Archive for Open discussion on just about any topic
  Forum Index -> We the People

Implementing the Constitution

Implementing the Constitution.

Once the Constitution was ratified by nine States it was the "law of the land" and the sitting Congress (under the Articles of Confederation) determined the rules for the first two necessary actions - the election of the Members of Congress and the election of the President and of the Vice-President.

The 69 Electors (# of the then states' Representatives and Senators) unanimously elected George Washington as President, and 34 of the Electors also voted for John Adams as their second choice, thus he was appointed VP. (Four years later Washington again received all the Electors' votes with Adams receiving 77 as second choice).

The 1st Congress (only 20 Senators from the 10 of the then 11 states which had ratified the Constitution, as the New Yorkers were squabbling and couldn't agree on whom to appoint) convened on 3/4/89 in Freedom Hall - 26 Wall Street - New York City, New York; where the second session of the 1st Congress was also held.  

The third session was moved to Congress Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; where subsequently the remainder of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Congresses sat during the first two Washington administrations (1789-1797).

The great majority of laws passed by Congress during those first eight years were (1) the creation of the "nuts and bolts" - the federal rules and regulations - of implementation of the clauses of the Constitution; and (2) creation of the federal tax revenue schemes to pay off the debts occured by the federal congress and by the states' legislatures during and after the Revolutionary War.  

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution each state had handled its own financial debt, deficit and tax matters, and the federal congress not only had no powers to collect taxes but also required an unanimous vote of the states' to pass any federal legislation.

Of the 377 Public Laws and Private Laws passed by Congress in those eight years, 225 were in regard to taxes, tariffs, duties, embargoes, debts, deficits, bankruptcies, loans, federal property sales and acquisitions, and settlements of claims against the federal government and the states' debts it had assumed under the new Constitution.  

An amazing number of the Laws were to do with taxes, tariffs, imposts, etc. of Spirits, Snuff and Sugar.

The 225 of 377 Laws - the 67% of the total to do with regulation of trade, commerce, money matters and the resultant distribution of wealth - excludes Post Office, Post Roads and Lighthouse expenditures for the "common good."

Portal to U.S. Public and Private Laws:

And Congress during the Washington administration was the most divided in the history of the U.S., with President of the Senate John Adams (the Vice-President of the U.S.) having to cast 29 tie-breaking votes - 1 of every 13 of the Laws.  Since 1800 the average tie-breaking votes in the Senate has been 1 of every 200, or 0.05%.

As an example of the stringent suffrage laws in most of the Colonies prior to Independence, John Adams - although a free white adult, a graduate of Harvard, then a Latin professor, and after that an attorney passing the Bar of the Boston Superior Court - was NOT allowed to actively participate in political meetings (town halls, state assemblies, etc.) NOR allowed to vote, until his dad died and he inherited a portion of the landed estate, i.e. became a "freeholder."

However, as noted in other threads in this Forum, as the States re-wrote their Constitutions after 1776 - and as farming and timbering  moved from subsistence economies (94% of the population pre-independence lived on farms) to capitalist trade economies - most of the new Constitutions not only included a Bill of individuals' Rights, but also expanded suffrage from freeholders to non-propertied free white men and free black men (but not indians) who had a determined amount of wealth/capital, and who paid taxes. By the end of Washington's administration, approx. half the free adult men in the U.S. could legally vote.

The 4th Congress, convening on 12/7/95, was the first with Representatives apportioned based upon the population of the individual States as determined by the U.S. Census of 1790, as mandated by the Constitution.  

The 4th also was the first "2-Party" Congress, the Federalists with a majority in the Senate with the Democratic Republicans having a majority in the House.

I think it fitting to take a look at the Founders' actions and rationales in regard to protecting U.S. citizens' businesses, federal income, taxes, and debt/deficit spending.

In the 1st Congress, one of the first laws passed:

July 4, 1789.
"An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported into the United States,"

Sec. 1. Whereas it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandises imported:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of August next ensuing, the several duties hereinafter mentioned shall be laid on the following goods, wares and merchandises imported into the United States from any foreign port or place, that is to say: Specific duties on certain enumerated articles.

