21 votes

Article V Convention Scam - John Birch Society says it Well

Article V Convention Scam - John Birch Society says it Well;

And warns us of those (in this case, Mark Levin) preaching the Constitution on one hand, while hacking at the Constitutions roots with the other.

http://www.jbs.org/legislation/the-article-v-convention-scam

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

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



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

John Birch Society Website

John Birch Society:
http://www.jbs.org

-------

American Patriot Party:
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

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

DP: 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.

Constitutional Convention:

Constitutional Convention: "Let's come up with some more rules for the government to ignore."

A CC without a massive preliminary education campaign would be an absolute disaster. After all, the actual power is in the people, not the Constitution. In this light, for a constitution to be effective, it must be unnecessary given the general character of the people in question (anti-power attitudes). If this anti-power attitude is not prevalent (and it surely is not right now), then a constitution becomes simultaneously necessary yet ineffective.

Less government is just a starting point for big government. Consider that no small government in history has remained small. We must choose a different road: anarchism.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

coffee_sponge's picture

A review of history

clearly reveals that anarchy is a vacuum that a totalitarian regime will rush in to fill.

I agree with much of the spirit of what you stated, but there is no magic bullet. Anarchy isn't even a stable condition; it's a catalyst to transition from one form of government to another.

The best we can do is to widely diffuse governmental power, and then concomitantly to place severe restrictions upon it. And that's just when the cheese gets binding, because it's never over. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, a fundamental principle that has gone unheeded far too long in this country.

I agree generally with you position on anarchy

but would ask for one exception.

That is an anarchy where each person in it knows pretty much everything about needs, and will not place a want over a need. And there may be an exception to the below, but we haven't seen it yet.

"over. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, a fundamental principle that has gone unheeded far too long in this country."

That is a situation where the ultimate forms of secrecy are well understood by the public.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I agree generally with your position on anarchy

but would ask for one exception.

That is an anarchy where each person in it knows pretty much everything about needs, and will not place a want over a need. And there may be an exception to the below, but we haven't seen it yet.

"over. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, a fundamental principle that has gone unheeded far too long in this country."

That is a situation where the ultimate forms of secrecy are well understood by the public.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Well said, and that is exactly what is proposed with

Preparatory Amendment It is leterally unthinkable to have a CC without proper preparation, and that is what these unspeakables here are proposeing everyone should be afraid of.

"A CC without a massive preliminary education campaign would be an absolute disaster."

Dealing with that issue begins by supporting preparatory amendment. Only 3, very logical, veryl, very uncompromising and very constitutional in nature.

1)End the abridging of free speech
2)Secure the vote
3)Campaign finance reform

Here is how the effort begins; bringing attention to the cognitive infiltration trying to subvert citizens defense of the constitution that starts with a fundamental education.

http://www.dailypaul.com/305808/if-we-do-not-know-the-purpos...

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Ezra Taft Benson - Stand Up for Freedom - Video Speech

Ezra Taft Benson shows us that History Repeats itself:

Socialistic Communism Tactic of: "Confusion Compounded by Delusion".

Also see him speak of the John Birch Society Attacked from their beginning...

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

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

But you cannot accept that freedom of speech has

the purpose of assuring information needed for survival is shared and understood.

You cannot accept that as constitutional intent and will not lend your voice in a spirit of unity by accepting a simple fact everyone must recognize to be reasonable, an I contend need to do as a first step in restoration of constitutional government.

You cannot recognize a priority, that would develop Americans capacity to oppose elite global bankers effectively but you would work to make Americans afraid of their first constitutional right.

Why are you here?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

See APP DP Warning & VIDEOS; Sorry Christopher, I had to block

Sorry Christopher; But from review your personal page and posts, you seem only to want to create confusion and discord through drivel; and you seem certainly, by your posts, you do not wish to follow the intent of the founders, even when presented that intent.

(I have preserved the posts and APP & other DP Replies to his posts below in this post; Which others should read.)

The APP went through this same issue in early 2005 of liberal plants and people who really do not believe in the foundations of freedom, twisting words to repeated nonsensical banter, thread stuffing and Deceptive Post Titles simply to chase people away from the threads and board. An obvious conclusion and reason for this block (my first).

I suggest those reviewing this post to read in full my responses and judge for themselves (text of posts posted below in this post); And Weigh the fact that such infiltration was already experienced by our party when our APP board began to become popular and started to increase our membership to become widely visible on the internet and nationally. We were flooded with the same such drivel and tactics.

I suggest the Daily Paul, while certainly supporting the freedom of speech, to also be aware that there are those that who will take steps to finance discord and confusion on this board, in an attempt to make it fail or hinder educating others from learning the foundations of freedom; ....... (See Videos regarding tactical confusion & earlier text of related blocked posts And Other DP Replies below):

Possibly posting a warning reminder for posters to be aware of the issue from time to time so they will check the pages of those posting for credibility. A difference of opinion is fine, but repeated active undermining becomes apparent through reviewing posts.

A example of such confusion can be reviewed by watching these three videos which also involve others trying to crush the John Birch Society (JBS) before it became widespread;

1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iTd-C...
2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OUu0p...
3.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=raAxd...

These 3 videos can also be found on the top right of our American Patriot Party website.

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

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Defend Freedom. Trust but Verify.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------- Copy of Posts Before Block As replies are also lost --------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Article V Convention Scam - John Birch Society says it Well;

And warns us of those (in this case, Mark Levin) preaching the Constitution on one hand, while hacking at the Constitutions roots with the other.

http://www.jbs.org/legislation/the-article-v-convention-scam

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...
Similar Subjects (Sometimes)

----------
----------

Vote up!
Vote down!
Ulfilas's picture
There wont be a Con-Con
Submitted by Ulfilas on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 09:22. Permalink

There wont be a Con-Con because a war will break out on who is allowed to go (politicians vs individuals) and participate. Force will be used and/or people will just break into their own factions and say screw it.

Southern Agrarian

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
You haven't been reading
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 16:11. Permalink

There wil bel no conflict of that kind in 38 states. Incumbents will be tested, the sincere will be confident and the rest will prepare to leave their offices.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
First, I'll bet this comment section has been inundated by
Submitted by Mark Vette on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 04:57. Permalink

that 'wanna-be' statesman, Christopher ...oh, What's-it?
Blue? Red? ...er, no. Brown! Yeah that's him. Christopher something Brown. I can't say for sure because I had to block the fool from littering my screen with his incessant rambling, but this is just the thing to lure him away from his vocabulary lessons in order to push his nonsensical amendment rewrites. The man is obsessed with them.
Let me guess ... anyone disagreeing with him is a "Cognitive Infiltrator". Or some such phrase with 'cognitive' in it. Right?
Too predictable, the old sod.
The memorable Bugs Bunny quote just came to mind.
"What a maroon!" LOL
Sorry for starting this out off topic.

As to the article linked - the author states it quite succinctly in his ending summary, quote:

"Our problem is not the Constitution. Our problem is a federal government that is operating outside the confines of the Constitution."

Then, he follows it up with,

"The solution is to bring the federal government back into compliance with the Constitution through voter education campaigns and state nullification laws."

I think his offered solution is as good, or better than any other we've heard. None are a 'magical fix'.
A change in the Law of the Land would be just as ignored as the current laws are now.
And, any solution that relies on the 'White Knight' or 'Savior' syndrome, as in someone will come along and save us, is simply the idle musings of the weak willed.
Think of it like this; they (The Powers That shouldn't Be) invested a huge effort to bring us to where we are today.
It will take a minimum matching effort, or more, to reverse their planned course. Makes sense?
There have been Representatives in State Legislatures who are introducing bills and getting laws passed in defiance of the Federal Government's crusade to eliminate the freedoms this country was founded on.
State nullification is a powerful, lawful remedy.
As well as propositions making it to the ballot for a consensus vote of the people.
Washington and Colorado, case in point. The Feds are not going to send in troops to arrest everyone breaking Federal Drug Laws. No matter if the other States disagree with the laws that State passed, they would not stand by and watch the Feds try to take over. No way. I can't see it happening.

We need to support our legislators on the State level. And, put the idea into their heads to avail themselves of this legal and Constitutional means of keeping the Feds in check.
Seems to me, education and nullification IS the path to a non-violent revolution.
Just my couple-a-cents on what makes sense.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
For one who does not want people
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 12:04. Permalink

to think free speech is to assure information vital to survival should be shared and understood, you certainly depend on use of it to do whatever you are trying to.

Which you never did say.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+3
Vote down!
OH YES WE CON CON
Submitted by realnewsman on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 04:00. Permalink

Fear of a constitutional convention is not only valid (certainly not misplaced)but is of the utmost importance! Be careful we are not so consumed with ObamaCare, Benghazi, IRS new chief, and other diversions that we lose the whole republic in one fell swoop! Levin and his pals, Rush, Sean, etc. want you to believe that it will be limited only to a balanced budget amendment, right? Well, that is only true until a majority of delegates raise other issues, like updating the 2nd amendment. Oh, and even if we only just create a balanced budget amendment, that in itself will be devastating! Raising your taxes will now be required under the constitution! We must think this through, then stand firm in opposition. There are so many threats to our liberty it is surely hard to rate their importance, but the CON CON is in the top 2 or 3 for sure!
Oh and just remember the delegates to this convention would not be of the caliber of intellect and virtue of say a Sam Adams,or Tom Jefferson, but rather Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and Harry Reid or Chris Christie.
Reason to pause....

RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
Another who wants people to be afraid
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 12:08. Permalink

of our constitution.

How about you? Do you believe that free speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+1
Vote down!
deacon's picture
question
Submitted by deacon on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 17:01. Permalink

from your comment,who decides which is or isn't vital?
would comics be vital? or cartoons?
And why is it wrote to cause confusion?
This leads to mistrust,and mistrust leads to what is going on now?

is the term "algorithm",named after the man who created the internet?

reply

Vote up!
-2
Vote down!
You are aware that the
Submitted by More_Liberty on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 08:51. Permalink

You are aware that the article V convention is about the states and their legislatures and not the federal government.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
Good perspective
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 16:16. Permalink

but thes people are not even accountable to their own instincts, unless perhaps those of reptilian fear.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
This fear of a con-con is really misplaced
Submitted by liberty4us on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 17:01. Permalink

1. the feds don't follow the constitution now
2. the ability to propose all the amendments you all fear exists today by a rotten crew in congress. how is a con-con worse?

regardless of all the nonsense arguments against a con-con the reality is the problems you fear exist today and are worse.

a con-con merely changes who has the authority to propose amendments from an out of control congress to a new body selected by state legislatures. The 2/3rds to pass the convention and 3/4ths of the states are still required for adoption of any changes just like today.

so the only legitimate fear is that the traitors in congress are less traitorous than who states would select for the convention. That is the only difference. Do you really think states would select worse people? Personally, I trust my state legislatures much more than congress.

