine any sane psychiatrist who would want to put up with your nonsense.

      • GALT

        Yeah, Mr. Wood’s actually showing up…….would be SOMETHING that
        would NOT MAKE YOUR DAY, would it? DavidH.

        In fact, it might end you all together………

        You sure you don’t BELIEVE…..because I’m pretty sure I can hear the “prayers”
        from here………

        “Please don’t come, or if you do, please be a mushroom feeder”, please, please, please………

      • sam1966

        Well said Dave H, fellow patriot. Good video Freedom Fighter. Keep them coming. We should all just ignore GALT and his less intelligent,self centered, dense, little libturd mind. He is just a distraction and is a member of the 5th column that I mention on this site. Here is a patriot standing up for our 2nd Amendment rights:

        http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/an-american-patriot-reveals-diane-feinstein-to-be-an-un-american-hypocrite/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves GALT out.

        “Our desctruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter…the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.”

        Daniel Webster

        *Boy is our government full of carelessness and negligence. The 5th columners are too.

      • Smilee

        Kate8 says:
        January 8, 2013 at 7:00 pm

        It really all boils down to one of my favorite quotes: “No man has the right to claim authority over another”.

        Try telling that to a cop the next time you get stopped for speeding!!!!

      • Kate8

        smilee – I didn’t say they weren’t doing it. Every day our human dignity is violated.

        On the other hand, if we infringe upon another in any way, such as reckless driving which endangers others, then we deserve to be reprimanded.

        However, laws for everything are way over the top, and most deserve to be ignored. Victimless crimes, by natural law, are no crimes at all.

    • Kate8

      The Constitution and Bill of Rights are actually pretty straightforward, and do not need dissecting and convoluted interpretations.

      It’s only those who seek to further their own agendas who try to find “new” ways to interpret. Since nearly all politicians are lawyers, they are skilled in finding “new” meanings to things no sane person would attempt.

      If we’d simply follow these very wise documents as they are written, we’d have no need for all of these debates about what is allowed and what isn’t.

      It really all boils down to one of my favorite quotes: “No man has the right to claim authority over another”.

      Period. End of story.

      If only everyone believed that, we’d have no slavery. And the only reason for violating this natural law is always self-serving: the quest for power over others and the ability to take what is theirs.

      • sam1966

        Right on fellow patriot and well said. I always like reading your posts and I hope you keep them coming. Here is something that may interest you about FEMA:

        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/House-to-Vote-on-Increasing-Borrowing-Authority-of-FEMA

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

        “If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If the truth be not diffused, error will be; If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy. If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; If the power of the Gospel if not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”

        Daniel Webster
        June 17, 1843

        *Doesn’t this sound like what is happening to the Christian nation by the forces of evil like, the 5th column and Obama bin Laden?

  • Sgt DeMitry

    Our Constitution has lasted for over 200 years, longer than most countries and “Yes” we
    have our problems . The problem is people who want to destroy the Constitution and Bill of
    Rights. Without the constitution and Bill of Rights we would be slaves. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a restraint to a Tyrannical Government! Live Free or Die!

    • michaeljbeglinjr

      Seconded.

      • Howlingmad

        “THIRD’ED” ( lol . . . its time to LAUGH about this “NOW”, because we WON’T be able to . . . “LATER”.) as the “[expletive deleted]“, is getting . . . “CLOSER”.

      • FreedomFighter

        SHTF will happen soon as they pass the “gun grab bill” or Obummer writes and “Executive Order” or “Other sneaky sheet”

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Vicki

        “Without the constitution and Bill of Rights we would be slaves.”

        Objection. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are just words on paper. Take away our (fire)arms and there is nothing to stop those who have them from enslaving us. (Ignores for the moment how long you will have to work this year before you get to keep your money)

      • Steve E

        If we void the Constitution then wouldn’t that mean that we will no longer be the U.S? The Constitution is what binds us a a country. If there were no Constitution then the States could become individual countries. I live in VA. I wouldn’t mind the separation.

      • Kate8

        Vicki – Actually, we’ve had guns thus far and it hasn’t stopped them from enslaving us. We have bowed to every oppressive issuance from the cesspool we call DC.

        I also suspect that most people will, out of fear, simply had over their weapons. The only thing left is the outright slaughter of the “useless eaters” (us), and as soon as they’ve got the guns…

        Those who don’t hand them over will be met with deadly force. Law enforcement and the military has already been notified of this plan. How many grandpas are going to stand and fight with their shotguns when fully armored and heavily armed squads show up at 3a.m.

        They’ve been slaughtering us slowly for a long time, picking us off a few at a time on a daily basis, and we’ve done nothing. They’ve already made a first move, and a thousanth move, and we’ve done nothing. Once they send in the troops, then what?

      • GALT

        There is no need to send troops they are already in place…….

        see: Hungry for Change, Food Matters, Genetic Chile, Farmageddon, etc.

        Federal and State Agencies always use local cops and swat teams…….

        If the “patriots” are waiting for the CALL…….this is where you need to be…….

        in sufficient numbers to prevent the use of FORCE, and ‘confiscation’, and

        to instead, demand that the “judicial process” be followed all the way to the

        “supreme court” if necessary.

        ( of course this requires organization, communication and cooler heads, with
        an attorney or two……..to expose the “corruption” and obvious motivation,
        behind these actions……..the “constitutional grounds” are the contract obligations
        of Article One, section ten……are these remain even more so, under the UCC. )

    • http:www.nhpatriots.org Art

      You are 100% correct. If it wasn’t for progressives and activist judges and the Constitution was upheld in it’s original context things would be so much better. Look at the Tyrannical Govt in DC that tramples the Constitution daily and Obama calls himself a Constitutional scholar….intellectual idiots are the root of the issue, pseudo-intellectuals…

      • Steven

        I assume they are only “pseudo” intellectuals when they present a different opinion than yours. This rhetoric, sir, is what is wrong with our country, not a tyrannical, socialist, communist muslim terrorist in the white house.

      • Smilee

        Cite at least one example of you complaint rather than all generality’s that I do not believe exit except in your dreams???

    • Nadzieja Batki

      I wonder about the people who are so eager to get rid of our Constitution, do they think that they will gain some sort of special rights and freedoms that are supposedly curtailed by the Constitution. If they are not decent human beings with the Constitution will they be more decent people without the Constitution? I think the Constitution keeps the human predators in check.

      • DaveH

        Which is why they want to get rid of it.

      • Texas Ride

        Nad, good point. Progressive communists don’t like anything that “checks” their power to disembowel our country…that includes the Constitution!

        They want to make the rules and trash the Constitution that protects us from the government confiscating too much power it was never meant to have.

      • Vicki

        Want to? They already make the rules. Break into a house (No-Knock). Drop a few bags of white powder. “Find” it and then RICO the house and all property related to any occupant.

        NDAA 2012

      • Smilee

        There is no organized effort from anyone to get rid of the Constitution nor can it be done without military force and who in their right mind would take on our military. This whole article is just plain silly but it gets the all the tongues wagging of all the government haters.

      • sam1966

        Then if what you say is true smilee, then tell me why Obama bin Laden, libturds, progturds, and others have legislation in the Congress and the Senate to ban guns in our country? Wouldn’t they have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment first, hmmm? What stops the current administration from trying to go around the Constitution? They already did with NDAA, Obama bin Laden Care, now they want our guns and a libturd congressman from NY has introduced legislation to get rid of the 22nd Amendment. If this succeeds, then Obama bin Laden could run for a 3rd term. Sheesh! Looks like you and your 5th column ilk are try to change the Constitution. Your ilk are already attacking the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 22nd Amendments, but is this all? Won’t they try to eradicate the whole Constitution? They want to because they don’t follow the ways we were founded and have no God or Jesus in them, as our founders did. Here is another unconstitutional thing this pretender and his administration has done:

        http://www.floppingaces.net/2013/01/08/if-the-government-can-share-your-gun-permit-data-with-the-public-why-not-you-tax-and-income-data-too/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        “The General was a Christian.”

        Judge Boudinot
        In reference to George Washington

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Without the Constitution, we would not have needed the Bill of Rights.

      • GALT

        Actually you would have…….because you would not have the “right to keep and bear arms”.

        But then “history” is not your forte……..do you have a forte?

      • Kate8

        GALT – Why is it that you have to consistently be so demeaning and insulting?

        Are you really so insecure that you have to belittle others, or are you just another shill doing the job you were trained to do? This would be my guess…

        There are some really great posters here, and you seem to like being a jerk.

        Sorry, but this is what is wrong with us all. There is just very little respect. Don’t you understand that this is exactly what the elite want… to keep us fighting and divided?

        It’s very juvenile, GALT. You like to try to appear so learned and clever with a lot of convoluted words strung together that say very little, and which most often contain a jab and a slam at someone, which really just shows how immature and socially inept you are.

        It really gets tiresome, and contributes nothing of value.

      • Charlie

        GALT,,,
        The Constitution did not do away with The Bible… King Jesus ordered weapon rights at Luke 22:36… Meanwhile………………..
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

      • Matrix

        Kate8

        Please pay no attention to Galt, just as his mother did.

        I have been examining Galt’s insane rhetoric for many months now, and have documented this wonderful specimen of the “American waste theory” and have shown this to many other doctors.
        The conclusion drawn from this sample waste product is a sociopathic man-child created from such severe abuse, that its mind truly believes the insanity it spouts!

        This symptom is systematic with liberal ideology as most have been physically, psychologically or sexually abused as children.

        Galt is the product of all the above!

        Galt has a very important lesson to learn, and as time goes by, so will he……

      • GALT

        Really Kate? Did you have someone specific in mind?

        Am I engaging them? Who are these great posters and what are they saying
        that is so great?

        When you actually have something that you can back up, names, an actual
        dialog that you can point to which is proof of what you say…….all you are
        doing is repeating what you have said before…….

        And I will repeat what I have said…….anyone who wants a ‘civil discussion” on
        matters of relevance, and can actually “say something”…….or ask a question, etc.
        will have no problems. Please if you have examples of where this is not
        true……..show me……where do you see that on this page, or any other
        page for that matter.

        As for those with whom I already have a history, that die is cast …..although
        technically the only real target I have is DavidH…….hopefully, you are not
        suggesting he is a “great poster”? and he is all I need…….

        Now if you have something of “substance” please feel free……other than that,
        you can keep doing what you have been…….I haven’t been bothering you,
        but I am not your problem……so you can keep doing the “can’t we all get along”
        bit…….and we can discuss and have discussed some things……but
        you do not agree……you think wisdom is possible without knowledge…
        which I dealt with yesterday….with another poster…….and there is really
        no distinction between the two, in terms of pursuit……so you are right
        in the sense that you can have knowledge without having wisdom……
        but you can not have wisdom without knowledge……..nor can you penetrate
        actual complexity with “common sense”……

        BTW It doesn’t look like Mr Woods will actually be joining us……which is too
        bad for all of you……..because you might have had the experience of seeing
        an “actual focused adult conversation”…….with a “point”.

        P.S. You should balance out Rodney King with Kermit the Frog.

        “What if we all lived in the same house? Guess what? WE DO!!!!!!”

      • sam1966

        GALT, do you ever shut up with your lies, rhetoric, innuendo, and hate towards anything right and good? It seems that history in not your forte. Our founders knew that all the right in the Bill of Rights were God-given rights. Only He (GOD) can take them away and not the government. These rights were written in the Constitution to protect them from being taken by the government. Sheesh! Stop trying to be a deconstructionist and actually learn about how we were founded. Here is something from someone pretending to be the VP:

        http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-biden-to-newly-sworn-in-female-senator-spread-your-legs-youre-going-to-be-frisked/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        “You this day have received a public education, the purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator (GOD) and your country.”

        William Samuel Johnson

      • GALT

        The gift of an “unalienable right” which is unsecured is, was and will remain,
        a fantasy. Such FACTS, the ease at which all are, have been and will be
        continued to be removed, by one human from another, is known as HISTORY.

        Again, deconstruction requires minimal effort………repeat when necessary.

    • ranger09

      SGT, 100% Right, But the only problem is Americans are DOING nothing to PROTECT what we have. Americans what there is left Have become Sheep just following the Bell. Politicians have nothing to fear from Sheep, Thats why they can do anything they want, Knowing the Sheep will DO nothing.

  • Samo Samo

    Cut the garbage and get to the chase! This “lawyer” has spent 40 years dealing with the “word” of the law and can’t get his focus off the “word” and on the root of the problem. The root of the problem is human nature and the crooked PEOPLE. (Is he in this group?) It is the same principle as blaming the guns instead of the criminal mind.

