QUIZ & POLL: U.S. Constitution 6/8/09
Submitted by Jack Pelham on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 08:34
http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/quizzes/
Today's poll question is about the language of the Bill of Rights (1st ten amendments). Does it strike you as having been written only to restrict the federal government? Or does it seem to be a declaration of the rights of the people, applying therefore, to state and local governments as well?
Be sure to see the video, too. It tackles the question of which of America's problems is the biggest and most important to solve. You may find the conclusion quite surprising.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
»
POLL UPDATE: 53% say the BOR is about rights....
...35% say it's about restricting the Federal Government only, and 12% say "other".
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Jack, I took your quiz, and I’ve got questions for you.
I’ll start with #1. Your answer includes that 'the people' have power over the government. Who is ‘the people’ that you refer to? As I don’t want to assume who you mean, would you please refer to these people by name so I can identify who is supposed to have power over government? Thanks!
And on #2, I’m wondering how president Obama just said last week he's going to create a new legal framework to make what he and his administration are doing to those people These must not be any of the people who have any power over the government, right Jack? Maybe they’re supposed to be though. Boy, using names to distinguish amongst all the people on the planet would come in handy here, wouldn’t they? Anyway, any of ‘the people’ Mr. president Obama and his administration declare are 'enemy combatants' are going to be subjected to whatever rules this “new legal framework” he creates decides to subject them to. But as you claim he doesn't have the power to do so, how is he going to do that? Seeing as how he’s declared it and it’ll more than likely be implemented I guess he does have that power after all, doesn't he? It must be that ‘the people’ who told him he could gave that power to him. And on that note, while I don’t like him too much, Mr. Obama is a person, so I guess he could empower himself as a member of ‘the people’ couldn’t he? Or is he not one of ‘the people’? It’s very confusing, isn’t it? See where using actual names when declaring who has granted the authority to do what and to whom and on the behalf of whom would come in handy?
I did take the rest of the quiz, but I don’t want to overwhelm you with the questions I have all at once. I figure if I keep it to one or two simple points and questions it’ll make it much more simple for ‘the people’, oops, I mean you, Jack, to answer.
Thanks Jack!
‘The person’ (when I'm hanging with my buds we're known as 'the people' too!)
I did lousy
on the quiz. Bookmarked to watch the video later. Thanks
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
I just looked through the quiz.
Some of it's really hard because it asks for book, chapter, and verse, so to speak---which is somewhat trivial in nature.
Other questions are hard because they are about things that don't come up very often.
And others, like about the oath of Congressmen, are tricky because we rarely see video of them being sworn into office.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
I don't agree
When your video says that the people did not keep watch. Yes the people did. Public Citizen Ralph Nader, wasn't out of college when he connected the dots between government and corporations. His brilliant move was establishing a position, "Consumer Advocate", which evolved Public Interest Research Groups, PRIGS that allowed civilians, with the Freedom of Information Act, which Nader established, people such as myself, caught on very quickly and yes, we established non-profits as a means to achieve our special interests (clean water), that do make profits when they are successful, in doing what we don't want the government doing for us.
It was Richard Nixon who took Nader's non-profits and turned them into govt agencies, EPA, OSHA, Nader has over 80 acts and bills the government incorporated one way or another. No one has sued Govt and their crony corporations, protected by MSM who lies about Nader, than Nader.
Nader has long said the EPA should be a thousands of private businesses competeing to be the best at protecting the environment for their local interests, not the interests of others who live elsewhere. Because of what MSM has said about Nader, Republicans, under the influence of neocons, have rejected Nader, called him a socialist.. because a corporation who has a major military industrial complex contract puts up sexy ads and sells tits on a car as if that is not socialsit (they have a contract with the govt... so it is)... but WTF do you know? The car and tits look better than Nader the spoiler.
Nader said in Y2K, there is no difference between parties. No one gives him credit, Democrats HATE him for it. They call him THE EGO.. and why? Who the hell does a man think he is better than the government?