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
I say we do it then when
Submitted by More_Liberty on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 08:54. Permalink

I say we do it then when things crumble we can finally get down to dissolving the US - states can go their own way. Of course we all know the the federal government won't allow it so the second civil war will commence.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
Something tells me that despite the extreme misinformation
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 16:23. Permalink

and misleading, Americans ate starting to discuss things face to face and only giving regulated credence to media.

Article V is quickly becoming a right we have an immediate and extreme need to invoke. It is the peaceful and lawful revolution Jefferson wrote about.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
crumble
Submitted by soybomb315 on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 09:12. Permalink

If things crumble, there will be no Constitution

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
Lol.....do you seriously
Submitted by More_Liberty on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 12:21. Permalink

Lol.....do you seriously believe that there is much of a constitution remaining?

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
Let me help-apples and oranges
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 16:52. Permalink

"Crumble" indicates complete economic collapse and strife.

"Constitution" is our awareness of a contract of agreed principles common (ideally) between all Americans, including those of government.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
The States are too large to provide adequate representation
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 03:02. Permalink

The States are presently too large to provide adequate representation;

Reducing the size of the states, to the sizes which the founders understood as states - and not "distant legislatures", would remove some of the corruption by taking away power from those state bureaucracies that have long sold out our rights to the federal government by accepting mandates. etc..

Here is something to read on the issue:

Republics and Representation: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Distant Legislatures: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Distant_Legislatures/dist...

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

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
What about the purpose of our rights taken?
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 17:01. Permalink

Are Americans supposed to know that purpose uniformly in the demand for return?

"Reducing the size of the states, to the sizes which the founders understood as states - and not "distant legislatures", would remove some of the corruption by taking away power from those state bureaucracies that have long sold out our rights to the federal government by accepting mandates. etc.."

"

If the size of voting groups which understand and can define constitutional intent INCREASE, and your position is against that by use of agreement upon constitutional intent, how come you care? What are you trying to do and how are you trying to do it? What legal mechanism are you invoking while bashing our constitution and our capacity to unify?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+6
Vote down!
You wanna see a 'Living Wage' Amendment?
Submitted by 2cynical on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 15:48. Permalink

Call a Con Con. You wanna see the 2nd Amendment repealed? Call a Con Con. No thanks, I don't trust my fellow Americans enough to let 'em touch the Constitution.

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
Con Con amendment
Submitted by soybomb315 on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 09:13. Permalink

In order for a con-con to get a constitutional amendment, it must be approved by 3/4 of the state.....You really think 3/4 of the states want a living wage amendment???

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
Um....you are aware that they
Submitted by More_Liberty on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 08:56. Permalink

Um....you are aware that they are going to pass such a law anyway right. We need to shake up the whole system and a con con will do that. People and the Feds will be so scared that the legitimacy of the federal government will come into question.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
Yes, between the ORIG. constitution, it 13th, the corporate
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 17:32. Permalink

constitution, NAFTA and GATT, the WTO, emergency orders/presidential directives, the patriot act, DHS, the federal reserve etc., we have an immense need of our first constitutional right to be very well used by the people, in agreement upon constitutional intent.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
-5
Vote down!
Would you like to be able to trust them?
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:52. Permalink

Establishing s method for Americans to know who to trust is what I'm doing here.

I've learned that no one on the Internet can be trusted in discussion upon our constitution if they are not accountable to public ally accepting the purpose of free speech.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
-2
Vote down!
They can do those now
Submitted by liberty4us on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:43. Permalink

aa con-con only takes the amendment proposing function away from congress and gives it to state representatives. The same 2/3rds vote at the convention and 3/4 of the states to pass it stays the same.

Your worry over a con-con is misplaced. What you are afraid of can be done today with worse people in congress making the proposals

reply

Vote up!
+6
Vote down!
An Article V Con Con would be
Submitted by NJforRP on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 14:05. Permalink

An Article V Con Con would be the most dangerous event in the history of the USA as the Constitution would be gone in a weekend.

The trolls here trot out false arguments to the contrary, but we should ask ourselves:

If our elected leaders are not honoring the current Constitution, what makes anyone think a new one will change anything?

Asking for a Con Con is what the powers that be want, as they WILL control the delegates, and no, it cannot be limited according to Article V. You can write all the limitation language you want, it's meaningless.

The solution to save the republic:

280 Constitutionalists that will honor their oath in the House of Representatives. That is ALL IT WOULD TAKE. The "peoples" House controls all spending, and its the money that is hijacking this country.

Fight a Con Con will all you have, and don't be fooled, ever.

As far as the JBS goes, go read 20 books they publish, and THEN try to declare them a problem.

"The Creature from Jekyll Island" was commissioned by the JBS as G. Edward Griffin is a charter member.

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
Hmm, money to use free speech
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 17:38. Permalink

and it is used to make people afraid of using their first constitutional right and refuses to acknowledge the political purpose of free speech in creating unity with our universal acceptance of our need for it to share and understand information vital to survival?

"As far as the JBS goes, go read 20 books they publish, and THEN try to declare them a problem.
"

"

Are you a Bircher?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
Hahahahahahahahaha.......whew
Submitted by More_Liberty on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 08:58. Permalink

Hahahahahahahahaha.......whew, good one. The congress "controls spending" now that's funny.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
no it won't
Submitted by liberty4us on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:46. Permalink

the people that worry about a con-con are neocons. They don't want their power to ignore the constitution restricted by us common folk.

a con-con merely removes the amendment proposing authority from congress and gives it state representatives. the 2/3rds at the convention and 3/4ths of states are still needed to ratify.

the things you worry about can be done today with worse people in congress proposing them.

a con-con is more than past due.

reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
WHO IS THE NEOCON?
Submitted by realnewsman on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 04:05. Permalink

You need to do your research. Those promoting the Con-Con are the neo-cons. FACT.

RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
Past due, Very true- Here's the proof contempt for our law.
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 23:03. Permalink

In 1911 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V to stop the fed from creating fiat currency. Congress refused to convene. In 1912 the titanic went down with 40 of the wealthiest Americans against the gold standard. In 1913 America left the gold standard.

All this has been researched an is the basis for citizens complaints regarding the violations of law, constitution and oath.

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-re...

More recently a letter asks the clerk of congress to provide a count of applications for Article V. They were not counting, and still may not be.

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2013/04/30/congress-ne...

Meanwhile, we have threads like this working for the status quo impairing fundamental natural law agreement upon constitutional intent with trainloads of distortion and erroneous irrelevance.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
The US congress has nothing
Submitted by More_Liberty on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 09:00. Permalink

The US congress has nothing to do with an Article V con con.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

reply

Vote up!
+2
Vote down!
But the Already Corrupt Individuals In it "WILL"
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 11:55. Permalink

Talking heads go were they are directed....

And they will be directed by Corporate (NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL - Including CHINA), Unions and special interest cronies that will put them there; just as they financed and placed them in congress.

The media (whom they also have control) will place them front and center as beacons of importance, as they scoot themselves up the the Constitutional Convention Tables.

And the Cronies' Lobbyists and attorneys will be standing right behind them.

....not a good atmosphere for maintaining your freedoms.

-------

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

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

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.

edit
reply

Vote up!
+2
Vote down!
Nonsense.
Submitted by Spirit of '76 on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:04. Permalink

Mark Levin and Glen Beck, champions of liberty according to you are NOT neocons, but people here on the DP expressing legitimate concern and JBS *are* neocons, according to you?

Hmm....

reply

Vote up!
-2
Vote down!
Is the purpose of free speech a false argument?
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 14:37. Permalink

Is it false that free speech exists and has the purpose to assure information needed for survival is shared and understood?

Is it false that preparation to change the environment it occurs in is logical for America IF all amendments are to have constitutional intent?

"
An Article V Con Con would be the most dangerous event in the history of the USA as the Constitution would be gone in a weekend."

Lot of cognitive distortions there used as a basis for trying to make people afraid of their first constitutional right.

"The trolls here trot out false arguments to the contrary, but we should ask ourselves:"

We should ask ourselves if I am a troll, then is it false that free speech assures information vital to survival is shared and understood?

"
If our elected leaders are not honoring the current Constitution, what makes anyone think a new one will change anything?

What makes anyone think one hundred years deprivation of free speech impairs thinking, decision making and survival? Not to mention deprived of the sharing tools of unity needed to understand how you can work to dismiss a lawful and peaceful plan for defending the constitution and assuring survival.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+2
Vote down!
I can see why you were blocked by some
Submitted by fonzdrew on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 08:40. Permalink

Your arguments are void of facts and full of nonsense. I think I'll join that crowd.

reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
Freedom of speech is not for Enslaving Ourselves with it.
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 15:33. Permalink

There is no "cognitive distortions" in his statement.

You are clearly mistaking intelligent reasoning for "fear".

Freedom of speech is not for Enslaving Ourselves with it.

Read the exert of the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 from my previous post.

Despite the assurances of James Madison and others, the corruptions that Patrick Henry and George Mason warned would happened, have happened.

And You want to open our country to the heads of Corporations, Unions, and Undelegated Tax supported federal and state privileged collectives?

Because, as said in my previous posts. "THAT IS WHO" will be at the Convention table.

NOT YOU. NOT ME. Only those Exclusive privileged entities and self serving politicians, socialists and other corrupt persons.

Survival while enslaved by ones speech, is not survival to someone who is free.

Again, Freedom of speech is not for Enslaving Ourselves with it.

Read the exerts in the Virginia Ratifying Convention in my post below;

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

reply

Vote up!
-5
Vote down!
Still you haven't shown you accept the purpose of free speech
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:52. Permalink

If you are an American who is sincere about constitutional defense, then accepting that free speech has the purpose of assuring that information vital to survival is shared and understood, should be very easy.

On the other hand, if you refuse to accept such a purpose for speech, there is a reason which is more important to you than the principals of the constitution.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+7
Vote down!
We are a Republic not a Democracy.
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 20:59. Permalink

We are a Republic not a Democracy.

It was never intended for the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" to be used "FOR THE PURPOSE" to ENDANGER OR REMOVE THAT VERY FREEDOM;

or "FOR THE PURPOSE" CHANGE LAWS FOR THE WORSE.

THAT IS NOT THE "DEFINITION" of the Freedom of Speech,

that is is simply the "DEFINITION" of the "EXERCISE OF IGNORANCE".

You seem not to understand that presently, when speaking of the freedom of speech and of a Republic, ONE CANNOT BE MADE TO INVADE THE OTHER.

These are two separate things.