On all distilled spirits of Jamaica proof, imported from any kingdom or country whatsoever, per gallon, ten cents.
On all other distilled spirits, per gallon, eight cents.
On molasses, per gallon, two and a half cents.
On Madeira wine, per gallon, eighteen cents.
On all other wines, per gallon, ten cents.
On every gallon of beer, ale or porter in casks, five cents.
On all cider, beer, ale or porter in bottles, per dozen, twenty cents.
On malt, per bushel, ten cents.
On brown sugars, per pound, one cent.
On loaf sugars, per pound, three cents.
On all other sugars, per pound, one and a half cents.
On coffee, per pound, two and a half cents.
On cocoa, per pound, one cent.
On all candles of tallow, per pound, two cents.
On all candles of wax or spermaceti, per pound, six cents.
On cheese, per pound, four cents.
On soap, per pound, two cents.
On boots, per pair, fifty cents.
On all shoes, slippers or goloshoes made of leather, per pair, seven cents.
On all shoes or slippers made of silk or stuff; per pair, ten cents.
On cables, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, seventy-five cents.
On tarred cordage, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, seventy-five cents.
On untarred ditto, and yarn, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, ninety cents.
On twine or packthread, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, two hundred cents.
On all steel unwrought, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, fifty-six cents.
On all nails and spikes, per pound, one cent.
On salt, per bushel, six cents.
On manufactured tobacco, per pound, six cents.
On snuff, per pound, ten cents.
On indigo, per pound, sixteen cents.
On wool and cotton cards, per dozen, fifty cents.
On coal, per bushel, two cents.
On pickled fish, per barrel, seventy-five cents.
On dried fish, per quintal, fifty cents.

On teas imported from India or China.
On all teas imported from China or India, in ships built in the United States, and belonging to a citizen or citizens thereof, or in ships or vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation, as follows:
On bohea tea, per pound, six cents.
On all souchong, or other black teas, per pound, ten cents.
On all hyson teas, per pound, twenty cents.
On all other green teas, per pound, twelve cents.

On teas imported from Europe.
On all teas imported from Europe in ships or vessels built in the United States, and belonging wholly to a citizen or citizens thereof, orin ships or vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation, as follows:
On bohea tea, per pound, eight cents.
On all souchong, and other black teas, per pound, thirteen cents.
On all hyson teas, per pound, twenty-six cents.
On all other green teas, per pound, sixteen cents.

On all teas imported, in any other manner than as above mentioned, as follows:
On bohea tea, per pound, fifteen cents.
On all souchong, or other black teas, per pound, twenty-two cents.
On all hyson teas, per pound, forty-five cents.
On all other green teas, per pound, twenty-seven cents.

On all other goods imported from India or China, 12½ per centum ad valorem.

On all goods, wares and merchandises, other than teas, imported from China or India, in ships not built in the United States, and not wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof, nor in vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation, twelve and a half per centum ad valorem.

On other enumerated articles [below], 10 per centum ad valorem.

On all looking-glasses, window and other glass (except black quart bottles),
On all China, stone and earthen ware,
On gunpowder,
On all paints ground in oil,
On shoe and knee buckles,
On gold and silver lace, and
On gold and silver leaf,

On other enumerated articles [below], 7½ per ct. ad valorem.

On all blank books,
On all writing, printing or wrapping paper, paper-hangings and pasteboard,
On all cabinet wares,
On all buttons,
On all saddles,
On all gloves of leather,
On all hats of beaver, fur, wool, or mixture of either,
On all millinery ready made,
On all castings of iron, and upon slit and rolled iron,
On all leather tanned or tawed, and all manufacture of leather, except such as shall be otherwise rated,
On canes, walking sticks and whips,
On clothing ready made,
On all brushes,
On gold, silver, and plated ware, and on jewelry and paste work,
On anchors, and on all wrought, tin, and pewter ware,

On playing cards, per pack, ten cents.
On every coach, chariot or other four wheel carriage, and on every chaise, solo, or other two wheel carriage, or parts thereof fifteen per centum ad valorem.

On all other goods, except certain articles, 5 per cent. on the value at the time and place of importation.

On all other goods, wares and merchandise, five per centum on the value thereof at the time and place of importation, except as follows: saltpetre, tin in pigs, tin plates, lead, old pewter, brass, iron and brass wire, copper in plates, wool, cotton, dyeing woods and dyeing drugs, raw hides, beaver, and all other furs, and deer skins.

