# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  The problem with the Constitution

## BillyDkid

It seems to me that the problem with the Constitution has always been that there is no mechanism for enforement and there are no automatic sanctions against those who violate it.  It is absurd that a person or a group needs to go to court in order to get the government to obey the law of the land.  I would like to see Dr. Paul introduce legislation that requires that all government activity be Constitution with an enforcement agency which holds those who violate it accountable.  It seems to me that violating the Constitution is every bit as treasonable as anything any spy ever did and has caused vastly more harm to all US citizens.  Who in their right mind would vote against a measure requiring the government to obey the law of the land?  Also, the bill would require that all current government activities be demonstrated to be Constitutional as well as all proposed proposed government actions.  Those who have violated the Constitution or have voted for UnConstitutional activities should be held personally and criminally liable and should be treated as traitors - which they very much are.  We all know that 90% of everything the federal government does is UnConstitutional - and yet, for some bizarre reason, it is left to the citizens to go to court and demonstrate that the government is acting UnConstitutionally.  This is exactly assbackward.  The same people who have a hard on for "law and order" seem to be okay with their own government violating the law of the land, doing vastly more harm to the country than any drug dealer or arms dealer or murderer.  We need a permanent mechanism for enforcement of the Constitution - it should be automatic and should not require going through a bunch of legal machinations in order to force the government to obey the law.  Why the founders didn't put in a mechanism for enforcement and sanctions for those who violate fundamental law on which this country was founded is beyond me.  The President violates the law, he should be arrested and tried.  Congress violates the law, they should be arrested and tried.  When someone murder another person or commits any other ordinary crime - the agrieved don't have to go to court just to prove a crime has been committed.

----------


## Truth Warrior

The "main" problem with the Constitution is that "We the People" *NEVER* agreed to it.

*NO TREASON.
*http://www.voluntaryist.com/classics/notreason.php

----------


## Cleaner44

> The "main" problem with the Constitution is that "We the People" *NEVER* agreed to it.
> 
> *NO TREASON.
> *http://www.voluntaryist.com/classics/notreason.php


I don't think I agree with you. The people's representatives at the time did agree to it and any state entering the union later certainly agreed to it.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> I don't think I agree with you. The people's representatives at the time did agree to it and any state entering the union later certainly agreed to it.


Did you ever sign anything to make it a binding contract on you, personally? I sure didn't!

There's a term for unilaterally defining an "agreement" between two people that allows one to take the results of labor of the other. It's called slavery.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I don't think I agree with you. The people's representatives at the time did agree to it and any state entering the union later certainly agreed to it.


Not true!

FYI, review and consideration.

*The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action*
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

Thanks!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Did you ever sign anything to make it a binding contract on you, personally? I sure didn't!
> 
> There's a term for unilaterally defining an "agreement" between two people that allows one to take the results of labor of the other. It's called slavery.


and tyranny.

It seems like Jefferson ("red pill") had some very interesting viewpoints on tyranny, as I recall. 

Thanks!

----------


## Truth Warrior

"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." -- Bertrand Russell

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> It seems to me that the problem with the Constitution has always been that there is no mechanism for enforement and there are no automatic sanctions against those who violate it.


The tyranny of a bull does what he wills.  One solution to this problem would be to get a grizzly bear as a mechanism to enforce automatic sanctions against the tyrant bull but then the bear itself would, in turn, do what it wills.        




> It is absurd that a person or a group needs to go to court in order to get the government to obey the law of the land.  I would like to see Dr. Paul introduce legislation that requires that all government activity be Constitution with an enforcement agency which holds those who violate it accountable.


We enter into a court as citizens with half of us exiting later as losing clients and the other as winning tyrants.  This eroding legal process does not help to sit us ideally at the same dinner table but seperates us as masters and slaves at different tables like in primitive civilizations.  
Like the bull and the grizzly bear, the Supreme Court does what it wills today.  It certainly isn't abiding by any social contract it has with the people but by a legal precedent it established for itself.  As it started off writing writs of mandimus to enforce decisions, it later esablished a legal precedent which would have it sitting in judgement over the Constitutionality of laws.  
While we accept the Supreme court today according to legal precedent, this does not mean that the it ideally operates in the best interests of the people.    




> It seems to me that violating the Constitution is every bit as treasonable as anything any spy ever did and has caused vastly more harm to all US citizens.  Who in their right mind would vote against a measure requiring the government to obey the law of the land?  Also, the bill would require that all current government activities be demonstrated to be Constitutional as well as all proposed proposed government actions.  Those who have violated the Constitution or have voted for UnConstitutional activities should be held personally and criminally liable and should be treated as traitors - which they very much are.


Hegel said a virtuous thing with his claim that granting freedom alone isn't enough to keep the slave class ideally sitting at the same dinner table as the master class.  An example of this would be the African American slaves trading in their bondage as property for that of the bondage as prisoners as human beings.  So, the slave class needs property in some concept to remain sitting at the same dinner table as the master class.
In confronting this problem, sociologist and political scientist Karl Marx claimed that world history is nothing more than a series of class struggles.  In order to isolate the problem to implement a solution, he divided the dinner table into 2 classes of people -- the proletariat working class and the bourgeoisie property owners. 
Ideally, Karl Marx would have us all sitting classless at the same dinner table; while, in contrast, the American system would have us all ideally sitting as the tyrant master class with the oppressed slave class.  The tyrant master class itself becomes a necessary evil for the implementation of this Civil Purpose or Social Contract while it is never blamed as flesh and blood problem sitting at the table but as a principality and power that erodes us from sitting together at the same dinner table. 




> We all know that 90% of everything the federal government does is UnConstitutional - and yet, for some bizarre reason, it is left to the citizens to go to court and demonstrate that the government is acting UnConstitutionally.  This is exactly assbackward.  The same people who have a hard on for "law and order" seem to be okay with their own government violating the law of the land, doing vastly more harm to the country than any drug dealer or arms dealer or murderer.


Actually, 99.99999% of what the government does is legal precedence which serves to erode our nation towards the tyranny by smothering the Civil Purpose in the Constitution.  While I am a menial client relative to political issues and legal precedents, I am elevated as a citizen in regards to the Civil Purpose in the Constitution.




> We need a permanent mechanism for enforcement of the Constitution - it should be automatic and should not require going through a bunch of legal machinations in order to force the government to obey the law.  Why the founders didn't put in a mechanism for enforcement and sanctions for those who violate fundamental law on which this country was founded is beyond me.  The President violates the law, he should be arrested and tried.  Congress violates the law, they should be arrested and tried.  When someone murder another person or commits any other ordinary crime - the agrieved don't have to go to court just to prove a crime has been committed.


Enforcement is poor because we have lost our vision as to what is the Civil Purpose in the Constitution.  This meaning of Civil Purpose is defined in the "formal" document of the Declaration of Independence as self evident and inalienable truths.  This truth holds that all men are created equal.  This ideal manifests itself in equivalence to sitting the master class at the same dinner table as the slave class.    
While our nation has had a history of freeing the slave to sit at the national dinner table, the bit of history we choose to ignore is the great efforts made to bind the master to sitting at the same dinner table.

----------


## Patriot123

Um, no. First of all, half of the crappy laws that are getting passed are not in violation of the Constitution, sadly. They're not an infringement on the rights given to you via the Bill of Rights. Even with the Patriot Act, it's rather iffy. Yeah, it does get infringed upon, but usually only to the point where it's very debatable. Are these laws an infringement on our *moral rights?* Of course. But in my honest opinion, our Constitution is complete crap. Yeah, it was written with good intentions. But it's obviously failed to have the key wording and proper rights put in to restrain a tyrannical government. The Constitution needs to be re-written to, say, say that no foreign aid may be given by any part of the government. It needs to define what proper role the federal government has, and where its power ends in *clear* language. It needs to say, flat out, that privacy is a right to all Americans. The Bill of Rights, yeah, does give some right to privacy. However it should just say flat out, "all Americans have a right to privacy of their possessions, their personal selves, no ID's shall be forced upon a person," etcetera. It should clearly point out that free speech shall not be limited such as incriminating people for "talking about rebellion," and it should clearly point out that our nation shall not police the world and such. Yeah, our founders would have never been able to foresee all of this. That's why we absolutely should re-write it. But, sadly, that would *never, never, never* happen.

----------


## BillyDkid

> Um, no. First of all, half of the crappy laws that are getting passed are not in violation of the Constitution, sadly. They're not an infringement on the rights given to you via the Bill of Rights. Even with the Patriot Act, it's rather iffy. Yeah, it does get infringed upon, but usually only to the point where it's very debatable. Are these laws an infringement on our *moral rights?* Of course. But in my honest opinion, our Constitution is complete crap. Yeah, it was written with good intentions. But it's obviously failed to have the key wording and proper rights put in to restrain a tyrannical government. The Constitution needs to be re-written to, say, say that no foreign aid may be given by any part of the government. It needs to define what proper role the federal government has, and where its power ends in *clear* language. It needs to say, flat out, that privacy is a right to all Americans. The Bill of Rights, yeah, does give some right to privacy. However it should just say flat out, "all Americans have a right to privacy of their possessions, their personal selves, no ID's shall be forced upon a person," etcetera. It should clearly point out that free speech shall not be limited such as incriminating people for "talking about rebellion," and it should clearly point out that our nation shall not police the world and such. Yeah, our founders would have never been able to foresee all of this. That's why we absolutely should re-write it. But, sadly, that would *never, never, never* happen.


The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government.  All rights not expressly granted to it by the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people.  If the Constitution does not say they can do it, they can't.  There is nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government even a fraction of what it does and if they are not granted that power by the Constitution, they are not supposed to have it.  The Constitution is explicit about this.  And everything they do that is not authorized by the Constitution is by definition UnConstitutional.

----------


## Danke

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/notreas.html

----------


## demolama

> It seems to me that the problem with the Constitution has always been that there is no mechanism for enforement and there are no automatic sanctions against those who violate it.


The X amendment is the cornerstone of enforcement.   Since the states are the contracted parties to the Constitution they themselves determine when an unconstitutional act occurs. Thats the beauty of federalism and not nationalism.  The supreme court being the final and only system to determine federal usurpation is utterly wrong and absurd since the federal convention never gave them that power.... they assumed the power by court ruling which has never been questioned 




> It is absurd that a person or a group needs to go to court in order to get the government to obey the law of the land.


you cant go in front of the same body of government and expect them to willingly give up their power... you also cant expect them to watch their own power




> I would like to see Dr. Paul introduce legislation that requires that all government activity be Constitution with an enforcement agency which holds those who violate it accountable.  It seems to me that violating the Constitution is every bit as treasonable as anything any spy ever did and has caused vastly more harm to all US citizens.


The answer of course would be to repeal the 17th amendment to give the states back some say in  matters that effect them.  The next thing would be to repeal the law that limited the house to 435 members, and to add an amendment limiting the max representing no more than 60 thousand people per district.  This would have the people and the states with more say in the goings on in Washington.

The answer to the constitutional problems are found in the framer documents... if we just look to find them

----------


## pdavis

"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it". Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)

----------


## Patriot123

> The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government.  All rights not expressly granted to it by the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people.  If the Constitution does not say they can do it, they can't.  There is nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government even a fraction of what it does and if they are not granted that power by the Constitution, they are not supposed to have it.  The Constitution is explicit about this.  And everything they do that is not authorized by the Constitution is by definition UnConstitutional.


Like what? Name a few. I'll give you a few arguments.

----------


## Danke

> Like what? Name a few. I'll give you a few arguments.


ATFE.

----------


## anonymous6728

The office of the Provost Marshal is in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. He has the authority to arrest GWB and anyone else in the White House or Capitol Hill and conduct thorough investigations without interference. This is their website: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/army/cid.htm

You will find links at the bottom at the page by clicking "About Us."

It doesn't take much organization to send emails, letters, picket or have a sit-in until the Provost Marshal does his job. Bush has committed enough crimes to be arrested and should be. Washington is corrupt and dysfunctional. This way might be the only way to stop GWB from starting WWIII.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News...s_iv_ctrl=1061
(list of indictable crimes)

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> But in my honest opinion, our Constitution is complete crap.

----------


## Knightskye

> The "main" problem with the Constitution is that "We the People" *NEVER* agreed to it.


Yeah, I think Napolitano said in an interview that he would change it to "We the States".

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yeah, I think Napolitano said in an interview that he would change it to "We the States".


It's much closer to truth and more like,* "We the state conventions ( just fabricated by the Federalist Party ), by a simple majority vote in only some of the state's manufactured conventions"* . 

Article VII. ( Ya just gotta read the fine print, the devil is often hiding right there in the details. )

Hell, it even starts out with a lie. "We the People" --- my ass (only in delusional dreams ), *NOT!!!*

----------


## demolama

there of course a difference between the States representing the government and the States representing the people... its the people in convention that are sovereign and can undo any contract... even overthrow their own state governments.

Napolitano of course is right the original opening was "We the States of ...." and listed each state... the committee of style removed it because it was unknown what states were gonna ratify the Constitution and in fact they were right to do so.  NC and RI refused to sign it even after George Washington was sworn in as the first president.  

I suggest if you are interested in learning about the Constitution reading any of John Taylor of Caroline's books are a great start. New Views of the Constitution,Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, and Tyranny Unmasked are superb readings.  

John Taylor is essentially the mouthpiece of the Democratic-Republican movement. Thomas Jefferson once was asked why he didn't write a book about his positions his reply was "Col. Taylor and myself have rarely, if ever, differed in any political principle of importance," and since Taylor wrote so much about the movement he didn't see a reason to do so.

----------


## IRO-bot

I thought that "We the people" were the enforcers of the constitution.  What point is it to make safeguards against doing things unconstitutional.  Who is going to enforce it?  The executive branch?  The Congress?  The judicial branch?  Come on.  The reason America has failed is because WE GOT LAZY.  If we voted people in like Ron Paul on the right, and Dennis K. on the left, and anyone else who follow the rule of law, 90% of the crap that happened wouldn't of happened.

----------


## Truth Warrior

So ........ just how many of *"We the People"* ( so called ), at that time, in total, actually voted *FOR* the adoption of the Federalist's proposed U.S. Constitution ( so called )?

Anyone?

Anyone?

----------


## IRO-bot

> So ........ just how many of *"We the People"* ( so called ), at that time, in total, actually voted *FOR* the adoption of the Federalist's proposed U.S. Constitution ( so called )?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Anyone?


Oh.  I wasn't debated the hyjacked part of the thread.  I don't know much info on that subject.  I believe the original subject was about having some automated enforcements to follow the constitution. 

I would say not many though.  I doubt there were any popular votes for or against it.  Although popular votes sucks.  51% of the people want it doesn't make it right.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Oh. I wasn't debated the hyjacked part of the thread. I don't know much info on that subject. I believe the original subject was about having some automated enforcements to follow the constitution. 
> 
> I would say not many though. I doubt there were any popular votes for or against it. Although popular votes sucks. 51% of the people want it doesn't make it right.


The subject and title of this thread is, "The problem with the Constitution".  I think that I am discussing THE problem. 

Thanks!

----------


## IRO-bot

> The subject and title of this thread is, "The problem with the Constitution".  I think that I am discussing THE problem. 
> 
> Thanks!


Indeed one of many!
I was merely stating that the OP's purpose was to talk about ways to enforce it.
You make good points though.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Indeed one of many!
> I was merely stating that the OP's purpose was to talk about ways to enforce it.
> You make good points though.


Thanks!  Of what importance is enforcing the illegitimate?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Like what? Name a few. I'll give you a few arguments.


My friend would like to grow a plant in his home and later ingest that plant in his home before drifting off to sleep.  He could go to federal prison for doing so because it is a "controlled substance."

