>From Restore The Constitution, as filmed at the RTC 8/14 rally in New Mexico.
What are you doing on October 30th?
>I'm greatly reassured, with spokespeople like him out there.
>I really don't understand people with such ahistoric views.The usurpations of the current US Constitution began almost before the ink was dry.George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and worst of all, John Marshall began to reinterpret it to suit themselves upon taking office.My question to Mr. Wright would be, "restore it to what, precisely"? At what point along the judicial interpretation continuum does he want to go?Marbury vs. Madison?McColloch vs. Maryland?Texas vs. White?Everything after 1900?Abrogating the Constitutional envelope within which the US government must remain has a very long, ugly history.We of the Southern National Congress have already arrived at the conclusion that the US government is irreparably damaged. We know that it has self realized enough power now to no longer even need a foundational document such as the Constitution, therefore we're leaving it behind.
>Pat H.:There is no perfect governmental plan. There is no Heaven on earth. Humans will always be far from perfect therefore so shall be their best of plans. That includes yours.The best we can do is try to get back to where things were most tolerable, most acceptable, least offensive to human liberty and freedom. That is where Mr. Wright is going with his words. I personally find everything right with that.We know the Constitution wasn't perfect. It was written by imperfect men. Now let's get on with restoring all that was good about it and flush what isn't down the drain. I don't think we need a new imperfect plan to accomplish that.
>Pat H, take a substantive step in that direction, and I will be there to help.If your state can stop taking money from the District of Criminals, I'll move there. That is very far indeed from secession or rebellion, but it's a step no state has yet taken.I was born in a free country, and I'd like to die in one.
>"I really don't understand people with such ahistoric views."He's been marinating in those views his entire life. Mandatory government schools taught it to him. The older people around him that he looked up to, people he found to be more adult, upstanding, and responsible, probably held those views.Now you expect him to reject everything he's ever learned about the behavior of human groups larger than one church congregation: nearly all of politics, economics, foreign exchange, law, foreign trade, immigrating labor, the relative wealth of nations; and become a radical libertarian? And until he does this, he's unlikely to get anything right?The good Germans were not mentally sitting back in their volcano lairs rubbing their hands at glee at the opportunity to let loose their wickedness. They thought they were conservative, they thought they were saving their country. The Muslims and Mexicans are the new Jew and gypsy scapegoats. The Mexicans eat the Americans, and the Muslims eat them all. Just like the Nazi poster. America must accept totalitarianism at home in order to fight Communism abroad, just like William F. Buckley said.
>So ….Pat H, at last you have revealed yourself. You are not only a racist bigot but an anti-Constitutional racist bigot.Restore the limitations that are set forth in the Constitution limiting governmental power would be fine with me. Hell you wouldn't have to go back that far, say …. pre National Firearms Act of 1934.What you and your idiotic friends at the Southern National Congress …..LOL, seem to have forgotten is that things have been just fine for most of the last 200+ years. If you intend to fight to do away with the Constitution that would make us enemies on the battlefield and anywhere else for that matter.So my question to you is this …. why are you on a patriotic blog that advocates restoration of the Constitution all the time, when your agenda is destruction of the Constitution and all that it stands for.You sir are an enemy "of" the Constitution as much or more so than any political or other traitor who has violated the "oath of office".
>My question to Mr. Wright would be, "restore it to what, precisely"? At what point along the judicial interpretation continuum does he want to go?–Pat HSpeaking for myself, Dartmouth College v. Woodward looks like a safe bet: "The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the College [granted by the the King of England], which pre-dated the creation of the State."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._WoodwardCharters are not dissolved by acts of Congress because their authority is rooted in contract law. To dissolve contract law is to abolish the state and revert to a war of each man against every other. If the Constitution were to be somehow abrogated tomorrow, social polity would then be governed by the preceding Articles of Confederation. There is no "blank slate" to which anarchists may appeal and no "leaving the constitution behind" (although I suppose you could leave the constitution ahead, heh). Hierarchy and contract law are irreducible elements of every society. They cannot be dissolved in an anarchistic milieu. MALTHUS
>Dakota:Your comment is exactly what we should strive to avoid."Racist bigot"? WTF…We discuss issues here, especially thorny ones like how does one "restore the Constitution" without also reaffirming Roe and Korematsu, among others.Ad hominem is horseshit of the first order.You can do better and be better than that.
