# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  "This Constitution...Shall Be the Supreme Law of the Land"  Hot off the Press !!!

## mrsat_98

http://www.amazon.com/This-Constitut...ords=loy+mauch

"This Constitution...Shall Be the Supreme Law of the Land": The Constitution of the United States as handed down by the Founding Fathers as a legacy is in decline. 

By former Arkansas State Representative Loy Mauch.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If the original Constitution formed a system of law with a limited central government, then how did the United States get so offtrack?
> 
> That's the argument presented by David Loy Mauch, who claims that the government originally established by the United States' founding fathers isn't what we have now. And in his book _This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land_, Mauch contends that events during and after the Civil War led to the false interpretation of US law still at work todaythat the federal government trumps state rights.
> 
> This provocative educational guide looks back to before the Constitution was signed, giving a history of how America's two-party system came to be, and goes on to propose that the Civil War was actually an illegal war fought against the thirteen southern states inaugurated by Abraham Lincoln, a president with Socialist/Communist sympathies.
> 
> While historical, Mauchs book also sheds light on events shaping current political discourse, outlining how the Constitution remains distorted and suggesting what we can do as a nation to get it back on track.
> 
> Rediscover the original law documents that formed our great nation, and reclaim the America our forefathers imagined.


///

----------


## Ronin Truth

*“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*

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> *“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*


I really hate that quote.  It attempts to give the impression that it has found some wisdom.  But, like a cunning pair of questions it leaves out important questions for the false sense that it has stated the only obvious questions.

It fails to answer the question, "Can any set of words defend itself?"  And, it ignores the founders statements that it is the people that must defend it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I really hate that quote. It attempts to give the impression that it has found some wisdom. But, like a cunning pair of questions it leaves out important questions for the false sense that it has stated the only obvious questions.
> 
> It fails to answer the question, "Can any set of words defend itself?" And, it ignores the founders statements that it is the people that must defend it.


Screw that. "We the people" didn't write it nor EVER even vote for nor approve that illegal, unauthorized bogus piece of BS crap, of NO AUTHORITY.

*“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.” -- Thomas Pynchon

No Treason The Constitution of No Authority

By Lysander Spooner

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/l...-no-authority/

*

----------


## mrsat_98

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKMOYBC#reader_B00RKMOYBC

ebook link

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I really hate that quote.  It attempts to give the impression that it has found some wisdom.  But, like a cunning pair of questions it leaves out important questions for the false sense that it has stated the only obvious questions.
> 
> It fails to answer the question, "Can any set of words defend itself?"  And, it ignores the founders statements that it is the people that must defend it.


It's a sophistic argument, which is why it pisses me off so much too. I fully acknowledge that the Constitution had and still has some significant problems. I will not, however, demand that inanimate objects become animate in order to destroy my strawman.

Very little in this life pisses me off more than sophistry, and that quote is sophistic as hell. 

Even if Spooner had something (else) good to say I have zero desire to consume it, since that quote makes him a sophist and I would rather pluck my eyeballs out with a butter knife than to give any respect to sophistry whatsoever.

----------


## Pericles

> It's a sophistic argument, which is why it pisses me off so much too. I fully acknowledge that the Constitution had and still has some significant problems. I will not, however, demand that inanimate objects become animate in order to destroy my strawman.
> 
> Very little in this life pisses me off more than sophistry, and that quote is sophistic as hell. 
> 
> Even if Spooner had something (else) good to say I have zero desire to consume it, since that quote makes him a sophist and I would rather pluck my eyeballs out with a butter knife than to give any respect to sophistry whatsoever.


I agree, which is why I feed this back to any anarchist dumb enough to quote it.

