Let's see: We've demonstrated that Reverend Al would take a beatdown on the whole scary "...slavery is back!..." silliness. Besides, hasn't a warrant already been issued for him by the proper Safety Committee for Crimes Against Humanity, or something?
Same-same with the "...women are chattel again!..." worries. What woman with a rifle in her hands is going to take a slap from a stupid husband? In a world back on its proper axis, Dads & brothers will take care of bad husbands, if the Lady needs a hand.
Puppies and kittens will still be cute. Not Constitutional, but important.
"As ratified..." means 9th and 10th are in effect, States & People rule.
You can not find a State in the Union right now that permits beating of wives, slavery or would vote for either upon Restoration.
I implore folks to ignore Ego and nonsense when it rises, (it will always arise - just wait until you have to argue this at OWS or at a GOP meeting!) read the document for yourself, and instead of asking your Professor, or wife, or gun buddy What's this mean?, noodle it through. Ask for opinions, sure. Research. Show your math. But you decide.
The Constitution, as ratified, would not permit slavery or abuse of women. The first 10 Amendments are inviolate, ratified with the Constitution. Every State is banned from infringing 2A based on Supremacy, for instance.
How do we get there? We are standing in a gutted building and all Commies are dead...now what? Much of that depends on the actual circumstances on the ground, I would suspect. The proper way would be to unravel and roll back bad law and precedent.
That may end up being a Gordian Knot that must be hacked.
But the Principle is what matters.
Restoration, as ratified, and implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR.
A re-boot.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Kerodin
III
Ha! You know I thought I had chosen my words so carefully when I commented on that thread, but most never even realized what I was talking about.
ReplyDeleteMeh. Every experience is a lesson ; ) I have now experienced the "sparklies" first hand. LOL
Principle does matter. It's the only thing you can bank on.
Miss Violet
I agree. And until someone steps up to the plate to create one better than the one we have, I will stay with the one we have, as ratified (with a few minor annoyances). The problem that I keep hammering to these folks, is that they don't like the constitution as is because they want a constitution that self enforces itself and all "their liberties" (whatever the f*ck they define liberty as... as it is as roving as our constitution is treated) so they don't have to go and defend it... like the one that isn't defended now. It is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation and defining what "is" is. Trust me, as long as men of virtue and men of what the f*ck ever anything goes are debating a new consteetootion, it is just an exercise in butt-heading. And while men of virtue can have their differences, at least they can reason together on the principle and foundation of virtue. What we have now, in reality... are a bunch of devils debating a bunch of devils (Note: If that doesn't describe you, then you know who you are... I would hope at the least honestly). And, on another note, there are just some people who DO NOT have the intellectual insight (and virtue) to even be involved in trying to create a new consteetootion. And until the patriot wheat is separated from the patriot chaff, it shouldn't even be tried. As a friend said on my blog (and I realize there are moral and virtuous atheists):
ReplyDelete"...but listening to you all it amazes me that they were able to accomplish anything. For you atheists, just that alone should be enough to convince you of the involvement of divine providence after watching this bunch interact."
It is going to take men of CHARACTER to even attempt to create a new and better constitution.
And as I said over there, "Now maybe people can understand why they did it all behind closed doors rather than have every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Suzy involved." (Paraphrased).
Anyhow...
Thanks, Curtis.
DeleteI was actually foolish enough to think we had passed this hurdle a year ago, at least in this tiny part of the world.
Guess I was wrong again. ;)
K
I am curious, Why the hell is this even an issue.
ReplyDeleteEven in my Constitutional Wiki, I am not trying to rewrite it, but find ways of giving it teeth!
Seems that someone in our community drank some of the wrong bugjuice or something. Sheesh! Your points are right there.
And it IS clearly written. There are some points that are vague, but those deal with how the GOV works, not rights, or slavery, or states rights, or ,,,,,
DIO: You were in Mercer. You watched and listened with your own senses. You know that the crux of the thread at CA's place had nothing to do with Restoration vs X.
DeleteThis is about a few guys who think they are always the smartest fellows in the room pulling strings, pushing buttons and putting dye packs in the water to see who moves, where, how, and where the water turns colors.
It's another wargame from "Command".
It's that simple, essentially.
As Trainer writes below, this ain't no game to most of us. To some, however, it is something dishonest and ugly, and not proper for men and women who claim to be Patriots in the Founders' image.