Have at it.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> My friend would like to grow a plant in his home and later ingest that plant in his home before drifting off to sleep. He could go to federal prison for doing so because it is a "controlled substance."
> 
> Have at it.


 Tyranny!

----------


## Patriot123

> I thought that "We the people" were the enforcers of the constitution.  What point is it to make safeguards against doing things unconstitutional.  Who is going to enforce it?  The executive branch?  The Congress?  The judicial branch?  Come on.  The reason America has failed is because WE GOT LAZY.  If we voted people in like Ron Paul on the right, and Dennis K. on the left, and anyone else who follow the rule of law, 90% of the crap that happened wouldn't of happened.


And that is the *one main problem with the ideology of liberty and freedom.* It's too utopian. No one will care to maintain it, and it'll revert right back to what we were fighting against in the Revolutionary War. Tyranny.




> My friend would like to grow a plant in his home and later ingest that plant in his home before drifting off to sleep. He could go to federal prison for doing so because it is a "controlled substance."
> 
> Have at it.


Because laws have been passed to make certain drugs illegal. There are limits in which the Constitution protects you, and so much that laws can make and bend. Should your friend be allowed to? Hell yes. But that's the way our crappy law system works in this day and age.

----------


## BillyDkid

> And that is the *one main problem with the ideology of liberty and freedom.* It's too utopian. No one will care to maintain it, and it'll revert right back to what we were fighting against in the Revolutionary War. Tyranny.
> 
> .


Which is specifically why I suggested a law enforcement agency to compel the government to follow the law of the land.  The rule of law is fundamental to a free society.  Without it you have the rule of men - which is arbitrary and capricious.  It means nothing to talk about the rule of law unless your government follows the law.  People always misunderstand this - they say "What makes the Constitution sacred." but that completely misses the point.  It isn't that the founders were infallable and the Constitution is perfect. If there is something wrong with it you correct it, you don't just ignore it as this administration and many others have done continually.  Without the rule of law - all governance becomes arbitrary.  What is legal one day becomes illegal the next or someone might decide that things are retroactively illegal.  So many people just do not grasp the concept of the the rule of law and how essential it is if we are to have any hope of having a free and just society.  People take it to me "law and order", but the has nothing to do with it.  It mean that society functions in a predictable way and you can only be arrested for things that are spelled out as illegal and it isn't up to police or prosecutors discretion to decide whether you committed a crime or not depending on how they feel about it.  Whether or not particular laws are just or not is another issue.  I saw where some libertarians were arrested by the cops for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial.  When the woman asked what crime they were being arrested for, the cop arrested her for asking.  The police should not be free to arrest people arbitrarily.  That is how people were treated behind the old "iron curtain" and that is what is supposed to distinguish us from them - the rule of law.  And all people including our leader must be subject to the rule of law.  The President is now free to arrest anyone - American citizen or not - at his discretion and hold them indefinitely without trail.  That is fundamentally UnConstitutional.

----------


## IRO-bot

> Thanks!  Of what importance is enforcing the illegitimate?


To me, because it is to date the best contract between a govn't and it's people.  Whether it is legitimate or not the only way to have the most liberty and freedom without a bloody revolt is through that document.

----------


## yongrel

The problem with the Constitution is who reads it.

----------


## IRO-bot

> The problem with the Constitution is who reads it.


Do you mean as in how they interpret it?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> To me, because it is to date the best contract between a govn't and it's people. Whether it is legitimate or not the only way to have the most liberty and freedom without a bloody revolt is through that document.


What contract? We can't even find out who, and how many agreed and signed it. I sure know that I never signed it. Anyone who claims to have signed it, in my name, is a liar. It isn't even claimed to be a contract.

Best in comparison to what? The U.S.S.R. collapsed about 20 years ago, without a bloody revolt. Did they have a signed contract with their people?

The Constitution has had it's chance, time and day. Face it, it has just failed abysmally. How many times do the words liberty or freedom appear in the U.S. Constitution? It's just and only about power. The current government only gives lip service to it, and then just proceeds with whatever it damned well pleases. If the Constitution was a contract with the people, the federal government broke it long long ago.

----------


## IRO-bot

> What contract? We can't even find out who, and how many agreed and signed it. I sure know that I never signed it. Anyone who claims to have signed it, in my name, is a liar. It isn't even claimed to be a contract.
> 
> Best in comparison to what? The U.S.S.R. collapsed about 20 years ago, without a bloody revolt. Did they have a signed contract with their people?
> 
> The Constitution has had it's chance, time and day. Face it, it has just failed abysmally. How many times do words liberty or freedom appear in the U.S. Constitution? It's just and only about power. The current government only gives lip service to it, and then just proceeds with whatever it damned well pleases. If the Constitution was a contract with the people, the federal government broke it long long ago.


Indeed they did.  Do you have a better idea?  A probable one?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Indeed they did. Do you have a better idea? A probable one?


In the short range time frame, how about "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity"? You know the popular and well known Ron Paul message summary slogan.  

Probable? Doubtful. 

For the longer term, something along these lines of thought, just for starters. 

"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." -- Bertrand Russell

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell 

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!" 

Thanks!

----------


## Conza88

The problem with the Constitution... is that you don't automatically die if you break it.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The problem with the Constitution... is that you don't automatically die if you break it.