But If you CHANGE a REPUBLIC (CREATED UNDER AN "ORIGINAL COMPACT") with the freedom of speech, to grant powers EXCEEDING the DELEGATED powers granted under the "ORIGINAL COMPACT", you dissolve or endanger both the REPUBLIC that protects it, and the protections and acknowledgement of the common law bill of rights which include the freedom of speech that republic now protects. And by this you remove all authority and lay everything bare to allow new interpretation.

In that case, yes one can try use freedom of socialist speech to try to destroy the freedom of speech, but there will be more than a few in this free country that will surely take steps to stop him (them); First by using that same freedom of speech. Which myself and others here are doing so that you do not sell those who have not read the documents into jumping off a cliff when there is a perfectly good road to get you safely to the bottom (to solve the problem).

But if there becomes a clear obvious DESIGN to CHANGE and grant NEW POWERS upon the federal government, Then, as Locke and the Founders present, it will be beyond words, it will be war;

Read John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government on the Dissolution of Government starting at Paragraph #211 read to end.

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

Presently the freedom of speech does not propose that you incriminate yourself, why should it be proposed that you enslave yourself by allowing changes that are unnecessary?

Show me were change is necessary, when presently all we need to do is "NULLIFY"; As presented in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798:

Read in Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

And why change anything when we are fully capable to limit the federal government if we simply act under the laws we presently possess?

Why not spend your time on upholding the laws with your freedom of speech, rather than using it for poking holes in a perfectly good ship that simply has a crew that can't sail and can be replaced by a vote?

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

reply

Vote up!
-2
Vote down!
What about the fact of democracy in states that ratify and
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 22:49. Permalink

amend the constitution? That is democratic action which is conditional.

And BTW, you are using lots of cognitive distortions. Here's a list so we can keep track of them. This list used by cognitive therapists describes the effect of distortions an individual applies to themselves in the act of self deception that leads to behavioral disorders.

Critical thinking cannot be successfully done with distortions.
COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure.

3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.

6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established

7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.

8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation. ie.

9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.

12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

It was never intended for the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" to be used "FOR THE PURPOSE" to ENDANGER OR REMOVE THAT VERY FREEDOM;

Distortion 12 is seen in the assumption that the minimization (4) of assuming that there is any danger and that the circularity is somehow okay in the over generalization (2). You are doing this while refusing to acknowledge that the purpose of free speech is to assure information for survival is shared and understood.

or "FOR THE PURPOSE" CHANGE LAWS FOR THE WORSE.

Again that assumption attempting to over generalize what you insist on presenting as a problem, while also not acknowledging what the unity from an agreement on constitutional intent does to the American publics capacity to control their states. There are element of 7, 6, 4, 2, all used in an attempt to create a mental filter. All while refusing to recognize the purpose of free speech and agree upon prime constitutional intent. Never presenting a plan, but always bashing one that is perfectly lawful and a part of the constitution.

that is is simply the "DEFINITION" of the "EXERCISE OF IGNORANCE".

Above there is 10, 4, and perhaps 11.

You seem not to understand that presently, when speaking of the freedom of speech and of a Republic, ONE CANNOT BE MADE TO INVADE THE OTHER.

The above is cryptic, but has elements of 1, 2, 7, then perhaps achieving a mental filer through inducing 8.

"ORIGINAL COMPACT", you dissolve or endanger both the REPUBLIC that protects it, and the protections and acknowledgement of the common law bill of rights which include the freedom of speech that republic now protects.

Leaving out the fact that the 1871 corporat constitution is what the federal government is running under really serves that infiltration. Common law began disappearing since just after that time, so that statement is a cognitive cobble.

Freedom of speech is abridged for over 100 years in a significant way.

BTW, you never did state you accept that free speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood. How about some accountability?

Also, the intention to decieve and mislead makes cognitive distortion something that can be seen as sociopathic. In the case of distortion seeking to disable disclosure of treason, because free speech is very much for that, it is probably criminal.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+2
Vote down!
Beside the fact that you need to step away from the Dictionary..
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 02:42. Permalink

Beside the fact that you need to step away from the Dictionary...

I answered your question as to the freedom of speech "having the purpose of assuring information vital to the survival is shared and understood" by presenting the fact that the freedom of speech is an inalienable right; I accepted that with a historical limitation of not allowing that same freedom of speech to be used to undermine itself by removing the very foundations (the republic) that protects it. Which answers also that which is the "prime constitutional intent"; Why go to the trouble of securing an inalienable right only for the purpose of using it to endanger or destroy itself.

The core purpose of the right, is simply to have the right.

If that is not clear enough, here is Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

Thomas Jefferson: " #3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people";

and that NO power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people:

that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, "rather than the use be destroyed".

And thus also they guarded against ALL abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from "ALL" human restraint or interference.

And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that "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":

thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are "WITHHELD from the cognizance of federal tribunals".

That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is "NOT LAW", but is "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE". "

------

Are you a professional student trying to finish your paper on "cognitive distortions"?; a Dr. of Psychology with humor? or a kid with a book of Psychology in your lap and nothing better to do?

I will take this opportunity to educate regardless….

------

Fictional Corporate Constitutions such as mentioned created in 1871 attempts to establish authority where none can exist;

USURPATION does not create authority.

It creates a "PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY".

-------

See John Locke:

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

Chapter 17: Of Usurpation

John Locke #197. As conquest may be called a foreign usurpation, so usurpation is a kind of domestic conquest, with this difference -- that an usurper can never have right on his side, it being no usurpation but where one is got into the possession of what another has right to. This, so far as it is usurpation, is a change only of persons, but not of the forms and rules of the government;

for if the usurper "extend his power beyond" what, of right, belonged to the "lawful princes or governors" of the commonwealth,

it is "TYRANNY ADDED TO USURPATION".

John Locke #198. In all lawful governments the designation of the persons who are to bear rule being as natural and necessary a part as the form of the government itself, and that which had its establishment originally from the people -- the anarchy being much alike, to have no form of government at all, or to agree that it shall be monarchical, yet appoint no way to design the person that shall have the power and be the monarch -- all commonwealths, therefore, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing and conveying the right to those who are to have any share in the public authority;

and whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power by other ways than what the laws of the community have prescribed

"HATH NO RIGHT TO BE OBEYED",

though the form of the commonwealth be "still preserved",

since he is not the person the laws have appointed,

and, consequently, not the person the people have consented to.

Nor can such an usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title till the people are both at "liberty to consent", and have "actually consented", to allow and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped."

also review:

John Locke - #201: "It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that; for WHEREVER the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to "OTHER ENDS", and made use of to "IMPOVERISH", "HARASS", or "SUBDUE" them to the ARBITRARY and IRREGULAR commands of those that have it, THERE it presently becomes TYRANNY, whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."

------

Common Law is a preexisting Right in the People, it is not given by government, it simply "is".

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

George Nicholas: "But the"COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". 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.

i.e. Common Law rights exist whether written or not.

You decide whether or not you wish to uphold or defend it

(see 2d below in Rights of the Colonists - i.e "Sword in Hand"):

-------

See "Absolute Rights of the Colonists" 1772:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

-------

Samuel Adams:

1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.--

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can--Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called "THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE""--

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, "to leave the Society they belong to", and "enter into another.--"

(i.e. the right to secession - establishing that any Corporate constitution of 1871 is a Usurpation and a pretense of authority - This is established as well in the Virginia Ratifying Conventions 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 ALTOGETHER.")

When Men enter into Society, it is by "VOLUNTARY CONSENT"; and they have a "RIGHT TO DEMAND AND INSIST UPON" the "performance of such conditions",

And "PREVIOUS LIMITATIONS" as form an equitable >>>>>>>>"ORIGINAL COMPACT".--

"Every natural Right" not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact "necessarily" ceded "REMAINS".--

All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity.--

As neither reason requires, nor religeon permits the contrary, every Man living in or out of a state of civil society, has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.--

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their "foundation in the former".--"

---

2d: "…..Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained Declaration, or proclamation, and promulgation in the name of King, Lord, and Commons of the sense the latter had of their "original inherent", "indefeazible natural Rights",4 "as also those of free Citizens" "equally perdurable with the other".

That great author that great jurist, and even that Court writer Mr. Justice Blackstone holds that "this recognition" was justly obtained of King John "sword in hand":

and peradventure it must be one day "SWORD IN HAND" "again" rescued and preserved from total destruction and oblivion.--"

---

3d: The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects

"A Common Wealth or state is a body politick or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity, by means of their union.5

The "ABSOLUTE" Rights of Englishmen, and all freemen "in or out of Civil society", are "principally", personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

-------

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

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

DP: 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.

edit
reply

Vote up!
+4
Vote down!
When You Open The Door to "Change" Today
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 13:41. Permalink

When you open the Door to Change today, it will not be liberty minded people like you, me and those like the Founders who will push and buy their way to the tables of the Constitutional Convention;

It will be all the heads of those in state born exclusive privileges;

Corporations, Unions, Tax supported Special Interests, Socialist leaning and other political heads with different ideas about liberty than the Founders;

You will not be there or even be invited. It will be out of your hands.

Many people posting on this board that I have read, think that the Ratifying and Amendment process means that the Federal Legislatures can exceed the limited delegated powers by simply Ratifying something with enough states to create a amendment, a "new law" or a "new federal power";

This was discussed in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Clearly establishing the opposite; As the changes could only be made WITHIN THE EXISTING CONFINES OF THE DELEGATED POWERS OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT - NO NEW POWER COULD BE CREATED BY ANY MEANS AND NOT BY ONE STEP - READ IT BELOW!

The supremacy is in the Constitution which limits the federal government, the supremacy is "NOT" in the federal legislatures.

And Note that EVERY DANGER spoke of by Patrick Henry and George Mason in this day debate has ALREADY HAPPENED… The answer by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others NULLIFICATION. See Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

-------

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

Read In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...
Download PDF: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf

Mr. GRAYSON: (WARNS) "…..Adverting to the clause investing Congress with the "power" of "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" IN A DISTRICT "NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE", he said he had before expressed his doubts that this {431} district would be the favorite of the generality, and that it would be possible for them to give "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" of commerce to those residing within it. He had illustrated what he said by European examples. It might be said to be impracticable to exercise this power in this manner. Among the various laws and customs which pervaded Europe, there were exclusive privileges and immunities enjoyed in many places. He thought that this ought to be guarded AGAINST; for should such "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" be granted to merchants residing within the ten miles square, it would be highly injurious to the inhabitants of OTHER PLACES.

Mr. GEORGE MASON thought that there were few clauses in the Constitution so dangerous as that which gave Congress"exclusive power of legislation" within "ten miles square". Implication, he observed, was capable of ANY EXTENSION, AND WOULD PROBABLY BE EXTENDED TO AUGMENT THE CONGRESSIONAL POWERS."

