The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: HATE AMERICA? COUNT ME OUT!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
HATE AMERICA? COUNT ME OUT!

By Chuck Baldwin
September 11, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

On this 8th anniversary of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, it behooves me to comment on the spirit of hatred that seems to motivate many people in and out of our great land. That the supporters and disciples of Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Tse-tung, and Adolf Hitler would hate America is understandable. Communism, socialism, and fascism are diametrically opposed to everything the United States was founded upon. Therefore, it is not surprising that people who espouse the tenets of these "isms" would exude hatred for America--at least for the America of our forebears. What is most disconcerting, however, is the number of people within our country (and I don't mean illegal aliens) who harbor hatred in their hearts for our beloved land.

To be sure, one can count me in with those who hate the manner in which the international banking cartel has wormed its way into the inner workings of our federal government. I hate the condescending, elitist attitudes of many in higher education. I hate the way globalists--such as David Rockefeller and his ilk--have been able to use the federal government to promote and safeguard their own private financial and political agendas. I hate the way secularists in public education and private organizations--such as the ACLU, People For the American Way, the Anti Defamation League, etc.--have been able to strip our culture of its Christian heritage. I hate the way politicians from both parties in Washington, D.C., ignore and trample the U.S. Constitution.

I hate the way professing Christians and "conservatives" turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the warmongering, police-state mentality of many within the national Republican Party. I hate the way Nancy Pelosi and her gaggle of liberal Democrats use their power to promote socialism in America. I hate the liberal bias of the mainstream news media. I hate the so-called "political correctness" that permeates the philosophy of virtually every major organization in America these days. I hate the attempts by liberals and "do-gooders" of all stripes to take away my right to keep and bear arms. And, yes, I hate the way America's foreign policy has been manipulated by foreign lobbyists, socialists within the United Nations, and international business interests.

With all of that said, however, if you hate America, count me out!

If Canaan was the Promised Land for Old Testament Israel, America was an earthly Promised Land for Christians and lovers of liberty. In the Providence of God, America was established by the right people, at the right time, and for the right purpose. With all its shortcomings, the U.S. Constitution--along with the Bill of Rights--is the greatest governing document ever devised by man. And the Declaration of Independence is the greatest birth certificate a nation ever had.

In fact, without the freedom and liberty protected by a 200-year history of constitutional government, all those anti-America, anti-Constitution, and anti-Founding Fathers critics out there could not even exist! As God gives the atheist the breath he uses to blaspheme his Creator, so, too, the Constitution protects the right of America-haters to foment their delirium.

I do find it demonstrably hypocritical, however, for these 21st Century preachers to condemn America's Founding Fathers as being disobedient to Romans 13, only to turn around and celebrate Independence Day--and even conduct patriotic services in their churches. Even more egregious is the way these same preachers who condemn the 13 colonies in their fight for independence against the British Crown so quickly take up the war cry for military aggression all over the world. Obviously, inconsistency is one of the most consistent trademarks of Pharisaism.

The problem today is not that America is intrinsically bad. The principles of religious liberty, State sovereignty, Natural Law, self-government, and federalism are as righteous and good today as they were in 1776. The problem today is that the American people have lost touch with these principles and have allowed those who deny these principles to gain ascendancy within our land. The problem is, the America that was created 233 years ago is being supplanted with new doctrines and ideas. In fact, the doctrines and ideas prevalent today are really nothing new: they are the same antiquated doctrines of centralism and collectivism from which the 13 Colonies broke free so long ago.

So, I say it proudly and loudly: I love the America our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. I love our republican form of government. I love America's Christian heritage. I love the principles of federalism and constitutional government. I love the Declaration of Independence. I love the Bill of Rights. I love what our flag represents: a united federation of states. I love the examples of sacrifices made at Bunker Hill, Lexington Green, and Concord Bridge. I love the resolve and dedication of the colonial patriot-preachers known as the Black Regiment [1]. I love the combined wisdom, courage, and commitment to liberty demonstrated by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, James Otis, Joseph Warren, James Madison, John Jay, et al.

My criticisms and condemnations are reserved for those who would remove America from her roots, who would strip her of her principles, and who would destroy the fabric of her foundation. Don't think for one minute that because I loathe those who are trying to merge America into an international New World Order or are working to dismantle constitutional government or are attempting to turn America into a socialist state, that I am in league with those who, in their hearts, hate America. I claim no brotherhood with them, for they hate what I love.

[1] To read my column regarding the Black Regiment that is published exclusively in the current edition of The New American magazine, go here:

And while you're visiting The New American, why don't you subscribe to their twice-monthly publication? In my opinion, it is the very best news magazine in the country. I encourage my readers to take out a subscription to the New American today, and while you're at it, why don't you send one to a friend? I've been a subscriber for years. To subscribe, go here:

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Sigh. Here's another guy who needs to quit abusing the term "Socialist" long enough to stop and look it up.
And also anyone claiming religious oppression, needs to step back, specifically if its about the christian religion.
Quote:Chuck Baldwin said:
... who harbor hatred in their hearts for our beloved land.
Sounds a little too mushy ... and insincere, IMO. And especially so for a Christian pastor.

Quote:If Canaan was the Promised Land for Old Testament Israel, America was an earthly Promised Land for Christians and lovers of liberty. In the Providence of God, America was established by the right people, at the right time, and for the right purpose.
I wonder where he got that from ...

Quote:My criticisms and condemnations are reserved for those who would remove America from her roots, who would strip her of her principles, and who would destroy the fabric of her foundation.
And what would he say about how the Native Americans were treated?

