Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The true constitutionalist

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Spoken like a true patriot.

Amen, and peace be with you.

BTW, you remind me of me...


glad to see other minds who think alike.




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
On another thread... I think it has dropped off the map but it was "Republicans Just Don't Get It" several people were praising the Constitutionalist party so I went and read its platform and then posted a critique of it based on its (or what I deemed) most prominate parts and based on the OP of this one they would be in direct violation of said constitution if they were enacted.

IN my summery I pointed out that the true genius of its framers was that they created a living document with the flexiblity to grow and adapt with changing times and conditions and that if they had framed a rigid one, it would not have survived up to much less beyond the civil war.

A star for you.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 

Here is what I found about the Constitutionalist Party... from their own platform with some added comments of mine...


www.constitutionparty.com...

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law...

That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness...


(I see they followed mush loosebowels and added property which is not listed as one of the inalienable rights {yes its inalienable not unalienable} in the Declaration of Independence)


...Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life...

...We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

... In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells...

... Our party leaders and public officials must display exemplary qualities of honesty, integrity, reliability, moral uprightness, fidelity, prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude, self-restraint, courage, kindness, and compassion...


Yeah right. We are talking about politicians ya know.


... If we are to see a return to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away, then it is also vital that we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return to state legislatures the function of electing the U.S. Senate...

... Because the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction concerning the education of our children, the United States Department of Education should be abolished; all federal legislation related to education should be repealed. No federal laws subsidizing or regulating the education of children should be enacted. Under no circumstances should the federal government be involved in national teacher certification, educational curricula, textbook selection, learning standards, comprehensive sex education, psychological and psychiatric research testing programs, and personnel...

... So that parents need not defy the law by refusing to send their children to schools of which they disapprove, compulsory attendance laws should be repealed....

... The Voting Rights Act should be repealed. The Federal Election Campaign Act, including its 1974 amendments, and the Federal Election Commission should be abolished....


If you read the platform carefully (and to be fair there were things I agreed with but far more that I didn't) they are advocating a return to a limited franchise and even within that limiting what voter's can vote for... in essence state and local governments and if you have the franchise, president... under this you would lose the right to vote for either house of congress and also under such a rigid platform amendments would be even harder to make than they are now... plus they would revoke the right to call a constitutional convention... which I assume would be required to make such sweeping changes.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by grover]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Big ups, Southern Guardian.

The only thing I will disagree with you on is the issue of affirmative action. Affirmation action does have a role and its not always about making employment more favorable to minorities. It allows a workforce to be more representative of its community. To me, that's a goal worth achieving, especially for a society in which too many people still cannot speak English, as an example.

Should that priority trump all others, as some liberals, say? Absolutely not. But like private military companies, EEO/AA has a place in society.

I love your post, though. There are too many "constitutionalists" out there that are nothing of the sort. Some of whom responded to your post, unfortunately.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Sadly, I was emotionally-charged enough to vote for Chuck Baldwin in the last election. I should've voted for Barr or Nader.

Like it or not, the Constitution Party is a far right party. Plenty of conspiracy theorists within its ranks as well.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo
 


Fortunately they haven't a snowflakes, much less a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere with that platform.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Well here's my 2 cents.

First the only other "party" there should be is the Anti-Masonic party which voted John Quincy Adams into the presidency even if it was by a slim margin.

Second, I have bought thousands of dollars worth of Constitutions/Declaration of Independence pocket books from the Cato Institute and handed them out FOR FREE!!

Educate.

What gets me even more is that people do not understand the Constitution as a whole and what OUR created governments have done to US.

Property rights? Anybody know anything about this? Obviously not. From your birth, the moment you came out of your mothers womb, your first INHERENT right is that of movement WITHOUT restriction, such as a "drivers license". The second INHERENT right is that to possess property, what ever you can grab on to before someone else lays claim to it is yours. Possession is 9/10ths of the Law.

Now what gets me is all these gun rights advocates NEVER use the property right clause in the Constitution which PROTECTS our rights it does not grant ANY right. A gun is property and therfore the government can not restrict or deny you the possession of one piece of property and not others.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declarartion of Independence he put a whole lot of thought into it. And when James Madison learned what he could from Jefferson and all the founding Fathers sat down and debated the writing of the Constitution, it was indeed a great document and it is sad that 90% of AMERICANS have never read it.

There is a documentary called "A More Perfect Union", I suggest everyone watch it. It is incredibly accurate and very well done. It should be in every movie theater across the country instead of that hollywood crap.

www.barefootsworld.net

Greatest site on the planet if you want to learn about the Constitution or Constitutional Law and the missing Thirteenth Amendment.

There is one thing also. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who was a Christian, says plainly, "according to the Laws of nature and of Natures God".

Explain what he refers to as "Natures God". Anyone know?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I'm wondering where in the Constitution allows for the existence of the monstrosity that is the National "Security" State and its legalized robbery that is the Black Budget. That is, something beyond the weak, vague "providing for the common defense." The NSS is the (at least primary) original framework for virtual dictatorship and possibly eventual literal or total one. I'm no expert on the Constitution, but perhaps someone else who is can shed some light.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Whoa! Jefferson was emphatically and positively NOT a Christian. He was a Deist. He may have given it a certain amount of unavoidable lip service to Christianity when he was President, but you ought to read some of his latter writings about the religion. He was one of Christianity's most scathing critics of his time.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Are you a U.S. citizen or a Citizen of the U.S.A.

U.S.A., or The Union - America in the broad, abstract, national sense without distinguishing
between federal and State territory.
“Union States” - The 50 sovereign Union States. Each State is its own separate nation, with its
own exclusive jurisdiction and laws over its own Citizens and alien residents.

"United States" – A federal statute term which means the Constitutionally-created federal nation whose territory is limited to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands,
Guam, U.S. military bases and all other federal enclaves, which delineates the geographical
border of federal jurisdiction. Can also mean the federal government.

"State" - A federal statute term which means, when used in conjunction with "United States,"
the District of Columbia and its territories (U.S. territories). (unless specified to also encompass the 50 Union States.) See below;

TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VI - MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS
PART A - GENERAL
CHAPTER 303 - NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(7) “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and
any other territory or possession of the United States.
(Notice it does not state the 50 Union States nor any commonwealth)

TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VI - MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS
PART B - COMMERCIAL
CHAPTER 313 - COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS

(13) “State” means a State of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(14) “United States” means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(Notice above in 13 and 14, it does not state the 50 Union States.)

“American Citizen” – A person born within the U.S.A. (within a State or federal territory). Also
correctly described as an ; “U.S.A. National" or "Citizen of the Union". Capital "C" is imperative.
American Citizens are either State Citizens or "U.S. citizens."

“State Citizen” -- An American Citizen who resides the statutory length (usually 30 days)
within a State and is thereby subject to that State's jurisdiction, rights and privileges (i.e., voting).
State Citizens cannot simultaneously be "U.S. citizens." State Citizens are not subject to
General regulatory federal jurisdiction (i.e., income taxes).

"U.S. citizen" --An American Citizen who, by residing in some federal territory, is subject to
federal jurisdiction. "U.S." (federal) citizens cannot simultaneously be State Citizens and are
generally not subject to State jurisdiction, nor do they pay no State income tax.

"person residing in..." or "resident of..." -- That 1956 federal report on jurisdiction said that a
"person" or "resident" is not the same as a "citizen" (State or "U.S."). This was affirmed in Logan v. U.S., 12S. Ct. 617 and also in Powe v. U.S., 109F. 2d.147. This non-U.S.A. National
(foreign alien) resides within either a State or the federal nation, and thus is subject to its jurisdiction. Resident aliens of a State don't pay federal income tax. "U.S." resident aliens don't pay Union State income tax.

(NOTE: There are two questions I have for my fellow researchers: (1) What is the meaning
and significance of a "U.S. national" as referred to in Form 1040NR and in the U.S. Passport application?, and (2) Does a State Citizen who has taken up official residence abroad lose his State Citizenship because he is no longer a resident of his State? (My tentative feeling is "yes.") For example, can the "United States" claim a Florida Citizen retiree living in Mexico as a "United
States citizen" because he no longer resides in Florida? These two issues have puzzled me, and I
didn't have time to fully research them while finishing this book. Any help on these, or other,
matters would be most appreciated.




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
What is this? Our time is at an end and you speak of politics? Have you not realize there is more to your existence than your foolish opinions? Abandon those thoughts for now and place the future in higher value.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
reply to post by daddio
 


Whoa! Jefferson was emphatically and positively NOT a Christian. He was a Deist. He may have given it a certain amount of unavoidable lip service to Christianity when he was President, but you ought to read some of his latter writings about the religion. He was one of Christianity's most scathing critics of his time.


Jefferson said to "question" the existence of God. He was a firm believer in Jesus and his teachings nonetheless. Does that make him a Deist? I guess so. But he was raised a Christian and later after his own investigation wrote "His" bible. Many of the Founding Fathers had deeply religious beliefs. Washington was said to pray before battle, one would assume to a higher being?

There is a book, "Founding Fathers, Secret Socities" by Robert Hieronimus Ph.D. Everyone should read this as well.

My father, a detective, told me frequently, "believe none of what you read and half of what you see and make up your own mind through investigation what is more likely to be true."



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DOADOA
What is this? Our time is at an end and you speak of politics? Have you not realize there is more to your existence than your foolish opinions? Abandon those thoughts for now and place the future in higher value.


Dude, this is not MY opinion. And politics, yes. If you do not understand where we came from, you will never know where we are going.

I do not pay taxes. I do not possess a "drivers license". I do have a car and do drive all over. I do get stopped occasionally and educate the officer. If we do not fight for our rights then we are done and have been done. The end is not near, that is what THEY want you to believe.

Negativity is what they feed on. Be positive and we can bring them to their knees. Stop feeding them and they will die off.

How hard is that to understand. Not being educated is what got us into this mess. It's never too late to learn and learn how to get out of this mess.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




The true constitutionalist recognizes the importance of seperating religion and states in order to protect the freedom of religion.

The founders meaning of seperation of religion and states ONLY APPLIED to the Federal government. The states can go into religion, but they need to treat religions as equals.


The true constitutionalist opposes any religious laws,

Yep. According to the founders, the national religious holidays are unconstitutional.



The true constitutionalist has the right to bare arms but at the same time recognizes that they are of no pity or support from the constitution to abuse that right.

Yep and the right to bear arms comes from NATURAL LAW, meaning that no legislation can stop you from having the means to defend yourself as it is in nature.

You forgot a few thing: (all ideas from the founders)
A true constitutionalist supports a FREE MARKET.
A true constitutionalist supports a form of government called republicanism, with checks and balances.
The return to APPOINTED federal senators.
The reduction of the national debt, as it is immoral to pass on that debt to futures generations (Thomas Jefferson).
A true constitutionalist supports separatism, which is basically the Monroe Doctrine of american non-involvment in the world, but actor as a world peace keeper between nations. Meaning no alliances with foreign powers, but only in times of necessity, uses limited alliances, if America is attacked.
A true constutionalist supports the end of the Federal Reserve.
A true constitutionalist supports commerce with all states unless they are harming the US.
A true constutiionalist supports the tenth amendment and it's application.
An end to the welfare state.

Just a few observations after I red the book The 5000 year Leap A great book on the founders and the constitution.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
S.G.
I have to give to you on this one. I don't know if we have ever agreed much on anything, but it turns out that we must be more alike than different.
I'll give a S & F for this one. Maybe this will be the day that politics get put aside for the general well being of us all.
David put it most simply. Do what you want, as long as it does not effect your neighbours.

The states having power and the Feds protecting that power is what it's all about. We clearly do not have that now.

One of the things that has been a side effect of the Feds with too much power, is the fact that every state is mostly the same anymore. I travel alot compare with most people. I used to like it more. Now it does not matter where I go, it's all the same. The states losing thier power to the Fed has push way for everthing common.

This is the ultimate way to push things on your neighours. If we want to run around with a six shooter on our side in one state, that does not mean we can in another.
If one state does not like gays, then they can go to a state that does.
The Fed needs to keep itself neutral and not force itself on to everyone.

Anyways, great threat S.G.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



First of all, SG, let me say that I am so very glad that you were able to read my post and not take offense. That is unfortunately not one of my strong points, saying what I mean in a tactful manner. But thank you anyway.


That said, I cannot find much to disagree with in your post, except for the part about marriage staying a religious ceremony and not having any legal implications. Our legal system and tax laws have been designed to incorporate and encourage marriage. Our society is family-based, and strong families are interpreted to mean a strong society. Are you saying that we went off track and strayed from the Constitution when we made such laws?

If so, that is an interesting concept, one I have never considered before.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Upon reading your OP last night, I decided to review the Constitution and read it in it's entirety.

It's a good read, for those interested you can find it here:

www.usconstitution.net...

All of the amendments are included, the only part that I personally wish repealed is the 12th, the one establishing the Electoral college.

In addition, I think term limits should be established for the Representatives and Senators, funny how they limited the Presidential terms and ignored their own.

Other than that, I am a strong supporter of the Constitution, one would hope that our elected would read it now and then, sure doesn't seem so..

Jso mentions some of the things that I saw in your OP that I had issues with, not that you aren't entitled to your opinions in that manner, I just feel that some of examples aren't ones that are required to be a Constitutionalist.

Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, while there is a group who holds that word sacred to mean a man & a woman, I have seen the word marriage used to describe business partnerships without the hubbub...

It's a no brainer to me, gays should be able to get married, and using the term marriage doesn't offend me in any way.. I just don't see this as a Constitutional issue, more like a States' rights matter, they have create the needed legislation to make sure that gay marriages are included.

Each person's sexuality is a personal private matter, live and let live.

So while we share a strong support for the Constitution, we also differ on a few issues of interpretation, once again I appreciate you creating the thread, you prompted me to become reacquainted with a document that deserves to be taught to everyone of our elected representatives.

It is not, as someone said... just a piece of paper



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I do not believe those who contend that the Constitution was based, founded on or had anything to do with Biblical Law...

If it was it would not have read like this...

"We the People"

It would have read like this...

"In the beginning there was only darkness"

Chistianity is a singular concept imposed by a non-human entity.

Democracy is a plural concept born of the combination of free thinking independent ideas and ideals.

The Founding Fathers in fact were rebelling against the Holy Roman Empire that by 1776 England had become the seat of and the King of England the Holy Roman Empire's last Prince Elector.

The Founding Fathers based our Constitutional Principals on the Roman Republics not the Roman Empires...and definately not the Holy Roman Empires...The Papal State.

State and Religion were kept seperate for one thing.

Your religion what ever it might be is a singular concept.

Democracy is a plural concept.

There was no Christ when the Roman Republic was founded. The Romans who founded the Republic had never even heard of the Hebrew God.

The Romans took their notions of Democracy from the Greeks who invented and pioneered the concept even earlier.

The Greeks had one thing to say about the healthy function of Democracy.

"The more people who do speak up to their individual ideas and concepts and put them forward the better democracy works"

The Constitution is not a living document.

There are far to many living people though that imagine that it can and should be changed to suit, reflect and impose their singular not plural view.

That my friends equals the death of Democracy not it's salvation.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   


I do not believe those who contend that the Constitution was based, founded on or had anything to do with Biblical Law...

In fact, it kinda did.

The whole constitution is based on natural law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God.


"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."
- George Washington


God is everywhere in the constitution and in the founders writings.


"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." - William Blackstone



"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity." - William Blackstone


They believed that to have a strong nation, people had to be moral, to be moral had to follow's God's laws, aka natural law, which is the basis of all the amendments in the bill of rights. All founding fathers were from different backgrounds and had differents educations, but all of them were well red and had great vocabulary all of them because they were always studiying the bible, even if some of them were not christians, they all had great respect for the teachings of Jesus.

But they did not want FEDERAL government involvement in religion because it would favor one religion over another. What they wanted was equality for all religions, they were not against the religion teachings because all major religions shared common based ideas.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
You know I used to be more of a libertarian than any other political philosophy I had seen before. I read the Constitution Party platform for instance but was not impressed with their over the top Christian hard right slanted views. I think it will lead to dangerous placed if that path were followed.

I only went with libertarian philosophy because it was the best I had seen as far as constraint on the use of force by the government against its people. Government is an inherently dangerous institution and an awful compromise where one group is always allowed the use of force against the rest of the population. It always ends attracting the worst sort of people into government service because they are of that small percentage that enjoys using force on others. Power and control get them off and they end up voting for further coercion and greater use of force on the rest of society.

The state no matter how well the founding documents are written ends up in a tyranny because the right to the use of violence which the government is always given attracts these bad sorts which end up voting for more and more violence and greater compromises of individual liberty.

The United States Constitution was the best written government founding documents ever invented by humankind in my opinion. The problem is look where we are today. The constitution has largely been abandoned and is a shell of its original intent. It has been shelved and now we follow the Universal Commercial Code more than we follow the US Constitution.

This said I applaud the efforts of the OP with this thread but I thought it fitting to outline that our Constitution that so many of us here swore an oath to defend has been largely abandoned and it is not likely that we will have our liberties so compromised returned to us without great blood shed.

Even the best form of Statism ever conceived by man is doomed to fail because it is still based on an all powerful state to protect us all by conveying to a small group the right to use force against the rest of us This group is always going to end up being over run by power hungry people who end up treating the rest of us like so much cattle.





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join