*As anarchy must have been the natural state of politics, 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.*

----------


## CaptainAmerica

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"


every unalienable right recognized through constitution is at risk because people do not hold this axiom from the declaration of independence as a self-evident truth to base reasoning off of why we have these unalienable rights such as bearing arms(the most important right in securing all others). I think america has forgotten not only the original axiom which underpinned the entirety of our civil government's purpose but also forgotten the importance and meaning of the 2nd amendment. Obviously in the federalist papers,and anti federalist papers both sides tend to agree that the militia/2nd amendment is the last defense against a dictator,and an oppressive government, what I dont think the founders expected was for a policing force as big as a standing army ,armed to the teeth with military grade weaponry. America already crossed over a line when Eric Garner's murderer was not indicted ,millions of americans have now seen the wizard of oz and I doubt there is going back from it now that the axiom which underpinned civil law is not only exposed as not existing to the state officials, but also that the unalienable rights which are founded upon that axiom are thrown out the window and for millions to see that thrown out the window means that anything can happen now .

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's a sophistic argument, which is why it pisses me off so much too. I fully acknowledge that the Constitution had and still has some significant problems. I will not, however, demand that inanimate objects become animate in order to destroy my strawman.
> 
> Very little in this life pisses me off more than sophistry, and that quote is sophistic as hell. 
> 
> Even if Spooner had something (else) good to say I have zero desire to consume it, since that quote makes him a sophist and I would rather pluck my eyeballs out with a butter knife than to give any respect to sophistry whatsoever.



Sophistry? Really? I can very easily come up with several thousand things that are much much worse. 

You've obviously lived a very protected and sheltered life.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry?s=t

When you get the chance, would you care to point out just some of those dastardly elements for me?

Thanks!

----------


## William Tell

> I agree, which is why I feed this back to any anarchist dumb enough to quote it.
> 
> *As anarchy must have been the natural state of politics, 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.*


+rep.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I agree, which is why I feed this back to any anarchist dumb enough to quote it.
> 
> *As anarchy must have been the natural state of politics, 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.*


How does anarchy EVER become the "natural state of politics"? I think your dictionary must be broken beyond repair.

----------


## osan

> I really hate that quote.  It attempts to give the impression that it has found some wisdom.  But, like a cunning pair of questions it leaves out important questions for the false sense that it has stated the only obvious questions.
> 
> It fails to answer the question, "Can any set of words defend itself?"  And, it ignores the founders statements that it is the people that must defend it.


Money shot.

Constitution is naught but words on paper.  It is the Individual that gives it character.  

I have several times here proclaimed it a weak document, and it is.  But it is weak not because *it* is weak, but because we are.  The Constitution is weak in a land of weak men.  It could be improved.  The constitution I wrote 25 years ago is a vast improvement.  It is still a weak document for precisely the same reasons.  These documents are only as good as the people they purport to serve.

By that yardstick, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not worth the cardboard match with which one would set their gasoline-soaked selves ablaze.  That is the sad, sad truth.

But despair not; for after waiting patiently at great length, Heaven will come to offer men a choice.  In my mind I see that choice being "grasp truth or perish".  Most will ignore Heaven's kind offer, but some will see it for what it is and take it without hesitation and with gratitude.  Humanity's disposition on this world is an issue far larger than the sufficiency of any cabal of self-satisfied men who fool themselves into believing their legacies will survive the eons; that they alone know what shall be.  Regardless of how clever, materially endowed, determined, or treacherous, they shall also return to the nothing whence they came.  The day will come when that which besets the world of men will move beyond the grasp of those who deem themselves superior, and they will then discover their truer status in the scheme of things.  That is a day for which I live.

That is my opinion on the matter.

*ETA:*  When I say that my constitution is vastly superior to that which we now have, let me make plain my meaning.  It is superior in a world of weak men because it is more explicit, and here "weak" refers to their qualities and characteristics of the individual's integrity.  It allows strong men to defend themselves against the corrupt designs of the weak.  But as with any other similar document, it serves well only within a certain envelope as defined by a given predominant mental landscape.  So long as people limit themselves in certain respects, the strong man, though he be a small minority among the weak, will be able to maintain his station.  Another way of saying this is that so long as the weaknesses of the corrupt men do not cross certain lines, the strong man determined should be able to prosper.  But when those lines are crossed and physical conflict arises, the strong man finds himself in danger of being swamped by hordes of weak men bent on circumscribing him, or even upon his physical destruction.  Beyond a point, numbers matter and when the ratios tip past a point, the strong man then lives at the mercy of the weak.

The American Civil War is perhaps the penultimate modern example of what is likely to happen when hordes of weak men pile against a far smaller enemy.  The South never had a chance.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Money shot.
> 
> Constitution is naught but words on paper. It is the Individual that gives it character. 
> 
> I have several times here proclaimed it a weak document, and it is. But it is weak not because *it* is weak, but because we are. The Constitution is weak in a land of weak men. It could be improved. The constitution I wrote 25 years ago is a vast improvement. It is still a weak document for precisely the same reasons. These documents are only as good as the people they purport to serve.
> 
> By that yardstick, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not worth the cardboard match with which one would set their gasoline-soaked selves ablaze. That is the sad, sad truth.
> 
> But despair not; for after waiting patiently at great length, Heaven will come to offer men a choice. In my mind I see that choice being "grasp truth or perish". Most will ignore Heaven's kind offer, but some will see it for what it is and take it without hesitation and with gratitude. Humanity's disposition on this world is an issue far larger than the sufficiency of any cabal of self-satisfied men who fool themselves into believing their legacies will survive the eons; that they alone know what shall be. Regardless of how clever, materially endowed, determined, or treacherous, they shall also return to the nothing whence they came. The day will come when that which besets the world of men will move beyond the grasp of those who deem themselves superior men, and they will then discover their truer status in the scheme of things. That is a day for which I live.
> ...


You got a similar rap for the Magna Carta?   LOL!

----------


## mrsat_98

This book is well worth the time to read and I highly recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKMOYBC#reader_B00RKMOYBC

http://www.amazon.com/This-Constitut...ords=loy+mauch

----------


## Pericles

> How does anarchy EVER become the "natural state of politics"? I think your dictionary must be broken beyond repair.


Do you think some form of government developed from none previously existing, or mankind was formed with monarchies, tyrannies, democracies, republics, et. al. already formed? Which came first?

----------


## osan

> How does anarchy EVER become the "natural state of politics"? *I think your dictionary must be broken beyond repair.*


I think your study of history is lacking.

If archaeologic finds are any indication of truth, the vast and overwhelming majority of the time that humanity has been walking the earth, anarchism has been the foundation of the social organizations.  Empire, it appears, is a relatively recent development and the world of humans has been sinking into the toilet ever since.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Screw that. "We the people" didn't write it nor EVER even vote for nor approve that illegal, unauthorized bogus piece of BS crap, of NO AUTHORITY.
> 
> *“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.” -- Thomas Pynchon
> 
> No Treason The Constitution of No Authority
> 
> By Lysander Spooner
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/l...-no-authority/
> ...


Thread winnar^^  The only reason most people in the West don't see the failure and immorality of Constitutionalism is because of normalcy bias, propaganda, and indoctrination.  It's easy to see the epic fail of the Soviet Experiment because we have not only history but an outsider's perspective.  It's kind of like the standard American view of WWII vs. the rest of the world's understanding.  Amazing how value judgements of historical events and figures change with perspective.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Do you think some form of government developed from none previously existing, or mankind was formed with monarchies, tyrannies, democracies, republics, et. al. already formed? Which came first?


According to the Sumerians (first known civilization) government was imposed on them by the gods.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I think your study of history is lacking.
> 
> If archaeologic finds are any indication of truth, the vast and overwhelming majority of the time that humanity has been walking the earth, anarchism has been the foundation of the social organizations. Empire, it appears, is a relatively recent development and the world of humans has been sinking into the toilet ever since.