Duty on hemp and cotton imported after the 1st Dec. 1790. Sec. 2.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the first day of December, which shall be in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety, there shall be laid a duty on every one hundred and twelve pounds, weight of hemp imported as aforesaid, of sixty cents; and on cotton per pound, three cents,
On every quintal of dried fish, five cents.
On every barrel of pickled fish, five cents.
On every barrel of salted provision, five cents.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That a discount of ten per cent. on all the duties imposed by this act, shall be allowed on such goods, wares and merchandises, as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and which shall be wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof, or in vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last, wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation.

Continuation of new fiscal laws, 1st Congress

July 20, 1789.
"An Act imposing Duties on Tonnage."

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the following duties shall be, and are hereby imposed on all ships or vessels entered in the United States, that is to say:

On all ships or vessels built within the said States or belonging to citizens Six cents per ton.
On vessels hereafter built in the U.S., belonging to foreigners, 30 cts. per ton.
On all others, 50 cts. per ton.
On all ships or vessels hereafter built in the United States, belonging wholly, or in part, to subjects of foreign powers, at the rate of thirty cents per ton.
On all other ships or vessels, at the rate of fifty cents per ton.

Sec. 2. Provided always, and be it enacted, Vessels built in the U.S., in the coasting trade, to pay tonnage but once a year. That no ship or vessel built within the aforesaid States, and belonging to a citizen or citizens thereof, shall, whilst employed in the coasting trade, or in the fisheries, pay tonnage more than once in any year.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, 50 cts. a ton on foreign vessels engaged in the coasting trade. That every ship or vessel employed in the transportation of any of the produce or manufactures of the United States, coastwise within the said States, except such ship or vessel be built within the said States, and belong to a citizen or citizens thereof, shall, on each entry, pay fifty cents per ton.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted,Act to commence August 15,
1789. That this act shall commence and be in force from and after the fifteenth day of August next.

And the first appropriations bill

Sept. 29, 1789.
"An Act making Appropriations for the Service of the present year."

Specific appropriations of money for expenses of civil list and war department;

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That there be appropriated for the service of the present year, to be paid out of the monies which arise, either from the requisitions heretofore made upon the several states, or from the duties on impost and tonnage, the following sums, viz.
A sum not exceeding two hundred and sixteen thousand dollars for defraying the expenses of the civil list, under the late and present government;
a sum not exceeding one hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars for defraying the expenses of the department of war;
a sum not exceeding one hundred and ninety thousand dollars for discharging the warrants issued by the late board of treasury, and remaining unsatisfied;
and a sum not exceeding ninety-six thousand dollars for paying the pensions to invalids.

Rally for Rush

By JEFFREY LORD on 3.5.12 @ 6:10AM

Carbonite CEO tied to time for conservatives to fight blacklisting?

So. Did you hear about Carbonite and Rush Limbaugh?
No, you didn't. Not the way you will in a minute. But first?
It's time to turn the tables.
It's time to stand up to the bullies.
It's time to Rally for Rush.
Rush Limbaugh has discussed at length -- at length -- what Sandra Fluke and her statist cronies are up to. Yes, he used the words "slut" and "prostitute" -- using the ludicrous to make his point. Ms. Fluke, in one of the most pathetic, shamelessly whining stories in recent memory, demands to be paid for her sex life because it costs $3,000 for three years of birth control while she's at law school. She demands that a Catholic university violate its fundamental right to religious liberty so she can have others pay for her sex life. So Rush asked the farcical obvious about somebody who demands that someone else pay her for her apparent, self-admitted prolific sex life. He spent two solid days relating her greed for other people's money and a lack of personal responsibility to the oldest of principles.
Right on cue, the blacklisting crowd came out of their Stalinist caves. Having driven Lou Dobbs from CNN, cut off Beck's windpipe at Fox, severed Pat Buchanan from MSNBC, thus emboldened they have now set their sights on Rush.

Lots more at:

Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist

Rush Limbaugh apologized on Saturday for calling a Georgetown Law student a slut for testifying about contraception and starting a firestorm of outrage. Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

Did you know there is a war on women?