 Yep, that too.  And that it doesn't exclude sociopaths from holding nor running for public office or public employment.

----------


## silentboom

> Thanks!  Of what importance is enforcing the illegitimate?


Who are you, Bush?  Of course it's legitamate, every representive is sworn to uphold it.  They have broken their oaths and should be dealt with.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Who are you, Bush? Of course it's legitamate, every representive is sworn to uphold it. They have broken their oaths and should be dealt with.


How so legitimate?

Do politicians ever lie, even under oath? Who do they swear to ........ under what penalties for what violations?  Who holds them responsible and accountable for their individual and group behavior?

You may want to consider reading this thread from the top. Or maybe not. Your choice. 

FYI ...
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
http://congressionalbadboys.com/

----------


## IRO-bot

> Yep, that too.  And that it doesn't exclude sociopaths from holding nor running for public office or public employment.


It shouldn't have to.  I free society would allow a sociopath to run for office.  It is up to the dilligence of the people to not elect said sociopath.  Again the people's fault.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> What contract? We can't even find out who, and how many agreed and signed it. I sure know that I never signed it. Anyone who claims to have signed it, in my name, is a liar. It isn't even claimed to be a contract.
> 
> Best in comparison to what? The U.S.S.R. collapsed about 20 years ago, without a bloody revolt. Did they have a signed contract with their people?
> 
> The Constitution has had it's chance, time and day. Face it, it has just failed abysmally. How many times do the words liberty or freedom appear in the U.S. Constitution? It's just and only about power. The current government only gives lip service to it, and then just proceeds with whatever it damned well pleases. If the Constitution was a contract with the people, the federal government broke it long long ago.


In order to seperate the new concept of a "positive" government from that of the old primitive caste systems -- which sat their master classes at seperate dinner tables from that of their slave classes -- it became necessary to establish boundaries between them.  This resulted in the necessary creation of the "state" and the ownership of property.  

This brought on the eventual conflict between the Anglo American and the Native American.

A master class sitting distant at a seperate dinner table from that of his or her slave class will result in a tyranny of negligence in regards to whether their subordinates thirst (happiness).    

While the Native American traditionally owned the land first in North America, the Anglo American owned a self evident and inalienable truth.  The self evident and inalienable truth of the Anglo American became a Civil Purpose which eventually superceded the Native American's claim of tradition.  

Any self evident truth is going to be difficult to stomach because it reduces down to be written inalienably on the very conscience of every living soul.  This bold claim means the conscience of every Native American still knows of this truth today, knew of this truth at the time it was being written down and even knew it long before that.  Such a truth becomes the Civil Purpose itself while because it is written to "form" it becomes timeless to the point that it supercedes past and future precedents.  

So, Native American have a choice today.  They can either become American citizens by accepting a "self evident" and "inalienable" truth of a more "formal culture"; or, they can choose to live across a border in a reservation.

Ideally speaking, the new adopted formal-culture simply sits the Native American master class with that of the Native American slave class, sits the African American master class with that of the African American slave class and sits the Hispanic master class with that of the Hispanic slave class.  

Sitting the "order" of a bound master class with that of a free slave class abolishes tyranny which, in turn, establishes contentment at the table.  It is only then that responsibility in regards to law is addressed.  So, the quenching of the thirst for contentment always takes precedent over the implementation of legal responsibility (most lawyers will never understand this subtlety because they are lost in legal precedents).       

So, this Civil Purpose simply declared that the Native American master class should sit with its slave class.  This was the "order" that the white man spread to the more disorderly Native American as he crossed the continent of North America.  After this order of sitting was established, then laws of behavior at the dinner table could be implemented.  So, it isn't a matter of "law and order" -- this quickly erodes to a tyranny of legal precedents -- but order of sitting at the dinner table and then law of behavior while doing so.

So, any "positive" government is going to have a contract with its people.  This means it ideally attempts to sit every citizen at the same dinner table.  This idea goes back to the Zenith of Greek civilization when the question of whether a government could acheive a "good life" (happiness) for its people was considered.

Socialism is thought to be abysmal but it is at least a positive concept of government which is superior to the primitive caste system where the master class and the slave class sat at seperate dinner tables.  The problem with socialism isn't that it attempts to sit every citizen together at the dinner table which it clearly attempts to do; rather, its problem exists in how it attempts to sit every citizen at the dinner table as a classless society.  This method has demonstrated failure time and again.  

The American system does not attempt to acheive a classless socialist society but works to sit the master class and the slave class together at the same table.  It has attempted to maintain this acheivement in the past by binding the better abled master class to sitting at the table while the discouraged slave class has been granted liberties to encourage them to come to the same table.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> It shouldn't have to. I free society would allow a sociopath to run for office. It is up to the dilligence of the people to not elect said sociopath. Again the people's fault.


The people are not diligent in sufficient numbers.  Many sociopaths have been elected.  The Bushes and the Clintons immediately spring to mind.  I really don't care who's "fault" it is.  I do care and deeply resent that I have to life under the resulting sociopathic tyranny.

FYI .....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath

----------


## IRO-bot

> The people are not diligent in sufficient numbers.  Many sociopaths have been elected.  The Bushes and the Clintons immediately spring to mind.  I really don't care who's "fault" it is.  I do care and deeply resent that I have to life under the resulting sociopathic tyranny.
> 
> FYI .....
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath


I never claimed it didn't suck and that it isn't fair.  Was it Benjamin Franklin that said "It's a republic, if you can keep it."?

There you have it.  People are dumb and that is what they count on.  Sad truth.  How do you fix it?  How do you make sure only people who would follow the constitution get elected?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I never claimed it didn't suck and that it isn't fair. Was it Benjamin Franklin that said "It's a republic, if you can keep it."?
> 
> There you have it. People are dumb and that is what they count on. Sad truth. How do you fix it? How do you make sure only people who would follow the constitution get elected?


Yes it was Ben. No, WE can't keep it, much more than obviously. 

I don't "fix it", it's not my job, I have a life that I'm trying to live here. I used to have a bumper sticker that said, *"Don't Blame Me. I Didn't Vote For Them."* 

Haven't you and I already much more than adequately covered the Constitution?

----------


## IRO-bot

> Yes it was Ben. No, WE can't keep it, much more than obviously. 
> 
> I don't "fix it", it's not my job, I have a life that I'm trying to live here. I used to have a bumper sticker that said, *"Don't Blame Me. I Didn't Vote For Them."* 
> 
> Haven't you and I already much more than adequately covered the Constitution?


Oh yeah.  I slept since then.  

Seriously though.  I agree.  I wish I could just be left alone.  YOU RULE!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> In order to seperate the new concept of a "positive" government from that of the old primitive caste systems -- which sat their master classes at seperate dinner tables from that of their slave classes -- it became necessary to establish boundaries between them. This resulted in the necessary creation of the "state" and the ownership of property. 
> 
> This brought on the eventual conflict between the Anglo American and the Native American.
> 
> A master class sitting distant at a seperate dinner table from that of his or her slave class will result in a tyranny of negligence in regards to whether their subordinates thirst (happiness). 
> 
> While the Native American traditionally owned the land first in North America, the Anglo American owned a self evident and inalienable truth. The self evident and inalienable truth of the Anglo American became a Civil Purpose which eventually superceded the Native American's claim of tradition. 
> 
> Any self evident truth is going to be difficult to stomach because it reduces down to be written inalienably on the very conscience of every living soul. This bold claim means the conscience of every Native American still knows of this truth today, knew of this truth at the time it was being written down and even knew it long before that. Such a truth becomes the Civil Purpose itself while because it is written to "form" it becomes timeless to the point that it supercedes past and future precedents. 
> ...


Yep, I already had you pegged as a socialist.  I can tell by your Marxist choices of  collectivist/race/class/master/slave, etc. phraseology.

A little out of place on the RPF, aren't you?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Oh yeah. I slept since then. 
> 
> Seriously though. I agree. I wish I could just be left alone. YOU RULE!


only myself.

----------


## acptulsa

> So, Native American have a choice today.  They can either become American citizens by accepting a "self evident" and "inalienable" truth of a more "formal culture"; or, they can choose to live across a border in a reservation.


In their dreams.  The U.S. just keeps seeping over that line and jacking with the reservations, though.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Yep, I already had you pegged as a socialist.  I can tell by your Marxist choices of  collectivist/race/class/master/slave, etc. phraseology.
> 
> A little out of place on the RPF, aren't you?


Look.  It isn't supposed to be about what we know in our heads.  It is supposed to be about what is truly self evident (beyond any argument) even to the degree that it is written inalienably (reduced to beyond a question) on the conscience of our American souls.  So, I argue that you know naturally what I know.  As a citizen you don't need an expert explaining it to you.  There is indeed a Civil Purpose which you know which supercedes all legal precedents and in regards to this truth we don't need to sit as clients to an attorney in order to understand it.  We can even condescend as to what it means when an attorney violates this field of expertise.  This is what belongs to us because our founding fathers themselves sat not as the government but as similar citizens when they wrote it.
Anyway, your short response is certainly based on a legal precedent devoid of history.  It was probably derived at by an attorney which is probably why it perpetuates devisiveness.  It even perpetuates hatred in that your position in some occult way holds the secondary rights of liberty and democracy over that of the Civil Purpose in the Constitution itself.  It is no wonder that you can't see the lightening in the bottle that we are so blessed with in our system of government.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Look. It isn't supposed to be about what we know in our heads. It is supposed to be about what is truly self evident (beyond any argument) even to the degree that it is written inalienably (reduced to beyond a question) on the conscience of our American souls. So, I argue that you know naturally what I know. As a citizen you don't need an expert explaining it to you. There is indeed a Civil Purpose which you know which supercedes all legal precedents and in regards to this truth we don't need to sit as clients to an attorney in order to understand it. We can even condescend as to what it means when an attorney violates this field of expertise. This is what belongs to us because our founding fathers themselves sat not as the government but as similar citizens when they wrote it.
> Anyway, your short response is certainly based on a legal precedent devoid of history. It was probably derived at by an attorney which is probably why it perpetuates devisiveness. It even perpetuates hatred in that your position in some occult way holds the secondary rights of liberty and democracy over that of the Civil Purpose in the Constitution itself. It is no wonder that you can't see the lightening in the bottle that we are so blessed with in our system of government.