Quote:*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.
Ah, yes. Reminds me of the college student's favorite math problem:

S E N D
+ M O R E
-----------
M O N E Y

<Edit: I couldn't get the columns to line up ... >
If we HAD the rights of our Constitution and was governed with our Declaration of Independance at heart, then I too would see a different America than the one those of us who live here see. Looking outside in I can see the hypocricy of words and deeds.

Bob... <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/reefer.gif" alt=":uni:" title="reefer" />
HI ALL

If we HAD the rights of our Constitution and was governed with our Declaration of Independance at heart, then I too would see a different America than the one those of us who live here see. Looking outside in I can see the hypocrisy of words and deeds.

Being an Aussie, i have to agree with the old wizard geezer here, even though there is a Constitution in this country we have no rights. Everything the workers have gained over the years can be removed and have been by a stroke of a pen.
Any document has only the power we give it as a people, whether we had a say in it or not yesterday, today is what we are worried about to give any constitution power/relevance it must be fought for.

So the question is Hmm2 how many are prepared to bleed or die for it.

Hoss
E G M :thwack: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poop.gif" alt="Poop" title="poop" />
Exactly. I almost did. I gave my life in 2003 and then in 2005 to fight this shit and to try and save my Brother. By some miracle I survived.

Over 500 years the land was taken from the people in this country by the enclosure acts. 0.6% of the population own most of the land apart from the pathetic little patches most people have to spend a life time paying off a debt on - a house and "mortgage". This is pure slavery and skullduggery. The ultra rich forcing the poor off the land into towns full of poverty and violence. The same pattern that was repeated in the USA and now other places in the world. There is a defence. Get real ! The Zapatista's in southern Mexico call it being "on the road to La Realidad".

In the late 90's I was at a demo here in the town I live in called "Reclaim the Streets". The whiff of insurrection was too much for these poor souls here to handle. The demo was broken up. A sound system was seized. Young people with idealistic outlooks had their photo's taken by black uniformed intelligence police with expensive cameras and zoom lenses.

After that I was bullied and almost destroyed by some including, tragically, my own family who had been coerced into believing the endless lies. The rich bastards, who's crime is one of silence in the face of the destruction of those who want to change things, made sure they destroyed my imagination and idealism with their toxic drugs.

By some MIRACLE (Believe!) I have clawed and toiled my way back to ME. I no longer have as little faith in my insights as I used to. I'm not right about everything but I've been there. I faced down the Devil himself and spat in his eye and told him that we're going to make a great big mess of his hell and pour water on his fires. So he'd better watch out !

I'm fighting him. Are you ?
Quote:DJB said:
By some MIRACLE (Believe!) I have clawed and toiled my way back to ME. I no longer have as little faith in my insights as I used to. I'm not right about everything but I've been there.
Applause <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Quote:HI ALL

If we HAD the rights of our Constitution and was governed with our Declaration of Independance at heart, then I too would see a different America than the one those of us who live here see. Looking outside in I can see the hypocrisy of words and deeds.

Being an Aussie, i have to agree with the old wizard geezer here, even though there is a Constitution in this country we have no rights. Everything the workers have gained over the years can be removed and have been by a stroke of a pen.
Any document has only the power we give it as a people, whether we had a say in it or not yesterday, today is what we are worried about to give any constitution power/relevance it must be fought for.

So the question is Hmm2 how many are prepared to bleed or die for it.

Hoss
E G M :thwack: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poop.gif" alt="Poop" title="poop" />
I won't back down. I have no guilt. I neither owned nor imported slaves nor oppressed the natives. She it, like Will Rogers said, some of my ancestors came over on the boat and some of them met the boat.
If we all put our foot down and refused to be abused, we could TAKE BACK our inherent Rights. We should have stayed with the Articles of Confederation because the Con Stitution allowed for this present madness. I love America the land and folk but hate the United $nake$ of Ameriqaeda!
The constitution Xuxa.

The one I've sworn to protect.
Only thing I ever swore to, and this only after I'd read and understood it.

article of confederation... you've got to be joking.


Were our constitution actually followed we would indeed be free men.

but it's not.

or at best rudimentarily.


Like Jane, some of my ancestors were on, and some met the boat.
Some even came from 'Canaan'


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Quote:Were our constitution actually followed we would indeed be free men.

As long as you don't have the option to opt in or opt out of the constitution, you aren't free.

Peace
After you've sworn to it that's irrelevant.
Dunno
You're missing my point Keith. From where I sit, the fact that you've sworn to uphold it is irrelevant. If you never had the option to say yes I agree with these rules or no I do not, then you never have been or ever can be free. You are forced from the day to are born to abide by the rules of the CONstitution. Until you can opt out, it's just another form of slavery regardless of how many freedoms your slave master grants you.

Peace
Here's a timely article. Note the Lysander Spooner quote at the end.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert29.1.html

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)

by William Buppert


By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.

~ James Madison

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

~ Lysander Spooner

Today, 17 September 2009, is Constitution Day. There will be paeans, abundant commentary and church-like observances of the glories of this document in making us the most blessed nation on planet earth. This essay suggests a contrarian thesis. The Constitution is an enabling document for big government. Much like the Wizard of Oz, the man behind the curtain is a fraud. In this case, for all the sanctimonious handwringing and the obsequious idolatry of the parchment, it sealed the fate of our liberties and freedoms and has operated for more than 200 years as a cover for massive expansion of the tools and infrastructure of statist expansion and oppression. Among the many intellectual travels I have undertaken, this is one of the most heart-breaking I have ventured on. I want to acknowledge the compass-bearers who sent me on this journey: Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T. Party) and his seminal book, The Hologram of Liberty and Kevin Gutzman’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. For most of the political spectrum in America, the document represents their interpretation of how to make this mortal coil paradise. Even in libertarian circles, it is taken as an article of faith the Constitution is a brilliant mechanism to enlarge liberty and keep government at bay. That is a lie.