K
Agree with Curtis a great deal; restore constitutional government. As the Constitution was ratified, and amended with the BoR, further tempered by the principles stated in the unanimous Declaration.
ReplyDeleteThe law is enforced by the citizens of the several states. After all, only we can safeguard our own liberty. If we trust or allow others to decide for us, or believe elected officials without verification, we'll be right back where we are today...and, he's right about some folks not needing to be involved in the legislative process.
Watching some of the debating of late I've thought it's like an argument over what will be done after we cross the ocean....before the ship is built.
Truth be told, we've barely got the keel layed, and there's discord over what happens at the end of the voyage. If we don't get the ship built, there won't be any voyage or arrival at the desired destination.
I'd offer that we might, as a community, start concerning ourselves with a laser-like focus of building the ship (local training, Patcoms, resource gathering, etc, etc, etc) and get it complete. That's what we're doing in my AO, because chances are we're going to have to put to sea with less than a complete vessel, so to speak, through no choice of our own, so why not make it as seaworthy as possible? Drowning is not my idea of a 'successful voyage'. ;-)
After all, this, most assuredly, ain't no damned game.
Trainer: I agree on all points. As to the latter, too many folks don't remember that the III came long before Constitutionalists.
DeleteMen fought for Liberty, not a Constitution that had not been drafted.
But that resulting Constitution was borne of their blood and experience, and it takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to arrive at a conclusion that it was a scam from day one, or would have been tolerated as a scam by a nation filled with so many rough war vets who would not have hesitated to take arms again if they felt a game was afoot.
Those same veterans ratified the documents.
Sadly, as I wrote above to Dio, we have far too many Hamilton's and too few men of proper virtue in the mix today.
K
I have always looked at our DoI as an integral part of our constitution. While I would have to go back and go over both point by point, the two compliment one another in as far as the need for a limited government.
DeleteThe two should never be separated from one another and should always be an integral part of the another.
I originally posted this over at WRSA, but it seems rational discussion was given up in favor of a pissing match. Hopefully I'll have better luck here. I knew I should have gone with my first instinct regarding comment location.
ReplyDelete----------
First a question for Sam, and it would probably be best asked at his place, but I will ask it here since this is where the discussion seems to be. Sam, no Jerry Springer here. I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding “As Ratified”: Is this simply an attempt to convey a return to the “original intent” and the plain meaning of the text of the constitution, or is the intention to remove all later amendments (presumably after the first 10)?
If the first, then maybe a rewording is in order. The addition of qualifying language about the spirit of the DOI seems to point in this direction.
If the later, what constitutional grounds are there for ignoring duly ratified amendments. Is this not killing the constitution to save it? I think most would agree that the federal government has lost any legitimacy it had due to its repeated and regular violations of the compact that brought it into existence. Choosing to ignore the constitution ourselves as a means of restoring it seems like a hypocritical path forward.
“Original intent and plain meaning” seems to me to be the only rally cry around the constitution that we can legitimately make. Is this an acceptable end goal? Absolutely not, but it may be a good waypoint. Many of the amendments need to go, but you cannot simply choose to delete them while still paying lip service to the rest of the constitution.
I understand the feeling that we are in a mess and need a reboot. If some of the amendments are to be removed in the process, however, what prevents the removal/revision of certain parts of the core text? A constitutional rewrite (which even “as ratified” would be considered by the majority of the country) will be a much harder sell then a demand to the federal government to get back in its constitutional (as currently amended) cage.
The only difference between “original intent and plain meaning” and “as ratified (+ bill of rights)” are amendments 11 through 27, some good and some bad. Leaving them intact seems like a small price to pay to put this whole issue to rest amongst ourselves and maintain the “good guy” image and legitimacy of adhering to the constitution in the eyes of the public at large.
Numbers and popular support are necessities we are foolish to ignore. We need a rally point that will be acceptable to constitutionalists, libertarians, tea partiers, and God forbid even the occasional anarchist (gasp). “Original intent and plan meaning” seems to accomplish this better than “as ratified” does.
Now everyone pile on and tell me all the reasons why “original intent” is a horrible idea and will never work. :)
----------
Anon: First, understand that the thread at WRSA was never intended as a rational discussion, it was designed to be a pissing match for the sake of the mischief in which several bloggers and others are particpating. I focused my comments to CA specifically to avoid giving Baugh & Crew everything they wanted to achieve from that thread. They still got much of what they wanted, but to me it just looks like a bunch of "Patriots" circle-jerking, playing with themselves and deciding how they are going to run the world after Team Liberty wins it. It is a foul and sad thing that is happening, especially when considering those who choose to be involved.