But here there was no need of "implication".

This clause gave them an unlimited authority, in every possible case, "within that district".

This ten miles square, says Mr. Mason, may "SET AT DEFIANCE" the laws of the surrounding STATES, and may, like the custom of the superstitious days of our ancestors, become the sanctuary of the blackest crimes. Here the federal courts are to sit.

We have heard a good deal said of "justice".

It has been doubted whether jury trial be secured in civil eases. But I will suppose that we shall have juries in civil cases. What sort of a jury shall we have within the ten miles square?

The immediate creatures of the government.

What chance will poor men get, where "Congress have the power of legislating in all cases whatever",

and where judges and juries may be under their influence, and bound to support their operations?

Even with juries the chance of justice may here be very small, as Congress have unlimited authority, legislative, executive, and judicial. Lest this power should not be sufficient, they have it in every case.

Now, sir, if an attempt should be made to establish tyranny over the people, here are ten miles square where the greatest offender may meet protection. If any of their officers, or creatures, should attempt to oppress the people, or should actually perpetrate the blackest deed, he has nothing to do but get into the TEN MILES SQUARE.

Why was this dangerous power given? Felons may receive an asylum there and in {432} their strongholds. Gentlemen have said that it was dangerous to argue against possible abuse, because there could be no power delegated but might be abused.

It is an incontrovertible axiom, that, when the dangers that may arise from the abuse are greater than the benefits that may result from the use, the power OUGHT TO BE WITHHELD. I do not conceive that this power is at all necessary, THOUGH CAPIBLE OF GREATLY BEING ABUSED.

We are told by the honorable gentleman that Holland has its Hague. I confess I am at a loss to know what inference he could draw from that observation. This is the place where the deputies of the United Provinces meet to transact the public business. But I do not recollect that they have any exclusive jurisdiction whatever in that place, but are subject to the laws of the province in which the Hague is. To what purpose the gentleman mentioned that Holland has its Hague, I cannot see.

Mr. MASON then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive power, as far as respected the police and good government of THE PLACE (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC); but he would give them NO MORE, because he thought it unnecessary. He was very willing to give them, in this as well as in all other cases, those powers which he thought indispensably necessary.

Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers.

***I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED TEN MILES SQUARE", 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.

We make suppositions, and afterwards deduce conclusions from them, as if they were established axioms. But, after all, bring home this question to ourselves. Is it probable that the members from Georgia, New Hampshire, will concur to sacrifice the privileges of their friends? I believe that, whatever state may become the seat of the general {433} government, it will become the object of the jealousy and envy of the other states. 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 ALTOGETHER

(i.e. NULLIFICATION - SEE BELOW and in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates)

How could the general government be guarded from the undue influence of particular states, or from insults, without such exclusive power? If it were at the pleasure of a particular state to control the session and deliberations of Congress, would they be secure from insults, or the influence of such state? If this commonwealth depended, for the freedom of deliberation, on the laws of any state where it might be necessary to sit, would it not be liable to attacks of that nature (and with more indignity) which have been already offered to Congress? With respect to the government of Holland, I believe the States General have no jurisdiction over the Hague; but I have heard that mentioned as a circumstance which gave undue influence to Holland over the rest. We must limit our apprehensions to certain degrees of probability. The evils which they urge must result from this clause are extremely improbable; nay, ALMOST impossible.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given is, the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted, and that it is "ALMOST" impossible.

This will not satisfy us,

when we consider the great attachments men have to a great and"magnificent capital".

It would be the interest of the citizens of that district to "aggrandize themselves" by every possible means in their power, to the great injury of the other states.

If we travel all over the world, we shall find that people have aggrandized their own "capitals". Look at Russia and Prussia. Every step has been taken to aggrandize their capitals. In what light are we to consider the ten miles square? It is not to be a fourteenth state.

The inhabitants will in no respect whatever be amenable to the laws of any state.

A clause in the 4th article, highly extolled for its wisdom, will be rendered nugatory by this exclusive legislation. This clause runs thus: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such {434} service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due." Unless you consider the ten miles square as a state, persons bound to labor, who shall escape thither, will not be given up; for they are only to be delivered up after they shall have escaped into a state. As my honorable friend mentioned, felons, who shall have fled from justice to the ten miles square, cannot be apprehended. The executive of a state Is to apply to that of another for the delivery of a felon. He cannot apply to the ten miles square. It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government; but they never had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases. The power of regulating the police and good government of it will secure Congress against insults."What originated the IDEA" of the "exclusive legislation" was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state.

It is answered that the "CONSENT of the state MUST be required", or else they cannot have such a district, OR places for the erecting of forts, &c. But how much is already given them! Look at the great country to the north-west of the Ohio, extending to and commanding the lakes.

Look at the other end of the Ohio, towards South Carolina, extending to the Mississippi. See what these, in process of time, may amount to. They may grant"exclusive privileges"to any particular part of which they have the possession. But it may be observed that those extensive countries will be formed into independent states, and that their CONSENT will be NECESSARY.

To this I answer, that they may still grant such "PRIVILEGES" as, in that country, are already granted to Congress by the states. The grants of Virginia, South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress in this respect. Of course, it results from the whole,

that requiring the consent of the states will be "NO GUARD" against this "ABUSE of POWER".

[A desultory conversation ensued.]

Mr. NICHOLAS insisted that as the state, within which the ten miles square might be, could prescribe the terms on which Congress should hold it, no danger could arise, as no state would CONSENT to injure itself: there was the same {435} security with respect to the places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, &c.; and as to the territory of the United States, the power of Congress only extended to make needful rules and regulations concerning "it", without prejudicing the claim of any particular state, the right of territory not being given up; that the grant of those lands to the United States was for the general benefit of all the states, and >not to be perverted to their prejudice>; that, consequently, whether that country were formed into new states or not, the danger apprehended could not take place; that the seat of government was to be still a part of the STATE, and, as to general regulations, was to be considered as SUCH.

Mr. GRAYSON, on the other hand, contended that the ten miles square could not be viewed as a state; that the state within which it might be would have no power of legislating over it; that, consequently, persons bound to labor, and felons, might receive protection there; that "exclusive emoluments" might he granted to those residing within it; that the territory of the United States, being a part of no state or states, might be appropriated to what use Congress pleased, "WITHOUT THE CONSENT" of any state or states; and that, consequently, such "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" and exemptions might be granted, and such protection afforded to fugitives, within such places, as Congress should think proper; that, after mature consideration, he could not find that the ten miles square was to be looked upon even as a part of a state, but to be totally independent of all, and subject to the exclusive legislation of Congress.

Mr. LEE strongly expatiated on the impossibility of securing any human institution from possible ABUSE. He thought the powers conceded in the paper on the table not so liable to be abused as the powers of the state governments. Gentlemen had suggested that the seat of government would become a sanctuary for state villains, and that, in a short time, ten miles square would subjugate a country of eight hundred miles square. This appeared to him a most improbable possibility; nay, he might call it impossibility.

Were the place crowded with rogues, he asked if it would be an agreeable place of residence for, the members of the general government, who were freely chosen by the people and the state governments. Would the people be so lost to honor and virtue, as to select men who would willingly {436} associate with the most abandoned characters? He thought the honorable gentleman's objections against remote possibility of abuse went to prove that government of no sort was eligible, but that a state of nature was preferable to a state of civilization. He apprehended no danger; and thought that persons bound to labor, and felons, could not take refuge in the ten miles square, or other places exclusively governed by Congress, because it would be contrary to the Constitution, and a palpable usurpation, to protect them.

Mr. HENRY entertained strong suspicions that great dangers must result from the clause(APP: The Sweeping Clause) under consideration. They were not removed, but rather confirmed, by the remarks of the honorable gentleman, in saying that it was extremely improbable that the members from New Hampshire and Georgia would go and legislate exclusively for the ten miles square. If it was so improbable, why ask the power?Why demand a power which was not to be exercised? Compare this power, says he, with the next clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary to carry their laws into execution. By this they have a right to pass any law that may facilitate the execution of their acts. They have a right, by this clause, to make a law that such a district shall be set apart for any purpose they please, and that any man who shall act contrary to their commands, within certain tell miles square, or any place they may select, and strongholds, shall be hanged without benefit of clergy. If they think any law necessary for their personal safety, after perpetrating the most tyrannical and oppressive deeds, cannot they make it by this sweeping clause? If it be necessary to provide, not only for this, but for any department or officer of Congress, does not this clause enable them to make a law for the purpose?And will not these laws, made for those purposes, be paramount to the laws of the states? Will not this clause give them a right to keep a "powerful army continually on foot", if they "think it necessary" to aid the execution of their laws?Is there any act, however atrocious, which they cannot do by virtue of this clause? Look at the use which has been made, in all parts of the world, of that human thing called power. Look at the predominant thirst of dominion which has invariably and uniformly prompted rulers to abuse their powers. Can you say that you will be safe when you give such unlimited powers, {437} without any real responsibility? Will you be safe when you trust men at Philadelphia with power to make any law that will enable them to carry their acts into execution? Will not the members of Congress have the same passions which "other rulers" have had? They will not be superior to the frailties of human nature. However cautious you may be in the selection of your representatives, it will be "dangerous to trust them with such unbounded powers". Shall we be told, when about to grant such illimitable authority, that it will "never be exercised"!

I conjure you once more to remember the admonition of that sage man who told you that,when you give power, you know not what you give.

I know the absolute necessity of an energetic government. But is it consistent with any principle of prudence or good policy to grant unlimited, unbounded authority, which is so totally unnecessary that gentlemen say it will "never be exercised"?

But gentlemen say that we must make "experiments".

A wonderful and unheard-of experiment it will be, to give "unlimited power unnecessarily"!

I admit my inferiority in point of historical knowledge; but I believe no man can produce an instance of an unnecessary and unlimited power, given to a body independent of the legislature, within a particular district.

Let any man in this Convention show me an instance of such separate and different powers of legislation in the same country show me an instance where a part of the community was independent of the whole.

The people within that place, and the strongholds, may be "excused from all the burdens imposed on the rest of the society", and may enjoy "EXCLUSIVE EMOLUMENTS", to the great injury of the rest of the people.

But gentlemen say that the power will not he abused. They ought to "show that it is necessary".

All their powers may be fully carried into execution, without this exclusive authority in the ten miles square. The sweeping clause will fully enable them to do what they please.

What could the most extravagant and boundless imagination ask, but power to do every thing? I have reason to suspect ambitious grasps at power. The experience of the world teaches me the jeopardy of giving enormous power.Strike this clause out of the form of the government, and how will it stand?

Congress will still have power, by the sweeping clause, to make laws within that {438} place and the strongholds, independently of the local authority of the state.