The document was drafted in the summer of 1787 behind closed doors in tremendous secrecy because if word leaked out of the actual contents and intent, the revolution that had just concluded would have been set ablaze again. They were in a race against time and did everything in their power to ensure that the adoption took place as quickly as possible to avoid reflection and contemplation in the public square that would kill the proposal once the consequences of its agenda became apparent. They were insisting that the states ratify first and then propose amendments later. It was a political coup d’état. It was nothing less than an oligarchical coup to ensure that the moneyed interests, banksters and aristocrats could cement their positions and mimic the United Kingdom from which they had been recently divorced.

The original charter of the drafters was to pen improvements to the existing Articles of Confederation. Instead, they chose to hijack the process and create a document which enslaved the nation. Federalist in the old parlance meant states rights and subsidiarity but the three authors of the fabled Federalist Papers supported everything but that. Their intent and commitment was to create a National government with the ability to make war on its constituent parts if these states failed to submit themselves to the central government.

As Austrian economists have discovered, bigger is not necessarily better. The brilliant and oft-dismissed Articles of Confederation (AoC) and Perpetual Union are a testament to voluntarism and cooperation through persuasion that the Constitution disposed of with its adoption. Penned in 1776 and ratified in 1781, the spirit and context of the Articles live on in the Swiss canton system and are everywhere evident in the marketplace where confederationist sentiments are practiced daily. The confederation’s design divines its mechanism from what an unfettered market does every day: voluntary cooperation, spontaneous information signals and the parts always being smarter than the sum A. confederation according to the Webster’s 1828 dictionary is:

1. The act of confederating; a league; a compact for mutual support; alliance; particularly of princes, nations or states.

I would advise the readership to use the 1828 Webster’s dictionary to accompany any primary source research you may undertake to understand American (& British) letters in the eighteenth century. It is the source for the contemporary lexicon. It is even available online now.

Here is a simple comparison of the two organizing documents:
`
Go to the link to see the chart as it doesn't cut 'n paste in a readable format

Note that the precept of individual taxation was an end-run against state sovereignty from the very beginning. If the Congress does not wish to violate state sovereignty, then they will simply prey on the individuals in the states. It should be obvious that the AoC was not a recipe for government employees from top to bottom to use the office to enrich themselves so a scheme was afoot to precipitate and manufacture dissent over the present configuration of the central government apparatus which for all intents and purposes barely existed. The AoC was intolerable to a narrow panoply of interests and the Federalist Papers appeared between October 1787 and August 1788 to plead the case for a newer form of "Republic" authored by three individuals: James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. The British had sued for peace in 1783 and the AoC were still in effect until 1790. Time was ticking to erect the new government apparatus that would strengthen the central government to eventually mimic the very tyranny which caused British North America to put the English Crown in the hazard. The Anti-Federalists rose up in response and provided what I consider one of the most splendid and eloquent defenses of small government penned in our history.

When the Constitutional Convention convened on 1787, 55 delegates came but 14 later quit as the Convention eventually abused its mandate and scrapped the AoC instead of revising it. The notes and proceedings of the cloistered meeting were to be secret as long as 53 years later when Madison’s edited notes were published in 1840.

The Anti-Federalist Brutus avers in Essay I in October 1787:

"But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way."

The conflict was brewing between the Jeffersonians among the individualists and the Hamiltonian collectivists. The rhetorical lines were drawn and the fate of the nation eventually slid into the camp of the Nationalists.

George Washington wrote to John Jay on 1 August 1786:

"Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assume their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility, where thirteen sovereign, independent[,] disunited States are in the habit of discussing & refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word through out the Land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the treaty of peace and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people being disgusted with the circumstances will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate & prevent disasterous contingencies would be the part of wisdom & patriotism."

It appears even the much admired Washington was having none of the talk of independence and wanted a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high. Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central government a mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

Patrick Henry gave the firmest defense of the skeptical posture when he questioned the precarious position the Constitution put to the state’s sovereignty on 5 June 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention (the savvy Founding Lawyers ensured that the process of ratification was sped along by bypassing the bicameral house requirements and simply asking the states to conduct ratifying conventions):

"How were the Congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great-Britain? The States were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You therefore by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the General Government. Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw – A Government that has abandoned all its powers – The powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights – without check, limitation, or controul. And still you have checks and guards – still you keep barriers – pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated State Government! You have a Bill of Rights to defend you against the State Government, which is bereaved of all power; and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm youselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong energetic Government? To that Government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real actual defect. . . "

The Bill of Rights as we know them today were first introduced by James Madison in 1789 in response to the fears the emerging Constitution caused among the free men in these united States. They eventually came into effect on December 15, 1791. The Federalists were desperately opposed to the adoption of the Bill of Rights being insisted upon by Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and other skeptics of central governance. As Brutus again so cleverly pointed out in the Anti-Federalist papers #84:

" This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.

So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage (emphasis mine)."

The Bill of Rights nominations from the respective sovereign states originally numbered near 200 and the Founding Lawyers saw fit to include twelve (the two concerning apportionment and Congressional pay failed to pass) after much bickering especially by the most monstrous worthy of the time, Alexander Hamilton. A brilliant mind coupled with all the political knife-fighting skills needed to dominate the proceedings, Hamilton made sure that the tools of oppression and a financial yoke would be decorating our necks in perpetuity. Small solace can be taken in the aftermath of the duel between Hamilton and Burr on 11 July 1804 in that it took him close to a day to die.

Alexander Hamilton tipped his intellectual hand in a speech to the Constitutional Convention concerning the United States Senate, 06/18/1787 (quoted in the notes of Judge Yates):

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people ... turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government ... Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy."