DeleteOK:
"As Ratified" vs "Original Intent" work almost equally for me. I prefer the "As Ratified" to take the position that the perversion began with Marbury v Madison, thus a hard re-boot to that moment is acceptable, and avoids "killing the Constitution to save it".
Any Amendments passed after that moment would need to be re-authorized among the States The precedent of Judicial Review is cleansed from our plate. This is a cleaner, easier reboot, since it nullifies all of the precedents set in Interstate Commerce and General Welfare, et cetera.
Getting back via "Original Intent" would involve the Constitutional process more, such as voting to repeal Amendments one by one. That could get sticky if some sections of the country are still under the control of Bad People. Unraveling the Gordian Knot leaves much room for mischief, I think.
I prefer as ratified, but I could go either route.
The most important part of all this is: No matter what one advocates, seek it honestly and with full disclosure, rather than trying to manipulate people. Then we can get to the business of actually getting the work done.
The first whiff the average man gets that "The Patriot Movement" is playing bullshit games, all credibility will be lost and we are just one more group of potential aggressors, sacrificing the moral mandate.
K
Great analogy Trainer, let's build the damn boat!
ReplyDeleteBpfreebuckeye
I can't believe I'm even commenting. I mean, it's pretty clear y'all just want to be off to the races without a drop of thought. But I won't resist---could you PLEASE stop dealing in fairy tales? If you want fairy tales, the commie-libs have a boatload for you, a utopia where everyone lives happily ever after, with a chicken in every pot and health care for all. Damn---that's what got us here, and everyone seems to begging for more of it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as PRINCIPLE is concerned, the DOI was the founding document of this country. The Constitution was NOT the "resulting document" of those principles, so that's the first fairy tale that ought to be abandoned. Quite the contrary, the Constitution was the USURPING of the "resulting document," when the country was officially founded. Read your damn history already. Indeed, it was snookered in by the same sort of gangs we see today, the so-called "Eastern Establishment." Obamacare was ratified too--with procedural tricks, just like the Constitution--so why not run with that? Because it doesn't line up with the PRINCIPLES, that's why. And neither does the Constitution. For crissakes, it was the FOUNDATION of the Leviathan; it INVENTED it. Forgive the bluntness, but use your heads...why in the world would you want to precisely repeat that which you're trying to eliminate?
As to who's writing something better, what's that about? Are you seriously arguing for individual freedom with the conclusion that individuals aren't capable of being free? Can you really not live your own lives without a guiding document to tell you how to live it? Do you expect the document to do the work for you or what? This ain't rocket science---only one sort of entity is capable of living as a free individual, so why not start with THAT recognition?
Alright, I'm done. You wanna live fairy tales, then live fairy tales. All I'd ask is that you let guys like me NOT live fairy tales, so that we may live in peace with our friends and families, and even produce values so that you can live better too. But from what I'm reading lately, that ain't good enough. It's your way or the highway, and this you're calling civilized liberty. Gee, now where have I heard that before?
Two sides of the same coin, indeed.
Jim, due respect, the Fairy Tale is thinking for a moment that mankind has ever lived in a group of more than 2 without a hierarchy. Out of every 100,000 there may be a person suited for genuine Liberty, but most are not.
DeleteI tie the DoI, Constitution and BoR into the same set of "Founding Documents", each requires the other to be complete.
And most importantly, the Constitution requires the noblest of men to fill the seats of power. Lose that, we lose it all, as we have now.
Yes, I am saying that most human beings are not suited to living in true freedom and at Liberty with their fellow man. A few are, and those are exactly the people who should hold office, the folks who do not intend to "rule" others.
The vast majority of folks in the middle of the population want security and predictability. Then at the opposite end are the animals among us, from whom the Noble must protect the middle.
And I have said this so many times I can't stand typing it any more: The Constitution, implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR by 537 people like you, Trainer, CA, Kent, et cetera, would NOT devolve in Principle...until we send Bad People to replace you, which will always happen in cycles.
K
Sorry K, too many errors. I sorta know what you mean by most people "not being suited for liberty," but so what? Most people are not thugs, and it's only thugs who are a problem. Idiots present no problem at all, and they'll become non-idiots when they get hungry enough. The vast, overwhelming majority of people just want to live their lives in peace.
DeleteI won't argue that the Noble must protect the middle, except that I'd add "if they so choose." It cannot be an imposable obligation else you're right back to justifying thuggery, as if the Noble must be forced to protect the middle. That's the point of Obama's "tax the rich," of course.
But none of that really matters, because you remain stuck in a fundamental contradiction. Last time, with the veterans and the flag incident, it was having Rule of Law and not having Rule of Law simultaneously. Here, it's having Noble Men who don't seek to rule over other people, rule over other people. Both of those should be plainly problematic to you, any good intentions notwithstanding.
Also, one of the problems is that it doesn't run in cycles. Once the bad guys get a grip, that's the end of it, since they'll never allow the good guys to get back in action. This is plainly in evidence, which is why our road to statism has been a one-way street for over 230 years.
I agree with the as ratified and as written. I would also like to see a True Contitutional convention for the 16th and 17th Amendments to be revoked at some time in the near future. But, The founders did give us a way to evolve the Constitution not by interpreting intent but simply by amendments. See if I get enough folks to agree with me. We can call a constitutional convention for proposing or revoking any amendment. I certainly think it is best to simply go back to the Constitution as it is today and we can worry about the little things after the restoration.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter whether it's "original intent" or "as ratified", we will be villainized regardless (AP enlightened me on that). The idea of repealing amendments or rewording/rewriting them will leave the back door open. Rather than working backwards, it would be better to start anew. Returning to the original 10 seems cleaner to me.
ReplyDeleteRedWulf: If we are going to be villianized anyway, why not go back to the most elegant paradigm ever constructed for a people of Liberty to install governance for essential chores? Constitution, as ratified, spirit of DoI & BoR?
DeleteIn any event, the BoR (First 10 Amendments) can never Constitutionally separated from the Constitution itself.
K
I agree with you Kerodin, that is why I will be there Nov 3.
DeleteWouldn't it be nice if we could just take some people, drop them off on some island where they are each outnumbered by say, 100 to 1 by barbarians and heathens... and let them live happily ever after?
ReplyDeleteOr better yet, just drop off all the anarchists and check up on them in a 100 years... or year.
Of course, that would be a fairytale, wouldn't it.
We are fortunate that some men saw that a loose [non-existent] confederation would not work. We were fortunate, that some men refused to live in a fairytale and created the united States of America with a constitution... that their posterity refused to keep.
The cold hard fact is, if we had continued as a loose [non-existent] confederation of squabbling entities, the uSA as we know it now would have broken up into various countries themselves. And each of those countries would be just as worse off as we are now, or possibly worse. I would also venture to believe that some of those various countries would now be satellites of more powerful countries... be it Russia, China, Germany, maybe even Canada.
As for those who would advocate no government at all and living in tribal liberty utopia... Pull the crap out of your cranial space and look at the world around you. The world around you would have eaten you up a long time ago. No doubt you wouldn't be the serf of DC... but you certainly would be the serf of some other country.
As much as I love Thomas Jefferson and as much as I wish we could all just be a nation of farmers, the late 19th century and up through today bears witness that it would have been suicide for the peoples and land that we call the uSA today by the very nature of our neighbors.
I to wish we didn't need governments. But reality bears witness that we did, and do, to even survive the onslaught of those other nations around us.
I believe that those men who went to the table to forge the constitution that we have... and do not keep, knew very well what I just said above. In fact, they have plainly spoken this very thing, although more eloquently than I. And when they sat at those tables, they were conscious of the peoples liberty, which is why, as written, the constitution delegated powers were few and limited in scope. Every power not delegated to the federal government belongs to the people and the State in which they reside in. Yet look at you all bitchen about the feds when you can't even control your own State.
Cont.
ReplyDeleteFranklin new very well when he said, "If you can keep it," that a mere piece of paper would not guarantee that the federal government would keep to its limited and defined powers. He plainly told, as all of the other men who created the constitution, that it would take a tireless and dedicated peoples to insure that the federal government did not leave their boundaries. Well, Jefferson had something to say in the DoI about tolerance... and obviously and factually, it appears we haven't reached our limit.
I agree that the constitution is not perfect, but... it is and would be, the best we have IF we would keep it.