I ask you, if this clause be struck out, whether the sweeping clause will not enable them to protect themselves from insult.If you grant them these powers, you destroy "every degree of responsibility".

They will fully screen them from justice, and preclude the possibility of punishing them. No instance can be given of such a wanton grasp of power as an exclusive legislation in all cases whatever.

Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman, I am astonished that the honorable member should launch out into such strong descriptions without any occasion. Was there ever a legislature in existence that held their sessions at a place where they had not jurisdiction? I do not mean such a legislature as they have in Holland; for it deserves not the name. Their powers are such as Congress have now, which we find not reducible to practice. If you be satisfied with the shadow and form, instead of the substance, you will render them dependent on the local authority. Suppose the legislature of this country should sit in Richmond, while the exclusive jurisdiction of the place was in some particular county; would this country think it safe that the general good should be subject to the paramount authority of a part of the community?

The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that "latitude" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause", there "would" be room for those horrors.

But it gives no supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the "delegated powers".

"If" the "delegation" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause.

It is at most "but" explanatory.

For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority (FROM THE ORIGINAL COMPACT) to make laws to execute it.

Were it possible to delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances in which legislation by the general legislature would be necessary, and leave to the states all the other powers, I imagine no gentleman would object to it. But this is not within the limits of human capacity. The particular powers which are found necessary to be given {439} are therefore delegated "generally", and particular and "minute" specification is left to the legislature.

[Here Mr. Madison spoke of the distinction between regulation of police and legislation, but so low he could not be heard.]

When the honorable member objects to giving the general government jurisdiction over the place of their session, does he mean that it should be under the control of any particular state, that might, at a critical moment, seize it? I should have thought that this clause would have met with the most cordial approbation. As the consent of the state in which it may be must be obtained, and as it may stipulate the terms of the grant,

should they "violate the particular stipulations" it would be an "usurpation";

so that, if the members of Congress were to be guided by the laws of their country, none of those dangers could arise.

[Mr. Madison made several other remarks, which could not be heard]

Mr. HENRY replied that, "IF" Congress were vested with supreme power of legislation, "paramount to the constitution" (THE ORIGINAL LIMITED COMPACT) and laws of the states,

the dangers he had described might happen;

for that Congress would not be confined to the enumerated powers.

This construction was warranted, in his opinion, by the addition of the word "DEPARTMENT", at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any "DEPARTMENT" or officer of the government.

(APP: We can see the corruption today used under the word DEPARTMENT to exceed there delegated powers outside the limited TEN MILES SQUARE the federal government was originally confined to in governing police and other bureaucracy DEPARTMENTS)

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART" of the Constitution,

(N)or to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN) MAY AFFECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNION AT LARGE).

But it gives them power over the local police of THE PLACE (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC), so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings.

Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause".

It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT DISTRICT" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC ONLY).

What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to?Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?

I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state WHERE IT SHALL BE (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC ONLY).

What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate "THERE (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC ONLY), in order to preserve {440} serve the POLICE OF THE "PLACE" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC ONLY) and their own personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where IT SHALL BE (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC ONLY), this is the "fair construction".

Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters.

(APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says.

It (SWEEPING / SUPREMACY CLAUSE) could have no operation without (OUTSIDE) the LIMITS OF THAT DISTRICT (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC).

Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have "NO EFFECT" the moment it would go without (OUTSIDE) THAT PLACE" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC);

for their "EXCLUSIVE POWER" is confined to "THAT DISTRICT" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC). Were they to pass such a law,it would be nugatory; and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.

This exclusive power is limited to THAT "PLACE SOLELY" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC - ONLY), for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.

Will you pardon me when I observe that their construction of the preceding clause does not appear to me to be natural, or warranted by the words.

They say that the state governments have no power at all over the militia. The power of the general government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America. But the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extends only to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

When not in their service, Congress has "NO POWER TO GOVERN THEM".

The states then have the "sole" government of them;

and though Congress "may" provide for arming them, and prescribe the "mode" of discipline, yet the STATES have the Authority of training them, according to the uniform discipline prescribed by Congress. But there is NOTHING to preclude them from arming and disciplining them, should Congress neglect to, do it. As to calling the militia to execute the laws of the {441} Union, I think the fair construction is directly opposite to what the honorable member says. The 4th section of the 4th article contains nothing to warrant the supposition that the states cannot call them forth to suppress domestic insurrections. [Here he read the section.] All the restraint here contained is, that Congress may, at their pleasure,on "application of the state legislature", or "(in vacation)" of the executive,protect each of the states against domestic violence.This is a restraint on the general government "not to interpose".

The "state" is in "full possession" of the "power" of using its "own militia" to protect itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general government "cannot be exercised, or interposed", without the "application of the state itself". This appears to me to be the "obvious" and "fair construction".

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 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" 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".

Mr. GEORGE MASON. (WARNS) Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained?

Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and "suppose" that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause(so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws.

Now, suppose oppressions {442}should arise under "this" government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers;

could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE",and under their"own"construction, say that this was destroying the"general peace", encouraging sedition,

and poisoning the minds of the people?

And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press?

Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not "extend"their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and "WILL".

And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest" it "may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare (APP Note: Defense against "Foriegn" aggression collect taxes under this clause for National Defense and National Debt) of the Union, I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL powers which are NOT granted, that they are "RETAINED BY THE STATES".

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE" may be "PERVERTED TO ITS DESTRUCTION"".

Many gentlemen, whom I respect, take different sides of this question. We wish this amendment to be introduced, to remove our apprehensions. (This was eventually done)

There was a clause in the Confederation reserving to the states respectively EVERY POWER, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States.

This clause has never been complained of, but approved by all

Why not, then, have a similar clause in this Constitution, in which it is the more indispensably NECESSARY than in the Confederation, because of the great augmentation of power vested in the former? In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such CLEAR and finite expression, this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think proper. Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please.

Mr. HENRY moved to read from the 8th to the 13th article of the declaration of rights; which was done.

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses.

He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public DEBTS and provide for the COMMONE DEFENSE;

>that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the general power of legislation",

but to the PARTICULAR POWER" of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, "FOR THE PURPOSE" of paying the "DEBTS" and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE", that is, that they could raise as (ONLY) AS MUCH MONEY as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", in "CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER".

The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained "NO NEW GRANT OF POWER".

To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power.If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power?As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers?

I say, the same power which, in ALL WELL REGULATED COMMUNITIES (STATE or COUNTY), determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers.

If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" will declare it "VOID",

or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID".

Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence. The power of providing for the general defence only extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts, But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives. This was misrepresented.

***If I understand it right, "NO NEW POWER CAN BE EXERCISED".

As to those which are actually granted, we trust to the fellow-feelings of our representatives;and if we are deceived, we then "trust to altering our {444} government". It appears to me, however, that we can confide in their discharging their powers rightly, from the peculiarity of their situation, and connection with us. If, sir, the powers of the former Congress were very inconsiderable, that body did not deserve to have great powers.

It was so constructed that it would be dangerous to invest it with such. But why were the articles of theBILL of RIGHTS read?Let him show us that those rights are given up by the Constitution. Let him prove them to be violated.

He tells us that the most worthy characters of the country differ as to the necessity of a bill of rights.

It is a simple and plain proposition.

It is agreed upon by all that the people have all power.

If they part with any of it, is it necessary to declare that they retain the rest?

Liken it to any similar case.

If I have one thousand acres of land, and I grant five hundred acres of it, must I declare that I retain the other five hundred?

Do I grant the whole thousand acres, when I grant five hundred, unless I declare that the five hundred I do not give belong to me still?

It is "so" in "this case".

After granting some powers, the rest must "REMAIN" with "the PEOPLE". "

------

The Answer has been and is: "NULLIFICATION".

1/2 page describing the unconstitutionality of a federal imposition, state or county pass it, or Judge signs it, or people declare it; Then put "teeth" behind it by engaging the state police and or state militia (i.e. "You" ) to in force it.

-------

Read Federalist #46 on the true definition of MILITIA;

Posted on the front page of our Web Site (bottom): http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

-------

Also Read John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government - on the Dissolution of Government Paragraph #211 onward;

Pay particular attention to what happens when governments "CHANGE" OUTSIDE THE "ORIGINAL COMPACT" and "DELEGATED POWERS" "FIRST AGREED TO", that formed the government in the first place:

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

-------

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself; Educate Others

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

Like, Link, Spread the word.

DP: 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.

reply

Vote up!
+1
Vote down!
This is precisely why the USA
Submitted by More_Liberty on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 09:04. Permalink

This is precisely why the USA needs to dissolve, allowing the states to go their own way. It's over and anyone that thinks differently is fooling themselves. The sooner people start demanding succession and freedom the sooner the pain starts and the sooner the pain goes away.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
JBS is fear mongering
Submitted by HawaiianDude on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 23:38. Permalink

JBS and other big banker organizations do not want their party to come to an end. So the establishment is going to find every way to scare you into not supporting balanced budget amendments or amendments that rein in the Fed, or amendments that create term limits.

The states can also constrain the convention by choosing delegates that represent the state legislatures intentions, including supporting a limited agenda and amendment texts that were pre-arranged before the formal convention.

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
Really, good to know jobs is tight with elites
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 00:09. Permalink

And explains the extensive nonsense trying to make people afraid of our own constitution.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
So what about the purpose of free speech?
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 14:12. Permalink

All that and no acceptance of the fact that it has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood.

You better read the thread about the church that presents the 13th amendment then read Article V of the constitution.

http://www.dailypaul.com/307459/i-wonder-if-chuck-baldwin-kn...

It is given in Article V that 3/4 of the states proposing and ratifying amendments can amend.

Do that rather than citing the history leading to the constitution as justification for giving up on it.

When you have no viable alternative and cannot even comment on human, social instinctual structure required for survival, it really looks bad.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+1
Vote down!
Have you ever PERSONALLY stood....
Submitted by Spirit of '76 on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 08:46. Permalink

...between a man and one billion dollars that man thinks is his?

Until you do, you cannot understand why it is impossible to select delegates to a con con who cannot be bought.

When you do, you will also know very intimately what it means to imminently fear for your life and will find out your own mettle to stand strong (or not).

reply

Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
this condition exists today
Submitted by liberty4us on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 16:48. Permalink

a con-con doesn't change anything in regards to what you suggest

reply

Vote up!
+1
Vote down!
It most certainly does.
Submitted by Spirit of '76 on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 18:02. Permalink

Since the delegates know they'll get billion dollar payouts from lobbyists once the con con concludes and have the power to exempt themselves from any kind of punishment.

reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
coffee_sponge's picture
The entire meaning of the Constitution
Submitted by coffee_sponge on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 12:52. Permalink

could be changed without altering a word of it.

Because a Con-Con has the plenary authority of the states, if the delegates at a new Con-Con simply conduct an exegesis of the entire document, they would in effect throw out over two centuries of case law. Courts would no longer go back to the intent of the Founders; rather, they would go back to the explanation of meaning put forth by the new Con-Con.

For example, if the new Con-Con says the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but merely authorizes governmental entities like the National Guard to have arms, your right to keep and bear arms just went down the drain.

The vast majority of legal and Constitutional scholars concur that a Con-Con CANNOT be limited. The language in a state's call that purports to limit the scope of the convention is legally considered a suggestion, or superfluous language. The meat of the call is the call itself.

Even if people like Mark Levin are correct in their assertions that a Con-Con can be limited (which they are NOT correct), with most legal analysts believing there are no limits, and a prostitute media to slant and cheer things on, we can only anticipate a disaster if a new Con-Con is successfully called.

reply

Vote up!
-4
Vote down!
Constitutional intent is what limits an Artcle V convention
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 17:57. Permalink

all amendments must have it.

Therefore to conduct an Article V convention properly the people must be empowered to know and use constitutional intent. The concept of preparatory amendment enables that.

Do you accept that free speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood as constitutional intent?

If not, what purpose does it have, and is that purpose abridged?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
coffee_sponge's picture
If we have enough public voice
Submitted by coffee_sponge on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 18:45. Permalink

and educational groundwork to somehow restrain a Con-Con, then why do we need to roll the dice with a Con-Con? We can effect needed changes through the existing processes.

Did you know we nearly called a Con-Con in 1994 under the guise of a "Conference of the States"? We barely averted it by barely defeating it in the Pennsylvania legislature. At the time we were only 2 states away, and more were ready to jump if PA approved.

In 1994, we posed this question of whether a Con-Con can be limited to an attorney, who at the time was one of the highest-paid in the state. His opinion was 1.) a Con-Con CANNOT be limited, and 2.) a Con-Con indeed can rewrite the intent of the existing Constitution through exegesis.

In addition, to the question of who would run a new Con-Con: did you also know the plan was to have Tom Ridge Chair the event? You know, the RINO big-government, anti-Second Amendment, neo-con Bush guy.

I'm sure that if you liked the policies of the George Bush Administration, you would love the "tweaks" to the Constitution wrought by the likes of Establishment leaders like Tom Ridge.

NO THANK YOU !!!

reply

Vote up!
+3
Vote down!
con con
Submitted by Absolute Rights on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 01:02. Permalink

can not be limited.
A new occupying force and legal structure having supreme authority would arise. It is interesting that you noted that the entire premise of the fundamental law could be changed without altering one word. I never considered that.

There are ways of creating new government, one that enshrines individual liberty, but I highly doubt it would be done through existing processes.

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
We do not have enough function to free speech
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 19:40. Permalink

"and educational groundwork to somehow restrain a Con-Con, then why do we need to roll the dice with a Con-Con? We can effect needed changes through the existing processes."

No, all efforts are failing. We are barely slowing the agenda. People Barely know the purpose of free speech.

If we prepare properly, there is no risk.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
Vote down!
chris
Submitted by Absolute Rights on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 01:04. Permalink

Are you upset that people are ignorant about the purpose of free speech or that free speech has been interfered with? Or some combination of both?

reply

Vote up!
-2
Vote down!
Yes, yes, and yes & very concerned. Not the point tho
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 11:07. Permalink

The point is that because free speech is abridged, the people are endangered. And more than they know. The species is endangered.

It is de evolutionary to allow the intent of the 1787 constitution to fail. It is indeed something of the very best human instinct.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+1
Vote down!
got it, all of the above
Submitted by Absolute Rights on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 23:13. Permalink

when you say free speech is abridged, can I ask you to give me some instances so that I can better understand.

reply

Vote up!
+8
Vote down!
To say there is "no risk"...
Submitted by Spirit of '76 on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 20:03. Permalink

...is either supremely naive or deliberately the message of an anti-liberty adversarial change agent.

If you were to argue there is manageable risk that's one thing, but to state there is no risk is flat out asenine.

reply

Vote up!
-4
Vote down!
You have not considered what preparatory
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 21:31. Permalink

amendment does.

How anyone can conceive of a convention without preparation may show how they are against the constitution.

Here are the issues that must be addressed by amendment to create a nation that knows constitutional intent.

1)End the abridging of free speech
2)Secure the vote
3)Campaign finance reform

Those 3 issues are addressed by amendment then the nation develops its ability to know constitutional intent. After perhaps 5 years, the nation will be prepared and protected.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
I HAVE considered it.
Submitted by Spirit of '76 on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 22:24. Permalink

It's irrelevant. It is a FACTUALLY FALSE statement that the introduction of a "preparatory amendment" results in elimination of 100% of the risk people have mentioned on this thread.

YOU have not considered what genuine concerns others have posted here.

But like most ineffectual arguments, those who disagree with you just "don't understand."

Of course. Usually it means the person asserting that argument (in this case you), in fact, is the one who does not understand.

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
You have indirectly stated that ending the abridging
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 22:50. Permalink

of free speech would be irrelevant.

Indirectly you've stated that securing the vote would be irrelevant.

Indirectly you've stated that campaign finance reform would be irrelevant.

So you like things are as they are and have no plan to make them better, but do not like a plan that begins with Americans that know and can agree upon the purpose of free speech as being to assure vital information for survival is shared and understood.

BTW, can you accept that about free speech as its purpose?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+4
Vote down!
Explain ...
Submitted by Spirit of '76 on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 23:12. Permalink

...how the People will have any more control over the con con than the TPP treaty process going on right now.

Try to stay on subject and be specific.

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
We need our second right to use our first right
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 01:15. Permalink

Our first right, alter or abolish, is codified in Article V. Our second right is free speech and it s needed to control Article V,

If we are using the purpose of our second right to initiate unity in the use of our first right, then our agreement is an overwhelming majority because the purpose of free speech is to assure info vital to survival is shared and understood.

Okay, now the people, true culture because their sharing of this specific information is vital to their unity which can alter or abolish abusive government, threatening their lives, by the people controlling their state legislators and assuring they are fully constitutional.

Now imagine state legislators trying to argue with petitioners for preparatory amendment that free speech does not have the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood. Does that show capacity for constitutional intent?

When 3/4 of the states are ratifying, the TPP has no authority. The congress, president and courts have no authority over what the states do. In fact, it is GATT that gives it authority. GATT is unconstitutional. How in the hell can an unconstitutionally authorized entity have anything to with Article V?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
-2
Vote down!
Allison Bricker's picture
The JBS
Submitted by Allison Bricker on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 12:31. Permalink

The JBS is often wrongly maligned, however they are wrong on ARTICLE V. It was put forth by George Mason upon realizing the Philadelphia convention's claimed intent, i.e. simple revision of the Articles of Confederation was an utter ruse.

How can one "hack" the roots of the Constitution, when utilizing a purposefully constructed Article of the Constitution?

ARTICLE V is the last peaceful means in which the People could ever hope to restore limited Constitutional government when the Congress, judiciary, and President became deaf to the restraints of the Supreme LAW of the land.

Further, the last time the states threatened to call a Constitutional Convention, was in order to end the violence spawned by the 18th Amendment, i.e Prohibition.

The fears of such a convention are wholly misplaced, and Bruce Fein and Prof. Kevin Gutzman are just two great sources who efficiently refute the logical fallacy based arguments against such a convention.

http://youtu.be/YIVLH1kCphM

Daily Paul RadioListen LIVE! - Daily Paul Radio on Facebook

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
A fully constitutional position and rooted in solution.
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 16:11. Permalink

Please comment on the notion that the effect of preparatory amendment as conceptually necessary to assure constitutional intent.

Here is a preliminary list of amendments making the nation constitutional enough for the people to develop their ability to define constitutional intent.

1)End the abridging of free speech
2)Secure the vote
3)Campaign finance reform

You would be the first to comment upon what amendment addressing those issues would do after 5 years of Article V suspended, waiting for the people to prepare.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+7
Vote down!
Unintended consequences.
Submitted by ProudAmericanFirst on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 13:14. Permalink

I agree with SpiritOf76, wholeheartedly, and without reservation.

The Constitution which is the Law of the Land MUST BE ENFORCED. And that requires changing the hearts and minds of the American people.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

reply

Vote up!
+6
Vote down!
What we are seeing happening right now with the TPP treaty.;
Submitted by Spirit of '76 on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 12:57. Permalink

Is a small taste of what the con con would be like.

reply

Vote up!
+6
Vote down!
If TJ were around....
Submitted by Spirit of '76 on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 12:35. Permalink

If Thomas Jefferson were around, Ben F, John A, James M, I would agree with you.

Or if the delegates were Bruce Fein, Thomas Woods, Judge Napolitano, etc., then I would agree with you.

However, neither is nor will be the case. The delegates will be selected by corrupt state legislatures and any Art V outcome can include absolution for any "operating rules" going in.

Further, no state can stop the con con once it convenes, even if the agenda goes off track. The only thing a state's delegates can do is walk out if they can't get a majority of delegates to agree with them.

So, basically the parties running the con con will be your Dow 30 and S&P 500 corporate lobbyists, the delegates knowing they have billion dollar payoffs waiting for them when the con con ends, having passed full absolution for themselves during the con con, so nothing happens to them once it's over.

In THEORY Bruce Fein is correct. In PRACTICE, he is completely wrong.

reply

Vote up!
+1
Vote down!
they were just men, like us, who embodied
Submitted by Absolute Rights on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 01:13. Permalink

reason, love, and freedom. T

But they did something none of us are ready to do...they planned and then made WAR. They picked up their guns and shot people so that they could secure independence (not individual liberty) from Britain.
They rolled the dice and won by blood shed.

By the way, I totally agree with your sentiment, those in power would use a con con to eliminate any pretense that they are limited in power. They would perfect the statist agenda of having total control...not that they haven't already. I suppose GUNS would be the thing to go. They haven't quite disarmed enough people yet.
This comment is really not directed exactly at what you said, and is more of a tangential discussion I would like others to think about.

reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
ecorob's picture
JBS...
Submitted by ecorob on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 02:03. Permalink

one of the most heavily attacked, truly American organizations EVER!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!

Defeat CORKER! Bailed out the banks. In training to steal more.
Defeat ALEXANDER! Career traitor! Handsomely rich in a poor Nation.

reply

Vote up!
+4
Vote down!
Agree
Submitted by dailypauler on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 12:00. Permalink

I think it would be good for many people here on DP to examine their tactics designed to wake this country up.

They got a nice stratagem and only works if the people know about it and apply.

All EVIL is being done in the guise of "Some people being better than others." Because: Some ainmals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-
What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

reply

Vote up!
+1
Vote down!
Watch 'A Deeper Look Beware Of Con-Cons.'
Submitted by Stonewall Jackson on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 00:38. Permalink

A 29 minute movie put out by the JBS, I plan on giving a copy to the local State Representative candidates.

They (the JBS)interview three legislators from Oklahoma, very good film along with 'Overview Of America'

Support these Liberty Candidates and find and add more !
http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

Defeat John Cornyn
http://www.dailypaul.com/289729/texas-rino-hunting-cornyn-ha...

reply

Vote up!
-4
Vote down!
What does preparatory amendment do for a convention?
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 01:01. Permalink

As a requisite to assuring constitutional intent,

1)End the abridging of free speech
2)Secure the vote
3)campaign finance reform

BTW, do you accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared anc understood?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+3
Vote down!
Here 'Tis
Submitted by Stonewall Jackson on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 00:41. Permalink

Beware of Con-Cons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLADEFhJstU

Support these Liberty Candidates and find and add more !
http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

Defeat John Cornyn
http://www.dailypaul.com/289729/texas-rino-hunting-cornyn-ha...

reply

Vote up!
-3
Vote down!
In order to justify spreading fear of the constitution
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 01:05. Permalink

please comment on preparatory amendment as I asked here.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3281257

And, I would like to know if you accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital survival is shared and understood.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
-4
Vote down!
From our current unconstitutional state of mind, yes
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Sun, 12/08/2013 - 19:23. Permalink

America can be scammed.

However, America logically must prepare for such an important event properly to assure all amendments have constitutional intent.

There are 3 amendments which can be made in preparation, and to assure any amendment has full constitutional intent, the general convention proposing amendments must wait until the American people themselves, can competently and reasonably state they can define constitutional intent.

Doing this fulfills Lincolns statment of 1859, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

Three amendments which logically must be made simply return the nation to a state of constitutionality which can properly conduct Article V.

1)End the abridging of free speech
2)Secure the vote
3)Campaign finance reform

No discussion of anyones perceptions of danger, or fearful expressions about our use of our first constitutional right, or fear of using our rights is constitutional in light of a a reasonable, lawful, logical plan assuring eventual restoration of constitutional government.

In fact, at this juncture, the only constitutional reply to this is agreement, or fully evidenced reason that this proposal is not logical, reasonable and fully lawful. I've been around and around with what are cognitive infiltrators operating here pretending to be real Americans that support their constitution unconditionally. They don't and their unaccountablity proves it. Here is that thread, which links to the evidence of the 2 threads before it establishing a very important fact. Americans do not know the purposes of their prime constitutional rights.

http://www.dailypaul.com/305808/if-we-do-not-know-the-purpos...

In order to use our rights, we need to know their purposes.

If this isn't true, you will easily find a 2nd amendment rights advocate that will approve of people using guns without knowing their purpose.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
I Will Reply Paragraph by Paragraph
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 00:14. Permalink

1.) The "intent was defined in the Federalist Papers and Ratifying Conventions.

2.) No need for amendments when the intent is already defined; and the Original Compact already established.

3.) Lincoln did not establish the Original LIMITED Compact;

Note that under the LIMITED US Constitutional Compact changes can only be made "WITHIN" the "CONFINES" of the "DELEGATED" powers already established; "NO NEW POWER" can be created by "ANY MEANS";

This includes Ratification & amendment process.

See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

George Mason Brought up the question as to what if the federal Legislature created laws exceeding those delegated powers to be established;

Edmund Pendleton presented the already known limit presented above:

"...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" 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 (VERY LIMITED) "DELEGATED" powers"."

-------

The principle is found in John Locke's Second Treaties on Civil Government describing that if there is a "CHANGE" outside the original compact, "GOVERNMENT DISSOLVES ITSELF"

SEE Chapter 19 - Paragraph #211: Of the "Dissolution of Government".

See John Locke in Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

The fact is that we are a republic under an ORIGINAL COMPACT under which the government was formed; NOT a democracy left to people and courts, to change the framework; as the framework has already been established.

Read These 4 Founders Documents: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf

4. These are really not needed if the freedom of speech was simply obeyed, you do not need amendments where law already applies;

If the intent that the Federal Government "can make NO REGULATION THAT MAY EFFECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNION AT LARGE"; (SEE Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788) those three things would be a very local issue.

-------

See Virginia Resolutions 1798 in Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

James Madison: "…That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press CANNOT be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by "ANY" authority of the "United States","

and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from EVERY possible attack of "sophistry or ambition",

having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other. …"

-------

Kentucky Resolutions 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 PURPOSE" — "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 (FEDERAL) 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…

---

3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people";

and that NO power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people:

that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed.

And thus also they guarded against >>>>>>"ALL" abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises,

and retained to themselves the right of protecting the "SAME", as this STATE, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had ALREADY protected them from >>>>>>>"ALL" human restraint or interference.

And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution,

which expressly declares, that "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":

thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the "SAME WORDS", the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others (RIGHTS),

arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion,

>>>>>>> are "WITHHELD from the cognizance of federal (GOVERNMENT) tribunals".

That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press,

is "NOT LAW", but is "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE"." …."

--------

5. No need for a plan; Just obey the laws that are already there.

Education is important, get the federal government out of our schools so that this education will be taught. Next run for office or vote in those willing to obey the laws after they are educated.

6. Education again resolves this; I think you are using the word "purpose" with "Rights" in a way that may throw people off; Rights do not need a "purpose" to be valid, even though they have purpose…

It is not up to the public whether or not a right has purpose on whether or not it is valid.

Rights are long established in the Law of Nature, i.e, Common Law:

See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

-------

George Nicholas: "…But the"COMMON LAW"is"NOT EXCLUDED".

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

Congress have power to define and punish:

a.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
b.) offenses against the laws of nations;

but they (APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court) CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION".

(APP Note: See this also in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - Kentucky Resolutions #2 - This can be no clearer, the federal government and all those officials and citizens who support or allow others to be prosecuted under any "other crimes and punishments" not listed are in DIRECT VIOLATION to the Constitution they claim to uphold.)

If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded. A bill of rights is only anacknowledgment 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 legislation includes every thing. A general power of legislation does.

But this is a "SPECIAL" power of legislation.

Therefore, it "DOES NOT" contain that plenitude of power which he imagines.

They (THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY case" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED"."

-------

Same Day Convention 6-16-1788:

James Madison: "…If that "latitude" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause", there "would" be room for those horrors.

But it gives NO supplementary power.

It "ONLY" enables them to execute the "DELEGATED powers".

"If" the "DELEGATION" of their powers be "safe" (LIMITED TO THE "ORIGINAL" CONSTRUCTION), no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause.

It is at most "but" explanatory.

For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority (FROM THE "ORIGINAL" CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT) to make laws to execute it. …"

-------

So there is no need too amend anything.

Do not fall for the lie.

Simply Read, Educate Yourself, and Educate others, to the Laws we ALREADY HAVE IN OUR POSSESSION.

-------

Mr. CORBIN: "…Animadverting on Mr. Henry's observations, that the French had been the instruments of their OWN SLAVERY, that the Germans had ENSLAVED the Germans, and the Spaniards the Spaniards, &c., he asked if those nations knew any thing of representation.

The want (LACK) of "this knowledge" was the "principal" cause of their bondage. …"

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.



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

DP: 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.

reply

Vote up!
-5
Vote down!
So you do not support the people
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 11:56. Permalink

as "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

I see no comment upon the effect of preparatory amendment.

I see you feel there is no need to amend, but have no suggestions on how to enforce the constitution as it is.

From reading I conclude you wish encumbent officials read the federalist papers and then act with constitutional intent to fix all the problems. Or that the people do, but have suggestion on what to do with what they learn.

Seems to me if any part of what you want worked, we would not be where we are now.

I cannot even tell if you accept that free speech has the purpose of assuring I formation vital to for survival is shared and understood.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

reply

Vote up!
+2
Vote down!
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson Show Us by Example
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Tue, 12/10/2013 - 04:25. Permalink

On the Contrary, The Founders gave a power to the people:

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson Show Us by Example:

Simply "NULLIFY" to "ENFORCE" the Constitution.

-------

Read the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. (10 years after the Constitution was signed)

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

It takes only 1/2 page (by James Madison) and a one page and a half (by Thomas Jefferson) to "NULLIFY" all non-Delegated federal powers within their states.

They then back it up with state law and give the Nullification "Teeth" by directing state law enforcement and if necessary, state and local militia.

There is Certainly no need for a Constitutional Convention (i.e Con-con); or new amendments (both being more dangerous).

The power of the people to "NULLIFY" undelegated powers is established in the Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 as well.

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

-------

Kentucky Resolutions 1798:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

Thomas Jefferson:

"….8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States:

that faithful to that compact, according to the "plain intent and meaning" in which it "was" understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation:

that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is NOT for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States;

and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to "UNDELEGATED", and consequently "UNLIMITED POWERS" in "NO MAN" OR "BODY OF MEN" ON EARTH":

that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy;

*****BUT, where powers are assumed which have NOT BEEN DELEGATED, a "NULLIFICATION" of the act is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY:

that every STATE has a natural RIGHT in cases NOT within the COMPACT, (casus non fœderis)

*****to "NULLIFY" of their "OWN AUTHORITY" all assumptions of power by others within their limits:

that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them:

that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the "COMPACT", and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, ..."

-------
-------

That is how they did it, that is how you do it.

You vote in a Governor and state legislative, who will take command and simply write and pass the NULLIFICATION at state level; Then enforce it in the same way you would any other law; or any other invasion.

Here John Locke establishes the principle:

-------
-------

John Locke #155. "It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original constitution or the public exigencies require it?

I say, using force upon the people, without authority, and contrary to the "TRUST" (i.e. LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS UNDER THE ORIGINAL COMPACT WHICH THAT GOVERNMENT WAS FORMED CREATING A LIMITED AUTHORITY) put in him that does so,

>>>is a state of war with the people,

who have a "RIGHT" to reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power.

For having erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the power of making laws (WITHIN THOSE LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS), either at certain set times, or when there is need of it,

when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists,

the people have a "RIGHT" to remove it "BY FORCE".

In all states and conditions the "TRUE REMEDY" of "FORCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY" is to "OPPOSE FORCE TO IT". The use of force without authority always puts him that uses it into a state of war as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly."

-------

John Locke #222. The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property; and the end while they choose and authorise a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. For since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making: whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption,

(APP Note: See this in Samuel Adams Statement within the Rights of the Colonists, 1772: "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.")

endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people,

by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) which is the end for which they are in society.

What I have said here concerning the legislative in general holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society.

He acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposes, when he openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes, to their choice, such whom he has, by solicitation, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his "designs", and employs them to bring in such who have promised beforehand what to vote and what to enact.

Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security?

For the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act and advise as the necessity of the commonwealth and the public good should, upon examination and mature debate, be judged to require.

This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing.

To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavor to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a "design"

(APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence and compare 223-226:

(" ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a "design" to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.)

to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with.

To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a >>"design", and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing.

What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust that along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine;

and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer be trusted."

-------

227. In both the forementioned cases, when either the legislative is "CHANGED", or the legislators "ACT CONTRARY TO THE END FOR WHICH THEY WERE CONSTITUTED", "those who are" guilty are guilty of rebellion.

For if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their TRUST (LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS) , he thereby takes away the umpirage which every one had consented to for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them.

They who remove or change the legislative take away this decisive power, which nobody can have but by the appointment and CONSENT of the people,

and so "DESTROYING THE AUTHORITY" which the people did, and nobody else can, set up,

and introducing a power which the people hath "NOT AUTHORIZED",

actually introduce a state of war,

which is that of "FORCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY";

and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will,

they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the "STATE OF WAR".

And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels,

the "LEGISLATORS THEMSELVES", as has been shown, "CAN BE NO LESS ESTEEMED SO",

when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties shall by force invade and endeavour to take them away;

and so they putting themselves (THE LEGISLATORS) into a "STATE OF WAR" with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels."

Locke #228. "But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, contrary to the trust put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "PEACE" of the world';

>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed.

If any mischief come in such cases,

>>> it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but "on him" that "invades his neighbour's".

If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has "FOR PEACE SAKE" to him who will lay violent hands upon it,

I desire it may be considered what kind of a peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,

and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors.

Who would not think it an admirable peace betwixt the mighty and the mean, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? "

-------

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

FB:https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-National-Headquarters/174074706883

DP: 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.

edit
reply

Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
coffee_sponge's picture
I alluded to this in my post.
Submitted by coffee_sponge on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 13:07. Permalink

The only precedent we have is that established by the original Con-Con. The delegates were charged to come up with amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they threw out the AOC and completely rewrote the Constitution.

Going into the first Con-Con, the rules of adoption required unanimous concurrence of all states. The Con-Con changed those rules as well to ensure adoption.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because a Con-Con has the plenary authority of the states, there is no way to set limits going in. In fact, as I already pointed out, an exegesis at a new Con-Con would in fact preempt the Founders' original intent and substitute it with the new explanations of what the Constitution actually means.

Preparatory amendments are superfluous suggestions. The meat of the call is the call itself.

--- end posts ---

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.

I thought your opinion of our prime rights would be very

low, and that you would show it by attempting to misrepresent the effort to develop American capacity to know and define constitutional intent, required to have a proper Article V convention.

"you seem only to want to create confusion and discord through drivel;"

Your evasion underscores your deceptive intent, and you are evading making an affirmation any normal human being would make without hesitation. You have been asked to make that affirmation to defend the constitution, but instead, you continue to discourage people involving with constitutional intent by your misrepresentation.

These things are not confusing, they are behavior and it is clear that is all you are doing here.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

There wont be a Con-Con

There wont be a Con-Con because a war will break out on who is allowed to go (politicians vs individuals) and participate. Force will be used and/or people will just break into their own factions and say screw it.

Southern Agrarian

You haven't been reading

There wil bel no conflict of that kind in 38 states. Incumbents will be tested, the sincere will be confident and the rest will prepare to leave their offices.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

First, I'll bet this comment section has been inundated by

that 'wanna-be' statesman, Christopher ...oh, What's-it?
Blue? Red? ...er, no. Brown! Yeah that's him. Christopher something Brown. I can't say for sure because I had to block the fool from littering my screen with his incessant rambling, but this is just the thing to lure him away from his vocabulary lessons in order to push his nonsensical amendment rewrites. The man is obsessed with them.
Let me guess ... anyone disagreeing with him is a "Cognitive Infiltrator". Or some such phrase with 'cognitive' in it. Right?
Too predictable, the old sod.
The memorable Bugs Bunny quote just came to mind.
"What a maroon!" LOL
Sorry for starting this out off topic.

As to the article linked - the author states it quite succinctly in his ending summary, quote:

"Our problem is not the Constitution. Our problem is a federal government that is operating outside the confines of the Constitution."

Then, he follows it up with,

"The solution is to bring the federal government back into compliance with the Constitution through voter education campaigns and state nullification laws."

I think his offered solution is as good, or better than any other we've heard. None are a 'magical fix'.
A change in the Law of the Land would be just as ignored as the current laws are now.
And, any solution that relies on the 'White Knight' or 'Savior' syndrome, as in someone will come along and save us, is simply the idle musings of the weak willed.
Think of it like this; they (The Powers That shouldn't Be) invested a huge effort to bring us to where we are today.
It will take a minimum matching effort, or more, to reverse their planned course. Makes sense?
There have been Representatives in State Legislatures who are introducing bills and getting laws passed in defiance of the Federal Government's crusade to eliminate the freedoms this country was founded on.
State nullification is a powerful, lawful remedy.
As well as propositions making it to the ballot for a consensus vote of the people.
Washington and Colorado, case in point. The Feds are not going to send in troops to arrest everyone breaking Federal Drug Laws. No matter if the other States disagree with the laws that State passed, they would not stand by and watch the Feds try to take over. No way. I can't see it happening.

We need to support our legislators on the State level. And, put the idea into their heads to avail themselves of this legal and Constitutional means of keeping the Feds in check.
Seems to me, education and nullification IS the path to a non-violent revolution.
Just my couple-a-cents on what makes sense.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

For one who does not want people

to think free speech is to assure information vital to survival should be shared and understood, you certainly depend on use of it to do whatever you are trying to.

Which you never did say.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

OH YES WE CON CON

Fear of a constitutional convention is not only valid (certainly not misplaced)but is of the utmost importance! Be careful we are not so consumed with ObamaCare, Benghazi, IRS new chief, and other diversions that we lose the whole republic in one fell swoop! Levin and his pals, Rush, Sean, etc. want you to believe that it will be limited only to a balanced budget amendment, right? Well, that is only true until a majority of delegates raise other issues, like updating the 2nd amendment. Oh, and even if we only just create a balanced budget amendment, that in itself will be devastating! Raising your taxes will now be required under the constitution! We must think this through, then stand firm in opposition. There are so many threats to our liberty it is surely hard to rate their importance, but the CON CON is in the top 2 or 3 for sure!
Oh and just remember the delegates to this convention would not be of the caliber of intellect and virtue of say a Sam Adams,or Tom Jefferson, but rather Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and Harry Reid or Chris Christie.
Reason to pause....

RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!

Realistic IF restoration of constitutional government

is important to you.

Read Article V again, please. Examine how the words "constitutional intent" are used. Realize that Lincoln in 1859 said "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" because the people are the one that have the authority to define constitutional intent.

Then consider that preparation for Article V is absolutely vital to assure all amendments have constitutional intent. And since the people are the authority, they must be enabled to define it officially with there vote. There are 3 primary aspects of this related to preparation.

1)End the abridging of free speech
2)Secure the vote
3)Campaign finance reform

Consider this:
We are posting in a thread which promotes the opposite of what we know we need. Our first right Article V. We are in this thread because too few apprehend what I'm trying to do over here.

http://www.dailypaul.com/305808/if-we-do-not-know-the-purpos...

And most are not yet able to see through the infiltration which is covertly imposed on the forum, and none who are sincere about restoration of constitutional government are posting in that thread promoting what we know we need because of another form of infiltration over there obsufucating the topic.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Another who wants people to be afraid

of our constitution.

How about you? Do you believe that free speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

deacon's picture

question

from your comment,who decides which is or isn't vital?
would comics be vital? or cartoons?
And why is it wrote to cause confusion?
This leads to mistrust,and mistrust leads to what is going on now?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

You are aware that the

You are aware that the article V convention is about the states and their legislatures and not the federal government.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

And you trust the State Legislatures would send

their liberty loving members???????

Good perspective

but thes people are not even accountable to their own instincts, unless perhaps those of reptilian fear.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

This fear of a con-con is really misplaced

1. the feds don't follow the constitution now
2. the ability to propose all the amendments you all fear exists today by a rotten crew in congress. how is a con-con worse?

regardless of all the nonsense arguments against a con-con the reality is the problems you fear exist today and are worse.

a con-con merely changes who has the authority to propose amendments from an out of control congress to a new body selected by state legislatures. The 2/3rds to pass the convention and 3/4ths of the states are still required for adoption of any changes just like today.

so the only legitimate fear is that the traitors in congress are less traitorous than who states would select for the convention. That is the only difference. Do you really think states would select worse people? Personally, I trust my state legislatures much more than congress.

I say we do it then when

I say we do it then when things crumble we can finally get down to dissolving the US - states can go their own way. Of course we all know the the federal government won't allow it so the second civil war will commence.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Something tells me that despite the extreme misinformation

and misleading, Americans ate starting to discuss things face to face and only giving regulated credence to media.

Article V is quickly becoming a right we have an immediate and extreme need to invoke. It is the peaceful and lawful revolution Jefferson wrote about.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

crumble

If things crumble, there will be no Constitution

Lol.....do you seriously

Lol.....do you seriously believe that there is much of a constitution remaining?

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Let me help-apples and oranges

"Crumble" indicates complete economic collapse and strife.

"Constitution" is our awareness of a contract of agreed principles common (ideally) between all Americans, including those of government.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

The States are too large to provide adequate representation

The States are presently too large to provide adequate representation;

Reducing the size of the states, to the sizes which the founders understood as states - and not "distant legislatures", would remove some of the corruption by taking away power from those state bureaucracies that have long sold out our rights to the federal government by accepting mandates. etc..

Here is something to read on the issue:

Republics and Representation: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Distant Legislatures: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Distant_Legislatures/dist...

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

What about the purpose of our rights taken?

Are Americans supposed to know that purpose uniformly in the demand for return?

"Reducing the size of the states, to the sizes which the founders understood as states - and not "distant legislatures", would remove some of the corruption by taking away power from those state bureaucracies that have long sold out our rights to the federal government by accepting mandates. etc.."

"

If the size of voting groups which understand and can define constitutional intent INCREASE, and your position is against that by use of agreement upon constitutional intent, how come you care? What are you trying to do and how are you trying to do it? What legal mechanism are you invoking while bashing our constitution and our capacity to unify?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

You wanna see a 'Living Wage' Amendment?

Call a Con Con. You wanna see the 2nd Amendment repealed? Call a Con Con. No thanks, I don't trust my fellow Americans enough to let 'em touch the Constitution.