>MALTHUS:You aren't suggesting that there is some "social contract" with my signature on it somewhere, are you?Just askin….
>It's our money, Nels. We need for the states to stop sending so much of it to DC and begging for some of it back, with strings attached. I have no doubt that THAT would convince the feds to consider firing that first shot.
>I don't see anything wrong with what Pat H. said. The constitution has failed, either by design or because it always was powerless to prevent usurpation. Isn't that really the question? What exactly do we want? And how can that be accomplished? If people are dumb enough to rally behind the idea of restoring the constitution, something that is a proven failure, then I'll go with it. It's better than what we have now.And I sure don't know how to fix the loopholes in the constitution, ie health and welfare clause, interstate commerce, weasel wording for the 2nd and 4th amendment and so on.
>There are two other "Constitutions" that were the law of the land in what is now the United States.First, of course, was the far superior Articles of Confederation which was only scheduled for mild tweeks at the Constitutional Convention. We know how that worked out after the Jay/Washington/Hamilton triumvirate did their work.Quitting the Constitution would restore that document since it plainly states that it is "perpetual" right in black and white. For the Constitutional question of the hour, how did the states secede from the "perpetual" Articles of Confederation and join the United States via Constitution?In the south, we have the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.That means that we have other forms of government, both of which have within them blockades against allowing what we have now to occur.The idea of the "social contract" was set forth by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his book by that title published in 1765, written to justify the unquestionable authority of the French king. It was later used by the Jacobins in the French Revolution, and later still by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. It has no place in America and never has. Interestingly, Voltaire wrote to Rousseau after having read his "Social Contract" and said it made him want to crawl around on all fours. I can understand why.
>Pre 1913 might be ok, that's when the real problems started. Read "No Treason", Lysander Spooner, think about it a bit. Wright (and Mike) lost any respect I could have had when he started the name calling about Baugh without reading or understanding the book.
>Bravo!!! to Pat H.a true scholar and deep thinker.And really? racist bigot? WTF???KPN3%
>Well, it's nice to see that I'm not alone in some of my thoughts.Anon 12:07, I'm with you, 100%.Pat H.- Thanks for the food for thought, and the links.Unfortunately, I'm about as far north of the Mason Dixon as one can get and still be called an American. The Constitution is a decent framework, as such documents go, the Articles of Confederation were better, IMO. I don't care what that opinion makes me in others' eyes.Freedom. That's the desired endstate. Not "freedom compared to China", or "look how good we still have it compared to the rest of the world"…Just Freedom.Justin
>MALTHUS writes: "There is no "blank slate" to which anarchists may appeal"You are claiming that an irrevocable theoretical divine right exists for some group of men to rule, even aside from any practical considerations about who fast-talks well enough to dominate. I am claiming that no such divine right exists or ever existed. Further, there is no man-made coercion-free virgin birth of the State to which you can appeal.If a dozen libertarians chose to live on an island in the purist anarchy, you would demand they elect a king; because you feel hierarchy is inherent in society and they are negligent not to identify it. Do you hate them because they are free?P.S. Thanks CA, I hadn't heard of Korematsu. Since these Americans were dumb enough to get into the boxcars, my sympathy is limited. Now, if somebody tries that in the future with American Muslims, and the Muslims militia up and shoot back, would that demonstrate they had assimilated?
>To all of you deep thinkers who question the patriotic bullshit, thank you.We have to understand the true meaning of freedom, for ALL of us. Not just the special ones.0321
>Yes, Defender, it's our money. If you stop sending it out, it's going to stop flowing in, too. A state that stops the flow in is going to be much closer to the moral high ground when the time comes to stop the flow out.A safe, totally legal, absolutely-unacceptable-to-the-Feds thing to do would be to just stop taking ALL federal funds. No grants, no highway money, no education money, no nothing. That would take enormous political courage, and would show that the state that did it was in the hands of statesmen, rather than two-bit political hacks trying to bust into the bigtime in DC. It would show commitment without firing the first shot in a war that we'd all like to avoid. I'm not saying that that is the only thing that would convince me that a state was really on the road to restoring the constitution, but it is the only thing I have thought of that would show a commitment to freedom that is stronger than a commitment to the status quo. As I say, if a state takes some step like that, some step that shows they are willing to make some actual sacrifices to get some actual freedom, I'll move there.
>Give it a couple of years, and when most states can no longer borrow due to the rock bottom junk status of their bonds, those state bureaucrats will crawl on their bellies and beg before the source of endless green paper.They will at that point either require convincing persuasion to the contrary, or they shall surely participate in a constitutional convention and sign away the remainder of our scant nominal freedoms.The financial ruin of the states, and their subsequent dependence on the benevolence of the producer of green paper, is surely among the finer suppressors of 10A dissent.CA is probably the first to go down this path. Let's keep an eye on it and extrapolate.-SIII
>No, Pat H you said; "therefore we are leaving it behind".If we are not trying to restore the rule of law under the Constitution then we are definitely at odds. It seems to me that the South lost the war, the Southern Constitution has no meaning and has really never been the law of the "united" States of Ameridca …. correct?We have done fine up until the last 60 or 70 years when politicians decided that they could get rich and have gradually succumbed to the "progressive" movement which is a nice word for communism.I do not want someone mucking around with a document that has held the forces away quite admirably up until recently. WHere would we be without the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, hmmmm? We would have all been disarmed a long time ago, without them, think about it. Maybe you would be happy to live under the restrictive gun laws of England and Australia for example, I would not.As to why I called Pat H a racist and bigot, if you have paid attention to some of his posts on other blogs he is that, and has been called on it by others, not only me. SO unless you know what you are talking about ……
>Folks, it seems Dakota still believes the propaganda about The War to Prevent Southern Independence was to free slaves or other such nonsense. I agree the Constitution is a flawed document. They should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation. It probably wouldn't have mattered. There is a certain creature who seeks to control the lives of other people who gravitate to positions of authority. Real or imagined.
>Now, if somebody tries that in the future with American Muslims, and the Muslims militia up and shoot back, would that demonstrate they had assimilated.You would have to determine that said Muslims were in fact fighting for their rights rather than engaging in jihad. Since Muslims are authorized to lie to infidels when it suits their purposes (taqiyya), you could not hope to make such a distinction. Of course, implicit in your comment is that Muslims today are just like the Japanese were, upstanding citizens just trying to make their way. They are not. They are colonists, here to institute sharia by whatever means available as mandated in their holy book.
>The conflict itself as presented is one dimensional; the problem is multi-dimensional. First, agreement on the defintion of what 'restoration' actually consists of is required. It could be defined as: "a return of Constitution itself to its former, original and unimpaired condition". If the above, or any other definition, was agreed upon and understood by all concerned parties, observance of what dimensions are comprised in the conflict itself could be undertaken. For discussion's sake, let's assume..for a minute..that the above definition was accepted and we're taking the next step to look at the dimensions, which actually define the problem at hand more clearly.Dimension 1: Restoration, as defined, would entail returning the Constitution to its original construct and intent. Constitutional process would have to be followed to rescind certain Amendments, some of which are dubious in their ratification, specifically, the States and legislative branches would have to reach agreement either by 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the States acceding to restoration or through a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the States. Either way, contract law would have to be strictly observed up to and including allowing those States who do not agree with restoration and determine they wish to secede to do so peacefully.Dimension 2: Closely related to dimension one, and other comments made earlier regarding contract law: Scrupulous adherence would be required for it to work, espeicaly for those states no longer wishing to be part of the compact, as demonstrated by referendum, would have to be allowed to leave the contract. Why? The only way to keep them from doing so against their will would be a repeat of the War of Northern Aggression, and some would argue we've never recovered from it. Why? The Constitution as all are aware, stipulates nothing about longevity or perpetuity in relation to States who join the union. In fact, the ratifiers in 1789 believed they could rescind their accession thereby seceding from the Union at any time. So, as contract law is the basis for everything we hold dear, as a People, it would have to be scrupulously honored. Otherwise, it's all a sham.Dimension 3 is the enforcement of the Consitution, which is what most people seem to be aiming at when they say, "restore" the Constitution. The question of the day is, 'how do you enforce the Constitution?' Simply put, by a 'zero tolerance' policy of unconstitutional acts. Any sitting president shown to, by common sense and common understanding of constitutional authority as stipulated in the document itself, to have violated it OR his Oath of Office, ie, shown not to support, defend, and protect the Constitution, should immediately be impeached and tried as per the Constitution with the vote binding.Now, arguments that the above would never work not withstanding, that's what needs to occur:An understanding that you'll never 'Restore the Constitution' by force of arms is essential. You may fight TPTB, you conduct a rebellion, you may even attempt and even succeed at a coup, but that is decidely not constitutional restoration.Once the Constitution is 'restored', popular vote as it is now practiced would be no more. Voters would have to demonstrate they are self-sufficient and have a vested interest in how the government works. That means self-employment, property ownership, and literacy in constitutional process. That's how representative government works. The electoral college would again work as designed, and the Senate would by chosen by state legislatures. That would ensure each state had the same number of parochial advocates in government. Just those procedural restorations alone would bring about some pretty good, bloodless enforcement of constitutional process.My .02
>Dakota said,"We have done fine up until the last 60 or 70 years when politicians decided that they could get rich and have gradually succumbed to the "progressive" movement which is a nice word for communism.The above simply isn't true. The progressives, born out of the socialist movements in Europe, began in earnest prior to 1850. Many of the "Forty-eighters" found their way from Europe after the failed assaults on government there and into the Union Army and were involved with putting down the resistance to the United States assertion of unlawful hegemony over the lawfully seceded southern states.The Republican Party was the first group of progressives in America, one has but to read the statements by the Radical Republicans made from 1861 through 1876 to know that. Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive in the 20th Century. The Bush crime family are now and always have been wedded to progressivism.The first Democrat progressive was Woodrow Wilson, also the first PhD. president, a man who dragged American into European conflict that in actuality has been continuous to this day.The whole idea of world wide democracy and warfare is a progressive program.The idea that the US government can be made to return to the original Constitutional envelope, while a good one, cannot be realized in my opinion.Doc Enigma has the issues well defined, including the difficulties involved. Read his post again.
>To hangman,No I know that the "war" was not to free the slaves, it was fought because the North was dictating to the South. THe South did not like it so they pulled out of the Union. But they lost the war, they never had a chance really. Too many things favored the heavily industrialized North.All I am saying is that the Constitution is what we have had, and we haven't done too bad because of it….. have we? Yes the document is flawed I suppose, but if we go back to it, it is a great place to start. I would not want drastic changes made, perhaps better definition in plain English so that there are no more chances for failures in interpretation by politicians and Supreme Court justices.I can assure everyone that without some type of compass we will slide into anarchy. The Constitution must remain that compass for there is no other that has been successful enough to consider. The American people can back it also.
>MALTHUS:You aren't suggesting that there is some "social contract" with my signature on it somewhere, are you?Just askin….–CAYou were somewhere in your great-great-great-great-great grandfather's testicles when he agreed to the ratification of the Constitution, so yes, you signed it, too. ;^)MALTHUS
>The idea of the "social contract" was set forth by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his book by that title published in 1765, written to justify the unquestionable authority of the French king.–Pat HThis is only partly true. Rousseau, following Plato, has man as the source of law. Hobbes objected to this formulation and sees man as the object of law, with the King's authority as its source. Rousseau places ultimate authority in the *General Will* not the king's decree.MALTHUS
>You are claiming that an irrevocable theoretical divine right exists for some group of men to rule, even aside from any practical considerations about who fast-talks well enough to dominate.–AnonI am??To the contrary, I maintain that authority is infinitely divisible among men who can formulate their own political associations. It is the atheistic Nietzschean nihilists who posit the existence of a superman. What may be irritating to you is that, following Hobbes, I reject man as the source of law but for reasons that differ from his.To wit: If man is the source of law it presupposes man's nature is inherently lawful, making legislation unnecessary or superfluous but if man is the object of law it implies man is inherently unlawful and cannot be the source of universally valid, sovereign law.Man cannot be both the source and object of law. Since man is clearly the object of law, it can only be concluded that the authority of law existed logically and historically prior to man's political alliances. For the purpose of "social contract" arguments, I believe God to be the original source of law.MALTHUS
>Malthus,If God is the original source of law, where are these laws written? And don't tell me the bible, we already know that it is written by man. You need a little more proof than mythology for that claim.0321
>Anyone who knows me well knows I'm no philosopher, but I can recognize pretty theories when I see them and I see plenty in threads like this one. Pragmatically, if you put a bunch of humans in an environment with no structure that corresponds to "government", they will create one very quickly. There are a number of forms that structure can take, but historically the "biggest bully is king" option seems the most popular.Where anarchists and fellow travelers screw themselves is in holding aloof from the process and declaring themselves sovereign and separate from all of this, ensuring that they will have no input into the creation of the inevitable state. Said state is usually not sympathetic to the anarchists' ideals, and absorbs them by force.Anarchy only works if everyone is an anarchist. You're going to have a government to contend with whether you like it or not, so you might as well work to make it one that places the least burden on your liberty. The Constitution, for all its flaws and ultimate failure, managed to preserve a very high level of personal liberty in America for over 150 years. Even Jefferson thought we'd need to shoot the bastards more often than that. If we have to hit "reset" and start over every century or so, tweaking out the loopholes the statists employed the last time, I can live with that.
>Temnota:Do you think the dead Americans in both blue and gray uniforms eulogized by the tall railroad lawyer at Gettysburg in 1863 (fourscore and seven years, et cetera) were well served by the 1789 Constitution and the 1791 Bill of Rights?Had those post-Revolutionary documents helped those dead Americans preserve the "unalienable Rights" "…endowed by their Creator", including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?Please read and think about the next section of the DoI:"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Understand that I am not picking on you personally. I just am challenging the "150 years" cited by you in your comment.I don't think the facts support that timeline.
>@Pete,Challenge away, I'm not going to defend that number very hard. It merely reflects my observation that for that period at least, most nonslave Americans lived in a condition of considerably more personal freedom than other countries, or America in our own century, afforded. The Constitution is a compromise, and like all compromises it doesn't work for everyone, or for all circumstances. It is, however, what we have.Perhaps the AoC would have served us better. Playing what-ifs is dangerous. We know the historical result would be different but without omniscience we can't say for sure that it would be different for the better. I can tell you that trying to turn the clock back that far now would be disastrous.Somewhere in a box I have a training manual for locomotive engineers. A small portion of the beginning of the book is devoted to actually running the train, and all the rest is devoted to stopping it. You have to do that just so or you wind up with a twisted, smoking tangle of derailed rolling stock.It's going to be hard enough massaging Leviathan back into the bounds set by the Constitution, and the job will take many years. Try scrapping the legal basis, even if it's a spurious legal basis, for what we have in favor of something completely new. In any time frame shorter than decades, you'd wreck this country, possibly for good. I'd rather reach for what we can accomplish, even if it isn't necessarily the best solution.
>Temnota wrote: "Where anarchists and fellow travelers blank themselves is in holding aloof from the process and declaring themselves sovereign and separate from all of this, ensuring that they will have no input into the creation of the inevitable state. Said state is usually not sympathetic to the anarchists' ideals, and absorbs them by force." I don't want any input on initiating aggression against my neighbors. I don't care how much or how little it's done. I will not participate in establishing violence against non-violent people. Period. It's not very utilitarian of me, I know.
>Thank you Temnota, you say it better than I. I concur, what ifs, and disregarding a document that has done as well as the Constitution is a recipe for disaster. It will be a very bloody mistake to disregard it.
>Temnota"Somewhere in a box I have a training manual for locomotive engineers. A small portion of the beginning of the book is devoted to actually running the train, and all the rest is devoted to stopping it. You have to do that just so or you wind up with a twisted, smoking tangle of derailed rolling stock."Perfect…I have spent much time in and around railroads as a result of my career choices and the ability to stop the train is a spot on analogy to the situation we are all faced with.With that comment I am out the door to do some more PT.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 864 other followers
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.