And yes, people can live in liberty. Unfortunately, people don't have a clue as how to govern themselves. If they can't master themselves, then someone else will master them. By the same token, if we did not have a constitution with few and defined powers that binds us as a nation and a peoples, well, like I said, there would be no uSA today.
Imagine that if all the people who couldn't govern themselves were to just disappear, there was no constitution, no government and just all you I want to be free to do whatever the f*ck I want with no responsibility other than to ourselves... who knows what language you would be speaking. Certainly, not english.
And as I said, there is a reason they concocted the constitution behind doors. Imagine every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Suzy putting their 1/2 pence in.
Anyhow, for those who advocate nothing... I give you .01 chance in 10 of pulling it off.
For those who want to restore what we had... I give you 4 in 10.
The constitution as written with its minor annoyances is not enslaving you... your government as is is enslaving you. The constitution is not making your government enslave you.
Curtis, your intentions are obviously wholesome and there is plenty of sense in the arguments. The problem is that it's "age-old sense," as you note, and it's time to think out of the box. Simply put, we have too much knowledge available to us now.
DeleteIf you read over your lengthy comment, you'll see in almost every paragraph phrases like "would be," "if we had," "if we did not," and many others...the key words being "if," "would," "want" and "wish." This is the subjunctive, the ability to imagine things that are not in evidence...that is, the counterfactual.
It doesn't matter what would've happened. Really, it doesn't even matter what DID happen, except insofar as it shows us the principles involved. What matters is what IS happening and ultimately, what's GOING to happen. The former takes awareness and the latter takes the subjunctive as well---we must imagine what we WANT to happen, what COULD happen, and what will make it happen.
What's happening is obvious and anyone with half a wit knows it. So the real question is what's going to happen and the answer to that is ALWAYS just one thing...whatever each of us decides. My only point is ever that THIS is what MUST be recognized, else it's obvious that we'll end up down the same road.
Nobody can disagree with the principles in the DoI or the BoR. I mean, who doesn't want that stuff? But that's hardly the point; the point is how to instantiate those principles.
No time is ever like any other time, and this is no exception. But the principles carry through and it's high time to eliminate the principle that some group of people can rightfully physically rule over other people. Obviously there has to be defense; no rational man is going to deny the existence of ne'er-do-wells and thugs. And yes, obviously dealing with that is a big priority. But clearly, institutionalizing thuggery--which is the ONLY means at ANY government's avail--is not a really logical place to start. "You cannot rid the world of cannibals by eating them."
That's all. Can you live your life? Can the next guy? Can your friends, your family, nearly everyone you meet? Of course they can, so THAT should be the starting point. That's all I'm saying and that's all I'm ever saying. Begin at the beginning.
Maybe the key question should be... Can I govern my life? Can the next guy govern his life? Can my friends govern their life? Can my family govern their life? Can nearly anyone I meet govern their life?
DeleteYes to all, if they can govern their life.
Living ones life is not license. Liberty is not license. Liberty is not... unfettered freedom.
And frankly, it is impossible for man to start at the beginning. That intones every man living in every imagination of his heart. If you mean the beginning before 1776, then men are not the men today that they were then however imperfect... as we have come a long way in our imaginations and saturated with every kind of deviancy. I can accept that men are not perfect. I can accept and overlook some things. But I can not and will not accept the growing in your face anything goes BS as long as I don't touch you crap that today is called liberty.
Sure, I'll go back to say the Declaration of Independence. Back to the day when men didn't accept every kind of deviancy as liberty and "living your life"... despite the slavery.
Being the one who brought up the issue of as ratified + BoR vs as currently amended, I completely agree that as ratified is a much cleaner starting point. The issue is that pragmatically it is a much more difficult goal to achieve.
ReplyDeleteImagine going to the Capitol in November with the following demand: the fedgov must withdraw back within the limits of the Constitution and cease all unconstitutional actions . . . oh and ignore duly ratified amendments 11 through 27. Our grievance is that they ignore the constitution at will, but our demand is also that they ignore certain parts. That seems like a hard sell today.
Now, if things go hot, really hot, and we are talking complete rebuilding with the option of starting from scratch, as ratified + BoR makes a lot more sense.
Whether it will be easy or hard is relative to different points of view, and honestly doesn't matter to me. What must be done must be done and it's past time doing that which needs doing.
Delete