28 votes

Pro tip: The pledge of allegiance

We are asked to pledge allegiance to a flag because a flag is a symbol whose meaning is mutable. They get people to worship a flag, and then they can be told the flag stands for whatever they want, 'democracy', 'security', etc.

Some of you may refuse to pledge whatsoever on moral grounds and I certainly understand.

But some of you may not feel comfortable remaining silent, but also not feel comfortable pledging allegiance to a scrap of cloth. Liberty folk tend to be in situations where the pledge is recited more than most people and we are often trying to help others along the path. We don't want to alienate those we are trying to help, but we don't want to violate our principles.

So if you don't want to remain silent, you can pledge something like this, which is what I pledge:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republic, which it defines, 50 states, under God, divisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The best part is people may hear you, and ask you a question.

As a veteran I have no problem pledging allegiance to the Constitution, which I already took an oath to uphold. Again some of you may think pledging is immoral even to the Constitution. I understand, but if you're going to pledge, I really hope people will stop pledging to a flag. Our fallen veterans didn't die for a flag. They may have been lied to and used, but in their hearts they died for a principle, not a symbol.

A key point in this version, for me, is it reinforces that the Constitution defines the Republic. The Republic does not define the Constitution. The Constitution is not 'living'. The Supreme Court does not decide what is Constitutional or not, the Constitution does not grant this authority anywhere, it merely arrogated this authority in Marbury vs Madison. The Supreme Court is merely the government telling the government that it is ok to violate the Constitution.

You may think '50 states' is too edgy and want to use the regular 'one nation'.

You may be an atheist and not want 'under God' in there. That's fine but you're going to annoy people needlessly and if you are really an atheist then it doesn't hurt anything, it's no more harmful than saying 'one nation under Whipped Cream'. What does it matter what the states or the nation is under? You're aren't pledging to that thing, you are pledging to the Constitution.

You may not like 'divisible'. I understand, but if you are pledging allegiance to the Constitution, you are on sketchy ground saying 'indivisible'.

The Constitution does not grant the authority to invade a seceding State, quite the opposite. The Tenth Amendment makes clear no powers not made explicit are granted. This may come as a surprise, but it should not.

Freedom of association.

You may not murder your husband or wife if they want to leave you. You may not murder your child if she runs away. You may not murder your boss if he fires you. You may not murder your employer should he quit.

That is called slavery.

We may not murder millions of people, or threaten to, if they want to leave us as a state, or otherwise.

If the Union is to stand, as I wish it would, it will stand for the same reason a good marriage stands, because the couple treats each other with love and respect. However an abusive relationship is worse than no relationship.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I know what statists say

We know they are wrong, and I welcome the chance to explain it to people who haven't thought it through. That's why I make it a point to say divisible:D

Force settles questions of power, not principle.

Saying killing 600,000 Americans vindicates the principle that the Constitution created a permanent union is like saying successfully murdering a woman's parents vindicates her kidnapping. It is OK, because her parents were not able to prevent it. So, in principle, kidnapping is vindicated, if successfully accomplished, regardless of the means used. Any crime, under this argument, is vindicated by its success.

The problem is the states had no intention of surrendering their sovereignty to the Union. Massachusetts considered seceding over the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. South Carolina debated secession versus nullification over the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. From its ratification, various states debated leaving the more perfect union every few years.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Tell Them The White House isn't in Authority;

Having them review the Documents in our Reply to Anonymous2012 Below; with Founders Quotes from the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 and Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 1798...

Nor does "Usurpation" create Authority.

Refer to John Locke #197 on....

In Full:


Having them take special notice to Locke #211 on what creates a "Dissolution of Government".

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Well said. Read the treatise

Well said.

Read the treatise on the 14th Amendment: the Red Amendment (see link below) for further education. That, it seems to me gets right to the heart of the issue.

Thank you for your bravery and honor.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

I pledge allegiance to my

I pledge allegiance to my principles and my family, and that's it. The Constitution was the greatest mass centralization of power in our nation's history financed by bankers after creating currency false flags in all the colonies. Pledging to that means you're pledging to the slave masters.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

tasmlab's picture

Here here!

The constitution was a power-grabber, not a power-limiter.

Currently consuming: Harry Browne, Free Domain Radio; JT Gatto and Holt; Wii U

As I said, I respect those that find the pledge immoral

and I understand why. I would prefer a completely free society.

I also understand the Constitution was worse in many ways than the Articles of Confederation.

But I also think if we could restore the Constitution we would be better off, and we'll be lucky to achieve even that.

Here is one I hammered out a

Here is one I hammered out a few years ago. Copyleft!

I pledge to to foster and work to maintain a society devoted to virtue, universally preferable behavior and the non aggression principle.  I pledge to respect and honor, and to never vote nor act against the equal freedom of another human-being except in the case of self-defense.

