- sounds like we're in agreement.. the word mores comes to mind again, but isn't directly associated reallyinteresting example that consuming oxygen example --- considering we're actually at some risk of punitive measures for exhaling Co2An acknowledgement of a higher power is needed to truly embrace natural law IMO.Otherwise, the slip back to man being the originator of rights is inevitable, regardless of any headway IMO. It just cant stick.Man is an unruly animal that will do harm to itself. So, it the higher power is removed all sense of constraint is gone and anarchy will be the norm.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Proving the point that man is harmful to man no matter what with out the enforcement of the Natural Law of Freedom and individual rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Progressive Liberals [left leaning] have maintained the Constitution is just a outline, or rough draft of a government for Congress and Courts to modernize, change or alter anytime they feel it is required to permit their desired goals. The FDR black mailing of the Black Robes has left a black stain on our Freedoms and rights - IMHO it will take mass nullification and most likely the Article V convention to restore the original Constitution and the intend of the founders.Congress, the court, the executive will not vote to reduce their power and tenure in office so it is up to the States to protect "WE THE PEOPLE" by declaring the usurped powers and all laws passed by those usurpations "NULL, VOID AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED".
- Permalink Reply by on
- Keep in mind that Locke did not create all those thoughts he studied the Masters of Philosophy and the histories of societies then he weaved the fabric of NATURAL LAW for it is a logical extension of the ancient tribal customs to the now recognized modern concepts of rights and origins of freedoms.I would envision Locke debating the other great minds of his time and in my opinion some of them would be quite heated. Complex realities are developed over the eons and not at one sitting.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Federalist 17“It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.”When the Constitution was written the first sentence it should have made it apparent that it was the intention of the National Government to strip the States of their sovereign rights as States . It was apparent to the Anti- Federalist that there was a strong danger that our Constitution would lead to Mob rule to a democracy instead of a Representative Republic.``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''It should have stated "We the States of the United States in Order to form'-------
- Permalink Reply by on
- I’m curious to know if Hamilton believed there was a threat to state sovereignty or if he cared. He understood the corrupting influence of power. The drive of power for powers sake and the inherent jealousy and ambitions to abuse the common man in pursuit of power. Yet he seems devoid of understanding that when the Federal Government is left to determine the constitutionality of any law against a sovereign state through the federal governments own federal courts that your only asking for trouble. The final arbiter of constitutional law is the Supreme Court. Just a bunch of federal “lawyers” sitting around deciding what they believe is write or wrong.When you consider the Constitution that he proposed at the convention and it was his forceful opinions that was principal in the writing the Constitution that we have today is is no wonder that there has been an continuous erosion of the Rights of the State.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The American people of the 21st century are too ignorant of the long-term impact of their ill-considered public policy desires. Our rights of private property will always be sacrificed on the altar of democracy. If the masses can confiscate the wealth of the few through the use of government under the color of “social justice,” “economic justice,” “environmental justice,” and “shared responsibility,” they will.The senate was supposed to be populated with disinterested statesmen of integrity and honor–closer to Franklin than Franken. The civic knowledge landscape of the American electorate and the elected is not a pretty picture. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s (www.isi.org) reports for the last few years present a dismal, horrifying dumbing down of Americans. We’ve gotten to the point where someone like me, just a common man, could now be seen as an elitist.
Just give the people their bread and circuses (panem et circenses) In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace.The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l'homme moyen sensuel).and the individual rights and liberties of others can be trampled without notice or concern to the long-term detriment of all.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment
by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
US Supreme Court Judge
Source: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States,
277 US 479 (1928)
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are like me in that one single word is twisted and forged into a new paradigm by those that want to hold power over the people. However let us look at the words:We the people [all of the Americans from the various individual States] of the "UNITED" States [meaning they have agreed to unite the Various States under these conditions] in order to FORM a more perfect Union [dissolving the Confederation] . . . . . . . . .Now under these circumstances the People through their fiduciary [The ratifiers] gave instructions for the Various State to Unite under this new contract that the PEOPLE have given the government to form under and to operate under it's words, statements, clauses, and direct instructions and limits on all levels of government and its branches. The People maintained the final power over both Federal and State governments and it was their responsibly to enforce the Constitution upon the governments.We are now living under a triple usurpation - a trifecta of law breakers, the Executive declaring wars, the Legislatures forcing laws upon the States and the people outside of the Article I section 8 limits, the SCOTUS approving of the wanton destruction of the fabric of the Constitution by using clauses to supersede the direct items they were to apply toward. clearly the courts are outside the Article III limits of the powers of the court but they will not be punished as they have expanded the powers of the other two branches so now we have mutual usurpation. Many of the Founders warned this would occur and instructed the States to protect the people and if necessary for the people to rebel even with force of arms to restore the Constitution.And my friends, I believe we are coming to the end of days of our Republic if the States nullifying is not upheld by SCOTUS. The last attempt at peaceful restoration would be the States and 38 of them revoking the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments while reinforcing the limits on the courts through a new amendment.Thank you for reading this long post.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The old saying on politics is that a week is a life time is very true. It is way to soon to be picking a candidate let them debate and then let us pick the best one left standing - nothing like a tough primary to select a strong candidate. The TPP will need to do like the RINOs, the Conservative Democrats, the Libertarians, the Social conservatives, the Evangelicals, the independents, the first time voters - ENTER THE BOOTH AND PULL THE LEVER AGAINST B. H. OBAMA AND HIS SENATORS.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain."WHAT SORT OF DESPOTISM DEMOCRATIC NATIONS HAVE TO FEARAlexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville 1830
- Permalink Reply by on
- Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?Tocqueville
No comments:
Post a Comment