Hunter, gatherer social organizations without rulers, how does that work out?   Tribal chiefs and patriarchs? 

Didn't social organizations become a major phenomenon with the beginning of agriculture?

----------


## otherone

> I think your study of history is lacking.
> 
> If archaeologic finds are any indication of truth, the vast and overwhelming majority of the time that humanity has been walking the earth, anarchism has been the foundation of the social organizations.  Empire, it appears, is a relatively recent development and the world of humans has been sinking into the toilet ever since.


Prehistory is not history.
There is very little archaeologic evidence concerning the vast and overwhelming majority of the time that humanity has walked the earth.

----------


## mrsat_98

https://dlmcsa.wordpress.com/

Author's blog.

----------


## acesfull

The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.

Acesfull

----------


## mrsat_98

http://hotspringsdaily.com/2015/04/o...-universities/

By: Loy Mauch

I had the pleasure to attend a political/historical symposium in Dallas, Texas this past February with several notable guest lecturers who spoke on a variety of timely topics. They were very refined, articulate, and had a profound knowledge of their subject matter in which they were enthusiastically received by the audience. Towards the end of the symposium, two of the guest lecturers, who happened to be retired university professors, informed the audience about a disturbing fact that has been happening at our institutions of higher learning for quite some time. They exposed to us how the liberal left has all but taken over the faculties of colleges and universities and how this will continue to plague us a nation if the trend is not arrested. The most distressing news that both of them agreed to was the fact that future professor applicants are no longer hired on their credentials, but instead on how they vote. If they vote liberal, no problem, but if they admit to being conservative, application denied and they are shown the door.

Before the status quo rolls their eyes and dismisses this claim as too implausible to believe, I want to reinforce what David Horowitz revealed on a national stage not too long ago. Mr. Horowitz stated that our entire college and university system has been taken over by Marxist/Communist/Socialist intellectuals and are in fact poisoning the minds of many of our best and brightest students at these institutions. He should know because he was raised by parents from New York City who were members of the Communist Party USA. Horowitz later attended Cal-Berkeley and Columbia University, both of which are known as radical leftist institutions.

Upon graduation, he befriended Black Panther founder, Huey Newton, and developed a close relationship with him which in all probability further cemented his radical ideology. This began to unravel after a bookkeeper, Betty Van Patter, whom he had recommended that the Black Panthers hire, was found floating in San Francisco Harbor in 1974. Horowitz realized that the Panthers were behind it and he gradually began to abandon the radical left.  By 1985, he was slowly converting to conservatism and his final epiphany occurred when he traveled to Poland in May of 1989 to march with the Polish dissidents calling for the end of communism.  Horowitz wrote these words: “For myself, my family tradition of socialist dreams is over. Socialism is no longer a dream of a revolutionary future. It is only a nightmare of the past. But for you, the nightmare is not a dream. It is a reality that is still happening. My dream for the people of socialist Poland is that someday you will wake up from your nightmare and be free.”

He has since been a very outspoken conservative and traveled the country apologizing for his radical socialist past by lecturing to various right-wing groups and exposing the socialist fraud our American University system has become. The story of David Horowitz is not an isolated case. Before him was the notorious journalist from England, Malcolm Muggeridge, who declared that the two most Marxist Institutions in the Western World were Harvard University and the London School of Economics, the institution where Karl Marx taught while he was a professor living in England during the nineteenth century. Even the late conservative journalist, William Buckley, Jr., publicly declared in 2006: “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”

These testimonies prove to me that the two aforementioned college professors were exactly correct in their assessment of the faculties at our colleges and universities. Conservative America had better come to terms with this fact before we further indoctrinate the minds of our brightest youths, which are our future and who should continue our legacy. Let’s also not forget the purpose of the lottery the State of Arkansas voted in not too long ago, in which we egregiously believed would be the cure all for high school graduates to receive a college education. I ask, is it really worth it? Will our State truly benefit from this leftist education?