    • Howlingmad

      This is really, a SIMPLE CASE . . . this so called “PROFESSOR”, is clearly an IDIOT . . . I E “If it WALKS like a “DUCK”, an QUACKS like a “DUCK”, is MUST BE . . . a “DUCK” ! . . . in this case anyway, there’s NO GRAY AREA.

  • http:www.nhpatriots.org Art

    Well had the Constitution really been upheld in the last century we wouldn’t have half the problems we have now. The problems arise when idiots like this guy try pushing the progressive ideology that it is a living document when it wasn’t. Why would there be an amendment process if it was a living document? Not to mention the Fed had 18 minor things to do, not 300K+ and were supposed to take a back seat to the states…now the Fed acts like it is the King’s court and that isn’t right…I love how he called our founders slave owners when most of them were against slavery in the long run…

    • http://www.facebook.com/WizardKiller Mark Are Reynolds

      We should simply be able to look at the INTENT the founders had and follow it. They weren’t idiots.

      • Vicki

        And they wrote extensively about their intent so we don’t have to guess.

      • GALT

        GALT says:
        January 12, 2013 at 1:36 pm

        “they”? wrote extensively ( they surely did……who is in your (set ) of they? )

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

        and what was their intent?

        ” A long, long time ago……..”…….there existed a common acceptance and
        understanding that you weren’t taught and therefor didn’t learn any actual
        history until you got to college……….and even then, because you were
        in the process of becoming a “specialized insect”, it would have had to
        be relevant to your core requirements.

    • Tom T

      The biggest issue regarding legal professors is that at the turn of the century (1900′s) the legal system of the progressive era, switched from constitutional law to “case law” giving more power to the judiciary to influence and legislate from the bench by using poor judgements from previous cases to justify additional poor judgement on new cases.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Here Here. How correct you are. Without lawyers this country would still be following the Constitution. Instead they have tried to twist every word and phrase to mean what they want it to at the time. Thus the ridiculous rulings on roe v wade and the AHCA

      • GALT

        Gee Tom, you are getting close…….wrong year, wrong profession…..wrong
        terminology…….but the “right idea”…….

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

    • ranger09

      Art, Granted its people like this that do cause problems, But the real problem is the American people Because they only talk, Bitch and complain And do nothing to stop these people.

    • GALT

      “they”? wrote extensively ( they sure did……who is in your (set ) of they? )

      http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

      and what was their intent?

      ” A long, long time ago……..” there existed a common acceptance and
      understanding that you weren’t taught and therefor didn’t learn any actual
      history until you got to college……….and even then, because you were
      in the process of becoming a “specialized insect”, it would have had to
      be relevant to your core requirements.

  • Michael Beglin

    If the government tries to change our Constitution, there will be another civil war in America. Guaranteed.

    • Howlingmad

      . . . there it is. ! Are YOU . . . “READY”, Mike ? ( I “AM” . . . have been, for “YEARS” )

      • Capitalist at Birth

        I wasn’t prepared before November 4, 2008. I have been preparing for the impending battle ever since. I will be there with you.

    • Vicki

      There is a method IN the Constitution that allows for possible change. The government can’t change the Constitution AT ALL. The government can ask the states to change it but you have to get 3/4 of the states to agree to the change.

      Not that the government really cares about things like Constitutional law.
      http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/defects.aspx

      • larry ryan

        Somewhat close to 50 years ago, when I joined (joined, not drafted) the service I took an oath. I still remember what it said and knew and know what it means. Every two to six years career polititians retake that same oath over and over. They parrot words that mean absolutely nothing to them. I doubt if one in ten senators, congressmen or presidents and ex-presidents have any idea what the oath they took says or what it means. While they were tediously parrotting the words, they weren’t bothering to listen.
        A while back I saw Boxer dress down a general for calling her ma’am. Claiming she deserved respect having “earned” her spot as a VIP senator. I can read ribbons. This was no fat and happy political Pentagon general. This man fought in and led troops in battle. Respect Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, Boehner, Peolsi, etc. etc.? I’d sooner respect a rabid skunk. It would stink less.

      • GALT

        Which constitution were you swearing an oath to?

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

    • ranger09

      Mike, I really dont think the American people could leave the TV or the Computer long enough to do anything We dont even hold our politicians to answer for what they do,,How in the world do you think they would handle a Civil War.

  • Howlingmad

    We “DON’T” fool with the CONSTITUTION . . . “EVER” ! ! ! there it is.

    • Howlingmad

      Should they even “TRY” . . . the PEOPLE . . . “WILL” respond, an it will be UGLY !

      • GALT

        Your timing is off………you lost the ‘constitution” in 1938, and whomever you
        are referring too……..is still asleep.

    • Joey

      Period! We should not defile the Constitution!

  • http://Old Mark

    I won’t pretend to be some lofty intellectual, I simply would like to know “What are state governments for?” Mr Seidman has some very reasonable arguments for why the federal government is so disfunctional. What I don’t understand, why is the federal government even attempting to function in the state’s domain? And if we are to change the constitution to make the federal government the end-all, be-all controlling power can we please completely disban state governments so I only have to pay for one disfunctional government.

    • Warrior

      Individual Sovereignty will not be tolerated by the “Overlords”.

    • Howlingmad

      All it is, Mark . . . is an attempt at “STRIPING” away, the “POWERS”, of the States, granted by the 9th, an 10th Amendments. Their ( The Fed. Government ). is WORRIED about the States JOINING TOGETHER . . . “AGAINST” them. ( Which is currently going “ON”, on various issues.. . . “Obamacare” being the most obvious. 17 States have already said, that they WILL “NOT”, implement it, an “That” list, is GROWING. ) .

      • Mark

        I really hate when my powers are striped away. BTW, too many quotation marks do tend to reinforce you screen name

      • Texas Ride

        Howling, that is a good observation. States are bucking the government because of omaumaucare. It is so expensive no one can afford to implement it. (When the reason for omaumaucare was stated that it would LOWER medical costs!) What a bad joke!

        We all know that ocare is not about “health.” It is about controlling citizens and total power. It even funds omaumau’s civilian army that he spoke about in 2008!

        What does the IRS have to do with healthcare….buts, it is now the local gestapo that will enforce the multiple new-taxes and mandates on private citizens. It is all unconstitutional…but what has this regime done that is within their constitutional powers. No wonder the marxists want to get rid of it. They are tired of hearing conservatives talk about everything the regime does, being unconstitutional…and worse! How about treason.

      • Smilee

        owlingmad says:
        January 8, 2013 at 8:03 am

        First the ninth and tenth amendments only give power to the states or the people IF the constitution does not give that power to the US Congress and if it does then the states do not have that power as you seem to think they do. Obamacare was found to be constitutional under the commerce clause and the power to tax to pay for it under the taxing powers clause in that it has the power to lay and collect takes to provide for the general welfare both powers they clearly have under the powers granted them by the Constitution and these clause have never been amended so they stem from the founders. These 17 states under the Obamacare law have the right to opt out from creating insurance exchanges within their states and let the federal government create them in their states for them. So it will be implemented in all states either by the state or the feds but they cannot opt out of Obamacare. Interesting that all these states are GOP and are so willing to give up these states rights to the feds and then out of the other side of their mouth they are screaming they are losing their states rights which of course they’re not. UNBELIEVABLE!!

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          “First the ninth and tenth amendments only give power to the states or the people IF the constitution does not give that power to the US Congress”

          Actually you have that backwards mostly. The States created the US Constitution which IS our government. The Constitution is the blueprint for the federal government and assigns specific powers (duties) to each of its three branches. Those duties are maninly concerned with foreign affairs, and to make sure that the states traded fairly between each other.
          It also states that the States have a Republican form of government to make sure that people would not get confused and think we had a central power structure – we do not under our legitimate goverment.
          Any power NOTdirectly assigned to the federal government belongs to the States and the People. The reason for this was to make sure that there was not four or five different treaties going on at the same time from the different governments we have.
          The US Constitution spells out the duties directly assigned to the fed gov so that it would be hard for those who serve within it to carry out those duties to grab more power for themselves – as thjsoe who seek powerful places usually do, human nature.
          There are also multiple checks built into the US Constitution, but all of them require(d_ “We the People” to pay attention and get rid of corrupt people in office, to NOT let parties such as the democratic or republican make our decisions for us, or tell us what to think.

          You might not be aware of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which further clarifies the LIMITS put on the federal government. Notice that it is the STATES that do this because they fill that the US Constituion would be deliberately miconstrued by power hungry temporary workers we put in office or are assigned positions. EVERYONE who works in any capacity within the three branches and are required to take an oath are held to these limitations in the US Constitution. It is a criminal act to not take or keep the legally required oath. It also makes them no longer meet the REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying. Hope this helps.

          Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
          THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
          RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
          ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
          Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights”.

      • Smilee

        Texas Ride says:
        January 8, 2013 at 10:45 am

        The CBO say it will lower costs and there is no real evidence to refute that, only rhetoric coming from conservative propaganda. The law has nothing to do with actual health care and everything to do health care insurance rules and regulations and affordable access to it. There are taxes in it but also much cost savings and on net these shifts produce net savings which everyone will believe once they see the savings in their own pockets which will start in most cases in 2014 so it is easy to make these irresponsible statements now, but they are simply not true. The courts have looked at Obamacare and declared it “Constitutional” but you still run around saying it is not, surely you must know you are lying. The IRS was created to collect taxes so why would you think them collecting this tax so strange. I will not go further in responding to you garbling nonsense.as that is all it is. !!

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Ahh, you think our type of government is a dictatorship.
          The USA is a constitutional republic. No where in it were the courts given the power to determine what was legal. The only powers they were given wa to make sure that ALL laws, bills, etc FOLLOWED (“WERE IN PURSUANCE OF”) the US Constitution. Much like those who serve in the executive and legislative branches they took unto themselves powers they do NOT LEGALLY have. The only LEGAL powers they have are those that were assigned by the constituion, none others.

          The Constitution of the united States IS our government. The people we put into the federal government are to carry out the duties IT assigned to each branch as it was assigned – no other.

          Example: You are assigned to clean your room. The duty stays the same even if you start out in a mud hut, move into a house, then into a palace, and from there to a spaceship. The items used to clean your room may change, the room itself may change, but YOUR assigned duty is the same – get it clean. Make sense now?

          • http://naver samurai

            Thanks very much for that to the point posting Kansas. But alas! If you expect smilee or galt to understand something this simple, then you are mistaken. For they know really nothing about the Constitution or our Christian founding, just want they try to frame it to their own warped beliefs. I hope to continue seeing more of your posts here. An intellectual and a patriot. Praise be to God. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves smilee and galt out.

            “Gaurd against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

            George Washington

            *Pretended patriotism are smilee and galt.

      • Smilee

        Kansas Bright says:
        January 9, 2013 at 1:32 pm

        Your first paragraph is true but what you fail to understand is when the states ratified it they gave these powers to the US Government giving up many of their own previously held powers and cannot get them back but through the amendment process. The portion of the constitution that allows for Obamacare was included in the original document and covered under the commerce clause and the taxing powers to lay and collect taxes for the general welfare which two parts allowed for Obamacare which has nothing whatsoever to do with foreign affairs. It did not mandate laws like Obamacare but did not prohibit them either and for 225 years we did not have that law today we do and the court has said exactly that and confirming this right to the federal government making it the law of the land. despite the objection of some states but they lost their arguments in the SC clearly saying they do not have that power . The powers of congress are limited but quite wide and its size is not defined. The bill of rights in the ninth and tenth amendments only clarified and stated separately that the states only had the power not granted to the federal government but gives them no power over the powers given to congress. and many do not seem to understand the ninth and tenth amendments or the powers granted the US Congress. The rest of your post is mass confusion and I will not go there as if you cannot understand what I said here you will not understand my responses to the above.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Actually you are incorrect. That is NOT what the amendment power is for.
          You misunderstand the “commerce clause”, no where was the legislative branch given powers over everything. Basically the federal government was not designed to be a bureaucracy that had any direct effect on the people of the country. The only power granted by the Constitution to the federal government lay in ensuring that government did not trespass against the citizens. It was, and legally still is, the responsibility of the individual states to deal with the needs of the people.
          Federal legislative control was designed to only have jurisdiction within the District of Columbia and in areas ceded by the states to the federal government for forts, etc, or to make laws dealing with interstate commerce or dealing with foreign nations.