I am no fan of democracy as I see it as nothing more than a transformational accommodation to tyranny over time but one can infer from this quote that Hamilton fancied a class of people more equal than others who would have a disproportionate access to the levers of power over the great unwashed. Again, I am suggesting that the Constitution was a document designed from the beginning as a means to rob constituent and subsidiary parts of sovereignty and subject these subordinate elements to a national framework which made their position subservient to the Federal government. The desire of the Federalists was to install a national framework and cement the structure through the machinations of national banking, franking of a currency and debt creation. Keep in mind that all of the nattering on about the Federal Reserve today is a complaint against a Constitutional Frankenstein monster in its fourth iteration since the other attempts at national banks failed. You can guess who picked up the tab.

The Bill of Rights was finally passed on 15 December 1791 but it was much diluted and purposefully weaker and more ambiguous about the central government’s implied and explicit powers.

The Constitution took effect on 4 March 1789 with 11 states under it and two states not submitting ratification. North Carolina did ratify it when a promise of a future Bill of Rights was assured. Rhode Island refused and was the only state to put the Constitution to a popular vote where it failed on 24 March 1788 by an 11–1 margin. They eventually ratified it.

Hamilton now had the ways and means to make real his storied dream: "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing." The moneyed interests saw the advantage of monetizing the debt. By assuming the state’s debts at the national government level, a means of controlling commerce and taxation became an implied task of the central government. This may have been the first incident of the debtors from the Revolutionary War convincing their Hamiltonian allies that if they had the national government bear the debt and relieve them of responsibility, this could be used as the means to establish the coveted national bank to start the issuance of government currency not to mention the driver for increased taxation.

All the puzzle pieces had finally locked into place. Royce eloquently explains what has transpired in Hologram of Liberty: "To put a ‘gun’ in the hands of the new national government was the primary object, the great sine qua non, of the Constitution. A comprehensive de jure authority of Congress backed with de facto guns." The Confederation is defeated and the long train of usurpation, centralization and tyranny leaves the station for what has become American history.

Hamilton’s machinations and influence probably single-handedly turned the product of this secret confab into one of the most successful instruments of political oppression before even the creation of the USSR. What makes it even more sublime as a tool of big government is the sophisticated propaganda and hagiographic enterprise which has both spontaneously and through careful planning suborned the public’s skepticism of the nature of the machine erected to control their behavior, which has resulted in an almost religious observance of all things Constitutional. Carefully cultivated over two hundred years, this religious idolatry had certainly fogged the thinking of this writer for most of his adult life. This sleeper has awakened.

Ask yourself this question: have the robed government employees who read the Constitutional tea leaves for the most part defended individual liberty or have they rubber-stamped the exponential growth of power and control of the colossus that sits astride the Potomac?

"Our constitutions purport to be established by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people' consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given."

~ Lysander Spooner

September 26, 2009

Peace
Quote:You're missing my point Keith. From where I sit, the fact that you've sworn to uphold it is irrelevant. If you never had the option to say yes I agree with these rules or no I do not, then you never have been or ever can be free. You are forced from the day to are born to abide by the rules of the CONstitution. Until you can opt out, it's just another form of slavery regardless of how many freedoms your slave master grants you.

Peace

Quote:The document was drafted in the summer of 1787 behind closed doors in tremendous secrecy because if word leaked out of the actual contents and intent, the revolution that had just concluded would have been set ablaze again. They were in a race against time and did everything in their power to ensure that the adoption took place as quickly as possible to avoid reflection and contemplation in the public square that would kill the proposal once the consequences of its agenda became apparent. They were insisting that the states ratify first and then propose amendments later. It was a political coup d’état. It was nothing less than an oligarchical coup to ensure that the moneyed interests, banksters and aristocrats could cement their positions and mimic the United Kingdom from which they had been recently divorced.

The original charter of the drafters was to pen improvements to the existing Articles of Confederation. Instead, they chose to hijack the process and create a document which enslaved the nation. Federalist in the old parlance meant states rights and subsidiarity but the three authors of the fabled Federalist Papers supported everything but that. Their intent and commitment was to create a National government with the ability to make war on its constituent parts if these states failed to submit themselves to the central government.

Forget it! The Con Stitution was a CON job and I just learned about that last year. Hamilton got his wish and look at the tyranny we are under. We were conned!

Con Stitution Fail
Ameriqaeda Fail

The Articles of Confederation were the Real Deal! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />
what do you suggest then,
we all sieg heil and goose step along with whatever Fuhrer comes along next?

Hmm2
Quote:what do you suggest then,
we all sieg heil and goose step along with whatever Fuhrer comes along next?

Hmm2

Why anarchy of course. Go to http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/ and download/listen to the two audio books 'Everyday Anarchy' and 'Practical Anarchy'. It certainly isn't the perfect or utopian answer but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have. While you're at it, check out I.M.'s psychopath thread to help you understand why any form of gov't will always end with the circumstances we are currently in.

Peace

ETA: Be you own boss. Fuck the concept of hierarchy.
""The Articles of Confederation were the Real Deal! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />""

Well, it was a start.

Seems to me that Article 9 lent too much power to itself (Congress). The people that drafted both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were not stupid by any sense of the word and desperately wanted to fashion a land that returned as much rights to the common citizen as possible, yet still leaving the framework so that the governing would be as fair as possible.

It certainly took far sight to come up with the 2nd amendment. Greed and Tyranny wasn't invented in 1770..

""The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose of the Amendment.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of all this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word "people" in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean in any one of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that, for some odd reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of putting in "states" they put in "people." And so it refers to a right inherent in the state government.