For those who still reject this claim, I will illustrate Plank Ten of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto: “Free education for all children in public schools.  Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form and the combination of education with industrial production.” (Americans refer to it as: Public School, the Department of Education, the NEA, and Outcome-Based Education). The purpose of Marx’s public education is for our youth to read the same books and learn the same curriculum so they will all eventually think in the same manner. Judging today’s America, I’m convinced that the socialist faculties at American universities have played a huge role in the rejection of the limited government ideology that the Founding Fathers left to us and future generations. If we are to flourish as a constitutional republic, then we need to take back our educational system, particularly our colleges and universities.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> every unalienable right recognized through constitution is at risk because people do not hold this axiom from the declaration of independence as a self-evident truth to base reasoning off of why we have these unalienable rights such as bearing arms(the most important right in securing all others). I think america has forgotten


If that is true, why is the 2nd amendment second instead of first?

Has America forgotten why the 1st amendment is first?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.
> 
> Acesfull


This is unfortunately, and tragically true.  Even more tragic is that this is the view that is also held by the vast majority of elected and appointed officials.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I like Spooner's quote, and use it quite a bit.

It illustrates, to me at least, the fundamental issue that I have with the 1787 constitution, and what many people have determined to be the problem with the country at large: that the *people* have failed.

The founders were smart folks: why did they not take into account that people, as in empires of old, will become stupid, decadent and slothful and gladly trade liberty for a loaf of bread?

----------


## HVACTech

> I like Spooner's quote, and use it quite a bit.
> 
> It illustrates, to me at least, the fundamental issue that I have with the 1787 constitution, and what many people have determined to be the problem with the country at large: that the *people* have failed.
> 
> The founders were smart folks: why did they not take into account that people, as in empires of old, will become stupid, decadent and slothful and gladly trade liberty for a loaf of bread?


many people are not stupid. they are ignorant. 

I myself was among this group until 06/07.  I was provided with new information. and I paid attention. 
and I learned. this is why you and I do not get along. 

Federations CANNOT exist until "states" are formed. can a Federation exist AF. without "states"

the Founders were AnCaps like me. seeking to protect themselves from the "states" 
they were not seeking to create a "state" 

they were seeking to corral the ones that existed..   


https://youtu.be/2GhPUAVgHZc

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> every unalienable right recognized through constitution is at risk because people do not hold this axiom from the declaration of independence as a self-evident truth to base reasoning off of why we have these unalienable rights such as bearing arms(the most important right in securing all others). I think america has forgotten not only the original axiom which underpinned the entirety of our civil government's purpose but also forgotten the importance and meaning of the 2nd amendment.


If we hold that axiom and fully use the first Amendment for its greatest purpose, we still have the 2nd, but rather than have it alone, we have it united.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Federations CANNOT exist until "states" are formed. can a Federation exist AF. without "states"
> 
> the Founders were AnCaps like me. seeking to protect themselves from the "states" 
> they were not seeking to create a "state" 
> 
> they were seeking to corral the ones that existed..


That is done by the people of a state agreeing upon the prime principles of the state them assuring the leaders agree and accept them.

*Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?*

*Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?*

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

These are not difficult questions for sincere Anericans that have read the Declaration of Independence and realize its intent is echoed in the constitution and bill of rights as best as the framers could manage in the intense, contentious environment created by the loyalists.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

How can you make this argument when half the population doesn't know what the constitution is, could care less, and believe the end justifies the means?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> How can you make this argument when half the population doesn't know what the constitution is, could care less, and believe the end justifies the means?


The fact is, that if they knew about the Declaration of Independence, they would agree with the purpose of free speech as being to enable the unity needed to alter or abolish.

Their corruption and ignorance is not my concern.  No point on focusing on it.  Educating and orienting them away from what the corporatist conditioning made them into is the only functional activity.

----------