I agree with Nader, I see allot of jobs and small business based on a free market where consumers can choose their own brand of consumer protection, not govt issued and controlled. It's NOT working.
As for your claim about some people profitting in the billions, besides the Military Industrial Complex. No one else is proffiting and frankly, I agree with Jeremy Skahill, the danger we face today is these corporations detaching themselves from the nation -state and globalizing as independent powers. One day a CEO and the board decide they don't need government, government needs them.
People are so busy trying to make ends meet or finding a mate, or living their life, they don't have the time, they didn't get the education, and MSM is outright entertaining them.. MSM is not educating anyone.. and allot of this has to do with corporations buying protection from the government against the people. Rule of Law does not apply to corporations.
Finally, my issue with the Rule of Law, is it's a popular socialist term, because it's based on the mob rule, where bad laws, like the war on drugs, stand. Rule of Law attemps to be THE LAW and THE LAW is nature, which is unpredictable in a predictable kind of way, like tossing dice. I am not so eager to accept a bad law at the roll of a dice because of the Rule of Law theory. Rule of law sounds good, but it's unnatural. It works for churches... so it has a conservative side, but in today.s political environment, last thing I want to hear from Obama is Rule of Law. That's frightening because the Constitution is in trouble and the Rule of Law will not save it.
Nice speaking voice on the vid.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Granger, some replies to your thoughts.
I hardly think that Ralph Nader disproves my point. Clearly, I'm speaking about the masses having abdicated their rightful roles as overseers/influencers of their own government. This is quite obvious---self-evident, even, and needs no defense.
How various factions spin a term has nothing to do with its original intent. You mention "the Rule of Law theory", suggesting that under it, you would be beholden to accept "bad law". But nothing in my theory of the Rule of Law calls for the citizens to roll over, except the failure of activism to secure a 3/4 consensus among the states to amend the Constitution, or to affect a majority vote in Congress to repeal a lesser law.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
With Over 80 acts established, he does
Nader didn't have his acts and bills incorporated as a elected congrassman. He did it as a public citizen. So, in your opening argument saying people have let this happen... NO WE DIDN'T.
Look at yourself here with your special interest, "Rule of Law", and you are engaging.. correct? You are doing what you say we are not doing.
I don't see the failure of actism.
I see the majority of American OPPOSED to the war, overwhelming uniting for Obama to OPPOSE the war, and the wars rage on. I see the majority of American win an election on marijuana, gay marriage, no taxes, and I see Arnold Schwartenegger threated the citizens with punishment of closing 200 state parks in on Labor Day weekend.
When I went to SF to meet Ron Paul, I saw allot of activists I know... we're all trying to break through that congressional glass floor in hopes they'll take our special intetrests to task. They rarely do. They prefer to be bought. And that is the rule of law.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
OK, this isn't that hard to grasp.
In no place did I ever say that "No American citizen has ever done a thing do keep the federal government on its leash." Rather, I have said that "we" have failed to get that job done. This is self-evidently true---so much so that I would think it would be beyond argument.
If Congress is indeed off its leash, when the PEOPLE have clearly failed to put it back where it belongs. Nader or not.
And no, bribery is not the rule of law. In case you missed it, I do not hold that the United States is currently operating under the Rule of Law, inasmuch as it is not operating under its own Constitution.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
When people drive at 90 MPH past the sign that says "70 MPH", it does not follow, then, that "70 MPH means 90 MPH". Nor does it follow that if bribery exists in a system that was designed to operate under the Rule of Law, that the Rule of Law and bribery are inherently connected.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Great video!
Hard quiz.
Yes, it is a hard quiz!
The more quizzes I make, the easier it gets to write hard questions! (Is this because all the easy ones are already taken?)
I really do need to rebuild that page so that there's a scrollable copy of the Constitution beside the quiz box. Of course, that shifts it from being a test of one's existing knowledge to a test of one's ability and/or willingness to look up an answer in the text!
Actually, the person taking the quiz will know how they took it.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com