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.”  He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”  Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

The grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote  on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.”  When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.”  He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head”  and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told  Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word  in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said  of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator . Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face , an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.

poor tsiya...he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't...(start a new thread)

i would have started a new thread on this one tsiya....or sandwiched it in to the fox news thread, which does double duty as our "bias in the media" thread.

having said that, i'm amazed that everyone got balled up over this...rush has been saying outrageous things ever since they put a microphone in front of his mouth....and i'm equally amazed that this fluke person received a call from the president...but laura ingraham (previous recepient of the talkshow slut award) didn't.

And this has what to do with the Implementation of the Constitution?

It's about how the first amendment only applies to liberals.

Rush Limbaugh stupid remark was with out a doubt one of the worst possible comment he could have made about the woman.  

Did he have the right to make it?  Certainly.  Was it a first amendment issue? Nope.  No one has said he should have been censored.  Most, including myself, think it was a comment (in the Limbaugh style) designed to spark outrage.  It did.  To date 7 Sponsors have left his show.  

It was stupid, rude and out of order.  

But I would defend his right to make the comment.   I would also defend those that have decided to quit sponsoring the show.  

He did more to screw the GOP with that comment than any body else.  

What an Ass hole!

tsiya wrote:
It's about how the first amendment only applies to liberals.


Any of those radio or TV talk show name-callers - from left to right - been charged with a crime?  

No, No, No, No, and No.

Doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment.

Whining "unconstitutional" has become the catchword to 'bama-haters, gubmint-haters, and many self-identified Tea-Partiers ––– and not one Executive Office decision has yet to be ruled unconstitutional.  

It's like "crying wolf" - as apparent to all but the parrots.

bieramar wrote:

Whining "unconstitutional" has become the catchword to 'bama-haters, gubmint-haters, and many self-identified Tea-Partiers ––– and not one Executive Office decision has yet to be ruled unconstitutional.  

Yet!  There is still time!

Investors flee Carbonite after Limbaugh announcement

On Saturday, Carbonite CEO David Friend released a statement on his company’s website declaring that Carbonite had decided to “withdraw” advertising from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in the wake of his controversial remarks involving Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke because it will “ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse”:

Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.

However, it hasn’t done much to contribute to his company’s stock price. Since the market opened on Monday through its close today, Carbonite stock (NASDAQ:CARB) has plummeted nearly 12 percent, outpacing the drop of the NASDAQ index in that same time period by nine-and-a-half points. It was also one of the biggest decliners on the NASDAQ on Tuesday.

Read more:

All the companies who removed their ads from Rush's program are experiencing overloaded switchboards, Rush's fans are raising Hell.
The organized liberal callers who complained about Rush's comments ARE NOT, for the most part, customers. Many of Rush's supporters ARE.
Hell, most of the complainers don't even listen to Rush, never have and never will. They listen to Bill Maher though, why didn't they get upset when he was trashing Sarah Palin and her family?

Bob please take this to another thread.

It should have been on a new thread, but I'm afraid to start one. Looks like I'm gonna get my ass chewed one way or the other.


Understood, sometimes you just can't make something fit an existing thread, so I've been stretching. Very Happy

coebul wrote:

I am not all that good at being a forum administrator..  So your help will be greatly appreciated.  

i must be out of the loop.
i thought guido was the forum administrator.
and he does a fine job.
Guido Sarducci

You're not out of the Loop Coebul has been dealt with.


Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?

The Constitution of the United States is an undeniably powerful document.  So powerful in fact, that it took establishment elitists with aspirations of globalized governance over a century to diminish the American people’s connection to it.  It’s been a long time coming, but in the new millennium, there is now indeed a subsection of the masses that not only have no relationship to our founding roots, they actually despise those of us who do!

There are a number of reasons for this dangerous development in our culture:  A public school system that rarely if ever teaches children about the revolution, the founders, constitutional liberty, or the virtues of individualism in general.  A mainstream media apparatus that has regurgitated endless anti-constitutional shlock for decades, attacking any person or group that presents a freedom oriented view.  And a governmental structure that has become so corrupt, so openly criminal, that they ignore all aspects of constitutional law without regard, rarely feeling the need to explain themselves.  As a people, we are surrounded daily by the low droning wash-talk of denigration and disdain for our principled foundations.  The wretched ghosts of collectivism and tyranny mumble in our ears from birth to death.  It’s truly a miracle that every man and woman in this nation has not succumbed to the mind numbing hypnotism…

However, our propaganda soaked environment is not the ONLY cause of our self destructive society; many people are themselves to blame.  Severe character flaws and psychological imbalances have left some open to suggestion, manipulation, and fraud.  Their hatred, though fueled in part by the socialization of the establishment, is still theirs to own.

The brutal ignorance on display in mainstream circles against the liberty-minded needs to be addressed.  In my view, the American public is being conditioned to see us as a convenient “enemy” which they can use to project all their internal grief and woe.  Our country is on the verge of collapse, economically, politically, and philosophically.  Corporatized elements of our government and the financial high priests of the international banking sector are behind this calamity, and of course, they don’t plan to take responsibility.  Who better to demonize as the catalyst for all the pain that is coming than the only people who have the awareness and the means to stand against the catastrophe?    

There is no doubt in my mind that a great conflict is near, between those of us who value liberty and constitutional protections, and those who would destroy them.  This battle is unlikely to be solved with words.  The anti-constitutionalist rhetoric is becoming so ruthless, so malicious, that it can only lead to a hardening of our own hearts, and an equally forceful response.

Most of us have seen all the mainstream magazines with front page headlines calling for the retirement of the Constitution.  Most of us know about the suggestions by media entities and political opportunists (including Joe Biden) for Barack Obama to bypass congress and the Constitution, implementing possible gun restriction, registration, and confiscation through “executive order” like a common dictator.  There is an obviously brash and violent effort amongst political players today to mold our government into a godlike entity.  But, this is not what concerns me most.  What concerns me is the subversive boiling poison that is leaking into our culture at the local level, creating freedom hating zombies.  Take, for instance, the anti-constitutionalist crusade by a New Hampshire representative against the New Hampshire Free State Project:

What causes someone to hate freedom-loving people so much that they would destroy their own liberties just to drive us away?  Is this not cutting off their own nose just to spite OUR face?  Or, do they even see the loss of freedom for themselves as a bad thing?

And how about Marine Corporal Joshua Boston, who after sending a letter to Dianne Feinstein stating he would not comply with unconstitutional gun restrictions, is now receiving death threats because of his membership in the NRA:

What is the source of the hatred towards constitutionalists?  Where does it originate?  Here are just some of the personal triggers and methodologies within the mind of the anti-freedom advocate which I believe have sullied them beyond repair…

The Anti-Constitutionalist Suffers From An Inferiority Complex

I have found in my role as a Liberty Movement analyst and through literally tens of thousands of debates that anti-constitution advocates are, for the most part, of limited intelligence.  These are the average useful idiots who know little of history, politics, economics, etc., but feel the desperate need to appear as though they are experts on everything.  This usually results in constant attempts to show off for anyone who will pay attention, usually with sound-bites they heard on the nightly news coupled with remedial attacks against the character of those who dare to step outside the mainstream.  

The problem is that deep down, they know they are not very bright.  And so, they seek to always travel with the herd on every issue, for if they cannot be smart, they can at least be accepted.  Ironically, if constitutionalism was being pushed by the mainstream, they would automatically change their tune.  

It is probable that they have run into a Liberty Movement proponent (most of whom are well versed in history, politics, and economics) at least once in their lives, went in for an attack, and were utterly destroyed.  Their inferiority exposed, they learn to detest anything associated with constitutionalism.          

The Anti-Constitutionalist Does Not Like The Idea Of A Law He Cannot Use To His Advantage

Not all anti-constitutionalists are dense.  A limited few are very intelligent, but morally bankrupt.  The Constitution is not just a legal document; it is also an emotional and spiritual document.  If one does not have a relationship with his own conscience and the concept of natural law, then he will discover little in the founding ideals of America that he agrees with.  Some people (usually corrupt politicians and judges) see the law as a weapon to be used against their ideological opponents, whereas constitutionalists see the law as a shield to protect us from such despots.  The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are both designed to protect our Absolute Freedoms.  That is, freedoms that are inborn and which no person or government is qualified to give as a gift, or take as if they are a privilege.

Nothing angers those who seek power more than a legal framework which they are not allowed to touch, or shift, or “tweak” to suit their private ambitions.      

Constitutional protections are not meant to be subject to the “buts” and “what ifs” common in the lesser legal world.  They are not open to debate.  Our rights are not subject to the demands of the so-called “majority”.  Our rights are eternal, and unchangeable.  Anti-constitutionalists attempt to work around the absolutes of the document by implementing subversive law backed by flawed logic.  But, a law which destroys previous constitutional rights is not a law which any individual American is required to follow.  Even an amendment that undermines our civil liberties is not legally binding.  The freedoms put forth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are SET IN STONE (and this includes the right to bear arms in common use of the military of our day).  They cannot be undone without destroying the very fabric of the republic.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Hates Those Who Go Against The Tide, Even If The Tide Is Drowning Us All

Some people are predisposed to be followers.  They do not want to take responsibility for their futures or even their own actions.  They do not like questions.  They do not like dilemmas.  They want to be left to wallow in their own private prisons, where they are comfortably enslaved.

I remember participating in an End The Fed rally in Pittsburgh in early 2008 which was, like most activist rallies, meant to expose the uneducated public to ideas they may not have heard before.  I found it interesting that around a quarter of the people who strolled by our picket line automatically sneered, as if by reflex, even though they had probably never heard our position, or even heard of the Fed.  It dawned on me that they were not angered by our political or economic views.  Instead they were angered by the mere fact that we were there.  We were vocal, and defiant, and a disruption to their daily robot-like routine.  They hated us because we were ruining their fantasy of disconnectedness.  

Constitutionalists are predominantly individualists.  We do not cater to collectivist fairy tales.  We do not seek to roll with the tide just for the sake of finding our “place” within the machine.  We do not care about “fitting in” with the mainstream.  This is often confounding and infuriating to those who have labored their whole lives to please “the group”.  They accuse us of being “isolationists” in response.  What they do not comprehend is that illusion and delusion have isolated THEM, while the truth has brought constitutionalists together.  

Constitutionalists Are Not Politically Correct

For the past few decades our society has become engrossed with the idea of “proper language and behavior”.  Of course, their idea of “proper” usually involves ignoring the reality of a thing.  For a Constitutionalist, a spade is a spade, and we tend to call it like we see it.  We don’t bother ourselves with superficial niceties that get in the way of legitimate debate or legitimate change.  We are not “pleasant” and tolerant with those who would kill our freedoms.   We do not pull punches.

We are direct, and sometimes, brutal in our analysis.  

In some parts of the Western world (especially the UK) language has become a game, a game of self censorship and deceit.  This game has made its way to the United States in recent years, and Constitutionalists don’t play.  We know that every overtly collectivist society begins with the fear of open expression.  And so, our blunt honesty rattles those invested in the PC culture.  Their ultimate and ideal revenge would be to see us painted as social malcontents; like people who smoke in public, or wear a mullet…

Constitutionalists Are Passionate In Their Beliefs

A large percentage of men and women in this world have never been truly passionate about anything.  They simply eat, breath, and defecate their way through life, scrounging about the squalor of a broken system for whatever brief moments of comfort they can find.  They have never explored their inner workings or suffered the hardship of individuation.  They have never been forced to seek out an inner strength, a personal treasure, which guides them to a greater purpose.  Everything they think they believe in has been conditioned into them.  Their uniqueness is suppressed, and their characters shallow.  They have never loved an idea, or a principle.

Constitutionalists LOVE liberty and the mechanics of freedom.  We love the values of a sovereign republic and the opportunities that such a system provides when collectivists are removed from the picture.  There is no question or doubt in our minds; we would fight and die to protect the pillars of the Constitution.  

When confronted with this kind of passion, the average person is shocked and sometimes appalled.  The idea of unshakable will is frightening to them.  They are so used to compromising in every aspect of their lives that when they run into an uncompromising man, they reel in horror.  

That which they see as “fanaticism” is instead an excitement, a boundless joy, a fervent desire to protect something universal and precious.  What they see as “extreme”, we see as essential.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Thinks He Knows What’s Best For All Of Us

Most people who seek to deny and destroy constitutional liberties tend to lean towards a collectivist philosophy.  They are usually socialist, or a variation (Marxist, Fascist), and can be professed members of either major political party.  They believe that their vision of a perfect cultural system is the “correct” vision.  They see the Constitution as “archaic” or “outdated”.  They see it as nothing more than an obstacle to progress which must be toppled.

