Saturday, 24 November 2012

Me & The American Republic:

Still At It 'Privacy Lost: The Death Of the 4th Amendment' - Nov. 23 - Bob Livingston

Vicki says:
Robert Rashbrooke writes:
“…but because we have NO CONTROL over our politicians since we are a Republic and not a democracy.”
The failure of control of politicians is explicitly BECAUSE of democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. It is “tyranny of the majority”. It is US for failing to remove politicians who openly fail to follow their oath to support and defend the Constitution yet we send them back to do us again.
In a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic (which is what we are btw) the government is explicitly forbidden to do anything beyond what few enumerated powers are delegated to it. In our particular Constitution there is additionally a list of (Bill of) Rights that explicitly FORBID the government from doing certain things.
In spite of all of this the whole of the Constitution is nothing more than words on paper if we ignore those words and keep electing people who obviously don’t know them either or are deliberately ignoring them.
  • 45017dc20ce2dd468632e1029df454c2.png
  • kibitzer3 says:
    November 24, 2012 at 8:11 pm
    Well said, Vicki. And it clarifies something that Amelia said above that was a touch misleading, in an otherwise impeccable comment. She said:

  • “Our freedoms and liberty depends [sic] upon preserving the Constitution of the United States. Any act of Government, against or without the consent of the People is injustice, usurpation, and tyranny.”

  • A Republic is rule by law. A democracy is rule by ‘the People’. Yes, ours is a government ‘of, by, and for The People’ – but not in the sense of majority rule. Rather, by elected representatives, and within the constraints of a constitution – i.e., the rule of law. For example, Obama got elected – APPARENTLY (another subject) – by a majority vote of ‘The People’; but he is still an illegal president, according to the rule of law – the Constitution.

  • We got into this current predicament (not just regarding our Usurper in Chief) by a lack of understanding of the specifics of the Constitution by a lot of the citizenry (and here we get back specifically to the matter of ‘education’ in the country). And part of this, I think, is the ‘fault’ of the very thing that so many cite as a bulwark AGAINST a tyrannical federal government: the Bill of Rights. You cited it correctly, Vicki; but the fatal misunderstanding on the part of a lot of the citizenry, to my thinking, is the assumption that the federal government can do whatever else it is not explicitly forbidden to do in the Bill of Rights – and can even do those BoR things it is expressly forbidden to do if it can just tweak the meaning of words a touch. (As in the liberals’ penchant for declaiming the Constitution a ‘living document’, and thus susceptible to their tweaking of it the way they want it to read, rather than the SCOTUS interpreting it by the ‘principle’ of ‘original intent’; as if that were only one legitimate legalese way to approach the contract. But that’s another subject, too.) I am mentioning the danger that Madison himself foresaw regarding attaching a BoR to the Constitution that the Framers came up with: that it would lend to the impression that the federal ‘beast’ could do anything it wanted to do ABSENT those specifically forbidden powers; i.e., that its default position was all-power except what it was specifically denied by the BoR. If more of the public understood the importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments, we wouldn’t be in quite the pickle that we are in today – i.e., that the BoR is only an EXAMPLE of the powers not invested in the federal government; not a definitive list OF them. 

  • Incidentally, Madison finally came around to the idea of adding such a list because he could see that the Framers weren’t going to get their ratification by the States if there weren’t such a specific BoR included; the people of the day knowing how governments tend to work, over time, and trying to nail ours down as clearly and distinctly as they could. Well; they did their best. The rest would be up to their successors.

  • Take a bow, us. Or not; as the case may well be, considering the pickle that we are indeed in, in our day. But then, as they say: When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

  • And what are YOU made of, Citizen????….

--- 'Savage: Government Crime Families Running America - Video' - Nov. 24     
(comments all same day)

Charles S. Imwold · Top Commenter
The only way this constitutional republic can survive is to have US Constitutional law enforced. To that end the fraud and usurper barack hussein obama must be removed from office under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution. This country is a constitutional republic and not a democracy with mob rule. The so called presidential election of 2008 and 2012 cannot change US Constitutional Law. In order to change US Constitutional Law there must be Amendments to the constitution and that only take place in the US Congress with a 2/3 of the states voting for the amendment. Popular vote can not change US Constitutional law.
Reply · 7 · Unlike · Follow Post · 13 hours ago
  • 211558_100000184843640_383947849_q.jpg

