I don't belong here....

[Deborah K]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Who Killed the Constitution?[/FONT]
Tom Woods on its stranglers.

We shall now observe a moment of silence for the "dearly departed".

Are you implying that Tom Woods is telling people in his book to scrap the Constitution??? I already know that you want to, but really, I don't think that was the intention of the authors.

In Who Killed the Constitution? Woods and Gutzman

• REVEAL the federal government’s “great gold robbery”—the flagrant assault on the Constitution you never heard about in history class
• DESTROY the phony case for presidential war power
• EXPOSE how the federal government has actively discriminated to end . . . discrimination
• TEAR DOWN the “wall of separation” between church and state—an invention that completely contradicts what the Constitution says
• DARE to touch the “third rail of American jurisprudence,” Brown v. Board of Education—showing why a government decision that seems “right” isn’t necessarily constitutional

Never shying away from controversy, Woods and Gutzman reveal an unsettling but unavoidable truth: now that the federal government has broken free of the Constitution’s chains, government officials are restrained by little more than their sense of what they can get away with.

I'm not getting how you think their goal in writing the book was to scrap the Constitution and start over.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Are you implying that Tom Woods is telling people in his book to scrap the Constitution??? I already know that you want to, but really, I don't think that was the intention of the authors.

In Who Killed the Constitution? Woods and Gutzman

• REVEAL the federal government’s “great gold robbery”—the flagrant assault on the Constitution you never heard about in history class
• DESTROY the phony case for presidential war power
• EXPOSE how the federal government has actively discriminated to end . . . discrimination
• TEAR DOWN the “wall of separation” between church and state—an invention that completely contradicts what the Constitution says
• DARE to touch the “third rail of American jurisprudence,” Brown v. Board of Education—showing why a government decision that seems “right” isn’t necessarily constitutional

Never shying away from controversy, Woods and Gutzman reveal an unsettling but unavoidable truth: now that the federal government has broken free of the Constitution’s chains, government officials are restrained by little more than their sense of what they can get away with.

I'm not getting how you think their goal in writing the book was to scrap the Constitution and start over.

I think that Woods is telling the people that the Constitution is DEAD.

 

[Deborah K]

I think that Woods is telling the people that the Constitution is DEAD.

Did you read the book?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Did you read the book?

In process. I've got a lot on my reading platter.

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

It's shorter than the book.

 

[Deborah K]

In process. I've got a lot on my reading platter.

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

It's shorter than the book.

Okay, well when you're done, let's discuss this. Woods may very well be telling people that the Constitution is dead, to use your words, but I don't think he is implying in any way that it should be scrapped.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Okay, well when you're done, let's discuss this. Woods may very well be telling people that the Constitution is dead, to use your words, but I don't think he is implying in any way that it should be scrapped.

Help me understand you here please, what does the question "Who Killed the Constitution?" really mean? Sometimes my tendency to the literal seems to confuse others.

If you're thinking "miraculous resurrection" here, how are you going to do it?

Thanks!

 

[Feenix566]

I hate guns.

I hate guns, too. I don't own one. But I have a right to own one, if I wanted to.

 

[Deborah K]

Help me understand you here please, what does the question "Who Killed the Constitution?" really mean? Sometimes my tendency to the literal seems to confuse others.

If you're thinking "miraculous resurrection" here, how are you going to do it?

Thanks!

Yes, I think you are taking the title a bit too literal. The Constitution isn't alive, therefore it can't literally be killed. "Who Killed the Constitution" is meant to be taken metaphorically, in my flea bitten opinion.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, I think you are taking the title a bit too literal. The Constitution isn't alive, therefore it can't literally be killed. "Who Killed the Constitution" is meant to be taken metaphorically, in my flea bitten opinion.

Was it ever alive? ( metaphorically ) Is it still alive? ( metaphorically )

If you're thinking "miraculous resurrection" ( metaphorically ) here, how are you going to do it ( metaphorically )?

Look out for the flea bites ( literally? ).

Thanks!

 

[AmericasLastHope]

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid.

Then you must think George Washington was stupid when he said this...

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

-George Washington

 

[Truth Warrior]

Then you must think George Washington was stupid when he said this...

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

-George Washington

Washington quote, thanks!

 

[revolutionman]

yep!! Freedom is a three ring circus, and there is more than enough room under the big top for anyone who believes in freedom. Part of embracing freedom is respecting the rights of others.

 

[Truth Warrior]

yep!! Freedom is a three ring circus, and there is more than enough room under the big top for anyone who believes in freedom. Part of embracing freedom is respecting the rights of others.

Well that leaves the VOTERS out.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice.

I'm pro-choice.

I hate guns.

I don't own one. Do you know what Stalin & Hitler did before they violated their people? Confiscated the guns!

I am an atheist.

Likewise.

I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

umm. I thought that airports take care of air traffic control? Gov is already in health care.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

hmm. Guns are very useful. Would you prefer bows & arrows?

Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

What does atheism have to do with it? Yeah.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

uhh ok.

Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then...


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

uhh..yea

 

[Anti Federalist]

If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution

While I understand the OP's point, (doubtful he's still even around to argue it) it's going to take a lot more than amendment to take my guns away.

The bill of rights protects preexisting rights, rights that no legitimate government can take away, regardless of plebiscite or amendment.

 

[Truth Warrior]

While I understand the OP's point, (doubtful he's still even around to argue it) it's going to take a lot more than amendment to take my guns away.

The bill of rights protects preexisting rights, rights that no legitimate government can take away, regardless of plebiscite or amendment.

A quote I snagged just today:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

 

[Danke]

While I understand the OP's point, (doubtful he's still even around to argue it) it's going to take a lot more than amendment to take my guns away.

The bill of rights protects preexisting rights, rights that no legitimate government can take away, regardless of plebiscite or amendment.

Yep. But so many have been brain washed that they have Constitutional Rights (ie. the Constitution grants them rights).

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yep. But so many have been brain washed that they have Constitutional Rights (ie. the Constitution grants them rights).

We are born with these unalienable rights according to libertarianism because the libertarian founding fathers witnessed things like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and so they said, "Rights are not granted, we are born with them." Good way to avoid the tyrants in history from resurfacing is if everyone is born with unalienable rights that no government can take away from them. Yea, simplistic, but I'm using it as more of a metaphor.

 

[Truth Warrior]

We are born with these unalienable rights according to libertarianism because the libertarian founding fathers witnessed things like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and so they said, "Rights are not granted, we are born with them." Good way to avoid the tyrants in history from resurfacing is if everyone is born with unalienable rights that no government can take away from them. Yea, simplistic, but I'm using it as more of a metaphor.

Who taught you history?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Who taught you history?

hmm. Some in school, some by myself. Who taught you history?