The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Patrick Henry AGAINST the Constitution: Loss of Liberty

(See in situ)

Patrick Henry AGAINST the Constitution: Loss of Liberty

This being said, I trust no one to rewrite the document...and trust no one wanting to do away with the document. However, there seems that the man who said, "Give me Liberty or give me death" was opposed to moving to a consolidated goverment.

"The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans?"

"It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."

Read it and weep...ask yourself why you have never before read this document. Page 229:
"made like A Fiddle, with but few Strings,"
"play any tune upon it they pleased."

In Context:
"Regarding the Constitutional Convention, he [William Manning] echoed a common Anti-Federalist complaint: the framers deliberately employed ambiguous language to facilitate their aristocratic designs. He confidently asserted, "The Convention who made it intended to destroy our free government by, or they never would have spent 4 Months in making such an inexplicit thing." The Constitution was a "made like A Fiddle, with but few Strings," so that those in power might "play any tune upon it they pleased." The ambiguity of the Constitution was a deliberate product of Federalist aristocratic machinations-confirmed by the practices of Federalists since ratification. Under the guise of constructive interpretations, Federalists were seeking to extend the powers of their federal government and trample on the people's liberties."
It seems to me that not even the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution at the end of 1791 have been able to protect us from the rape and pillage of a centralized criminal power structure. Those criminals don’t even know what the meaning of “is” is. I don’t even think they know what SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means…or perhaps it is the definition of the word “arms” that is subject to infringement…speaking of that few stringed fiddle…