          The federal government’s powers as defined by the US Constitution, were to be limited and general and were not to be used against the citizens of the several states. James Madison, Federalist 45 said,
          “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”

          All of these items listed here and in the US Cosntitution deal with generalities of government and with national and foreign issues, not with individual issues.

          No authority/power can be legally granted to any office of the federal government that cannot be tied directly to the U.S. Constitution. Any law, power, or authority that cannot be tied directly to the Constitution is automatically reserved to the states or to the people, and the federal government is prohibited to exercise any power outside of this restriction. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the states and the people to keep watch and to correct the government if it steps outside of its authority. (Michael Lemiex, “Constitution Denied”)

          United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); Congress had the power to regulate only the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even if the threat comes from intrastate activities, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He further commented that since the Constitution created enumerated powers by which Congress was bound, they could not have such broad reaching powers.

          Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: “To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

          Congress must stay within the bounds set by the Constitution, and to do otherwise, would be to convert the Commerce Clause into a police power. Basically the Federal Government does NOT have a constitutional mandate for the welfare of American citizens, only for the General Welfare of the USA, the country, as a whole.

          An example where it is shown that the Constitution defines the areas of Federal jurisdiction. This is a quote that was taken from the Department of Justice’s own web-site states: “When instances are reported to the United States Attorney of offenses committed on land or in buildings occupied by agencies of the Federal government — unless the crime reported is a Federal offense regardless of where committed, such as assault on a Federal officer or possession of narcotics — the United States has jurisdiction ONLY if the land or building is within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

          • sam1966

            Well said Kansas Bright, fellow patriot. Keep up the good fight. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves galt and smilee out.

            “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

            Thomas Jefferson

          • Smilee

            Kansas Bright

            in response to KB

            Actually you are incorrect. (WRONG)That is NOT what the amendment power is for. (WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS BUT ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSES 1 & 3

            Article 1 – section 8 – Powers of Congress

            Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

            Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, .To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

            You misunderstand the “commerce clause”

            ,(WRONG, IT IS YOU WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IT AND HAVE SPUN ITS

            Meaning no where was the legislative branch given powers over everything.

            (I NEVER SAID IT WAS AND IT DOES NOT)

            Basically the federal government was not designed to be a bureaucracy that had any direct effect on the people of the country.

            (THE CONSTITUTION HAS A DIRECT EFFECT ON EVERYONE AS IT IS THE FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH OUR LAWS ARE WRITTEN AND OUR LAWS EFFECT EVERYONE, SO YOUR STATEMENT HERE IS PURE BS)

            The only power granted by the Constitution to the federal government lay in ensuring that government did not trespass against the citizens.

            (JUST WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN??? YOUR STATEMENT HERE TOO IS PURE BS)

            It was, and legally still is, the responsibility of the individual states to deal with the needs of the people. WHAT?? , Amendment 10 – “Powers of the States and People 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.”

            If congress has the power delegated to it then it has that power not the state

            Federal legislative control was designed to only have jurisdiction within the District of Columbia and in areas ceded by the states to the federal government for forts, etc, or to make laws dealing with interstate commerce or dealing with foreign nations.

            (WHAT??? ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 has eighteen clauses this is no. 17 but you ignore the other 17. UNREAL!!!)

            The federal government’s powers as defined by the US Constitution, were to be limited and general and were not to be used against the citizens of the several states. James Madison, Federalist 45 said,“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” (MADISON may have made that statement but it is not in the constitution

            SO IT IS MERELY HIS OPINION AND HAS NO FORCE IN LAW)

            All of these items listed here and in the US Constitution deal with generalities of government and with national and foreign issues, not with individual issues.

            (GENERALITIES ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUAL ISSUES, GENERAL WELFARE CONTAINS OBAMACARE AN INDIVIDUAL ISSUE THEREFORE CONGRESS CAN TAX FOR IT, THAT IS WHAT THE COURT DETERMINED IN ITS OPINION ON OBAMACARE)

            No authority/power can be legally granted to any office of the federal government that cannot be tied directly to the U.S. Constitution.

            (RIGHT BUT YOUR OPINIONS SAY OTHERWISE)

            Any law, power, or authority that cannot be tied directly to the Constitution

            (FOR CONGRESS BUT THEN THE STATES DO NOT HAVE THAT POWER)

            is automatically reserved to the states or to the people, and the federal government is prohibited to exercise any power outside of this restriction. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the states and the people to keep watch and to correct the government if it steps outside of its authority. (Michael Lemiex, “Constitution Denied”)

            (THIS IS PURE BULL THE STATES HAVE NO POWER OVER THE FEDS IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE STATES ONLY HAVE POWER OVER WHAT CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE POWER OVER) .

            United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); Congress had the power to regulate only the channels of commerce, (RIGHT)the instrumentalities of commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even if the threat comes from intrastate activities, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He further commented that since the Constitution created enumerated powers by which Congress was bound, they could not have such broad reaching powers.

            (HE IS TALKING ABOUT INTRASTATE COMMERCE NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND AS THAT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE Constitution THE POWER THEN BELONGS TO THE STATE BUT CONGRESS HAS POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE ) THE REST OF YOUR POST DOES NOT ADDRESS WHAT WE WHERE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU CHERRY PICKED IT SO IT MAKES NO SENSE EITHER, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA CARE AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND TAXING AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS WHICH THE SC HELD UP UNDER THESE CLAUSES AND YOU CANNOT DENY THAT AS IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

            Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: “To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”
            Congress must stay within the bounds set by the Constitution, and to do otherwise, would be to convert the Commerce Clause into a police power. Basically the Federal Government does NOT have a constitutional mandate for the welfare of American citizens, only for the General Welfare of the USA, the country, as a whole.
            An example where it is shown that the Constitution defines the areas of Federal jurisdiction. This is a quote that was taken from the Department of Justice’s own web-site states: “When instances are reported to the United States Attorney of offenses committed on land or in buildings occupied by agencies of the Federal government — unless the crime reported is a Federal offense regardless of where committed, such as assault on a Federal officer or possession of narcotics — the United States has jurisdiction ONLY if the land or building is within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

      • sam1966

        A good post smilee, but Kansas Bright still sweeps the field of battle. I guess there is another patriot here that you just can’t win against, to incliude myself. Here is something that shows how a teacher believes the same way you and galt do, but he is being punished for his actions:

        http://www.dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/south-carolina-teacher-on-leave-for-stomping-on-american-flag-in-front-of-class/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you and galt out.

        “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind – or crush them into non-existence.”

        George Washington
        In relation to the Barbary Coast Pirates in Tripoli

    • Bill

      Please review the governmental succeesses found in;
      Russia, N Korea, Cuba for a short list of countries where one central government acts as the end all decision making agent. The fact that Washington DC has become so disfunctional is not a reason to make it larger, but a logical reason to make it smaller.
      Simple analogy – if you have too much credit card debt, do you charge more to make it better, or charge less?

      • Steven

        You conveniently left out the list of dozens of countries where centralized government has worked, and named off communist countries that actually take away personal freedoms in choice on religion, workplace, etc. to further cite your example. Blatant attempt to stereotype all centralized governments as communist and self destructive in order to control your reader. We can agree that communism is bad; socialism and communism do not have to be, at their base, interconnected. The U.S. already practices some rather extreme forms of socialism and centralized Government control quite well, surely you wouldn’t call Social Security a bad and unnecessary program?

        • Bill

          Not a blatant attempt at anything of the sort. Just pointing out some examples. Will you guarantee us all that our government, which has clearly been moving toward more centralized power, will not continue replacing our freedoms with their “guarantees”? Remember, the government is nothing more than the politicians who run it, and are you certain they all have your best interest at heart?
          By your reply, showing some good central governments as justicifaction allows me to say that since only a few guns are used for bad, the 116 million others are OK and I should be left alone with mine.
          Lastly, do you think Social Security, always a Ponzi scheme, is good in its present form? How will you pay for mine for the next 30 yearrs I hopefully live? I paid in, but run by the same people you trust in the paragraphs above do you think they still have my money? Or when they tax you and your children more you will gladly pay for my retirement?
          No reply needed, it would simply make us all laugh at you.

        • Bill

          Apologies, I forgot to mention that while it is true that socialism and communism are not connected, and in a perfect world socialism sounds great, but the fact is that socialism does not work once you get people involved. Otherwise, union teachers in Chicago would not be striking for wages higher than union traash collectors. “All share the sacrifice together” according to Obama. And sacrifice should include cost and income equality, right?
          And taking away our religous freedoms? Catholics must fund abortion drugs, Nativity scenes are banned, yet we must honor and accept the religions of homosexuality and Darwinism? Please don’t confuse the theory of evolution with the religion of Darwinism.
          And choince of workplace? Pres. Obama and almost the entire Dem. Party wants forced unionization. That is not freedom of workplace. So your two examples have already happened, or in progress of being gone. So better come up with other excuses to defend our current direction.

      • GALT

        Economics doesn’t work once you get people involved, the variation doesn’t
        matter, and that you have “variation” is because whatever system was in place,
        call it whatever you want, didn’t work.

        This observation can be made for governments also, and the two, economics
        and government, simply provide you with a whole lot of distraction, which deflects
        you from the truth you need to recognize.

        So you can look at all the governments: FAILED.
        All the different types of ECONOMIES: FAILED.
        All the combinations of both:FAILED

        What sense does it make to be arguing that a type of government or a type of
        economic system or a specific combination of the two is a SOLUTION?

        All of these failures share a common denominator, PEOPLE!

        At some point, and that point may never come, you might want to consider
        that it might be time to start asking some different QUESTIONS?????

        That is if you have the ability to recognize that you should actually be
        asking questions, instead of expressing all this opinion…….and certainty,
        based on an article…….which essentially begs questions and requires
        answers to them…..before you can even begin to offer an opinion?

        Especially when the question itself, is questionable…….and has been repeated so
        often that you might want to consider, who is controlling the debate, and framing it
        based on the question? Cui bono?

        The people? The “evidence” doesn’t seem to support that conclusion.

      • larry ryan

        Actually replying to Steven. Yes, I would call social security a bad and even evil idea. Oh, not the basic premise. But the moment it got implemented by government it predictably became a ponzi scheme. And a poor one. If any private pension fund were run the way SS is run, it would have long since ceased to exist and the people running the scam would long since have gone to jail or fled the country.

  • Ron

    The Constitution’s framework is what has set us appart from every other government on earth. While we like most other countries have moved right to left and back again, the constitution has keept both extreems in check. We must fight to insure the Constitution remains intact. While one may see removing the limits of the Constittion as way to forward his desires for the direction of our nation today, one must remember that the opposition, as well, will no longer be restrained. What gives you what you want today may (and probably will) be used to cram something you don’t want down you throat tomorrow!

    • Johnc

      Right on target

  • Liberty Lover

    Excellent article, Tom. It isn’t the Constitution that has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system but rather the mundane reality of human nature that even a little power tends to corrupt, while a lot of power seems to make corruption inevitable.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Seidman has difficulty admitting that he is nothing more than an educated idiot.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Educated or indoctrinated?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Considering how much time he has been in schools I would say educated. Incoctrination does not take that much time and it is done in childhood.

  • TIME

    Dear People,

    Until you all get this point in your heads the fact is we are running about like silly monkeys in a small cage.

    The “ORIGINAL” Constitution has been laid to rest for over 150 years now, I keep saying that for a damm good reason, why is that?

    Due to that very fact, we have been opperating under a {100% totaly differant system,} one that allowed the Bank Of London as well their branch noted as { the IMF } to acquire this nation, and all its content. That includeds ALL OF YOU.

    If you want this nation back then you must fix the damm flat tire, as working within the maze we are under now only leads to such opinions by Seidlman.

    { Let alone that we have a person who is alledged to be your POTUS that not a single person in this nation even knows his {{ real name,}} let alone who he really is, other than the totaly Photo shopped, pictures, the fairy tail books written with an obvious Agenda,} not unlike Hitlers book, My Strugle.

    Hitlers book was in fact just as mindless ~ as Barry Omens books but as you don’t have a court system that follows any form of law that is other than “Admiralty Maritime, and Lex Fori, ” We get the short end of the damm stick and will never know Barry’s real name, after all Barry was sold to all of us not like a Twinke in a package ~ its all puffed air by way of the Mass media.
    Again PEOPLE that mass media is all owned by the very people who want to KILL YOU. Whats so damm hard to understand about that?