The “perfect world” that the collectivist strives for functions on centralization: the removal of options until there are no choices left for the common man except those which the collectivist wants him to have.  This world usually suffers from limited free speech, limited civic participation, zero tolerance for dissent, near zero privacy from government eyes, a completely disarmed populous, unaccountable leadership, and the encouragement of informer networks and betrayal for profit.  The goal is to intimidate the whole of a nation into dependence on the system, until every necessity from food to self defense is parceled out by the state.  

Collectivists understand one thing very clearly; an America without the Constitution is destined to become a centralized country.  

They will, of course, claim this is a gross exaggeration.  They will claim that this time will be different.  That the collectivist experiments of the past, which produced nothing but destruction and genocide of their own populations, are nothing similar to what they are espousing.  They will pretend as if their vision is new, progressive, and far more practical than the vision of the Founding Fathers.   In the end though, all they are promoting is a system as old as history; the feudal kingdom.  The mercantile oligarchy.  The militarized state.

At the height of their vicious sabotage of the republic, they will demonize our very heritage, claiming that it was a sham.  That we were never able to “live up to our beliefs anyway”.  That we are “hypocrites”, and this somehow negates the reverence we give to the Constitution.  Unfortunately for them, we know better.  We understand that the principles of the Constitution are not something we grasp at all times, but rather, something to which we aspire to, and grow into as our nation matures.  They require patience, and wisdom.  They force us to question our own “brilliance”, and our own egos.  They anchor us, preventing us from being swept away in the storms of fear.

There has never been and there will never be a better method of law and governance than that method which defends the individualism and freedom of the people.  The most fantastic of human accomplishments, in technology as well as in philosophy, spring from the nurturing waters of liberty.  Free minds and hearts create.  They refuse to be contained, and the Constitution gives us license to ensure that they will never be contained, even to the point of revolution.  

To deny constitutionalism, is to endorse oppression.  May we forever rebel against the agents of “progress”.  May we forever give them something to hate.

Associate videos at;

As a student of;
(1) the U.S. Constitution,
(2) the lives and writings of its Framers,
(3) the lives and writings of the Founders of the United States, and
(4) the lives and writings of the earlier settlers to the British and Spanish Colonies - some of whom came for economic, or religious or civil freedoms which were denied them in their native lands -
my experience is that a majority of self-described "Constitutionalists" know very little about the four separate categories.

And that is why they - the "Constitutionalists," NOT the Constitution - are ridiculed or ignored or hated.

Most know a few out-of-context quotations from someone in categories (2), (3), and (4), and some of them wear historic garb and carry a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

But few can carry on an intelligent conversation or have even read the ideas or the history of the two hundred years of colonial life BEFORE the United Colonies and Declaration of Independence.

Pretty arrogant comment.  Don't cha think?  You have know idea what the individual does or doesn't know.

Bier is one of the enlightened elite, don't ya know?

coebul wrote:
Pretty arrogant comment.  Don't cha think?  You have know idea what the individual does or doesn't know.

Not arrogant at all, simply a statement of "my experience" in discussing the Constitution, the Framers, the Founders, and the British and Spanish colonists with individuals who describe themselves as "constitutionalists."

If you, or anyone else, doesn't have an idea of what another individual does or doesn't know after a discussion on a subject, you weren't listening or paying attention.

EDIT: I'll betcha you, coebul, know what someone else does and doesn't know after a discussion on real estate in the Northwest.  Just as tsiya will know after discussions on certain types of weapons and cameras. Those are y'all's areas of knowledge (and maybe even extending expertise, a/k/a elite knowledge). One of my areas of studied and researched knowledge is the Constitution the writings in American History from the 15th thru 18th centuries.

tsiya wrote:
Bier is one of the enlightened elite, don't ya know?

Absolutely - enlightened because I've spent most of my life uncovering out the hidden roots of others' premises and opinions, thus shedding light on the facts.

And elite by definition - but NOT elitist - as only a minority of people in the general population dedicate themselves to the search of truth.

You seem to have been digging in the wrong places. You missed the mushrooms and found the bullshit. Forum Index -> We the People
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum