reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Here is a great example of the ridiculous shenanigans progressives will engage in just to convince people that the Constitution is open to
If you have made the assumption that I am a progressive because I posted this article, I can assure you, you are wrong. Whether the author of the
article is a progressive, I do not know, but I have read, studied and researched more than a few of the references he provided. It might behoove you
to do the same.
While this poster goes to great lengths to define Posterity, take note how no effort has been made at all to define We the People, as it is just
too clear what that means.
I didn’t feel the need to definite who We the People are/were, because that was addressed in the article. But, of course, you didn’t actually
read the article, did you?
I do not agree with your statement that it is "just too clear what that means". It is NOT clear because we don't know what definition of
Posterity the writer's of the Constitution intended. Because most today do not know the difference between words and terms, or know the proper use
of English grammar, we don‘t know the difference between perception and truth. We perceive that We the People means all of us, but People is
capitalized. It is a proper noun and refers to a specific one-of-a-kind item. WE, meaning the drafters of the Constitution, NOT the common people.
Our Posterity, therefore, would be the posterity of the drafters of the Constitution, NOT the posterity of the common people.
There is no vagueness in the beginning of the preamble when it states We the People, it is not code for a select few people but means all
Are you sure about that? Wasn't the Constitution written behind closed and locked doors, in secret by just 55 men - not a single one of them
from the working class
- but 41 politicians and 34 lawyers of which at least 21 of them favored some kind of monarchy? Also, is in not true that
those Federalists pushing the Constitution were wealthy landowners, a good number of them slave owners, and of the elite aristocracy? And, isn’t
it also true that the majority of the general population of the 13 colonies were quite satisfied and happy with the government operating under The
Articles of Confederation and did not want a federal government created that would diminish the power of the individual state governments? What input
or influence did the common man have in the writing of the Constitution? NONE!
When have the elite EVER gave a damn about the common
If the Founders wanted to secure the Blessings of Liberty solely for they and their Posterity, then it can be reasonably surmised they would have
said so rather than saying We the People.
Oh really? Does our government today not consistently deal in trickery in order to get bills passed? Do they not constantly say one thing, yet mean
something entirely different? Why would you believe those drafter’s of the Constitution would not also indulge in a bit of trickery in order to
achieve their desires. There are plenty of quotes from the likes of Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Andrew Jackson, just to name
a few, that tried to give warning as to what the Federalists were up to.
Maybe you need to go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.
attempting to convince we the people that we have no say in our government but are subject to the Founders and their progeny instead.
LOL! All one has to do is look at our government and what it does to know that we DON’T have any say. If we had any say in the government, a
great deal of the crap legislation we now have would have NEVER been passed into law.
Please tell me when our government has EVER done anything for we the people rather than for We the Corporations and Special Interest groups.
Why don’t you actually READ the article, then research a few of the references. You might find some validity in what he says.
The quote being bandied about the internet to convince people they can not use the Constitution as defense in a court of law is this: " But,
indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a
compact but he is not a party to it."
Try going into court and using the Constitution as a defense and you will be told by the judge that you CAN’T use the Constitution as a defense.
Do some research and you will find many, many cases where the defendant has attempted to use the Constitution as a defense and were told they could
NOT use the Constitution as a defense. I have defended myself in court - and won - and learned this from Sui Juris researchers far wiser & much more
experienced than myself. One of which appeared in the Supreme Court of the United States in Sue Juis to defend his company. And, he won.
An important part of knowing the law is not just in knowing what has been written but also knowing what hasn't been written.
And of course, one cannot really understand what has or hasn’t been written if one does not understand the difference between TERMS and WORDS.
TERMS are used in the law and have an entirely different meaning from the words we use in everyday life.
Go to the law library, find the shelves that contain the set of books titled, Words and Phrases
pull any volume out and start reading.
Words and Phrases
is a huge multi-volume of legal reference and research, primarily for lawyers, that contains words and phrases that
have taken on special meaning in the law.
You will be surprised to learn that what YOU think something in law means is entirely different
from what it REALLY means.