    The simple fact of TRUTH is that ” Common Law” or law of the land is dead in this nation, as it was in fact the only law that was allowed under the “ORIGINAL” Constitution, you should take note as to whats wrong with that bloody picture.

    As noted “Divide and Conquer,” saddly Barry Omen is a pure case of Divide and divide and divide until you have no one who stands together, thus we will all hang at one point or an other.
    Bush was no better but saddly due to his mindless swager many people bonded with him for all the wrong reasons!

    We have in fact been killing Millions of people by not only direct hand ~ but also by proxie from our own home “grown mercenaries” of what we call “Al-Qaeda” or the List as thats what it means and its all from the CIA.
    BTW ~ This was and is still being done with YOUR NAME on the label.

    The only question’s that remain are ~ as of { December 31st 2011 } your masters declared out right war on you, thus now ~ with the 100% Faked Sandy HOOK, UN ~ event, they now will try and take away the only method you have of _ “RESTANCE” to their end game of making all of YOU “100% disposable”

    What will you do, there were ~ 116 Million Gun owners as of the 2008 numbers, Thus
    I would venture to guess that number is quite a bit higher now as in around 139 MILLION Plus ~ you have the numbers to shut them down, you also can just stop feeding this damm beast by way of YOUR TAX MONEY, Plus ~ STOP ~ following there absurd pernicious LAWS all together.

    You are going to loose everything you have either way, ~ your choice, You can stand up or you can get down on your bended knee’s and beg for pitty from these Vampires who will show you “NO Quarter.”

    If your in the Military, get all of your units and groups together and just say NO MORE!
    WW III is on the way if you don’t, you will die for some mindless pointless game designed by these very vampires who lust your blood.

    What will you all do? And don’t tell me you can’t stand up to these Vampires, If you stand up the world will stand with you!
    The whole world is waiting on you to Shine that Light American is known for, FREEDOM!

    Peace and Love, Shalom

    PS: Check in to how many troops we have with boots on the ground in South America, How many Troops with Boots on the ground in Africa, Let alone in the Middle East.

    Soon you will have the same drones above your heads as they have in the Middle East killing hundreds of thousands of “Innocent” Children / Old people, Mothers / Fathers every day ~ day after day. The only crime they have commited is breathing air, and wanting to live.

    Could any of you fit that profile?

    • http://www.facebook.com/WizardKiller Mark Are Reynolds

      I read the article and I posted. Now I’m reading the comments. I hope TIME resides near me because we all sure need guys like this to teach us and show us the light at the end of the tunnel. Very good honest to the point post.

    • Warrior

      I envision an army of civilians everybit as large as our military. Now who said that?

      And when the sh$t hits the fan here, the military will have been so bastardized and spread across the world, they will not be able to provide any resistance on our own soil.

      All the signs are there. Just LOOK!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      TIME, the Constitution is the hedge of protection against TYRANNY. How many people do you think pay attention to the Constitution except that they feel secure that it is there, supposedly always has been and always will be there? The human predators and termites have been gnawing away at the document but by the grace of God they haven’t destroyed it no matter how hard they have been trying. O and Seidman and the rest of the educated termites won’t give up to destroy the Constitution further, what they want to create a constitution of the globe or whatever idiocy they will call it.

      • TIME

        Dear Nadzieja,

        Please note I didn’t say the ” Original Constitution” was dead, { what I said is it was layed to rest } ~ As in its still there ~ ALL the American people need do is TAKE it BACK ~~

        Then toss out all the worthless crap that was written from 1861 on, to include all ACTS, as well all Amendments from the fake 13th onward. That would require the reinstatement of the “Original” 13th Amendment.
        {{ The one that bars all Laywers from ever holding any political office.}}

        These doucments are a thing of true beauty, they were written to follow what the Native American’s / Indians of the era used as their rule of law.

        The Bill of Rights was based on both the ten Comandments as well as the American Natives / Indians way of life.

        That ” NO MAN ” can take from the other man what is his, that means his ” Freedom to Speak,” to “Arm himself,” to have a “Fair Trial,” to have his “Sovereign Nature.”

        OMG, what have you there, the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5-7 Amendments and the 9-10 Amendments.

        Please don’t read into what I post ~ what you think you see, if you are not sure what I say, I beg you please ask. Thank you.

        Peace and Love Shalom

      • Kate8

        TIME – I agree with what you say, but I think that the problem is that, while it all sounds good in theory, people need to understand REAL things that they can do.

        I’ve spoken to local law enforcement, but many of them are already absorbed into the federal machine, and many of them know next to nothing about anything, anyway. They just follow orders… especially the younger ones. And the idea of an oath is no longer taken seriously, but is seen more as a meaningless ritual (like marriage vows).

        People can’t even speak with respect to one another. How are we supposed to come together to effect change?

        We need some real ideas. The government seems so powerful, and to fight them elicits ridicule from our friends and can be actually dangerous. Now, many of us are okay with that, but still don’t know what to do.

        My focus is in the raising of consciousness, and the power of Love. The first thing we need to do is to be better people. We can’t make things better by sniping at each other. By blessing even our enemies, we bless ourselves and lessen the negative effects of hate. We need to spread healing, compassion and patience if we are going to move forward.

        We need direction…real steps. It’s just too overwhelming, and most people won’t even look at it. We know what the problems are. We need to know how to right them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/WizardKiller Mark Are Reynolds

    What does he mean…Let’s abandon the Constitution. The Constitution has been ignored since the war for Southern Independence. You can’t have 20,000 gun laws on the books if the constitution is being followed. You couldn’t have the deficit we do if the Constitution was being followed. You couldn’t be stealing the LABOR of the citizens via an “income tax” if the Constitution was being followed. We wouldn’t be in Afghanistan, Iraq and who knows how many other countries if the Constitution was being followed. We wouldn’t have a War on Drugs if the Constitution was being followed. I could write a book…

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So we as a nation have gone from following the Constitution to following laws that supposedly explain the Constitution. How dumb is that.

    • Johnc

      Without the constitution if it was not politically correct at the time you could not write what you just did. It is not protection for the majority but it is protection for the minority to have the freedoms and not have the will of the majority forced upon them with no recourse

  • tony newbill

    If you don’t like it MOVE !!!!!

    • hipshotpercusion

      tony,
      That is the most idiotic statement ever made. We, as Americans have a God given right to stand up and question anything these usurpers of our liberty would try to pull on us. If you don’t understand that, take yourself to China, Cuba, or any other Socialist/Communist workers paradise.

      • tony newbill

        if you don’t like the US Constitution in its entirety then MOVE hipshotpercusion !!!!

      • Howard C

        tony newbill, I think that you and hipshot are on the same side here.

    • Steven

      Intelligent argument full of indisputable facts. Or not. You pick.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Your attitude is counter productive. Exactly what do you mean? If I don’t like what? The destruction of the rule of law? Where will you be when they come to take your stuff? On the takers side? Or on the freedom side?

      • tony newbill

        My Lord this statement was directed at the Professor of which this article is wrote about , and anyone who wants to usurp the US Constitution , move away from the USA if you don’t like the rule of Law or are not up holding them , get it ??????

  • http://www.facebook.com/gregbeaty Greg Beaty

    I cannot even think of how our government would be without the Constitution. This guy is nuts.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      If you want to know what America would look like just look at the worst human elements in America and be sure to look at the well dressed, educated, civilized savage. Look what other nations around the world are under the pretense that they were and are civilized.

    • ranger09

      You want to see what it would be like, Just look at where they are taking us now.

  • Kris Lounsbury

    It’s amazing to me that men of intelligence and legal stature don’t understand that the Constitution is a contract between the individual states and the federal government. The Bill of rights (added after ratification) and the 14th amendment (as bad as some parts of it may have been misconstrued) could be said to ‘individualize’ this contract between the federal government and the individual citizen. Before a political representative or a judge and most governmental appointees take positions of authority, they take an oath to uphold and protect the ORIGINAL contract that was made. Can the contract be amended? Of course. The ultimate authority rests on the people (vox, populi, vox Dei) and the representatives that they choose–This is undoubtedly the Achilles Heel of the document because people are fickle and sinful and if they so desire these same people can choose to alter or abolish the original contract, change it through the constitutional process, or choose to allow their representatives or appointed judges to ignore it. The ultimate resolution to this dilemma is for a godly people who are bound by God’s laws to be self-governed and for civil government to remain in the parameters of authority that God has ordained for them (Roman’s 13). Godly civil government has but one simple God-given realm of authority–To protect the innocent, weak and godly against the guilty, and ungodly. It’s corollaries are simple also. It uses force to accomplish this goal (the power of ‘the sword’) by restraining and punishing the wicked and guilty. The original constitution and the Bill of Rights did a very good job of adhering to these parameters but power and greed has brought the mess we are now plagued with. God-given authority, original intent and properly ratified amendments are the only way to protect what freedoms we have left. We need to return to binding the civil authorities by the chains of the Constitution.

    • http://www.facebook.com/WizardKiller Mark Are Reynolds

      There is also “natural” law or the law of nature of of natures God. Do no damage to any other in their life, liberty or property and their can be no crime. We have WAY too many NON CRIMES on the books with people in cages for violating them.

      • tony newbill

        The path to Tyranny is always though the Currency of a nation !!!!

        For those who want to call the US Constitution a Out dated Document , would they say Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is out dated when those same scholars are wanting this as the solution to the Debt Ceiling ?

        http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/if-obama-can-just-create-a-trillion-dollar-coin-then-why-do-we-have-to-pay-taxes

      • DaveH

        What did the Framers of the Constitution intend with the given Federal Government Power to Coin Money?
        http://mises.org/daily/1324

      • DaveH

        Why pay taxes or have a national debt if the Government can just print new money with which to pay the bill?
        Because money printing alone, through the ensuing massive inflation in the prices of goods and services, would soon become obvious to the people who would react in various detrimental non-productive ways to counteract the inflation, thus damaging the economy and endangering the positions of the Politicians as a result.
        By adding taxes, and by borrowing money, the Politicians can extract more wealth from the People, and even from future generations who had no say in the matter. Clearly the Politicians are using as many tools as they can muster to feather their own nests at the expense of the rest of the people.

      • GALT

        and begins with a brief excerpt from the book Econned.

        “In 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth fof Nations. In it he argued that the uncoordinated actions of large numbers of individuals, each acting out of self interest, sometimes produced , as if by “an invisible hand,”results that were beneficial to broader society. Smith also pointed out that self interested actions frequently led to injustice or even ruin. He fiercely criticized both how employers colluded with each other to keep wages low, as well as the ” savage injustice ” that European mercantilist interests had “commited with impunity” in colonies in Asia and the Americas.

        Smith’s ideas were cherry picked and turned into a simplistic ideology that now dominates university economics departments. This theory proclaims that the “invisible hand” ensures that economic interest will always lead to the best outcomes imaginable. It follows that any restrictions on the profit seeking activities of individuals and corporations interfer with this invisible hand, and therefor are “inefficient” and nonsensical.

        According to this line of thinking, individuals have perfect knowledge both of what they want and everything happening in the world at large,and so they pass there lives making intelligent decisions. Prices may change in ways that appear random, but this randomness follows predictable and unchanging rules and is never violently chaotic. It is therefore possible for corporations to use clever techniques to reduce and even eliminate the risks associated with their business. The result is a stable productive economy that represents the apex of civilization.

        This heartwarming picture airbrushes out nearly all of the real business world.”

        Maybe DavidH. Mr. Woods can help you understand it and or compose a rebuttal for
        you…….

      • DaveH

        More repetitive claptrap from the one-trick pony Galt.
        Couldn’t you have just provided a link to your other same claptrap, Galt?
        Like here:
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/03/barack-obama-is-a-socialist/#comment-799468

      • DaveH
      • DaveH
      • DaveH

        I guess there are good reasons for your cut and paste, Galt, since at least the grammar from the articles will be decent that way.

      • DaveH

        According to Galt’s cut and paste article — “According to this line of thinking [pro Free Markets], individuals have perfect knowledge both of what they want and everything happening in the world at large,and so they pass there lives making intelligent decisions”.

        Where has any Free Marketer ever stated that individuals have perfect knowledge of what they want, Galt? But they certainly have a better knowledge of what they want than you or your self-interested Liberal Progressive Socialists do.
        Imagine the ludicrous assumption of the Liberal Progressive Elitists thinking they know what’s the better choice for any other individual?
        Is there anybody here who would allow the demented Galt to make their personal choices?

      • GALT

        You are a “functional illiterate” DavidH………it doesn’t matter what you read,
        you are incapable of comprehension…….you use links to hide that fact……

        As a result, you are incapable of crafting any sort of response, you can’t even answer simple questions……..or do simple tasks……..

        So this is not going to stop, and everything is going to be repeated, until you
        actually provide a response…….or you OBEY the instructions you were given.

        Your choices for this POST are………prove that you can read and craft your
        own response……..or go to whatever link you like………that you imagine is
        a response……..and bring the relevant material here. ( which you can’t
        do because the relevant material doesn’t exist there either.)

        Just think of this as the REAL HISTORY of DavidH for all to see.

        Unfortunately for you……..there is a lot of it, and more everyday……granted
        the company you keep ain’t too bright……….but trust me, you really
        should take the exit you are being offered?

      • GALT

        And for your first effort…DavidH ‘functional illiteracy”……hiding behind a question….

        you just read where that was said……is your “free market” somehow different from
        the source cited? Can’t see the source cited?

        Can’t comprehend what you read?

        P.S. It’s a book excerpt by an economist……the excerpt is all that is
        needed to trash “everything you think you know”……..

  • Human Nature

    What’s the difference between humans now and humans thousands of years ago? Has their bodies ever changed the way in which it operates? Or rather, has reality ever changed the way in which it works? Gravity? Thermodynamics? If we answer these questions, we will see that the only thing that has changed is the human mind. Or how the human mind, perceiving reality, has consistently transformed over time. This happens in the format of deconstructing the components of realty and defining those components thru the system of language. If we do not map the system in which we live by and define the fundamental principles of what it means to be human then we will always live in a system that will slowly and continually dissolve.(Sorry for the rough grammar, texting sucks.)

    • Vicki

      Here is one fundamental principle that can be your rock to anchor your system.

      Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
      How you use those gifts and how you honor them in others,
      is how you shall be judged.

      • Human Nature

        “We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”- Albert Einstein. Einstein was highly intelligent, and a very respected human being for his ideas. With that said I will state two things in response to your principle. First, your principle is vague in describing how it is fundamental in human laws. I understand the depth in which you say honor will help with healthy relationships and being with other humans, but you must know, just because you believe it is like that; doesn’t mean anyone else will believe it. No matter how many times you explain it to them. Example; our situation with society presently. Since this is the case then we must change our way of thinking about it or we will continue to run our noses into the wall. Second, the language you and others, (that are relative to you), use is relatively the same language that comes from ancient literature. If it did not work then, then it will not work now. A new approach is what I am suggesting. Lastly, I’ll have you know, this is a complex conversation that cannot be resolved over mere quick generated ideas. This is a conversation that must continue for days and desired results will not be reached. Example; the difference everyone is making by stating and bickering over ideas is extremely minute.

  • ibcamn

    I have lived by the constitution my whole life(bent a few)and raised my kids to the same,if someone wants to live by other than that,they have options,live in the country of their choice,or live here under constant screwtney.(laws).it’s America,we have a high tolerance for letting sheet slide!the biggest problem i have is a person forcing the people to do what he/she wants!that’s what Obama wants us to do without question.i’m not sitting around quietly and let what this man is doing to our country go without a fight!Obama tried to change the design of our flag for Christ sake,has everybody forgotten already all the things this man has done to others and tried to do to us!what hes done to so many people already!i understand when someone tells me that old white guys wrote it 225 years ago.i get it.but we agreed to it and agreed to follow it and support it to the death if necissary!and so many have!we cannot throw it by the wayside and write something new,we have room to make them comfortable for the future,and we have.it all comes down to money and power!once we abandon so much as one right,we have lost them all!frankly,i’m white and i’m done with being politically correct for people.because those i’m suppose to be politically correct with are not(in the least)to me!some where in time this country became complaisent and that was the opening of the door to where were at now,and it’s got to get to a equal amount,because it sure the hell ain’t now!(i’m a biker and iv’e had to live with prejudice my whole life,i know what it looks and sounds like).as people(human nature),we need laws to follow,and these are ours!

    God Bless America….

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      Human nature is evil, out of control. When one gets in control, repents to God, he can become a Christian soldier. It took eleven years to write the Constitution. The founders knew “The only thing new is the history you haven’t read yet” so they searched history to avoid what they had learned. Their recent history, their writing of the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE taught them a lot. They were very very wary of the government they were charged to establish. That’s why the First and Second Amendments are where they are. The wrote the Constitution as a wall against their own government. The members of the district of criminals found a hole in it and that was, and is, human nature. Did you ever read Plutarch’s Nine lives? Plutarch studied nine type of governments and their founders. The Founders studied even more. In my opinion, with the founding of America, mankind tried them all and all have failed. It’s time for Christ to assume the reigns. Read and believe John 3:16 and other passages in the bible.

      • DaveH

        In the 17th century, the Massachusetts oligarchy used the name of God to perform heinous cruel acts upon their fellow human beings. There were similar occurrences throughout the history of the world. Clearly there needs to be more than just a belief in a God. God was created by man. And unfortunately when men assume Leadership, God can become whatever the Leaders say he is.
        So No, I don’t believe God is the solution to our problems. But education is. And the more we discuss things on a rational non-emotional basis, the more education we will receive.

        • Bill

          And today Eric aHolder uses the name Obama to perform heinous crimes against others – selling guns which result in 300 dead sounds heinous to me, or do you disagree that 300 is not that many to worry about since most were “Mexican”?
          Man did not create God. Man usurped God’s authorities and made his own laws. Nowhere in what is deemed the official writtings about God – the Bible – do yo ufind justifications for man’s human acts which are usually designed nnot for God, but for enrichment of those men implementing the human rules.
          But since you support Obama/Holder I guess we cannot expect you to oppose their blatant humanism.

      • TIME

        Dear Dave,

        What CA is refering to is the “PURE” platform of the followers of the Christ, there are many of us. We are not the ones who play at this game we have been spoken to by the Christ or if you perfer, Immanuel the SON of our TURE GOD Yahweh,

        We of the “PURE” light, as such we deplore malicious behavior toward all human life, such as what you noted, { as they clearly did not act as GOD would ask of any human.} they acted as Man would act toward other men, thus please don’t blame GOD for their behavior

        If one has been called by Immanuel, you are bound by his LAW, his laws do not conform to the example you set forth.

        Let me say, I am not a perfect human, I have done many things that are less than positive, so when I was called by Immanuel, I truly felt he had made a BIG mistake.
        But I don’t question his word as he has aided me in ways that no words can ever explain. Thus I am 100% commited to follow what he has asked of me.

        To all of you, if you allow the { Holy Sprit } into your soul, your heart and ask for the strength to follow the path of Immanuel’s word ~ YOU will recieve that Strenght.
        Thats what I mean by { Got your bus ticket yet? }

        Peace and Love, Shalom

      • DaveH

        Bill, by saying — “But since you support Obama/Holder I guess we cannot expect you to oppose their blatant humanism” — you surely don’t expect anybody to take you seriously, do you?

      • DaveH

        I used to blame God, Time, when I was a young heavily indoctrinated person. But after courageously confronting my fears and thinking for myself, I accepted that God was just an entity created by humans to manipulate humans.
        That is not to say that the moral teachings of the Bible are erroneous. But it is to say that the Bible was written by men, not God nor inspired by God, just men.

        View this if you dare:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50

        We don’t need a “God” to instill morality and respect for other human beings. We just need informed reasoning.

      • Vicki

        Bill says:
        “And today Eric aHolder uses the name Obama to perform heinous crimes against others – selling guns which result in 300 dead sounds heinous to me,”

        Hmmmmm….. Selling guns which result in 15,000 deaths every year sound heinous to gun-grabbers.

        As much as I dislike the policies of Mr. Holder and Co. I think you might want to reword your point.

        • Bill

          One main difference. It is against the law (theoretically) to sell guns to felons. Unless you are Eric Holder and company.
          But it is clearly proven that with or without guns, criminals will still commit crime – note the crime rate in the UK is 3 times that of America. And that the highest crime rates are most often found in “gun free” zones and cities with strictest gun limits.
          We digress from the argument about our Constitution only slightly, because the key point is whether laws are upheld by pieces of paper or by the law abiding citizens which follow the codified rules set out on the papers.
          I tend to believe the laws are upheld by the citizenry, but need to be codified by a document such as the Constitution so all have a uniform guide.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        And DaveH is providing much new evidence today that more than one person is posting comments under the handle “DaveH”. That’s even obvious to the naked eye—at least to RBT’s anyway. Can’t wait to load this string of words into my software and see what structure and word usage patterns it points out, and what comparisons/connections it makes with other comments from Dave on other threads. Be aware, all you Daves—-the truth is coming to get you—be afraid!

      • Johnc

        Dave’s argument that man knows what is right and wrong is correct but in an instance by that reasoning Dave is starving his neighbor has food he planted and worked for hard to obtain . Yet Dave who did not work and planted nothing thinks it is wrong for his neighbor to have and not share with him, so he kills his neighbor and takes his food. And he reasons it is right for him to do this because his neighbor would not share with him. therefore since Dave who is stronger than his neighbor felt it was right this makes it just in his mind and that his neighbor got what he deserved by not sharing. Do you see where this is leading Governments and men are incapable of making just decisions. We will continue to have problems until we recognize the sovereignty of God and his governance

      • DaveH

        RBT posts his usual personally-attacking nonsensical comment. But then, what can one expect from a person who thinks with his Lizard Brain?
        http://www.instantbrainstorm.com/lizard_brain.html

      • DaveH

        Johnc,
        I have no doubt that if the two of us put our lives under a microscope, we would find that I adhere more rigidly to the moral codes of the Ten Commandments than you do.
        I, for instance, do not excuse theft for any reason, even if it is performed by Government.
        So your story with me as the subject is a false one.

      • DaveH

        Isn’t it interesting that Lizard Brain is trying so hard lately to depict me as a shill, especially since I have presented strong evidence that Flashman and his other personality Jeremy are one and the same? Hmmm.
        Consider the fact that Lizard Brain consistently does little more in his comments than to denigrate others who don’t share his Liberal Progressive disorder. Could Lizard Brain be a shill projecting his own behavior on me? I wouldn’t put it past any Liberal Progressive.
        But thanks for posting, LB. You and your fellows are doing more damage to your cause than I could ever do.

      • Karolyn

        John – That is a ridiculous rationale. Man inherently knows right from wrong whether he believes in God or not. The problem is it is a choice and not everyone chooses truth.

      • Charlie

        John 3:16 has to be applied with John 3:5 and John 3:22,23……………………….

      • Right Brain Thinker

        DaveH is getting nervous Notice his frantic attempt to divert attention to “Flashman and his other personality Jeremy” and then note how he gives us his “stock” horsepucky. Weak. The truth is STILL coming to get you all, Dave—-be afraid.

      • sam1966

        First, I somewhat agree with Karolyn about people making choices that have hurt this country. That I agree with you, but that’s it. Humans are trained, taught, raised, etc., to know good and evil and are not born knowing the difference of the 2. Dave H, I appreciate you stance against the libturds and progturds on this site, but I must disagree with you about man making God. Read Genesis 1 and 2. There is a God and everything we post on this site is in the eye’s of God. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

        “Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to heaven, to you Creator, and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds and exemplified in your lives and conduct.”

        William Samuel Johnson

  • Sgt. York

    Best thing to do is to Run the Now in Power House,senate,President and all his pancake followers Out the door and lets start over using the Original Constitution as our guide line to success. 200 years we stood tall and was respected,and now the third rate countries Spit at Us. This so called President we have is driving our country over the cliff into Communism and Socialism. We must stop this NOW. Oh Yes ROLL TIDE, BCS Champions 2012

    • NC

      sgt York, when you and a group of like minded thinkers get together to run the nation ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION and you have a disagreement on what the Constitution “means” does a SINGLE PERSON GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION ?? Or do you do what YOUR Constitution says and take it to the courts to be decided! When the court decides and you don’t like the decision it seems you are right back to where you are now! Living under the constitutional system where no one person GETS TO SAY WHAT IT MEANS!i OR WOULD YOU PREFER THAT WE ALL DRAW OUR WEAPONS AND SHOOT UNTIL WE HAVE A ‘DECISION”?

