Terrorist Congress Declares War on American People

[wrightme]

I seem to have hit a nerve with my post. I am sure this is not the only one. Now, some of you have already ran off from the sandbox with your toys - the rest, thanks for staying aboard.

I stated that we should scrap the Constitution, but that was after I stated that we should reevaluate, and revalue...I believe I stated Principles (if not, that was my point in stating reevaluate, and revalue). I said nothing about the Constitution, nor the BoR not being good for the Country. I will state this, the System is flawed, and it is collapsing. Bring it on nay-sayers!

So, when you say we should scrap something, that isn't the same as saying it isn't of value? How 'odd.'


Maybe you didn't mean that, but that IS what you imparted with the words you chose.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

So, when you say we should scrap something, that isn't the same as saying it isn't of value? How 'odd.'


Maybe you didn't mean that, but that IS what you imparted with the words you chose.

No, it isn't the same thing. What is being scrapped is an entire System - the source being the Constitution. Don't act as if it would be impossible to start over. Don't act as if I am, or have ever stated that the Constitution does not have valuable things in it. I am not an absolutist. An Absolutist would see the scrapping of an document as a condemnation of the whole of the parts that make up the document, well, then so be it. I condemn the many parts of the Constitution that do not offer much clarity - hell, I condemn the flawed way in which the Constitution is worded; and the flawed way that the Constitution is being utilized. As I stated, there should be a reevaluation, and revaluation - AT A MINIMUM! if it interests Americans to keep the Constitution as it is - of the so-called Principles of the Constitution. I will argue that the Constitution has no Principles in it, merely not-clear, undefined notions from which Principles have been, and are formed.

Here is what I previously posted:

What Americans should first decide is whether or not the Union should remain intact. The next thing that Americans should do, if Americans are interested in keeping the Union intact is...scrap the Constitution. There needs to be a reevaluation, and revaluation of all aspects of the way America is Governed, and the way Americans engage one another.

Take from it what you will. Don't act as if I stated that the Constitution has no value, or act as if I stated "scrap the Constitution," and left it at that.

 

[wrightme]

No, it isn't the same thing. What is being scrapped is an entire System - the source being the Constitution. Don't act as if it would be impossible to start over.

False premise.
I have not argued for or against any possibility of starting over. I have specifically ONLY called your statement to question.

WHY do you feel there is a need to scrap the entire system which has the Constitution as its source?


In other words, you are begging the question to claim it needs to be scrapped, or you really ARE claiming the constitution needs to be gotten rid of because it is not of value.


You present as a 'given' that if the Union should remain intact, the Constitution needs to be scrapped; yet you have not articulated a reasoning behind that premise. Start with the premise, not with the supposed 'solution.'

 

[wrightme]

I condemn the many parts of the Constitution that do not offer much clarity - hell, I condemn the flawed way in which the Constitution is worded; and the flawed way that the Constitution is being utilized. As I stated, there should be a reevaluation, and revaluation - AT A MINIMUM! if it interests Americans to keep the Constitution as it is - of the so-called Principles of the Constitution. I will argue that the Constitution has no Principles in it, merely not-clear, undefined notions from which Principles have been, and are formed.
.

SO, you are against HOW the constitution is being used?


THen you should direct your desire for change at that. The Constitution is what it is, and so is the BoR. They are documents penned with the words required to state the premises, without excess. Those charged with running our country under the auspices of those documents are at fault, NOT the documents. Clarifying the documents meanings by "scrapping and starting over" may be one method to gain your desired end. But, IMHO, that is not the ONLY method to gain your desired end.

In other words, instead of speaking of your desired method, speak of your desired end result.

 

[Haman J.T.]

To exercise power over the states and to mediate between a state and it's citizenry in matters of infringement of civil rights?

As the Fed Gov operates now, they are taking more invasive stances on "policing" the citizenry and infringing upon not only the citizen's rights, but also the state's rights.

If you really want to see how invasive the Feds have tried to be, look at the relationship between the Native American tribes, their 'reservations' and how the FBI's authority to act there has been reduced ... look into the root causes of Wounded Knee. And there are other confrontations between the Native Americans and the BLM.

Vigilence is the duty of every American when it comes to the operation of our Federal Government and the laws passed/enacted by Congress. The problem is that our educational system has not been geared towards teaching critical thinking but rather towards herd mentality spoon fed a party line of "the Feds are your Friend and are Never Wrong."

If we don't take an active, pessimistic review of legislation, then, I agree, we are as culpable in misapplication of legislation and civil rights violations (Patriot Act) as the Feds and those who passed the legislation. Relying upon the Supreme Courts to provide remedies is still placing responsibility in the hands of others.

I am basically an optimistic person, but when it comes to the Feds, I am pessimistic, especially in light of it's past record ... and that doesn't mean that I think all the Fed is bad, just the parts that partake in social engineering ... Education, SS, USDA, FDA, BATFE, etc. A smaller, limited Fed is (and has been in the past) the least intrusive and leaves the most earnings in the pockets of the citizenry, yet, as it operates today, the Fed is all about the money ... how much it can take from the public before they object strenously.

When I saw 400Mil donated after 9/11, I told the ex that was a problem because now someone in DC was going to look at that and say "we aren't taxing them enough if they can give that much away." Here we are 10 years later, and look where we are at ... trillions of dollars in the hole. IMHO, several someones looked at that and used the Feds to take more of our money and redistribute the wealth.

Nothing will change until a majority of citizens are educated about their RIGHTS and UNDERSTAND them,otherwise it's the sqeeky wheel that gets the oil!We need to make as much noise as possible and Fight for OUR RIGHTS! We can't leave it up to the noisy socialists and usefull idiots!CARRY ON!

 

[Daylen]

...
In other words, instead of speaking of your desired method, speak of your desired end result.

Such would be to give a position that you could easily tear apart, she will not likely do so; progressives stopped answering that question a long time ago.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

False premise.
I have not argued for or against any possibility of starting over. I have specifically ONLY called your statement to question.

WHY do you feel there is a need to scrap the entire system which has the Constitution as its source?


In other words, you are begging the question to claim it needs to be scrapped, or you really ARE claiming the constitution needs to be gotten rid of because it is not of value.


You present as a 'given' that if the Union should remain intact, the Constitution needs to be scrapped; yet you have not articulated a reasoning behind that premise. Start with the premise, not with the supposed 'solution.'

The premise is that the Constitution is severely flawed. I am not minimizing the individuals who capitalize on the flaws of the Constitution - they have their share of the blame. Whether the people are to blame, or the Constitution, what remains is, a flawed Constitution.

Principles not only within the Constitution, but the Principle of the Constitution are 'good things'.

The first flaw of the Constitution was the premise of the Constitution - that the Constitution is made-up of Natural Principles...WRONG! There are no Natural Laws, nor Natural Principles, nor a Natural Constitution by the people for the people. All of these things are manufactured by Man. So, I would suggest that Man take first, an honest approach to the premise of the Constitution.

There is your premise.

 

[wrightme]

The premise is that the Constitution is severely flawed. I am not minimizing the individuals who capitalize on the flaws of the Constitution - they have their share of the blame. Whether the people are to blame, or the Constitution, what remains is, a flawed Constitution.

Principles not only within the Constitution, but the Principle of the Constitution are 'good things'.

The first flaw of the Constitution was the premise of the Constitution - that the Constitution is made-up of Natural Principles...WRONG! There are no Natural Laws, nor Natural Principles, nor a Natural Constitution by the people for the people. All of these things are manufactured by Man. So, I would suggest that Man take first, an honest approach to the premise of the Constitution.

There is your premise.

Huh? So, what you believe is that the document is flawed, because they should have said "man came up with these ideas, and we say them here?" And if we change it to say that, and then write the stuff that fills it now into that?


What do you see that 'changing?'

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

SO, you are against HOW the constitution is being used?


THen you should direct your desire for change at that. The Constitution is what it is, and so is the BoR. They are documents penned with the words required to state the premises, without excess. Those charged with running our country under the auspices of those documents are at fault, NOT the documents. Clarifying the documents meanings by "scrapping and starting over" may be one method to gain your desired end. But, IMHO, that is not the ONLY method to gain your desired end.

In other words, instead of speaking of your desired method, speak of your desired end result.

Once again, the Constitution, and BoR are what they are - I agree - the Founding Fathers reaching out from the grave two hundred years past, attempting to be gods of eternal Principle.

You miss that although the Founding Fathers did intend (?) for there to not be excess of Federal, and State...hell, of Man against Man!...they were cornered into a choosing between the lesser of two evils - and so they chose. The premise of the Constitution was flawed from the moment of its birth (a living document (better stated: an alterable, and in fact, changing document)).

I agree that the Constitution is nothing more than a means by which things are to be done. Without Man, you have nothing more than a piece of paper with words inscribed to it. Man is a devious beast...it seems an alternative to this form Governing is in order.

What is the end result? The desired end result, IMO, should be for a dismantling of a very old notion of Principles, and those Principles in application. What we have here is a Nation that seems to agree on one thing whole-heartedly, that the Government is f*cked. But it requires us to move back much further into the document to its premise, and then back into Man, and his false-premise that there are Natural Principles. All Principles are artificial.

You are asking me to answer a question that is difficult to answer in a way that I can sum it up to just a short statement. I will state: In order for Man to have a beneficial society (the benefit be worth the cost - how Capitalist of me!), there must be a Government in place that functions as not a Authority to Power in the mandating sense, rather, functions as a Authority to Power in the mediation sense, between two competing parties. *Just a rough idea

Now, with regard to the latter of my statement, would you agree that there are two (generally) competing parties in nearly all social issues? Who is the person, or entity, or System, that individuals go to to work out their differences...the Government? It would seem to be the case. I believe that part of the reason for this is that the alternative is war, and it seems Man has grown tired of war...or has He! The Government is not serving its purpose, and to go further back, the Constitution is not serving its purpose to Man, and to go further back, Man is not having the Constitution serve his purpose, and to go further back, Man is not having his purpose served by his design. So what do we do? We reevaluate, and revalue Principles based not on absolutes, rather, on contingents. Really, that is all we have now is Contingent Principles - it is just that most individuals want to believe that it is not the case.

For instance, Religion. And I hate appealing to Authority - more like pleading for a justification for your reasoning - PAINE...that man has his Natural Right to his mind, but it does not extend out into the 'real world'. Now, some might argue that he did not state that, ah, but he did in fact, but not in such short words.n Paine had pointed out that Man has a right to his mind, and the act, but so-long as it does not cause injury to another Man. My goodness, how not-individualistic of him! How 'collective' his statement - was it inadvertent that he should make such a statement? Surely he should have known what he was actually stating.

My point is that Man as an individual does have Natural Rights, but Man as a part of a whole, has ZERO Natural Rights - they are sacrificed, and made a contingent on the whole of Man, not on the part of Man.

I look forward to some responses that will declare Paine a Republican, while others will claim he is a Democrat - and all of the colorful titles that fall under the two!

 

[wrightme]

My point is that Man as an individual does have Natural Rights, but Man as a part of a whole, has ZERO Natural Rights - they are sacrificed, and made a contingent on the whole of Man, not on the part of Man.

I see. To crystallize your vision to one specific, you feel Man (one individual) has Natural Rights, which automagically become null and void upon encountering one or more other individuals, and subsequently choosing to remain within proximity to the others in a form of partnership of some sort?


I must say that is one of the STRANGEST views of Rights I have seen yet.


Rights remain. They simply need to not hamper the Rights the others still hold when exercised. The do not disappear, or get sacrificed to some collective group of "Men."

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Huh? So, what you believe is that the document is flawed, because they should have said "man came up with these ideas, and we say them here?" And if we change it to say that, and then write the stuff that fills it now into that?


What do you see that 'changing?'

All I am stating is that Man stated with a false-premise.

I see Man changing, and the Constitution following suit. I should have stated that the Constitution, one of its inherent functions, is that it changes, basically, it is a quazi-living breathing document. Are you going to argue that the Constitution has not changed, merely the application of it? The Constitution was constructed to be altered.

I wonder: Do you see a direct correlation between Man, the Constitution, and the application of the Constitution? Principles of the Constitution is not the same thing as the application of Constitution Principles.

 

[wrightme]

All I am stating is that Man stated with a false-premise.

I see Man changing, and the Constitution following suit. I should have stated that the Constitution, one of its inherent functions, is that it changes, basically, it is a quazi-living breathing document. Are you going to argue that the Constitution has not changed, merely the application of it? The Constitution was constructed to be altered.

I wonder: Do you see a direct correlation between Man, the Constitution, and the application of the Constitution? Principles of the Constitution is not the same thing as the application of Constitution Principles.

Alterations of the Constitution are by Amendment. Other than the specifics addressed by amendment, the Constitution has not been altered.

Changing by amendment is, by design, a difficult alteration to effect.

The difficulty with our country is that the Federal government, and ESPECIALLY the several states, do NOT follow the restrictions of the Constitution and BoR in the lawmaking effort.


None of that points to flaws in our Constitution as some 'failure' that needs addressing to 'save our Union.' Nay, what NEEDS doing, is actually forcing our governing bodies to stay within the bounds.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I see. To crystallize your vision to one specific, you feel Man (one individual) has Natural Rights, which automagically become null and void upon encountering one or more other individuals, and subsequently choosing to remain within proximity to the others in a form of partnership of some sort?


I must say that is one of the STRANGEST views of Rights I have seen yet.


Rights remain. They simply need to not hamper the Rights the others still hold when exercised. The do not disappear, or get sacrificed to some collective group of "Men."

Basically: Man's Natural Rights do not extend past his mind.

If Man's Rights are hampered, then he does not have those Rights...they are Contingent Rights. But you can consider the extent of a Right being contingent on some 'thing' to be a Natural Right. I believe we are both stating the same thing, it is just that my description does not give a person that butterfly feeling in their tummy.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Alterations of the Constitution are by Amendment. Other than the specifics addressed by amendment, the Constitution has not been altered.

Changing by amendment is, by design, a difficult alteration to effect.

The difficulty with our country is that the Federal government, and ESPECIALLY the several states, do NOT follow the restrictions of the Constitution and BoR in the lawmaking effort.


None of that points to flaws in our Constitution as some 'failure' that needs addressing to 'save our Union.' Nay, what NEEDS doing, is actually forcing our governing bodies to stay within the bounds.

So what you recommend is that the Power to Authority exert Force upon the Authority to Power? (Occam was a jacka$$ because he did not elaborate on his statement!)...This is not so simple as forcing the Government to do something. Seriously, have you completely disregarded the presence of (generally) two competing parties in all of this? The solution is not within the Constitution - it is much deeper than that.

 

[wrightme]

Basically: Man's Natural Rights do not extend past his mind.

If Man's Rights are hampered, then he does not have those Rights...they are Contingent Rights. But you can consider the extent of a Right being contingent on some 'thing' to be a Natural Right. I believe we are both stating the same thing, it is just that my description does not give a person that butterfly feeling in their tummy.

It appears that while we might be speaking of similar things, it also seems that they are most definitely not identical.


Recall where I stated "exercise of" and that it is okay, unless it hampers a Right of another. It doesn't surrender. It coexists.

 

[wrightme]

So what you recommend is that the Power to Authority exert Force upon the Authority to Power? (Occam was a jacka$$ because he did not elaborate on his statement!)...This is not so simple as forcing the Government to do something. Seriously, have you completely disregarded the presence of (generally) two competing parties in all of this? The solution is not within the Constitution - it is much deeper than that.

Nonsensical. That post isn't worthy of time to respond to moreso than with this simple 'nonsensical.'

 

[Alexcabbie]

Treason, schmeason. The Constitutional standard is that treason shall consist only in waging war against the United States or in giving aid or comfort to her enemies.

The United States Code provides for penalties as little as five years imprisonment up to death for treason. It is, however, a freedom-debasing felony.

The danger is that the increasingly desperate ststist-progressives may try to define opposition to their agenda as "treason" by some convoluted reasoning that cannot possibly pass muster unless the courts are absolutely stuffed with Elena Kagan clones.

However, one cannot put anything past the left. In a memorable interview, some young fool in the "occupy" movement said that he did not understand why he could not sleep in a public place when he was a "member of the public". (It would be interesting to hear this fool explain why a member of the public could not defecate in public, and I am quite sure he could argue that point all day and into the night).

The only solution is to be watchful and alert; AND come next November give these idiots a nice tall glass of ShThFuUp and force them to drink it.

 

[Freedom First]

Excellent thread. I have more than a few comments but they will have to wait until I have time to voice them properly. Thanks!

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snip]


Recall where I stated "exercise of" and that it is okay, unless it hampers a Right of another. It doesn't surrender. It coexists.

Lookie here, you have outlined precisely the place in which Man - even the exercise of his Rights - cease. We are not discussing coexistence, we are discussing Rights, and whether or not they are surrendered. All Rights are contingent on the Rights of others not conflicting. As I stated previously: Contingent Rights.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Treason, schmeason. The Constitutional standard is that treason shall consist only in waging war against the United States or in giving aid or comfort to her enemies.

The United States Code provides for penalties as little as five years imprisonment up to death for treason. It is, however, a freedom-debasing felony.

The danger is that the increasingly desperate ststist-progressives may try to define opposition to their agenda as "treason" by some convoluted reasoning that cannot possibly pass muster unless the courts are absolutely stuffed with Elena Kagan clones.

However, one cannot put anything past the left. In a memorable interview, some young fool in the "occupy" movement said that he did not understand why he could not sleep in a public place when he was a "member of the public". (It would be interesting to hear this fool explain why a member of the public could not defecate in public, and I am quite sure he could argue that point all day and into the night).

The only solution is to be watchful and alert; AND come next November give these idiots a nice tall glass of ShThFuUp and force them to drink it.

I look forward to Republicans giving it their best to remove President Obama.

Regarding the protester - he can't be held to account for the whole of them, oh no! Unless 'tea party' racist types are of course a reflection of their whole. Get to wiggling.