Fair enough

But it may not play as well in Peoria:)

Anyway I want a free society too. I would be willing to settle for legalizing the Constitution as a step on the way. Though I do understand Stef's argument that we'd just repeat the pattern, he may be right, but he may not. In any case it may be all we can achieve in our lifetime, until we've raised a new generation of children raised with the NAP.

The only way I see another

trip down constitutional republican governance working out is if it has a means for people to have annually renewable citizenship, and or a means to opt out. I do not see how we can empower a parasite class and make it out the other side with liberty intact.

I pledge allegiance to . . .

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... liberty and justice for all.

This has the advantage of allowing one to start and finish the pledge with everyone else -- and not compromising one iota of principle. You can stuff all the flags, constitutions, states and republics. They don't serve liberty; they eat it.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Mine is for if you're not into the whole brevity thing:)

But I take your point, and I agree in theory. But I do think the Constitution would, if legalized, as Dr Paul says, be preferable to the current state of affairs.

I did mention I respect those that are morally opposed whatsoever.

TwelveOhOne's picture

That's a tough one, legalizing the Constitution...

I mean, that is the document that got us to where we are now. One could argue that some corrupted it, but then that means that it is corruptible.

Larken Rose's "The Most Dangerous Superstition" really changed my thinking.

Our best period of prosperity was in the 1800s; however, our best period of liberty was between 1776 and 1788, after the Declaration of Independence and before the Constitution for the United States.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

easier swap

I substitute the phrase "sovereign states, in confederation" for the annoyingly (and anti-constitutional) theist and unionist phrase "one nation, under god". Doesn't do much to mitigate the idolatrous pledge to the icon itself, but I feel better.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Shoudn't it be ...

Constitution FOR the united states not Constitution OF the United States ?

As I understand it the states made the constitution,the constitution did not make the states

other that that and the whole ( under God ) thing I love it and will henceforth use it at every opportunity

Thank You

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

It is "of" not "for"

for the very reason you state. The United States has no existence outside the Constitution that created it.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Another tip: Don't pledge allegiance to things

If you must pledge allegiance, pledge it to principles (as others have indicated).

Good Suggestion. As Government Use Pledges to Enslave & Bind You

I recall that in the Bible, Christ indicated that swearing to something shows there is something wrong; and to let your Yes be Yes, and Your No be No. (Do not ask me to remember the book and exact location and though.... maybe someone could present it ) It all has to do with "Consent"; Often listed in the Law of Nature:

See John Locke on Civil Government, 1689:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

Locke #138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his "own" consent. (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own.

Locke #186: "...It remains only to be considered whether promises, extorted by force, without right, can be thought consent, and how far they bind.

To which I shall say, they bind NOT AT ALL;"..."

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.american Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.


James 5-12 Thankyou!

(I am regrettably a A bit Rusty..... :)


Is a Good link Source!

Thank you!

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

American Patriot Party - Pledge Suggestion

"I pledge allegiance to Common Law Rights (i.e. Inalienable Rights - Law of Nature), within the United States of America; and to protecting Free Societies in which they consensually form; Independent Republics, United under God, with liberty and justice for all."

This follows the intent of the Founders more closely.

"One Nation" was no where intended:

Read James Madison Virginia Resolutions, 1798:

Virginia Resolution 1798
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

James Madison: "...That the General Assembly doth also express its DEEP REGRET, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government,

to "enlarge its powers by FORCED constructions" of the constitutional charter which defines them;

and that implications have appeared of a "DESIGN" to "EXPOUND" certain >>>"GENERAL "PHRASES"

(which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued)


and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into ONE sovereignty (APP: i.e. ONE NATION NO WHERE INTENDED),

the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to >>>"TRANSFORM" the present "republican" system of the United States,

into "an absolute", or "at best" a mixed >>>"MONARCHY"."

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.


The "ONE NATION" "MYTH"; Which was actually created by a Christian SOCIALIST around the 1880's and then later placed into the "Pledge of Allegiance" a "Nationalistic" Pledge around 1930's:


From Wikipedia: "...The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian SOCIALIST,[3][4] and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American "NATIONALISM" by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.[5]..."


Obviously, Francis Bellamy didn't want what the Founders intended, which was simply a "LIMITED COMPACT" of Independent States.

And though said he wanted to instil the Love of the Constitution, was disingenuous or ignorant to the ORIGINAL INTENT the Founders worked years for and debated rigorously in the Ratifying Conventions to make sure Francis Bellamy's "definition" of "one nation" would "NEVER OCCUR".

5 Founders Documents referred to in this Post:


Federalist #46 found on the bottom of the APP National Web Site.

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

The myth precedes Bellamy.