Democracy sucks!
Government sucks!
State sucks!
Lawyers suck!
The Communist Manifesto sucks!
Central banks and central banksters suck!
Authorities suck!
Marx sucks!
Socialists suck!
Collectivisms suck!
Group think sucks!
Herd mentality sucks!
CFR sucks!
TC sucks!
NAU sucks!
NWO sucks!
etc. sucks!
Did I leave anything out there? Probably.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> In their dreams.  The U.S. just keeps seeping over that line and jacking with the reservations, though.


While sitting at a gracious table where the master is _bound_ to stay and the slave is _freed_ to come to the dinner, you are pointing at the pathetic bones you see in the delicious fried chicken that is being served.  
Look, the declaration our founding fathers sent to the sovereign authority of the king, which basically viewed him as ordained with God's authority, is that his distant table from us inhibited his ability to tend to our thirst for liberty and democracy.  In other words, he violated a self evident and inalienable truth that we should all sit at the same table.  So, we divorced his rule and married into a new government.  We tend to concentrate on the aspects of liberty and democracy as primary rights we desire when it is having the king's master class sit with us at the same dinner table that we desire.

----------


## Ozwest

> Democracy sucks!
> Government sucks!
> State sucks!
> Lawyers suck!
> The Communist Manifesto sucks!
> Central banks and central banksters suck!
> Authorities suck!
> Marx sucks!
> Socialists suck!
> ...


That sums it up!

----------


## Ozwest

You Forgot...


Bush and Cheney Suck.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Democracy sucks!
> Government sucks!
> State sucks!
> Lawyers suck!
> The Communist Manifesto sucks!
> Central banks and central banksters suck!
> Authorities suck!
> Marx sucks!
> Socialists suck!
> ...


Look.  I probably would need an expert to help me understand what you are talking about.  This would make me a client and ultimately would sit me at a different table from you.  In regards to what is self evident and inalienable, these truths existed long before I was born and my mind even formed.  It isn't a matter of my _knowing_ these truths as a citizen; but, it is a matter of my _being_ as a citizen.  We are pitted as citizens with a Civil Purpose against experts who have legal precedents.  As long as the formal Civil Purpose supercedes the informal legal precedents, we have a Constitution; while, as long as the informal legal precedents supercede the formal Civil Purpose, we have an erosion towards legal tyranny.

----------


## IRO-bot

> Look.  I probably would need an expert to help me understand what you are talking about.  This would make me a client and ultimately would sit me at a different table from you.  In regards to what is self evident and inalienable, these truths existed long before I was born and my mind formed.  It isn't a matter of my knowing as a citizen; but, it is a matter of my being as a citizen.


What?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Look. I probably would need an expert to help me understand what you are talking about. This would make me a client and ultimately would sit me at a different table from you. In regards to what is self evident and inalienable, these truths existed long before I was born and my mind formed. It isn't a matter of my knowing as a citizen; but, it is a matter of my being as a citizen.


experts suck!
citizens suck!

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> What?


Our founding fathers created the greatest government in the world based on a science which established metaphysical truths as "natural laws."  In other words, these long haired guys weren't just terrorists.  
So, we can either choose to support the science that is the most modern, which in itself is not a government; or, we can choose to support the science that was used to establish the best government.  I choose to support the latter.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> experts suck!
> citizens suck!


Look.  As a Christian I'm not that different from you.  What I have learned to do as a Christian is allow Christ to rebel for me.  For example, when the man had to constantly warn people to stay away from his leprosy because of the law; Jesus Himself had to violate that law to approach and heal him because of his submissiveness to authority.  So, while we don't always obey the master at the table, we should understand that we should always be submissive to his authority.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Look. As a Christian I'm not that different from you. What I have learned to do as a Christian is allow Christ to rebel for me. For example, when the man had to constantly warn people to stay away from his leprosy because of the law; Jesus Himself had to violate that law to approach and heal him because of his submissiveness to authority. So, while we don't always obey the master at the table, we should understand that we should always be submissive to his authority.


I'm not a Christian.  BTW, neither was Jesus.

When my "brother" Jesus shows up again, he and I will talk about some things.

----------


## Ozwest

> Look.  As a Christian I'm not that different from you.  What I have learned to do as a Christian is allow Christ to rebel for me.  For example, when the man had to constantly warn people to stay away from his leprosy because of the law; Jesus Himself had to violate that law to approach and heal him because of his submissiveness to authority.  So, while we don't always obey the master at the table, we should understand that we should always be submissive to his authority.


I don't obey masters at the table.

----------


## Patriot123

> Which is specifically why I suggested a law enforcement agency to compel the government to follow the law of the land.  The rule of law is fundamental to a free society.  Without it you have the rule of men - which is arbitrary and capricious.  It means nothing to talk about the rule of law unless your government follows the law.  People always misunderstand this - they say "What makes the Constitution sacred." but that completely misses the point.  It isn't that the founders were infallable and the Constitution is perfect. If there is something wrong with it you correct it, you don't just ignore it as this administration and many others have done continually.  Without the rule of law - all governance becomes arbitrary.  What is legal one day becomes illegal the next or someone might decide that things are retroactively illegal.  So many people just do not grasp the concept of the the rule of law and how essential it is if we are to have any hope of having a free and just society.  People take it to me "law and order", but the has nothing to do with it.  It mean that society functions in a predictable way and you can only be arrested for things that are spelled out as illegal and it isn't up to police or prosecutors discretion to decide whether you committed a crime or not depending on how they feel about it.  Whether or not particular laws are just or not is another issue.  I saw where some libertarians were arrested by the cops for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial.  When the woman asked what crime they were being arrested for, the cop arrested her for asking.  The police should not be free to arrest people arbitrarily.  That is how people were treated behind the old "iron curtain" and that is what is supposed to distinguish us from them - the rule of law.  And all people including our leader must be subject to the rule of law.  The President is now free to arrest anyone - American citizen or not - at his discretion and hold them indefinitely without trail.  That is fundamentally UnConstitutional.


And who's going to be on that "task force?" Who's going to elect those people into their positions? How would they go about their job in terms of stopping a suspected government of infringing on citizens rights? Weopons? Vetoing legislation? That would throw off all checks and balances. That would potentially make them a tyrannical organization.

----------


## Ozwest

All this anger and confusion illustrates the fact that the population has lost control.

You are all waffling bunnies.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I don't obey masters at the table.


If you were born with natural ability, then take advantage of that and have fun with your life.  
Born with natural features, a pretty woman never has problems getting her lipstick.  Whether she lives in a dictatorship, a communist society, a fascist society or in a primitive caste system, someone is going to serve her up the lipstick she needs.  So, she doesn't need a government.  Our positive government is to bring the pretty and the uncomely to the same dinner table.  
If you don't believe in the capitalist society that sits the classes at the same table, then you are either Marxist in that you believe people should sit at the same table as a classless society; or, you are content with the way our nation is eroding to tyranny today into the old primitive caste system which sat the master class at a seperate table from the slave class.  All one has to do to establish seperate master and slave classes in our nation is to erode the table for the middle class.

----------


## Ozwest

> Then you either are Marxist in that you believe people should sit at the same table as a classless society; or, you are one who is happy with the way our nation is eroding to tyranny today which would be the equivalent of the old primitive caste system when the master class sat at a seperate table.  All one has to do to establish seperate master and slave classes is to remove the table for the middle class.


You must be psychic.

Amazing deductions.

$#@! for brains...

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

Screwed up the editing somehow.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> You must be psychic.
> 
> Amazing deductions.
> 
> $#@! for brains...


Look.  I don't want to chat with you about issues.  I am not a lawyer.  Go pay someone to make you sit in the class to learn that.  All I care to talk about are the things that elevate us to that of an American citizen.

----------


## Ozwest

> If you were born with natural ability, then take advantage of that and enjoy your life.  
> Born with natural features, a pretty woman never has problems getting her lipstick.  Whether she lives in a dictatorship, a communist society, a fascist society or in a primitive caste system, someone is going to serve her up the lipstick she needs.  So, she doesn't need a government.  The Civil Purpose of our positive government is to bring the pretty and the uncomely to the same dinner table.  
> If you don't believe in our constitutional government that ideally sits the master down at the same table with the slave, then you are either Marxist in that you believe people should sit at the same table as a classless society -- wear a peasant garment to dinner like they do in communist China; or, worse yet, you are just content with the way our nation is eroding to tyranny today where it is becoming the type of old primitive caste system where the master class sat sat at a seperate table to the degree that they weren't concerned about the thirst of the slave class.  
> All one has to do to establish seperate master and slave classes in our nation is to erode the table for the middle class to the point that it exists.


God forbid!

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> God forbid!


The hatred you exhibit more than anything else is the greatest danger to our constitutional government.

----------


## Ozwest

> The hatred you exhibit more than anything else is the greatest danger to our constitutional government.


Mmmm...

Slightly paranoid, are we?

----------


## Christianalwaysg124RP

Well, the great thing about he constitution is...if you want to change parts of it you can.  If you want to keep it the way it is, you keep it.  The constitution was  set up in a way to make repeals and or later ratifications.  If you don't like part of it, work to change it.  Change it if you want, but politicians can't ignore it.

     you mention the constitution not having a system for those who go against it.  Actually it does have a system so that government doesn't go against it.  It has a system of checks and balances were each function of government check the other.  With functions, government only is to do what is their constitutional duty.

    If each function and branch of government did their responsibility, then there wouldn't be as many problems because it restricts the government.  Look at the current administration.  Instead of having congress declare the war like the constitution says, there was the Bush administration that declared war under under false information and a false ideology of pre-emption.

    Now for indivudals not a part of the government who disobey law....that is for the states to decide and or Sumpreme Court.-10th Amendment.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Mmmm...
> 
> Slightly paranoid, are we?


As I point out before, we don't need a constitutional government to guarantee that pretty women get their lipstick in regards to their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Such women are going to get their lipstick no matter what government they obey.  
The reason we have a positive government is to bind the pretty women to having to sit at the same dinner table as the uncomely ones.  This Civil Purpose is a self evident and inalienable truth.  If these pretty women don't like sitting with the rest of us, let them go live in another nation.

----------


## Matisa

I didn't really read all of this but, heres an easy solution to this problem..  Maybe we could just get rid of all these other Governement activities and government angencies and then there wouldnt be any illegal gov activities going on....   Just a thought...


Matisa

----------


## Conza88

The thing about being able to change the constitution is that... the actual chances of politicians being elected; to implement that change pretty much diminishes with each election...

----------


## The Moog Magician

The Constitution is near perfect as is, except for the 16th Amendment. America's problem is we the people, its only keepers, have not held our own national government to its limits.

----------