This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, for example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia -- every able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied man in the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The words "well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and drilling it in the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself referred to the able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth -- not to the state government.

It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses.""

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18629
Again,
"It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses"

Some of you may or may not be aware that there are many that have passed from active service and feel just as strongly as those still serving that the oath they took to ""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; (For some, the following creates a catch 22)and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Upon taking that oath, it's very clear that supporting and defending the Constitution supersedes everything. There are many in the military that are not blind to how the Constitution has been attacked by the past several presidents.
As "Commander In Chief", they are the highest ranking individual.

Logic demands that any instance of them allowing the Constitution to be weakened or attacked, is tantamount to Treason.

The Presidential Signing Statements, since the time of Ronald Regan are anathema for it automatically sets the office beyond the originally intended scope of that position. (And beyond prosecution?)
Quote:[quote author="Keith"]what do you suggest then,
we all sieg heil and goose step along with whatever Fuhrer comes along next?

Hmm2

Why anarchy of course. Go to http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/ and download/listen to the two audio books 'Everyday Anarchy' and 'Practical Anarchy'. It certainly isn't the perfect or utopian answer but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have. While you're at it, check out I.M.'s psychopath thread to help you understand why any form of gov't will always end with the circumstances we are currently in.

Peace

ETA: Be you own boss. Fuck the concept of hierarchy.[/quote]


Either Anarchy, the Articles of Confederation or a proper mix of the two that would bind the government, not the other way around.
As I do live in a Theocratic situation with the vast majority of residents belonging to a religion that I am not a member of-and it is a very powerful church in every way-I am very very touchy, let's say, about ANY religious attitudes being presented in any way at the public school my son attends. There is their seminary connected to our public school grounds by a sidewalk-that is the ONLY barrier between church and state where I live and pay taxes.

My attitudes are 'if one cannot stand to keep their prayers to their selves while in a public place then they have got to start practicing some self control'... I will NEVER ACCEPT ANY OVERT: RACISM, SEXISM, AGEISM OR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. I will not tolerate it from anyone.

so this piece by Chuck Baldwin is totally unacceptable to ME.

same as having a politically determined teacher teaching your kids, I keep my eyes and nose out for any of THAT too-if they can't control themselves at their jobs they need some counseling.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another LAY Case by Chuck Baldwin's Son, Timothy Baldwin

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is the author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.]

September 17, 2009 not only marked the celebrated day of the approval of our Constitution by the Constitutional Congress in 1787 (which had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 STATES--not the majority of the PEOPLE), it also marked another, what I call, LAY case, reflecting the power and control of the federal government over individual, local and state affairs, and the submission of its lowly subjects, We the People.

Some of you may have learned of the principal of Pace High School in Pace, Florida, Frank Lay, who was charged with violation of an order entered by Federal Judge Margaret C. "Casey" Rodgers, prohibiting him, the teachers and the staff of Pace High from praying or holding any religious ceremonies at school or at school functions, which originated out of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU. As you have likely already guessed, sometime after the order entered (and was actually consented to by Lay), Lay had a prayer conducted at a Pace High staff function (a building dedication with no students present). This was deemed a violation of the court's order and Lay was charged with contempt of court.

Lay had a hearing on the contempt charges on Constitution Day, September 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. (CDT). Hundreds of people stood outside the federal courthouse in Pensacola, Florida, showing their support for Lay, their disgust with the federal government, or just their interest to see what would happen. (A few even showed their protest against Lay.) It appeared as though it was a pep rally of sorts with high-school kids chanting, "We Love Jesus, Yes We Do, We Love Jesus, How 'Bout You!" and other similar chants. Around 11:30 a.m., much of the crowd began marching around the federal courthouse (which sits downtown Pensacola) seven times, to sort of re-enact and metaphorically demonstrate the judgment of God falling on the city of Jericho in the book of Joshua, as if to suggest that they wanted God to condemn Judge Rodgers, or that Judge Rodgers was attacking Lay and she was the sole evil presented in this case, or other similar theories to that effect.

It was obvious that most people present deemed the matter against Lay to be what they would classify as spiritual in nature; and by spiritual, I mean to say that the issue to them did not regard constitutional government, federalism, the evils of centralized power over State power, the true meaning and sense of the Constitution, etc. Rather, it had almost a tone of "We believe in God, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . We believe in prayer, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . We love Jesus, and you, Judge Rodgers, do not . . . Lay should be allowed to pray in school, and you, Judge Rodgers, should let him." It had very similar qualities to an "evolution verses creation" debate you would see at a college or university.

What most of these people fail to understand is that the matters of constitutional government, federalism, the evils of centralized power over State power, the true meaning and sense of the Constitution, etc., are just as spiritual in nature as the matters of praying in public and loving Jesus.

Do these people at the rally, most of whom would likely claim to be Christian, not understand that God created Natural Law (Thomas Jefferson called it "Nature and Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence) upon His creation of the world, a Law that God Himself binds Himself to for His glory and for man's benefit? Do these people not recognize that binding our government (State and federal) to their respective constitutions conforms to God's Natural Law, that men adhere to their agreements (i.e., compacts/constitutions)? Are these people still ignorant of the principles of limited power, jurisdiction and self-government created by God and expressed by Him in His Word--and that these principles apply even when their favorite political party is in office?

After several hours of waiting outside (even during serious downpour of rain), Frank Lay and his entourage exited the courthouse, with Lay's wife giving the "peace sign" with both hands and the rest of the group with smiles on their faces, anticipatorily revealing that Judge Rodgers had found Lay "not guilty" of the contempt charges. It was as if a major victory had been won for Lay, his family, all those who were supporting him outside of the courthouse and for all "public-prayer-supporting" Americans. You can be certain that many felt this was a victory.

The crux of the "not guilty" verdict, in fact, demonstrates just how Lay lost, how America lost, how tyrannical our federal government is, and how far gone and ignorant we are. It showed just how the citizens of this country willingly LAY down when actual confrontation arises. Consider how Lay was found "not guilty" and supposedly victory was won in this case:

First. The Prayer Was "Unintentional":

"Freeman was asked why he gave the prayer when Lay asked. 'It was just out of reflex,' he answered." (Source: The Pensacola News Journal) In other words, in order for Lay to "win" at this hearing, he essentially had to say, "Oops, Judge, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to do it; it won't happen again." You call that a victory?

Second. The Judge's Order, Which Lay Consented To, Is "Constitutional":

"Both sides also agreed that the constitutionality of Rodgers' temporary injunction will not be up for debate, meaning today's proceeding will focus on whether Lay and Freeman violated the order." (Source: Ibid.) Not only did Lay have to metaphorically bow at the feet of Judge Rodgers to keep from going to jail, but Lay also had to literally admit that the order prohibiting him from praying at school or at school functions was constitutional and that he is bound to follow it. Again, how is this a victory?

Third. From Now On, He Will Comply With the Order Not to Pray:

In a 10:00 p.m. interview with WEAR, Channel 3 News, Lay admitted on live television that he will comply with the "Consent Order" not to pray and that "changes will be made at Pace High School" to reflect this compliance. Just like a little child who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and knows he is in trouble with his parents, Lay had to promise to be a good little boy and to do exactly what he was told by the federal government to get off the hook of punishment.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not victory! It shows every sign of defeat! This is, once again, precedent to reaffirm and reestablish that the federal government is America's god. We will do what it says, when it says, and how it says. We will not challenge the issue on philosophical and foundational merits, because to do so would require us to reconsider the power of the federal government over jurisdiction that originally belonged to the states and the people.

While I speak in irritation, I am pleased, of course, that Lay was not found guilty and that he was not sentenced to jail and fined. I do not wish that on any person of any faith for simply praying. But what has to be recognized is that Lay did not win, LAY LAID DOWN: the federal government showed its force, and the people submitted. Lay can go home, but the "law" remains the same and tyranny is triumphant. I am also pleased that there is a legal attempt underway to challenge Judge Rodgers' order as being "too broad" and, yes, unconstitutional (for indeed it is). For, in fact, this is the kind of challenge that is needed in cases such as this. The American people simply cannot sit by and let these rogue federal judges continue to trample our religious liberties!

In the meantime, people--and particularly Christian people--repeatedly complain about the federal government when issues like this arise, proclaiming that their "freedom of religion" is being denied. But do these same people stop to think about the reasons why? Are these the same people who think that by voting for a George W. Bush/John McCain-type Republican, America will be spared more federal tyranny? Was not Judge Casey Rodgers appointed by G.W. Bush in November 2003? Was not Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor, who prosecuted the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore from the bench for acknowledging God, later appointed to the federal bench by G.W. Bush? (My dad, Chuck Baldwin, and many others strongly believe that Pryor's appointment to the federal bench was actually a reward for prosecuting Judge Moore.) Do they not stop to realize that the people they have been electing and reelecting to public office are the very ones who make the laws and appoint the judges and bureaucrats who continue to make war against our liberties?

To start with, the only way to become victorious in these matters (on a national level) is for the people to retake power usurped by the federal government through the constitutional amendment process. This means we must revoke the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments. We must abandon the "lesser of two evils" philosophy when going to the voting booth and elect only those candidates who demonstrate a firm commitment to constitutional government. We must support State representatives, governors, and sheriffs who will stand on the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to defend their citizens against federal encroachment. We must re-educate the masses into principles that founded our federal republic. We must begin taking responsibility for our own actions, and teaching our children the fundamental tenets of liberty. Only then will we be able to kick the federal government out of the affairs in which they do not belong.

The reality is, this federal takeover did not happen overnight, and if things keep going the way they are, and people keep acting the way they do, you will never be free from the tyranny in your lifetime and your children will never be free from it in their lifetime. What is worse, the vast majority of people's ignorance seems to be at a pinnacle, thus perpetuating the death grip of federal control over freedom. The result: LAY case after LAY case after LAY case; one person LAYing down after the other. Consequently, these cases are never victories for the principles of freedom in America. They serve only to remind us that the principles of tyranny prevail in this country. Yes, individuals like Frank Lay may be let go from time to time--at least for now. But the time will inevitably come when EVERYONE will be forced to submit and lay down.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/c ... 90925.html
Quote:Either Anarchy, the Articles of Confederation or a proper mix of the two that would bind the government, not the other way around.

As much as I believe in local control, I don't see how moving the controlling power from D.C. to your local state house would be that much different. How would the Articles of Confederation protect you from a psychopathic Govenator? Granted, you could move to a state more to your liking, but you might already be locked up before you get that chance or have had your property stolen by the state. The same problems will arise, just on a smaller scale.

As for the second amendment, that tells me some people knew the CONstitution was severely flawed and was destine to be easily usurped.

Here's the link to the psychopath thread viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12106 On top of the links there, I would also recommend you read http://www.sott.net/articles/show/14814 ... rom-Others

Peace
Quote:How would the Articles of Confederation protect you from a psychopathic Govenator?
Granted,
you could move
to a state
more to your liking.................


I want my own private Idaho.


[video:1t1csth2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7t7cGwN7_0[/video:1t1csth2]


15 years later live on Jay Leno ,.... fatter older but fun
[video:1t1csth2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1INwtmVMgXw&feature=related[/video:1t1csth2]


sorry for the thread drift.
Quote:[quote author="Xuxalina Rihhia"]Either Anarchy, the Articles of Confederation or a proper mix of the two that would bind the government, not the other way around.

As much as I believe in local control, I don't see how moving the controlling power from D.C. to your local state house would be that much different. How would the Articles of Confederation protect you from a psychopathic Govenator? Granted, you could move to a state more to your liking, but you might already be locked up before you get that chance or have had your property stolen by the state. The same problems will arise, just on a smaller scale.

As for the second amendment, that tells me some people knew the CONstitution was severely flawed and was destine to be easily usurped.

Here's the link to the psychopath thread http://keithlaney.net/TheHiddenMissionF ... =1&t=12106 On top of the links there, I would also recommend you read http://www.sott.net/articles/show/14814 ... rom-Others

Peace[/quote]


Thanks for the heads-up there! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=15525

The Constitution Never Had a Chance

by John Kozy

Global Research, October 3, 2009

An eminent North Carolina jurist, with whom I served on a Criminal Code Revision Commission, once told me that the law is what the last court that looks at it says it is and even then, its Justices usually disagree. I told him that there must be something very wrong with such a system. Thinking about this issue and attempting to isolate the arguments in Supreme Court decisions for use in my logic classes over decades, I came to the conclusion that so many things were wrong that even selecting the most egregious would be difficult. Perhaps that is why I have not attempted to write this piece until now.

It has been recently HYPERLINK "http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/17/scalia-actual-innocence/" reported that Justice Scalia said "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable." In all likelihood, he is right, but that just proves that the Court has never had the establishment of justice as a principal concern even though the Constitution lists it as one of the six goals the nation was meant to achieve. What no Justice has ever been able to claim, however, is that the Court has never issued a bad decision.

The Court's willingness to deny plaintiffs justice was demonstrated as early as 1803 in Marbury vs Madison in which the Court held that Marbury was entitled to his commission as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but refused to issue a writ of mandamus on the basis of a legalistic claim that the Court lacked jurisdiction even though the Court had issued such writs twice before Marshall became a Justice. No doubt, Justice Marshall wrote this opinion to keep the Court out of a rancorous political dispute between Republicans and Federalists going on at the time, but the Constitution nowhere instructs the Court to act in that way.

Few know that some people engaged in the ratification process anticipated the possibility that the Court would issue decisions that denied plaintiffs justice. The State of New York, for instance, recommended the adoption of the following amendment.

That persons aggrieved by any Judgment, Sentence or Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, in any Cause in which that Court has original Jurisdiction, with such exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make concerning the same, shall upon application, have a Commission to be issued by the President of the United States, to such Men learned in the Law as he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and consent of the Senate appoint, not less than seven, authorizing such Commissioners, or any seven or more of them, to correct the Errors in such Judgment or to review such Sentence and Decree, as the case may be, and to do Justice to the parties in the Premises.

Unfortunately, this attempt to limit the power of the Court lacked sufficient support to become part of the Constitution.

But decisions that deny plaintiffs justice are only one of many kinds of bad decision the Court has issued. Lists of such decisions are ubiquitous. Dred Scott vs Sandford, Plessy vs Ferguson, Wickard vs Filburn, Korematsu vs United States, and Lochner vs People Of State Of New York are just a few of the most infamous. Some have been overturned. But bad decisions are nevertheless quite common. The question is why they occur?

Consider the implications of any split decision. The most important is that the opinion written for the majority lacks enough cogency to convince the minority. No decision based on an argument that lacks cogency can be good. Such decisions can be likened to using a mathematical procedure based on a theorem with an invalid proof or programming a computer to be used to send a vehicle to the moon with incorrect data. Eventually the result is disastrous. Next, split decisions promote divisiveness. Although a decision ends a specific case, it does not end the controversy; often it increases it. Consider the reaction of both the public and some state legislatures after Palazzolo vs Rhode Island in which the Court's 5-4 decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the Constitution permits governments to condemn a person's property as part of a broader economic redevelopment plan to revitalize a distressed community. But the Constitution lacks a single reference to economic or commercial development. Other divisive decisions are too well known to need mention.

Jerome Frank in Law and the Modern Mind argues that judges decide cases according to their own personal prejudices and foibles, which certainly seems to be true. But is this practice right? Justice Benjamin Curtis, dissenting in Dred Scott vs Sanford writes, "if the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control [the Constitution's] meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what they think it ought to mean." And Justice Holmes, dissenting in Lochner vs the People of the State of New York writes, "a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."

When justices on the Court discovered that they could decide cases "according to their own personal prejudices and foibles," the Court became the de facto totalitarian oligarchic government of the nation from which there is no appeal. The Court's decisions override the Constitution, turn democracy into a mere formal exercise, and betray the people. The Constitution never really had a chance.

The Court has brought this about by employing a number of fallacious practices.

The first is the fallacy of citing English common law. But what does English common law have to do with the United States of America? The only reference to it in the Constitution is in the seventh amendment, where common law suits are restricted in terms of their monetary value. The common law is not enshrined in the Constitution itself. True, the original States, the colonies settled by Englishmen, did make the common law the basis of their State legal systems, but the United States of America did not.

Some have claimed that the federal courts act only as interpreters of statutes and the Constitution by merely elaborating and precisely defining language. But before 1938, the federal courts acted as common law courts, deciding any issue whether the legislature had acted or not, by looking at what courts had done even when there was no authority for doing so in the Constitution. But since 1938, the Court has began to overturn earlier decisions based on common law principles. Still, much common law is embedded in judicial decisions.

First, the essence of the common law is that it is judicial law—legislation from the bench. The common law can be defined as law developed from the rulings of judges rather than from statutes passed by legislatures or from written constitutions. But the Court, as final arbiter of the law, turns all reviewed law into judicial law. When Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury vs Madison, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" he made a mere claim unsupported by argument that gave the Court the final say. The legislature is relegated to the subordinate position of proposer while the Court assumes the position of disposer, and the Senatorial practice of asking those appointed to seats on the Court about their judicial philosophies is pure cant.

Second, the common law was formulated by circuit judges appointed by English monarchs, and as such, always favored the interests of the monarchy and the aristocracy.

Third, precedent, stare decisis, is a common law principle which the Court continues to utilize. And since no one can deny that the Court often makes bad decisions, stare decisis merely distributes the bad effects of those decisions throughout the legal system. Proponents of stare decisis claim that it is needed to provide consistency in the legal system. But consistency per se is not a virtue. Machiavelli's The Prince is supremely consistent, but it is irredeemably evil.

Argument by precedent (authority) is a mode of reasoning long discredited. It was used extensively during the Middle Ages mainly by theologians. (Interestingly, the common law arose during the Middle Ages.) It was discredited because authorities are often found to be wrong.

An argument must stand on its own or fall. If a precedent is based on a sound argument, that argument can be reproduced in subsequent opinions almost as easily as the precedent's citation can. But reproducing a precedent's argument is almost, perhaps never, done, because often the precedent is itself based on a prior precedent. Often the subject of the precedent is so different from the subject of the current case that the argument in the precedent would be seen to be ridiculous if it were reproduced. Often nothing in the precedent can be identified as an authentic argument. So the Court's practice is to merely cite the precedent's finding, and those findings, when bad, become embodied in the legal system, perpetuating errors and their malevolent consequences—not a good way to make the law that governs a society.

The second is the fallacy of cherry picking the Constitution. Justice Marshall cherry picked the Constitution in Marbury vs Madison when he based the decision to not grant Marbury a writ of mandamus on Article III of the Constitution rather on the goals stated in the Preamble, giving a formal rule more importance than the Constitution's intent even though he also wrote, "a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." But can a law or decision that hinders a Constitutional goal not be repugnant to it?

The third is the fallacy of figurative interpretation. This fallacy is perhaps the most often used to subvert the Constitution's aims. "Corporation" becomes "person," "contribution" becomes "speech," "speech" becomes "property," and on and on. Instead of precisely defining language, the Court muddles it. Interpretation by means of figures of speech, especially metaphor and analogy, makes any desired finding possible. If the Constitution's language is not to be interpreted literally, using the common meanings given to its words at the time they were written, it may just as well have been written in gibberish. Try making sense of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales without being fluent in Middle English! So if one wants to know what the framers meant, one must be fluent in the language they spoke. Their intentions cannot be discerned otherwise.

The fourth is the fallacy of ignored qualifiers. For instance, it can easily be argued that the Constitution prohibits corporations from lobbying (which is nothing more than a way of petitioning the government). The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If one reads the Constitution's language literally, however, the word "people" applies only to human beings; it's cognates are populous and population. Only human beings are counted in the census. The first edition of Noah Webster's Dictionary of the American Language, published in 1828, as well as the Oxford English Dictionary both make this quite certain. Webster's definition is:

PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.] The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.

But even if this definition is ignored, the amendment clearly states what can be petitioned for— only a redress of grievances. When corporations petition the Congress, they are seeking advantages. Had the framers meant to allow petitioning for anything at all, they would not have qualified the amendment by attaching the prepositional phrase. Anyone who reads this amendment differently is delusional.

Some of these arguments have been made previously by many others. Most of the Justices of the Court have paid them scant attention. They have done so because, as the final arbiter of the law from which there is no appeal, they can do whatever they please with complete impunity. That is the definition of tyranny. The Court has not only annulled the Constitution, it has aided and abetted the corporate corrupting of all the government's branches, the corrupting of the electoral process, and the destruction of the people's freedoms and protections. The Court will not reform itself.

A Constitutional amendment could be used to limit the Court's power, but such an amendment would have to be carefully crafted to not only prohibit the Court from using any of the fallacious procedures discussed above but also require the Court to present a discussion of how the consequences of decisions would affect the lives of common people and show how those consequences promote one or more of the goals of the Constitution enumerated in the Preamble. (Congress should be required to include such discussions in all enacted laws too.) The chances of ever having such an amendment proposed and enacted by a government already deeply steeped in corruption is anybody's guess.

But perhaps there are other non-governmental ways. Theoretical mathematicians world-wide routinely examine published proofs of new theorems to check their validity. Mistakes are often found and theorems are rejected. The amendment mentioned above proposed by the delegates to the New York ratification convention can easily be altered into a proposal for the establishment of a completely voluntary body of learned people, free of political attachments and ideological biases and selected from all intellectual disciplines, who would pledge to analyze all Supreme Court decisions using principles of critical reasoning. These analyses could then be published on the Internet and syndicated widely. If the Justices of the Court can't be forced, perhaps they can be shamed into fulfilling their obligations to their oath of office.

The nation Americans live in today is vastly different from the nation envisioned by the founders when measured against the goals written into the Constitution's Preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The union is not only far from perfect, it is becoming less perfect; even voices of secession are once again being heard. Justice, at least for common people, is rare. Violence is epidemic and people are arming themselves in unprecedented numbers. The vast military and industrial complex and the so-called intelligence community have not provided a credible common defense. Poverty and the gap in income between the rich and poor are increasing. And the blessings of liberty and our protections to privacy are being curtailed. The United States of America needs to be taken back from the politicians, lawyers, and their favored special interests who have usurped it.

Perhaps we need to rewrite the Pledge of Allegiance and define all truly patriotic Americans by those who recite it:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it once stood, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The current pledge is a lie.

Peace