The "One Nation" idea goes back to Alexander Hamilton. It is an idea adopted by the Whig party because it is easier to rob someone who cannot escape.

The idea was resurrected right after South Carolina successfully nullified the Tariff of Abominations and a compromise tariff passed.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote a commentary on the Constitution around 1830 in which he argued the American people formed one nation when they decided to fight for independence from England.

The nation, he argued, preceded the states and the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The states, were never sovereign, according to this chronology.

The policy of imposing a high protective tariff forced the agricultural states to trade with the manufacturing states rather than with foreign countries for manufactures.

Allowing a state to nullify or secede would free the captive markets created by the federal tax on foreign imports.

If the states were recognized as sovereign, there was no way to enforce this policy which created a method to transfer wealth from the planters to the manufacturers. The states dominated by the planters would bolt, or refuse to collect the tax.

With the Morrill Tariff pending in the Senate, and with Kansas and Nebraska poised to transfer control of that body to the Republicans, and the election of Lincoln as president, that is what the planter states did.

Lincoln used the military to "save the Union" so the tariff could be collected, and the transcontinental railroad be build with the money.

That is the origin and application of the One Nation, indivisible myth.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

That's Garbage

Wherever the "Pledge" originated, "NATIONS" are PEOPLE and I would sooner pledge my loyalty to people than any "thing" or "principle". The founders were "We The People". They founded the United States for "ourselves and our posterity", people again. Every law they enacted was devised to protect the Rights of Individuals. The pledge in the original post says nothing about people. Basically, it is dehumanizing idolatry of objects and principles, which should be completely rejected. The "flag" is a symbol of the NATION, "Americans", WE THE PEOPLE. The country, the state, the republic, the Constitution (LAW), are all NOTHING, unless they protect, defend, and hold sovereign and sacred, THE PEOPLE.

The Founders Stated the Limitations Very Clearly:

Republics are republics precisely because they are established under an "Original Compact" (that does not change) establishing the "principles and laws"; (This is opposed to a Democracy that can change anything)

The Constitution is a "LIMITED" Compact. With "LIMITED" Authority;

The States and People Retained their powers to "discard" it at any time;

Here are just a few of the the FOUNDERS DOCUMENTS that back up and establish this statement:


Virginia Resolution of 1798
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

James Madison:

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic,

and that they will support the "government" of the United States in all measures >>>"WARRANTED" by "the former".

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm "attachment" (NOT SUBJUGATION) to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers;

and that for this "end", it is their "DUTY" to watch over and "oppose every infraction" of those "PRINCIPLES"

which constitute the "ONLY BASIS" of that Union,

because a "faithful observance of them" (THOSE PRINCIPLES), can "ALONE" secure it's "EXISTENCE" and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as "resulting" from the "COMPACT", to which the states are parties; as "LIMITED" by the "PLAIN SENSE AND INTENTION" of the "instrument" "constituting" the "COMPACT"; as >>>"NO FURTHER VALID" that they are "authorized" by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT";

and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said "COMPACT",

the STATES who are parties thereto, have the RIGHT, and are in DUTY bound, to "interpose" for "ARRESTING" the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. "


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

JAMES MADISON: "...Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must be a cession, by particular states, of the district to Congress, and that the states may settle the terms of the cession. The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and,

if they apprehend "ANY danger", they may "REFUSE it (the Constitution and federal government) ALTOGETHER"…."


This is because the federal government (federal legislatures) CANNOT make any law they pass "the Law of the (all) the land";

The Supremacy is in the Constitution over the federal government, Not the federal legislature; and the term "Land" with regard to federal supremacy clause (i.e. sweeping clause) was limited to the 10 miles square of Washington, DC. allowing only for the DELEGATED powers:


The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

Thomas Jefferson:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a COMPACT under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto,

they constituted a general government for "special purposes" — "delegated" to that government "CERTAIN DEFINITE" powers,

RESERVING, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their OWN self-government;

and that WHENSOEVER the general government assumes undelegated powers,

its acts are "UNAUTHORITATIVE", "VOID", and of "NO FORCE":

that to this compact "each State" acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party:

that the government created by this COMPACT was "NOT" made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself 

(APP: i.e. The Federal Supreme Court, Executive or Legislative are not the final judge) 

since that would have made "its discretion", and "not the Constitution", the "MEASURE" of its powers;

but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an EQUAL right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress..

2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish:

a.)  treason,

b.)  counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,

c.)  piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and

d.)  offenses against the law of nations,


and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,


therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,)

>>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";

and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its "OWN TERRITORY"


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

"...Mr. JOHN MARSHALL asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication.

If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were "MISTAKEN".

The state governments "DID NOT" derive their powers from the general (FEDERAL) government;

but EACH government derived its powers from "the people", and "EACH" was to act "according to the powers given it".

Would any gentleman deny this?

He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so?

Could any man say that this power was not "RETAINED" BY THE "STATES", as they "HAD NOT GIVEN IT AWAY"?

For, says he, does not a power "REMAIN" till it is given away?

The "STATE" legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, "AND HAVE IT STILL, UNDENIABLY",unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For "Continental" purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections (at invitation by the STATE) and repel invasions.

But the power given to the "STATES" by "THE PEOPLE" is "NOT taken away";


In the Confederation Congress had this power;

but the state legislatures had it "also".

The power of legislating given them (the federal government) within the "ten miles square" (Washington, DC) is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive.

The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an "incompatibility" in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it.

But there are NO negative words here.

It rests, therefore, with the "STATES".

To me it appears, then, "unquestionable" that the state governments can call forth the militia, "in case the Constitution should be adopted", in the "same manner" as they could have done "before its adoption".

Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves "without an application to Congress", because "Congress" can interpose!

Does not every man feel are "REFUTATION" of the argument in his own breast?

I will show{420} that there could NOT be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.

This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section.

But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger".

This clearly proves that the "STATES" can use the militia when they find it necessary. ..."


"Nationalism" is "Blind Patriotism" based solely upon borders, nations & flags dictated by those in power from the Top Down;

The Constitution however, was created to insure that the Republican "System" retained the power of the local republics and ultimately LOCAL legislative, Local governments and Local People of those Local Communities retained the supreme power.


Patrick Henry:

"....for the power of a people in a free government is supposed to be "paramount" to the existing (Legislative) power...."


And in that way, the power is maintained by the "Local" People based upon Certain, definite, powers and "PRINCIPLES" long established under Common Law. i.e. "Defined" Patriotism based upon "DEFINED PRINCIPLES":


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

PATRICK HENRY: (WARNED) "…When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the "COMMON LAW" of England to be "in FORCE".

That "SYSTEM OF LAW" (The "PRINCIPLES") which has been admired, and "has PROTECTED us and our ancestors", is excluded by that system.

Added to this, we adopted a "BILL OF RIGHTS"….



There is "NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion."

…A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING" CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN "THE PEOPLE".

They "BELONG TO US AS MUCH" as if they had been inserted in the Constitution.

...The gentleman last up says that the power of (FEDERAL) legislation includes every thing.

A general power of legislation does.

BUT this is a "SPECIAL" (VERY LIMITED) power of legislation.

Therefore, it "DOES NOT" CONTAIN THAT PLENITUDE OF POWER which he imagines.



MR. JAMES MADISON (Same Day Convention): "… I cannot comprehend that the (Federal Legislative) power of legislating over a "SMALL DISTRICT",

which "CANNOT EXCEED" "TEN MILES SQUARE" (WASHINGTON, DC - The Definition of "LAND" the Constitution was referring to the law of the land; apart from the limited delegated powers that the federal government could not arrogate any new powers "by any means",

and "MAY NOT BE MORE" THAN "ONE MILE", will involve the dangers which he (PATRICK HENRY) apprehends.

If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the "LAST THING" that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a "VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT", to the prejudice of the "COMMUNITY AT LARGE".

PENDLETON: "...With respect to the necessity of the "ten miles square" being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers "VESTED" (DELEGATED) by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof",

I understand that clause as "NOT" going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers".

What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution.

If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",

but can by >>>"NO MEANS" (INCLUDES RATIFYING AND AMENDMENTS) depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers;

for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

my 4 year old daughter says this

I taught her to say "constitution" instead of flag. She rocks!


I've pledged the "The Constitution" for a long time now. Where it really got some interesting nods and responses was at our State GOP Conventions. Many said "that makes so much sense" - and last time they were Romneyites sitting in front of me.

I find your admonition to atheists a bit disturbing. Since the Constitution is a secular document - what if it said "without a god" instead? How comfortable would you feel? Would you say it not to "annoy" people around you? What if it was "under Allah"?

I don't make a scene, I just don't say it. But, the American Enlightenment was done as opposition to "divine" rule. Remember, those two words were added in 1954 in the early stages of the Neocon takeover as the first step to American exceptionalism. Asking me to pledge to your deity, just to get along, would defeat the purpose of the pledge. I take it very seriously and personally, I could not care less what other people "feel".

All that said - hats off to you.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Perhaps the word "God" is taken too seriously?

"The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

Nature can grow a banana tree out of sand, sunlight and water. it can design a bugs wings. not to mention the cosmos itself.

when I discovered Deism, I adopted it. mebbe the reason that I like to think there might be a deity....is awe?

(I suppose that was a pretty long-winded...bump!)