  • Elizabeth Cohen · Top Commenter · Knitter extroidinaire at Self Employed and Loving It
  • Charles I agree with you 100% but here is my concern. There is not one person who has the balls to ask for removal. We the people just can't walk into the white house and demand it. Having said that, how do the American people take the country back, which I believe, is the only way to fix our country.
    Reply · 9 · Like · 13 hours ago

    Stan Stanfield
    · Stanford University
  • Elizabeth Cohen (I like your spirit, by the way, O Knitter extraordinaire):

  • Normally in a 2-party system of government, the public could count on a natural check on the incumbent party, which would provide a flag for individual citizens to rally round in such matters as these we are facing today. But the Republican Party has proven itself to be of a similar mind to the Democrats, i.e., of a despotic mindset. No. 1: Both parties (i.e., the Puppeteers behind them; many of whom are actually the same people) want to see what they call a New World Order - though each having their own 'slant' on it; socialist on the Left and fascist on the Right - which can only come about with the demise of the U.S. Constitution, and its rock-solid rule of law, keeping this nation free from such 'foreign entanglements'. Note that all of the federal laws on the books today tending in this common direction - the direction of a top-down, totalitarian Behemoth running the world to the satisfaction of its Masters - were already there, put in place by recent predecessors to the illegal candidacy of, and presidential office-occupation of, Obama. Which brings up the second point of awareness regarding the lack of a viable 2nd political party in the country; namely, how the Republican Party has colluded in the trashing of the Constitution by its failure to call the Democrats in their nomination of an ineligible candidate for the presidential office. (Its officials obviously did a quid-pro-quo deal with their counterparts in the Demo Party, having their own non-NBC/ineligible candidates in mind for either the Pres'l seat or the VP seat, or both; the Framers of the Constitution doing just too good a job, to the taste of the easy-way, demagogic-minded, in making it difficult to amend the Constitution.) So: here we are; and what do we do, you ask.
  • My suggestion: that there is a march on Washington of The People, Assembled - led by Oathkeepers, and followed immediately by 2nd Amendmenters and 10th Amendmenters and Article Twoers and Tea Partiers and those of the Occupy Movement who understand what is REALLY going down in the country, and patriots in general (especially those who believe that the 2012 elections were stolen by voter fraud and ballot-box chicanery, and are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore) - who will have come for two reasons. First: to stay there (via orderly rotations of the citizenry; who have their own lives to attend to as well as that of the nation's) until the Usurper vacates the office of the presidency (listing and reading out all of his iniquities; a la the Declaration of Independence); and secondly, to dissolve the sitting Congress - for not doing their constitutional duty in this sort of regard, i.e., as a brake on a runaway Executive = and appoint an Officer OF The People (perfectly legal; see Art. II, Sect. 1), who will call for TRUE, UNADULTERATED elections within 'a time certain,' and in the meantime, clean out the Augean stables of the executive branch of government of all those who are not doing their regulatory job properly, e.g., of the FDA and the CDC, who are simply being the placemen and-women of the very industries and sectors that they are supposed to be regulating.* 
  • But not to go into all those details here. This is just to give 'you' an outline of how I see a proper response to the major crisis that the American Republic is facing at this time. And as for that Officer of The People: I would be happy to fill that temporary role. But that matter will be up to those who answer the call - this present, urgent call - of their country. And let's have a separation of the wheat from the tares, at this crucial time.
  • Note: I would probably make a good such candidate. I am 78, and thus am not about to see this as a way to make my OWN way into such despotic power as those who are behind this whole scenario have been seeking; in order to feather their own nests, at the expense of The People in general.
  • It's time for a Change, alright. REAL Change. And Forward into the REAL New. 
  • Reply · Like · 2 seconds ago

  • ---

  • (* Note: 'Regulation' in the general interest and for the common good; not just for its own sake, in a statist society, and mentality.  There is nothing wrong with a little regulation per se, for safe foods going interstate and so forth.  The regulatory checks on the S&Ls in Reagan's day kept them from going out and speculating on the taxpayers' dime (via the FDIC 'cover'), to the horrendous outcome that that little bit of 'deregulation' resulted in.  Any lessons learned from that little experience??  Not so's one could notice: for here we are, in our day, with the commercial, High Street banks and their investment arms having been bailed out - yet once again - by the taxpayers; who, insult to injury, got little bang for their buck out of the rescue mission in the event.  Madness.
  •      I am not advocating over-regulation; nor am I advocating mindless deregulation.  A little common sense could go a long way in this area, of social living.)

No comments: