It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Constitution - what is left original?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
The purpose of this thread is to study the US constitution and compare it from original state (1788) to todays version (2006) after many ammendments and ratifications. Also to study the reasons for the the ammendments and ratifications. The discussion should be around how much of the original constitution is left and were the changes to it over the last couple of centuries good v bad.

What is left of the original US constitution?

Here is a copy of the original constitution with amendments: click here

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will start with the one I hate the most, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

How could that act have passed when our constitution says;



Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.

more here

This was passed very sneakily, while everyone was away on vacation. Why is it that when almost everyone agree's that it should be returned to it's original state, it still remains after nealy 100 years?

Almost every part of the constitution has been ammended, I am still looking for a part that hasn't changed yet.



[edit on 26-1-2006 by Thomas Crowne]




posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Yes, I know that my changing your tags from quote to ex might be a bit too observant of board rules, but it was not done for that reason. It was to make a point of the ownership of those words. Who owns them? Is it still the citizens, as intended, or have those words been stolen by "them" (and, if you don't know who they are, you'd better find out) so that they might warp, pervert and twist them to be used against us. The Constitution was rendered operationally useless to the average citizen through the introduction of commercial statutes, the connection of the citizen to the District of Columbia and the reliance on "civil" rights, rather than the God-given, constitutionally-protected natural rights.

Good to see another concerned citizen. Maybe more will see what you see, and maybe there'll be some kind of movement to restore the nation to its original form.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
That's why we have to get people to read the consitution and the book
"The De Facto Goverment of The United States", so they can see how it can be abused.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
let's see, how long has it been since the constitution was written?

what part of the old text was worth saving against an ammendment?



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I FOUND IT! YAY! And Mad, calm down, why not save it, I've studied in depth and theorically that kinda goverment is a good system if it's at medium size, and the people deal with all parts propatiately. Here's the link to answer the oringinal post:
www.archives.gov... stitution.html


We should still inform people on what rights they can lose to a "Big Goverment" and a possible NWO indirect goverment world-wide.

[edit on 1/26/06 by bsbfan1]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Although I believe that the Southern States had every right to secede, their breech of the founding principles of the Union loses them the right of soveriegnty per-sei.

The founding principals of the nation is not the Constitution, it is the Declaration of Independence. If people become more aware of what caused a revolution against the King, then they would better understand why there is a Constitution.

The Constitution does not construct a permanent government, but it does construct a government, one that was changed by the War of Northern Agression, whether it be more imperial, more centralized, it doesn't matter.

Does the nation still retain the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence.

If so, then should the changes in the US constitution (primarily the 14th Amendment) really matter?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The Declaration of Independence was just that, but it did not create the new country. We could just as easily swore allegiance to another sovereign nation once we broke away from England.

The Declaration was a legal necessity to dissolve bonds and create either our own entity or regroup. We chose to create our own.

The Articles of Confederation were the next step, actually, and they were inadequate. Even with soem of themost brilliant minds working on it, it still didn't pass international standard, so back to the drawing board they went.

This is when the constitution for the united states of America came about, and it was agreed upon with the understanding that some amendments were going to come about to clarify some very important and defining rights, rights that made this nation very unique at the time.

There is no suchthing as a "permanent" government; the Founding Fathers would have been surprised to see the "experiment in society" as they called it lasting in some almost recognizeable form this long. But, before you go and pat yourself on the back, they would have also spread the fertilizer of liberty again, a LONG time ago. That fertilizer, for those who don't know, is the blood of both tyrants and patriots.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Although I believe that the Southern States had every right to secede, their breech of the founding principles of the Union loses them the right of soveriegnty per-sei.

The founding principals of the nation is not the Constitution, it is the Declaration of Independence. If people become more aware of what caused a revolution against the King, then they would better understand why there is a Constitution.

The Constitution does not construct a permanent government, but it does construct a government, one that was changed by the War of Northern Agression, whether it be more imperial, more centralized, it doesn't matter.

Does the nation still retain the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence.

If so, then should the changes in the US constitution (primarily the 14th Amendment) really matter?


first, the south fired the first shots

second, the 14th amendment officially abolished slavery by taking away the ability of a state to not take away life liberty or property without due process of law. so nobody can be sold or born into slavery.

third, what's wrong with the good old 14th amendment?

4th, what right did the south have to succeed?

edit, added 4th

[edit on 27-1-2006 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The 14th Admendment has been misused against it's oringinal purposes to allow the "Federal Goverment" unnecessary powers, such as school regulations, etc., etc., that were oringinally done town-by-town, and not by monopoly Goverment controls, and gave the power back to the people. It's now used as an excuse to save murders lives, and to allow "dumbing down" in schools, which is why I don't like it. Especially, since it's the norm in the north -east to allow those kind of abuses of it. I'm just happy my e-mail on it, did affect a US Senator's decision on it recently through.




top topics



 
0

log in

join