Goldwater pages: Goldwater Page 139

Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 22, 2012 at 5:01pm

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 23, 2012 at 11:24am

John,

We are I believe in agreement for the most part. Let me attempt to clarify the language - WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES - indicates that all citizens were acting to create a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that had few and limited powers over the States Representatives [fiduciaries - proxies] - further the Compact [Constitution] has only the powers given and all others are RESERVED to the States and then to the people.

So, the Use of WTP and a USA concept is acting only for a Federal formation. The States had their own Constitutions and they were the law of the land as evidenced by the required number of Legislatures voted to approve the Constitution in the Ratifying convention.

The ratification documents of each of the original 13 states (plus Vermont) are also reproduced here:

Now the Constitution was made valid - had the Approval of 9 State legislatures. So, clearly then the States created the Constitution for the PEOPLE and they through the 10th amendment retained "all" rights not given for the people. The Bill Of Rights were created in response to the ANTI - FEDERALISTS - to the point of the papers of Madison, Hamilton and the Federalist papers were to SELL the Constitution to NY and several other States - while the Anti - Federalist papers were to counter what some felt was bad policy. Below is a link that provides all of the papers by number and at the end of each one the Anti - Federalist paper that corresponds.

IMO the language and words used in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS [the first 10 amendments] clearly was intended by all to LIMIT the powers of any national government. Over the 225 years we have allowed some to redefine words, clauses and Federal Powers without using Article V to amend. These actions clearly indicate that the usurpation is intentional and thus the twisting of words, clauses and intents to alter the very basis of the LASTING FOREVER concept of the FF&R. Government and the Courts have used the 14th amendment to render the 10th amendment powerless because they then applied the Bill of Rights to the individual States [which the FF&R never envisioned].

These actions by the Progressive movements have led the idea of a LIVING DOCUMENT or a OUTLINE FOR GOVERNING. This school of thought also present the idea that the Constitution is outdated and no longer even worthy of consideration [Justice Ginsberg] and recommend to Egypt that they do not use the American Constitution as even a base. Then we the people have a Justice that publicly States that the Constitution is not functioning as the RULE - BY - LAW.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 23, 2012 at 1:10pm

Delete

The point was that Adams did not attach much importance to the DOI and thought that Jefferson created a work like Shakespeare. The importance attached to the DOI is over rated IMO as it is the document that rejected the Kings rule - it did not bestow any limits or open any new doors to the Legal system of America.

Many people think it frees the people and guarantees rights . . it does neither IMO . . it is a justification of leaving the RULE - BY - MAN world of king George III. It did not establish the RULE - BY - LAW, that happened with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the many States.

Adams said these things . .

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. - Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (11 October 1798)

John Adams – Novanglus Essays (1774 – 1775)

We are told: “It is a universal truth, that he that would excite a rebellion, is at heart as great a tyrant as ever wielded the iron rod of oppression.” Be it so. We are not exciting a rebellion. Opposition, nay, open, avowed resistance by arms, against usurpation and lawless violence, is not rebellion by the law of God or the land. Resistance to lawful authority makes rebellion. … Remember the frank Veteran acknowledges, that “the word rebel is a convertible term.”

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 23, 2012 at 2:21pm

Delete

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a republic,and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it,without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US PresidentSource: The Federalist No. 46

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 26, 2012 at 12:32pm

Delete

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 26, 2012 at 3:18pm

Delete

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 27, 2012 at 8:03pm

Delete

I've never read Rand so I'm curious how or if the following work might stack up to hers. In any case the linked documents are well recommended.

“I thank you, Sir, for the copy of your Republican which you have been so kind as to send me… looking over it cursorily I see much in it to approve, and shall be glad if it shall lead our youth to the practice of thinking on such subjects and for themselves…” Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820

The Republican Part I & II Part III- Wiliam Jarvis