      • DaveH

        When the Supreme Court decisions are regularly split 5-4, clearly we have a problem. In effect, one man (#5) is making the decision of Constitutionality.
        The Constitution is in most cases a pretty simple document, and as such there should rarely be less than a 7-2 Supreme Court decision given that they are supposedly “learned men”.
        Obviously they are deciding mostly on Political grounds rather than studied Constitutional Law grounds.
        The Supreme Court was not given the Power to be the final arbiters of the Constitution. They just took that Power in the early 1800s. Expecting a branch of the Federal Government to fairly judge the laws passed by their fellow Federal Government Congressmen is like expecting the Fox to guard the Hen House dutifully.

        http://www.cato.org/pubs/constitution/constitution_en.html

      • Vicki

        “Federal Government Congressmen is like expecting the Fox to guard the Hen House dutifully.”

        The wise fox will guard the Hen House most dutifully.
        For the benefit of the FOX.

        We see that behavior in the current Federal Government.

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    John Dewey practiced involuntary socialism as a professor in Columbia University. He boasted that had converted 35,000 of his students to socialism and sent them out to “teach” others. America no longer has an educational system, except in hidden pockets. It has an INDOCTRINATIONAL SYSTEM as a tool of America’s involuntary socialist government, but I thought most people knew that. John Adams had this to say about our wall against tyranny, the Constitution. “This constitution is for the governance of a moral and religious people. It is UNFIT for the governance of any other”. So what’s new? Which one of those bills fits us? Answer that and you will know where our Constitution stands. There are two adversaries vying for the hearts and minds of Americans, Satan and God personified in Christ. Who’s winning? I know I sound like a broken record but unless Americans repent of their sins to God, it’s all over but the swan song.

    • Charlie

      Acts 2:38 is salvation…

  • DaveH

    Great article, Tom Woods. Thank you.

    • GALT

      Ah, there you are……..
      GALT says:

      January 4, 2013 at 3:03 pm
      Ah, there you are………………………we have unfinished business and there is NO ESCAPE!!!!!!!!

      It would seem that the “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate” DavidH has given us another mindless link to “von mises”……..

      “They imagine that it is the 1 percent of highest wealth holders who are the problem. In fact, that 1 percent includes some of the smartest, most innovative people in the country — the people who invent, market, and distribute material blessings to the whole population. They also own the capital that sustains productivity and growth.”

      Unfortunately the author ( L. Rockwell ) neglected to “identify” any of these people.

      Maybe DavidH, who seems to rely on this “source” for most of what he claims is “his understanding” of “things” ( and the solution ) could provide us with this list…….either on his own ( which would not be a good idea ) or directly from the “source”……( since it is possible that maybe it exists in other offerings by Mr. Rockwell? )

      It might also be interesting to see a list of David’s “crony capitalists” in contrast to these yet “unidentified” list of what we might possibly assume are “non crony capitalist’s”, since we are actually being referred to this link, for a reason?

      Which is the continual problem with the “functionally illiterate” part of DavidH, in that he never actually understands anything he reads…….which is why he never makes “any sense”………but we shall see…….

      David?

      http://mises.org/daily/5776/The-State-is-the-1-Percent

      P.S. DavidH. I realize that despite my efforts, most of those who engage you still have “no clue” how absolutely “absurd” you are ……………………. ( a.k.a. stupid )!

      Since you seem to believe you are the “junkyard dog” here, and the conditions have been stated for you to escape MY WRATH….and clearly superior intellect ( in terms of logical reasoning on every subject ) if you wish to avoid this………you have been advised of the means to do so.

      My advice to you ( directed in the nicest possible way ) is to heed those “suggestions”………….you have been warned for the final time.

      • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

        CAPITALISM is a word coined by Karl Marx, the father of communism. Capital is simply the tools for production. A builder builds two houses, one to live in, the other to sell, a capital item. His tools are capital items. Communism exploits the ultimate capital item, YOU. You are an asset, capital item, owned by the state. When you are no longer an asset you will be dealt with as a liablity.
        Marx came up that word and gave it repugnant meaning. We associate capital with rich people, just like the communist intended. Everybody has comsumptive items and capital items. In a way you could say your head and your hands are capital parts of your body.

      • GALT

        How is the “origin” of the word relevant to ANYTHING?

        Marx was reacting to the system that existed, which resulted in a number of
        definitions being created to represent the “economic system” that was in place,
        and the problems with it, with suggested solutions for it……

        So we use the terms now in reference to types of economic systems…….although
        actually understanding of THEM is questionable………

        The previous post asks a question regarding a quote by the author.

        I asked for a list of those people…….is calling them “capitalists” something you
        believe the author or David would dispute?

        Does it change the fact that there is “no list”? Regardless of what you
        call them………there is a claim being made about the effects of the actions
        of a specific group of people……..which can not be confirmed or denied
        until the list has been provided……..and that is only the first step.

        I am asking a question to pursue further inquiry.

        What are you doing?

        And just for fun……….provided you understand what was said about “economic”
        systems here are two quotes…….

        “A man must live by his work, and his wages must be at least enough to maintain him. They must even on most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.”

        and

        “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

        What do they suggest to you…….regarding the ‘economic system’ they seem to
        be or might be referring to, if any?

      • DaveH

        Escape your wrath, Galt? And what exactly is that — you’re going to bombard me will fallacious comments until I puke?
        The only “dog” here is you, Galt. You’re barking mad.

    • GALT

      But Dave this is a “von mises” LINK……..which you sent people to, to make
      a point…….you wanted them to read it.

      I quoted the point……..so seems you either didn’t READ the article, didn’t comprehend
      it, or as usual…….you have no IDEA what you are talking about.

      Because Mr. Rockwell just made YOU look like the IDIOT you ARE…….

      And you have no clue why?

      Or did you forget what your solution is, “free market, unregulated capitalism,
      based on voluntary transactions”.

      Still have no clue? Just provide the “lists” requested…….

      or just your list?

      It doesn’t get any better……….hide!

  • Motov

    I thought OhBozo already abandoned our Constitution. I can see why other countries want us to abandon it. Apparently, only the strong minded people who believe people should be responsible for themselves, and not have the nanny government take care.
    Are the ones who love the constitution. They have the idea that they are the ones best qualified to spend what they earn, and believe just giving money to those who won’t lift a finger is not the right way to go.
    They believe it is up to the individual to make their own paths, with out government telling them how to do it.

  • ZAR

    You know, this fellow Seidman is sayong nothing that Thomas Jefferson didn’t say when the Constituton was ratified. Jefferson said thatthe Constitution was a bad idea, and even said a new one should be enacted evry 20 years…or was it 50… with so many Neo-Patriots fawning over Jefferson thse days I wonder why they hate this idea…

    • Bill

      Jefferson commented about these things, but then after discussion abandoned these concepts. Sp please try a different argument which can stand scrutiny.

      • ZAR

        I wasn’t makign an aruent. I was musing. I am not a fan of Jefferson and his newfound Popularity sicne beign promoted by men like Glenn Beck disturbed me. The only solice is that its nto the real Jefferson they look to, ust a few of hsi quotes tied to a new vision.

    • DaveH

      It wasn’t the content of the Constitution that Jefferson objected to. He was just wise enough to know that the more Central that Government became, the less it would concern itself with the welfare of the people, and the more it would get away with taking care of its own at the expense of the people. And obviously he was correct.
      Throughout history, Governments have been composed of self-serving coercive gangs of Leaders who kept their Power either by Force or by deceiving the citizens.

      Our country’s history up to the revolution:
      http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Conceived%20in%20Liberty_Vol_2.pdf

      • GALT

        Gee, I wonder why Mr Woods doesn’t use THAT book for “his REAL HISTORY”?

        His REAL ECONOMICS is the same “source” as yours.

        And since you have deigned to share with us your “brilliance” once again, regarding
        history and it’s gangs…….

        Are you saying that this “experiment” was an exception to that, or it was not
        an exception to that? 1760 thru 1792?

        Yes or No? Explain your answer.

        What does “von mises” say?

        Wonder what DavidH will do now?

      • DaveH

        Feel free to read the book, ignoramus.

      • GALT

        Wow, yes or no is too hard for the “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”.

        You’re lucky those “progressive, liberal, socialist, communists” are slow learners.

        Hide DavidH……….if they catch on, your days are numbered.

  • Deerinwater

    Some people might well have the luxury of time to offer such quandary. ~

    But the only obsession with the Constitutions that I’m seeing comes for people sitting in warm houses with full bellies and little to do.

  • ToughGuy1

    This Georgetown Univ., egg head professor is dysfunctional like he knows it all? Just like all the social lites out there trying to destroy our Constitution. There lying research makes them a authority to twist the truth into their bogus comprehensive conspiracy theories. To surprise and woo the general masses and the American Public. Have real teachers out there teach the truth. And really educate. Than the unionized half witted puke professors and teachers, teaching bias views their embodied professions!

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      He isn’t an egg head. Would you call Satan egg head? He’s dedicated to a far different governmental system than God fearing Americans are, and because of our apathy he’s winning the battle.

      • Charlie

        King Jesus beat Satan at The Cross… Acts 2;38 is victory with the blood and water…

  • Frank

    Seems that professor Seidman prefers the british form of government without a constitution. it is an acceptable form of government and it is working in countries around the world. However, regardless of what some crritics think, our constitutional form is also working. There are times and circumstances when each form has its advantages and its disadvantages. I always find it interesting how we, the American people, constantly raise al of the same arguments that the American public heard when they were voting on whether to accept or reject the constitution. It seems the arguments rejected in those times are still rejected by the majority in present days. It also seems that the arguments used against federal government in those days are still argued today. Some things do not change and probably it is wise that these issues are always being discussed.

    • momo

      Great Britain has a constitution, but its not codified.

      http://ukinusa.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/faqs/uk-government/written-constitution

      • GALT

        So do we,…………this is it.

        Article One, section 8

        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—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.

        Article 3, section 2

        The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

  • mark

    Professor Seidman’s view is simply an extremist opinion of the Left protected under the First Amendment. Just as so many exremist opinions of the Right are protected and openly expressed on this website and thousands of other outlets. This is wonderful and the result of us all living in a free country despite constant claims to the contrary. I have always loved Voltaire’s dictum: ” I totally disagree what you have just said, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it.”

    • DaveH

      You’re an extremist, mark. You’ve proved it time and again with your ignorant remarks.
      Today, for instance, you say — “This is wonderful and the result of us all living in a free country despite constant claims to the contrary”.
      That is just about as ignorant a statement as anybody could make, mark. And only an Extremist Progressive could say such a thing. We are about as far away from Freedom as a country can get without becoming a third-world dictatorship.
      There’s no doubt in my mind, mark, that you are feeding at the trough somehow — teacher, bureaucrat, Union worker……
      Why else would you make such obviously biased comments?

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Ditto.

      • mark

        Your remarks are pretty biased as well in the other direction, DaveH. We are about as far from freedom as any country can be without being a third world dictatorship? Please. Hate to burst your bubble but we have vigorous free speech in this country as this website and thousands of others – plus talk shows – that daily call our elected president a traitor (try that in most countries in the world and see what happens to you) attest; complete freedom of religion; freedom of assembly (the recent Tea Party rallies right in front of the White House with the president pictured as Hitler, with sniper crosshairs on his face); a multi-party political system; an unbroken record of 224 years since 1788 without a cancelled election no matter what the economic crisis or war; no forced conscription into the military 1787-1862, 1865-1917, 1919-1940, 1946-1949; and 1973-to-the-present unlike scores of other countries; trial by jury with representation of an attorney; no government ownership of the news media; a vigorous private sector in our economy in which millions of small businesses like Bob Livington’s thrive; required search warrants before the police can enter your home in the vast majority of cases, one the world’s largest by percentage rates of private gun ownership in the world. So I say we are still a free country that millions of oppressed fellow human beings are dying to enter: they are not all pouring into Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, the Russian Republic or scores of other countries, I can tell you that.

        I can appreciate your frustration, DaveH. You sincerely support a way of life in America that never really existed except in libertarian imagination, and you support a political party that regularly receives 1-2 % of the popular vote in presidential elections. This must be very exasperating and hurtful. But under our Constitution you have a perfect and legitimate right to post all the latest publications of the Von Mises Institute every day here and this must at least give you some consolation. Plus you can give vent by writing angry posts at me and others who dare not to share your vision for our country, but hey that’s life as you must realize by now. Have a great day, brother. I know I will.

      • DaveH

        mark says — “required search warrants before the police can enter your home in the vast majority of cases”.
        Yeah, sure:
        http://www.cato.org/raidmap

      • DaveH

        Mark says — “Hate to burst your bubble but we have vigorous free speech in this country as this website and thousands of others”.
        Yeah, sure:
        http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-why-judge-andrew-napolitano-was-fired/

      • DaveH
      • DaveH

        mark says — “complete freedom of religion”.
        Oh yeah?
        http://aclj.org/us-constitution/unity-will-defeat-attack-religion-country

      • DaveH

        mark says — “trial by jury with representation of an attorney”.

        Yeah, sure:
        http://www.floridajurypower.org/home/attack.php

      • DaveH

        mark says — “I can appreciate your frustration, DaveH. You sincerely support a way of life in America that never really existed except in libertarian imagination”.
        Actually we were much closer to Libertarianism in the 1800s, mark, than we were to Socialism (that which floats your boat).
        But whether or not the people have ever been Principled has no relevance in the pursuit of Principles, mark.

        I would continue exposing your fallacious comments, mark, but slogging through your fabricated facts bores me.

      • DaveH

        I must point out one more bit of tiresome manipulation coming from mark who says — “and you support a political party that regularly receives 1-2 % of the popular vote in presidential elections”.

        As if being in the minority has anything at all to do with the validity of my comments, mark. The vast majority of people also aren’t Rocket Scientists either, but does that mean that the large group with which you are associated would know better how to get a Rocket launched into space, mark?

        So what branch of Government do you work for, mark?

      • GALT

        You’re absolutely right DavidH. you would be a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”
        no matter what group you belonged to…….any serious group would disown you, if they
        knew……..and the one that would have you, would never be able to organize,
        because you all would get lost on the way to the meeting…..and even if some of
        you actually showed up……..you wouldn’t be able to agree on why you were actually
        there.

        I don’t think Mark is coming back……I didn’t want you to feel unappreciated.

    • Johnc

      Yes Mark you are on the right path, and this extreme left leaning professor would have us do away with that first amendment that way You, me or anyone else could not express their opinion in a civil manner except maybe what the current politically correct opinion is at the moment. That said our constitution can be modified by amendment to meet the challenges of today changed when those challenges are no longer relevant modified to suit new challenges without limiting the power of the people to do so. That made it exceptional in its time because the founding fathers did recognize that change does occur but the basic principles of freedom are timeless and based on free choice given to man in the Garden by his creator it puts into words that great principle of freedom that transcends all governments. So yes Mark I defend your right to say what you believe. A constitution based on these self evident facts that protects the rights of the minorities that is what our Constitution is all about

  • http://scottiesharpe.wordpress.com scottiesharpe

    What’s telling to me, anyway, is that, if you look at ANY of the major problems facing the US (economic woes, fiscal condition, monetary crisis, terrorism caused by imperialism, civil unrest, penal rates, education, …), all are caused by a federal govt acting unconstitutionally. While no one can say following the constitution is the sure path to peace and properity, we at least know that our current course of disregarding the rules of limited government is a sure path to war and trouble.

  • Ben

    I hear a lot of noise, you know, talking the talk, can you walk the walk. Because that’s what It’s going to take. Four more years, then the next one. You still will have done nothing. Things don’t change because the American people have become complacent. Which leads to being fearful of the very same elected to govern ono their behalf. Don’t think about Seidman’s views, think about what you have said here and then ask yourself, what must I do now?

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Lock and Load. Keep your powder dry. The armed insurrection is inevitable.

      • GALT

        Don’t hold your breath…….see j curve…….boiled frog theory……etc.

        Revolution requires that you actually believed you had some “hope” to
        begin with, that things would change……….and you were then disappointed.

        A recent example of that dynamic playing out, would be the “hope” created by
        Brown v. Board of Education, followed by desegregation and the Civil Rights Act,
        and then “reality” set in…….and an “uprising” ensued……….

        You, by comparison, possess less numbers, less organization, less common cause,
        and are greatly dispersed…….and you have had no real hope to speak of,
        nor have you suffered any “real disappointment”………so things are
        continuing on pace………

        The sad part is, you still have no clue who your enemy is, and you are actually
        helping them……which means if you ARE stupid enough to do
        something……….you will be hurting the wrong people, as well as removing
        yourself from the equation……..and I’m pretty sure, you are NOT THAT STUPID.

        So you will sit and wait for THE CALL, and you will talk about the fact that
        you pose a THREAT…….but the CALL will never come, and you will continue to
        sit.

        Given the result will be that you will get it wrong, that is not a bad thing.

      • DaveH

        Careful CB. They might lock you in a room with Galt and without earplugs for punishment.

  • http://N/A Hal Froeber

    HF-SQUARE: This is in response to the featured article by Tom Woods, with some of my thoughts and opinions of it, and a couple of questions I would like to see being addressed and answered by the author and then being returned to me as his opinion(s).

    “Let’s Abandon The Constitution”, Says Professor, January 8, 2013 by Tom Woods

    COMMENTS: In regards to whichever “Constitution” reference is drawn to hereby, which we Americans so dearly uphold, swear to and believe in, it is my understanding, other than the “Bill of Rights” as contained in the 10 Amendments, that all the grouped and sectioned constitutional provisions therein do NOT even APPLY to us, the American Citizens, before and now, but ONLY to certain Officials and Members, such as the CEO (the former president) and all the Board Members (the former senators & reps) of a once and still presumed “Republic” (for which it once stood?), who are now all by association THE Members of a private Corporation by the name UNITED STATES, Inc. [28 USC 3002(15)], since and when the parliamentary type of a “republican” form of a formerly governing entity ceased to exist in 1871.
    By converting said entity to a corporation, the organic Constitution is no exception, which was in the first instant as written never intended to be for the People, but just for these formerly entitled officials (such as the president & congressional members), and whereby the “organic” constitution was simply adopted, of course, into now their private Corporate Charter.
    Thusly the abandonment thereof already occurred in 1871! But why doesn’t the “all-knowing” Professor make an attempt, instead of attempting to abandon said constitution again, but address said Corporate Charter, which by the way has never been officially publicized with that entitlement. At least he might then accomplish something new and newsworthy?

    First Question: Are the “Bill of Rights”, (specifically Amendments 1 thru 9) belonging to American Citizens (not to be confused with the term “United States” citizens of D.C.) now a part of the adopted private Corporate Charter?

    Second Question: With the abandonment of the organic Constitution already having been achieved, how, where or by what reference do we legally correct cite now any one of the 9-Amendments belonging to us American citizens, whenever we need to? Or are the “powers-to-be” of the equally “incorporated judiciary” merely toying with us to be entertaining themselves by tolerating or allowing us “slaves” in some cases to think and believe that we still have some Rights, which, in fact as it appears and we currently seeing one after another being abandoned, eliminated or destroyed, no matter by what (?) necessary means in the nature of the “Hegelian” principles, such as “Pearl Harbor”, the “9-11 disaster” and all the other staged incidents on record and yet to come?

    Regards,
    HF-SQUARE

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      People like the indoctrinator/professor are not people to try and reason with. When someone is out kill you, you don’t reason with them. You defend yourself by any means necessary.
      He wants to destroy America as we know it and establish an involuntary socialist state. Already with the 14th, 16th and 17th (Changes, not Amendments) the spirit of the Constitution is jeopardy as never before.

  • Johnc

    It is amazing that a constitutional professor would advocate this, Must be a communist at heart. Fact Our Constitution is the longest lasting document unchanged since its beginning and Unique in that power was ceded to the people and guarantees for that power were included in it to preserve that power. The Founders all believing in a creator (GOD) but not limiting the religious beliefs of anyone to believe in their God or God(s) or to not believe at all in any God, set no State religion. In fact George Washington ordained our first Government in our First Capital in New York City as a county that was created by the grace of God the first true Free Republic to acknowledge the creator on the first day that our government came into existence. So that the atheists and communists among us who do not believe in the creator also have that right not to believe. This professor is far less educated than the founders who were brilliant scholars much more educated than this left leaning professor, Inventors ( Benjamin Franklin) Silversmiths, Brewer’s, Company owners. They had a stake in Liberty made this country great. We should listen to this professor because he say’s he is educated does not even know what he is talking about. It may even be the constitution itself was inspired by the word of God and its basis of laws from the ten commandments in the Bible what does this professor know about Government when God has the perfect one for us. This Professor is a Charlatan the rule of law based on the majority without protecting the minority is Tryanny

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      He’s a Constitutional professor for the sole reason of knowing how to destroy the Constitution. Sun Tzu said in “The art of war” KNOW YOUR ENEMY. In his case he wants to know the Consitution to equip himself to destroy it. He is an enemy of America: PERIOD.

  • Peter 10-nov-1775

    So, a professor says? That phrase should be enough to send any sane person running.
    That is how we got the halfrican.

    • GALT

      Yeah, we should bring back the good ole days when we had, half breeds, mulattoes,
      quadroons and octoroons………………………

  • Johnc

    The Constitution is not a document of what powers the government has, It is a document stating what powers the Government DOES NOT HAVE and what belongs to the people in that it is different from all other constitutions anywhere on the planet. It Lists the rights of the people not the rights of the Government at its founding. This is what the Government MAY NOT DO. we are not subjects of our Government we are the Rulers over our Government do not let anyone tell you otherwise including this uneducated so called professor

  • CaveAdsum

    Why, oh why do people who disagree with our Constitution and despise those evil, white founders always trot out the fact that slavery was at one time permissible under that document, while conveniently neglecting to mention that we settled that particular issue along with a host of others with a war that ended with in excess of six-hundred thousand of our fellow countrymen lying dead on the battlefield? It is the hallmark of one who is both intellectually dishonest and intellectually lazy.

  • 45caliber

    The real problem with abandoning the Constitution (and any other law book) is that it leaves the rule of law to those who make money from it. Do you REALLY want to have a series of lawyers deciding what is law and what isn’t? Worse, do you want them to decide what your freedoms should be? Some people tend to believe the best in all people. I’m not one of them. In my experience, a good portion of the people tend to made decisions on what is best for themselves FIRST. And I can’t believe that there would be only those who want the best for all of us making these determinations. So, until I’m proved wrong, I want to keep the safeguards we have, even if they aren’t the best in the world. They are better than nothing at all except for the hoped-for belief in the goodness of all others – despite evidence to the contrary.

  • Karolyn

    There was a recent post here of the Kitty Werthman email that’s been going on regarding the supposed similarities between the USA today and Nazi Germany. Here is an interesting counter to that email. The responses to the blog are also interesting to read
    http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/07/kitty-werthmann-history-distorted/

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Karolyn, the response to the e:mail should have been limited to; I’m not interested in going through the email line by line to debunk every claim. I’m not a historian, I wasn’t there and I can’t tell her that she didn’t remember what she remembers. But no, the idiot has to go-on and on and on. What a boob!

  • Alan Harper

    I liken the cry to abandon the Constitution to having a law allowing the police to change speed limit signs at will with a magnetic sign and then catch speeders pell-mell until the sign is put back into the trunk and moved to another location. In other words, without a basis for laws and decisions to be made, they will be made by the ones with the power today and by an entirely different group tomorrow when they get into the power position. Where there is no basis for law it becomes a dictatorship for each new power group that is elected or overthrows the existing group. History says that is exactly when the transient government wants to make certain there are no Second or First amendment rights.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    From the article: The issue is not what Madison would have wanted. The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent.

    Really? That’s news to me! Truly, the Republican-government is, premised on the idea of consent, that being, with the consent of their corporate-masters, certainly not with the consent of the governed! Government no longer operates by the consent of the governed, it’s rigged against the ordinary citizen by lobbyists, special interests, and corruption. In fact, two-thirds of Americans believe Congress cares more about retaining their power, even to the detriment of the country, than they do about serving and preserving the country. This country is on the verge of an explosion. Only force will reform government now. They surely won’t do it themselves. Politicians swear an oath to the American people, not to a political party. We need politicians who say; I’m an instrument of your will, committed to the American dream, not political influence and corruption.

    And what of the”Constitutions”? What matters the Constitution when it is flagrantly ignored and rarely, if ever, represented? What a joke! This professor is the epitome of lunacy, wrapped in his little-bubble and well insulated from reality!

    Abandon the Constitution? I have news for the idiotic-professor; we already have, abandoned the Constitution, and that, many many moons ago. In fact, i remember the exact day/date when we did; December 23, 1913, when our esteemed Democrat-dope, traitor-skunk, Mr. Wilson signed into law, the Federal-Reserve act. Since that faithful-day, its been bye bye miss American-Pie! Abandon the Constitution indeed…hardy har har har…

  • TML

    Dang that pesky Constitution! If it weren’t for that troublesome rule of law and protection of natural rights, we’d be able to make some progress here!

    • Charlie

      The Bible is still The Law of King Jesus Christ and America…………

  • Ken

    Surprisingly, I agree, but not for the reasons the professor states.

    If we scrap the Constitution, it means a new one will have to be written, and that means the one thing politicians of all parties fear: A constitutional convention.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    I think everyone should read this…

    http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

    • GALT

      Welcome aboard…….you do understand that, that information changes some
      of the stuff you wrote above…….like “the oath”?

      There is a post from an ex-military guy above, who talked about his “oath”……
      ironically, the military, which governed is by the U.C.M.J. , has always been
      under “admiralty/maritime” jurisdiction.

      Article 134 ( if things haven’t changed ) is actually the “ideal” for government
      tyranny……in that anything not punishable under any other section of the
      “code”, is punishable under Article 134. ( no specifics )

      Tell me the Feds wouldn’t like to have access to that in the “statutory” codes?
      Say Title18?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Yes, i do realize it changes some of the things i wrote above…it also changes most of the things that were said about you, present company included! Thanks just the same for the article which you posted, and posted on numerous occasions, but sadly, was ignored. I suppose, i have to re-think my definition of “patriot” as well…thanks for the article, Galt, i’m in the process of assimilating…!

  • gunner689AI

    This clown sounds like most other liberal college profs. The real crime is that we pay them to brainwash our children into their twisted beliefs.

  • James

    Excuse me!! Our country is going to hell in a hand bag. What used to be bad is called good in the sight of some people. They call evil good!!!!!!! Now it’s to do away with the constitution, do away with guns and try to change America. What is wrong with people and our government. We have the best country in the world but being ruined by these idiots.

  • Jim B

    The race is on, N.Y. Governor Como’s is working hard on gun restrictions (a complete misdirection play from any real government work), and new gun laws (bucking for President in a few more years),i.e. the dismantling of the second amendment, so as to strip the citizens ability to defend themselves against…. him and his minions! Forget about any real governing issues, forget about tax reform, forget about their billions in debt, forget about fixing the fraud, corruption, and total incompetence of government! When will the average citizen realize that the government is not their friend but their jailer, serfdom is just one handout and one more liberty removed away!

  • Chris

    For those of you who feel there should be some changes to the Constitution, I ask you: do you “SERIOUSLY” want our present congresspeople messing with that? How hysterical……….get real.

    • Nick Czudy

      Chris. I was one that commented that the constitution could use an updating. But you have a very good point. it could never be done with the current Congress. haha

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        You are obviously ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, so let me explain it with a simple analogy:

        Your assigned duty is to clean your room. It does not matter if you live in a dirt shack and use a branch with leaves to sweep it. Or if you live in a house and use a broom and dustpan. Or if you live in a palace and use a vacuum cleaner. Or if you live in a space ship and you turn on the little robot that cleans your cabin (room).

        Your assigned duty was to clean your room. Whatever implements that you use change with time and where you live – but YOUR ASSIGNED duty does not change. “You” = “those temporary people we put into position within the government.” They are assigned duties by the US Constitution.

        Ex: all presidents are to enforce all constitutional laws is a duty that they are legally REQUIRED to perform, and take a legally binding oath that they will do so. Breaking that oath does to things:
        1) It is a criminal offense – so it makes them a criminal and they can and need to be prosecuted.
        2) It is a legal REQUIREMENT for all who take the oaths to:
        1) Take the oath
        2) Keep the oath

        If they do not keep the oath (which is their own decision), they no longer meet the legal requirements of the office or position they are occupying. They can be removed without any thing else done to them at all – yep, fired. We can replace them immediately under the US Constitution since they no longer meet the requirements – they can also be prosecuted.

        Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

        The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

        The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

        The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

        Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

        The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN beginning clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

        The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

        They are bound by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure. (Political Remedy for a criminal offense)

        Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

        Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
        .
        Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

        Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

        Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

        Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

        The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations. Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

        Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

        Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

        5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

        5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

        5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

        18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

        The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

        One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

        Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

        Understand now?

        • Nick Czudy

          Kansas. I think that I got it. To put it simply, If they are voted in they have to take the oath and if they take the oath, they have to follow the rules of the constitution. Did I get it? thanks for the explanation. It was a little long and technical. I am not a lawyer. But I appreciate your effort. regards. Nick Cz

      • sam1966

        Waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much kool aid being drunk by you. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves Nick out.

        “The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.”

        George Mason
        Father of the Bill of Rights
        (Our God-given rights)

        • Nick Czudy

          Hey Sam. Nice to meet you. As I said. I do not believe in God and I treat the Bible as a historical document, since it was written by Emperor Constantine about 300 years after Jesus’es death. So it is the words of a Pagan and a leader that had the bible assembled to keep peace upon the 50% christian and 50% pagan population.
          If you want to believe in the religious dogma, then that is your problem. I will not ridicule you and I suggest that you have consumed more than your share of Kool Aid. I love America and I do not believe anything you spout in the bible. I do not want to be a Patriot. Patriots are backwards, fanatics, and not to be trusted as far as I can throw them. I am for a modern and sensible America that does not stigmatize others. I thought that Christians did not act as you are. Tisk, tisk. Please no more of your dogma. It means nothing to me.

      • GALT

        So Kansas Bright, all you have to do now is determine which “constitution”
        they are swearing and oath to………your use of the U.S.C. should make the task
        easier.

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

        So which one?

  • carol

    trader

  • Joz

    wow: talk; about ‘cheap entertainment’ don’t even have to leave home and pay to get it…. and as for:

    GALT says:

    January 8, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Actually they were: “white propertied men acted illegally under existing law
    ( some of whom ) owned slaves.”

    GALT do some research on History of slavery: here just to get you started: “Seidman has been a constitutional law professor for 40 years (which explains a lot), “

    ” with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves “

    *** IF IF IF THE AFRICANS DID NOT PUT SLAVES ON THE BOAT Emerson spoke out against the slave trade as early as the 1830s.
    http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2008/07/slaveshipposter.jpg THE BOAT.. LOOK AT THE BOAT… LOADED UP IN AFRICA BY AFRICANS…..
    AND SHIPP THEM OUT FIRST TO ROME THEN TO SPAIN/ENGLAND THEN TO AMERICA there would be no ‘African slaves’ duh !

    Purpose of Slavery

    http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/slavery/erica.html – Similarto Purpose of Slavery

    During the Roman Empire slavery became systematically developed because of military superiority. … African slaves were first brought to Europe in 1442 (2) .

    Evo and Proud: The beginnings of black slavery
    evoandproud.blogspot.com/2008/01/beginnings-of-black-slavery.ht… – Similarto Evo and Proud: The beginnings of black slavery

    Jan 25, 2008 … The beginnings of black slavery. Alexander the Great’s conquests, and later the Roman Empire’s expansion, transformed the cultural landscape

    • GALT

      You kinda havta look deeper……and you can’t because all you can do
      with the line………is acknowledge that it is accurate…….and that’s all that
      was intended…….

      There was a point to the post you were responding to………and it has nothing to
      do with slavery…………when you figure it out feel free to TRY again.

  • Joz

    Chris says:
    January 9, 2013 at 8:00 pm
    For those of you who feel there should be some changes to the Constitution, I ask you: do you “SERIOUSLY” want our present congresspeople messing with that? How hysterical……….get real.

    Reply
    Nick Czudy says:
    January 10, 2013 at 6:31 am
    Chris. I was one that commented that the constitution could use an updating. But you have a very good point. it could never be done with the current Congress.

    there are few factors to consider that are being missed by all of us: here:

    “By the end of this decade we will live under the first One World Government that has ever existed in the society of nations, a government with absolute authority to decide the basic issues of human survival. One world government is inevitable.”
    - Pope John Paul II, 2000

    SO U.S. CONSTITUTION IS IN THE WAY OF WORLD PROGRESS. UN DRAFTED THEIR OWN… QUESTION WAS: IF U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS SO GREAT WHY DID THEY NOT ADOPT IT? Did anyone even bother looking at the UN Constitution?

    http://www.biblelight.net/freedom.htm

    ——————————————————————————–

    First Amendment
    to the United States Constitution:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Who cannot see that historically the Catholic Church has diametrically opposed religious freedom as guaranteed by the United States Bill of Rights? They have openly declared themselves to be enemies of the United States Constitution and liberty. The first amendment was originally written specifically to prevent the very persecution and repression that prevailed for so many centuries in Europe under Catholicism. Freedom of religion and speech are crucial reasons why the United States has prospered for over 200 years, yet if it could have, Catholicism would have abolished them.
    1855 engraving titled “The Aim of Pope Pius IX”
    From the Library of Congress

    17) You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it.
    (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Svannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)

    18) AMERICA IS A BRITISH COLONY. The “United States” is a corporation, not a land mass ans it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British troops did not leave until 1796.
    (Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43,
    Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116,
    Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80,
    IRS Publication 6209,
    Articles of Association October 20, 1774)
    19) Britain is owned by the Vatican.
    (Treaty of 1213)

    20) The Pope can abolish any law in the United States.
    (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)
    22) The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.
    (Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)

    23) The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement Crusades Wars massacres (watch the the Mission? in the church during a Mass all for gold ! *** Papal emissary Cardinal Altamirano (Ray McAnally), a former Jesuit priest himself, is sent from the Vatican to survey the missions and decide which, if any, should be allowed to remain.** ) of Millions of people.
    (Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)
    24) The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone.
    (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii., n. 4. Patri, 1844)
    (Syllabus prop 28, 29, 44)

  • gunner689AI

    I would remind all my fellow veterans and law enforcement officers that we all took a solemn oath to God to “Protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.” We are duty bound as American citizens to not obey or enforce any law that violates are Constitutional Rights. Such laws are illegal and those that obey or enforce them are traitors. America has never been in such jeapordy to loose our Constitutional Rights as we are now under this want-to-be dictator and his minions in Washington and our State capitals.

    • Chief Boring

      Right you are, Gunner. And Nick, we don’t have a democracy, we have a Republic, which Benjamin Franklin warned would be hard to keep. He has proved right. We get upset about infringements of the Second Amendment because those who would do the infringing do in fact want to get rid of our guns, by their own statements, i.e. Dianne Feinstein. We are advisedly wary. If the First Amendment was attacked, the Press would (rightly) scream to high heaven. I think it understandable that we do the same; it’s not a left/right matter, it’s a freedom matter. Chief Boring

  • goodsteve

    And what, pray tell are they going to replace our constitution with? Communism?
    A military autocracy? Religious extreemism? An absolute monarchy? I don’t think
    that it’s a good idea. Our constitution may be over 200 years old, but it’s the best
    in the world. And it has served us well for more than two centuries.

    • ZAR

      Actually, Communism also has written constitutions. Look at the old Soviet Constitution, or the Constitution of the Popels Republic of China…

      and Absolute Monarhcy isnt as bad as some imagine. Nor woudl a Relgiosu Rule be nessisarily oppressive.

    • GALT

      It has served “certain people” well……..not We the People, and I doubt you
      are one of the “certain people”………until you figure that out……….you simply
      allow what is………to continue.

      • Nick Czudy

        This is mostly aimed at “GoodSteve” The constitution does not have to go to some extreme form of government. Communism, fascism, give me a break! The democracy we have is pretty good. It just needs to be tweaked a little bit and brought up to date in our modern times. Why is any mention of tightening any laws is always followed by extreme views from the right? We are talking of tightening the gun regs and the right immediately goes into extremes that we are after all guns and demolishing the 2nd amendment. Is it possible to have a educated debate with the two sides without out going in to extremes?

  • Leftnot

    This professor and so many like him are exactly why we should be encouraging our high school graduates to go to trade schools instead of college. They will be tought something meaningful instead of socialism.

  • Chris

    How can the Constitution be the SUPREME law of the land when changes are made to it? So much for SUPREME law.

    • Chief Boring

      Chris, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land because that phrase is in the Constitution as adopted. Changes to it are made through the amendment process, also provided within the document. What you referred to as changes are instances where it waas ignored. Laws made via that method are in fact unconstitutional and should be themselves ignored. Chief Boring

  • Joey

    So you don’t like the Constitution?
    Well I do, being that I’m a Constitutionalist who wishes we could still have the ideal limited government Washington, Jefferson, and the Founding Fathers set up. I don’t see why people would attack it.
    This professor is a fool and a fascist-wannabe for saying they want us to disregard that document. It should have never been infringed on.

  • Chris

    I totally agree with you Joey.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.