I appreciate your point of view, I'm simply saying — correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 — that people on the right always do this ...disappear down rabbit holes and take stances that can be as right as they want, they simply will not win.
If you cannot win, you cannot make changes. The left under…
I appreciate your point of view, I'm simply saying — correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 — that people on the right always do this ...disappear down rabbit holes and take stances that can be as right as they want, they simply will not win.
If you cannot win, you cannot make changes. The left understands this. The right do not. Even when the right do win, they are too polite (or compromised) to actual do anything about the decades of corruption and decline.
To this point:
"Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice"
On the contrary. This is not my position.
I would like to have a constitutionalist Paul / Massey style candidate, but we do not have one.
So I am simply unsure what is the value of debating around in circles about these kinds of procedural matters ...when the ball is in play. I'm sure that even is you disagree with me, you can understand what I'm saying. There is little value in shouting from outside the tent that the tent is built incorrectly. You have to get inside the tent, and then start to dismantle the parts that are out of order, and put them back properly. That is my view.
Out of interest, who would you vote for, if you were voting in Iowa today?
I’m glad to hear that your stated position is not the same as the liberal law professors when I attended law school, but your analogy about “the tent” still seems to support the status quo. Yes, I am a “purist” and will not change. I had a law professor scream in face once that “you can’t change the system without working within the system.” My response to her was simply, “well, it’s a good thing George Washington didn’t feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.”
When taking on the status quo, Christ pointed out as well that it is impossible to “pour new wine into old bottles.” Even with a Paul/Massey ticket (and for the record, Massey isn’t someone I would consider to be a constitutional purist), it is still impossible to change the system by working within it. The status quo seeks self-preservation above all else.
When you get “inside the tent” you become part of the tent. The only way to “dismantle the parts” of the status quo in order to be able to “put them back properly” is to listen to what the Framers had to say in this regard – from the Declaration of Independence to The Federalist Papers and elsewhere. When “the representatives of the people betray their constituents,” then we must “exert” what Hamilton called “the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ¶6. We have spent way too much time listening to crooks, thieves, and traitors instead of listening to the Framers.
As far as your last question, I don’t and never have participated in the unconstitutional presidential elections that we now operate under. As I noted in a prior article, we become so vested in the party and the personality that we completely lose our allegiance to our U.S. Constitution in a popularity contest between personalities spouting off the best one-liners.
Yet, under our Constitution, the President was never meant to be elected by popular vote. When we participate in the current, corrupt form of presidential elections, we are merely perpetuating a perverted procedure of constitutional government to our own detriment – a government that the consolidators have sold to us under the deceptive allure of democratic machinations in order to subvert and undermine our great Republic.
A “small number” of electors were supposed to be “chosen by the people for the special purpose” of selecting the US President. These delegates were to be “chosen in each State, [and were] to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen” without any influence from the tyrannical 51% majority of popular elections. Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 68, ¶4. The idea was to keep the power in the hands of the individual states and not in the hands of a small group of power-hungry maniacs who run the two-party/Uniparty American political system.
I appreciate all that, but what are you actually suggesting then?
"My response to her was simply, “well, it’s a good thing George Washington didn’t feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.”...
I mean... are you hoping for armed revolution? You're refusing to vote until the next revolutionary war takes place, and another George Washington can come along off the back end of that war?
I get your point about how things *should* be, but I'm unclear on what the next steps are from your position.
It sounds like you've decided you don't like the game play, so you're gonna take your ball and go home. Which is your right. But another revolutionary war is not happening anytime soon, so I don't really understand the thinking of just sitting on the sidelines shouting into the middle distance about how everyone is doing it wrong. At some point, someone with this view has to actually get up and go do something.
Personally, I think the Founders would not have just carped from the sidelines in our situation. I think they would be out there making forceful arguments, debating, and trying to win people over to their view to build a consensus for their plans. Just my two cents.
I’m sure you’re aware that in some scholarly circles, Samuel Adams is considered the Father of the Revolution. Adams was given that title because he spent his time writing and getting his writings out to the public. Imagine that, if you will, one of the Founders who just “carped from the sidelines” with his writings.
Personally, I’ve spent over 15 years on social media and, more recently, Substack, where I’ve written hundreds of articles under the pen name Madame Publius using The Federalist Papers (i.e., the words of the Father and Chief Architect of our Constitution -- James Madison -- along with Hamilton and Jay) to try and educate people about our Constitution by applying Madison’s (et al) own words to current events in order to show how we’ve destroyed our Constitution by amending it through practice and opinion and are now only giving it lip service. I believe this approach is much more effective than playing by the Uniparty’s rules, thinking that we can beat them at their own game. What is the definition of insanity again? Besides, "the pen is mightier than the sword."
I also haven’t just “carped from the sidelines.” I have argued for more solutions than just exercising our Original Right of Self-defense that Hamilton talks about. More particularly, I’ve argued for the states to take back their original constitutional powers from the political parties. After all, Madison said that the Republican form of government created under our Constitution would give the power to the states to be a “double security” against federal/national encroachment.
They can reestablish this “double security” simply and without any armed conflict. The states just need to start following the constitutional process of electing the President by appointing Electors and repealing any laws that directs them to be a “rubber stamp” for the 51% majority. Next, they need to stop following the 17th Amendment, as it is patently unconstitutional since it destroyed the “Republican form of government” guaranteed in our Constitution under Article IV.
With the states appointing Senators and Electors, they would no longer be beholden to the Uniparty but to their individual states just like our Founders created it.
I just read all of your comments and they inspired me to comment.
I am not as well versed in the subject matters you have been discussing but I did want to add my thoughts.
When the rule’s of the game are changed, one is not playing the same game. The one’s who change said rules always seem to have the upper hand while the viewers of the game never notice the rules change over time which unfortunately leads to their demise.
Fully understanding the original rules protects one from being deceived into playing or becoming part of the fraudulent game.
I may be way off base, but that is my simplistic take away on your discussion which I have found very interesting and should make one ponder.
As a side note. Hillsdale College has some free course’s on these subjects which I have found interesting and informative.
Thank you for your comment. As I noted in my posts, I’ve spent many years trying to expose the deception and fraud by urging my readers to read, study and ponder The Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers.
Unfortunately, those who have eyes to see realize that the original “rules” have become so corrupted that we are at the end of our Republic just as Benjamin Franklin predicted. If we are ever going to save it, we must accept the truth that it will never happen in D.C. Electing people to go back and fix D.C. is never going to happen since they are all beholden to the political parties.
The only way to begin the healing is for the states to take back the power from the corrupt political parties and resume their constitutional role as a “double security” against the national government. After that, we need to focus on the “Guarantee Clause” in Article IV of the Constitution to turn our states into Republican forms of government instead of the democracies as they now operate. Everyone sees the problems with the big cities/high population centers that control everything in each individual state but do not realize that it is because they operate as democracies instead of Republics as our Constitution stipulates.
I have more to learn, but it is nice to know where to go and send others so they might see and start to understand and in turn hopefully be able to help steer the counties, states and the country back on course.
May be impossible, but if we don’t work towards doing so it definitely won’t.
I appreciate your point of view, I'm simply saying — correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 — that people on the right always do this ...disappear down rabbit holes and take stances that can be as right as they want, they simply will not win.
If you cannot win, you cannot make changes. The left understands this. The right do not. Even when the right do win, they are too polite (or compromised) to actual do anything about the decades of corruption and decline.
To this point:
"Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice"
On the contrary. This is not my position.
I would like to have a constitutionalist Paul / Massey style candidate, but we do not have one.
So I am simply unsure what is the value of debating around in circles about these kinds of procedural matters ...when the ball is in play. I'm sure that even is you disagree with me, you can understand what I'm saying. There is little value in shouting from outside the tent that the tent is built incorrectly. You have to get inside the tent, and then start to dismantle the parts that are out of order, and put them back properly. That is my view.
Out of interest, who would you vote for, if you were voting in Iowa today?
I’m glad to hear that your stated position is not the same as the liberal law professors when I attended law school, but your analogy about “the tent” still seems to support the status quo. Yes, I am a “purist” and will not change. I had a law professor scream in face once that “you can’t change the system without working within the system.” My response to her was simply, “well, it’s a good thing George Washington didn’t feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.”
When taking on the status quo, Christ pointed out as well that it is impossible to “pour new wine into old bottles.” Even with a Paul/Massey ticket (and for the record, Massey isn’t someone I would consider to be a constitutional purist), it is still impossible to change the system by working within it. The status quo seeks self-preservation above all else.
When you get “inside the tent” you become part of the tent. The only way to “dismantle the parts” of the status quo in order to be able to “put them back properly” is to listen to what the Framers had to say in this regard – from the Declaration of Independence to The Federalist Papers and elsewhere. When “the representatives of the people betray their constituents,” then we must “exert” what Hamilton called “the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ¶6. We have spent way too much time listening to crooks, thieves, and traitors instead of listening to the Framers.
As far as your last question, I don’t and never have participated in the unconstitutional presidential elections that we now operate under. As I noted in a prior article, we become so vested in the party and the personality that we completely lose our allegiance to our U.S. Constitution in a popularity contest between personalities spouting off the best one-liners.
Yet, under our Constitution, the President was never meant to be elected by popular vote. When we participate in the current, corrupt form of presidential elections, we are merely perpetuating a perverted procedure of constitutional government to our own detriment – a government that the consolidators have sold to us under the deceptive allure of democratic machinations in order to subvert and undermine our great Republic.
A “small number” of electors were supposed to be “chosen by the people for the special purpose” of selecting the US President. These delegates were to be “chosen in each State, [and were] to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen” without any influence from the tyrannical 51% majority of popular elections. Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 68, ¶4. The idea was to keep the power in the hands of the individual states and not in the hands of a small group of power-hungry maniacs who run the two-party/Uniparty American political system.
I appreciate all that, but what are you actually suggesting then?
"My response to her was simply, “well, it’s a good thing George Washington didn’t feel that way or we would not even be debating my purist positions on the U.S. Constitution.”...
I mean... are you hoping for armed revolution? You're refusing to vote until the next revolutionary war takes place, and another George Washington can come along off the back end of that war?
I get your point about how things *should* be, but I'm unclear on what the next steps are from your position.
It sounds like you've decided you don't like the game play, so you're gonna take your ball and go home. Which is your right. But another revolutionary war is not happening anytime soon, so I don't really understand the thinking of just sitting on the sidelines shouting into the middle distance about how everyone is doing it wrong. At some point, someone with this view has to actually get up and go do something.
Personally, I think the Founders would not have just carped from the sidelines in our situation. I think they would be out there making forceful arguments, debating, and trying to win people over to their view to build a consensus for their plans. Just my two cents.
I’m sure you’re aware that in some scholarly circles, Samuel Adams is considered the Father of the Revolution. Adams was given that title because he spent his time writing and getting his writings out to the public. Imagine that, if you will, one of the Founders who just “carped from the sidelines” with his writings.
Personally, I’ve spent over 15 years on social media and, more recently, Substack, where I’ve written hundreds of articles under the pen name Madame Publius using The Federalist Papers (i.e., the words of the Father and Chief Architect of our Constitution -- James Madison -- along with Hamilton and Jay) to try and educate people about our Constitution by applying Madison’s (et al) own words to current events in order to show how we’ve destroyed our Constitution by amending it through practice and opinion and are now only giving it lip service. I believe this approach is much more effective than playing by the Uniparty’s rules, thinking that we can beat them at their own game. What is the definition of insanity again? Besides, "the pen is mightier than the sword."
I also haven’t just “carped from the sidelines.” I have argued for more solutions than just exercising our Original Right of Self-defense that Hamilton talks about. More particularly, I’ve argued for the states to take back their original constitutional powers from the political parties. After all, Madison said that the Republican form of government created under our Constitution would give the power to the states to be a “double security” against federal/national encroachment.
They can reestablish this “double security” simply and without any armed conflict. The states just need to start following the constitutional process of electing the President by appointing Electors and repealing any laws that directs them to be a “rubber stamp” for the 51% majority. Next, they need to stop following the 17th Amendment, as it is patently unconstitutional since it destroyed the “Republican form of government” guaranteed in our Constitution under Article IV.
With the states appointing Senators and Electors, they would no longer be beholden to the Uniparty but to their individual states just like our Founders created it.
Madame
I just read all of your comments and they inspired me to comment.
I am not as well versed in the subject matters you have been discussing but I did want to add my thoughts.
When the rule’s of the game are changed, one is not playing the same game. The one’s who change said rules always seem to have the upper hand while the viewers of the game never notice the rules change over time which unfortunately leads to their demise.
Fully understanding the original rules protects one from being deceived into playing or becoming part of the fraudulent game.
I may be way off base, but that is my simplistic take away on your discussion which I have found very interesting and should make one ponder.
As a side note. Hillsdale College has some free course’s on these subjects which I have found interesting and informative.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
John
Thank you for your comment. As I noted in my posts, I’ve spent many years trying to expose the deception and fraud by urging my readers to read, study and ponder The Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers.
Unfortunately, those who have eyes to see realize that the original “rules” have become so corrupted that we are at the end of our Republic just as Benjamin Franklin predicted. If we are ever going to save it, we must accept the truth that it will never happen in D.C. Electing people to go back and fix D.C. is never going to happen since they are all beholden to the political parties.
The only way to begin the healing is for the states to take back the power from the corrupt political parties and resume their constitutional role as a “double security” against the national government. After that, we need to focus on the “Guarantee Clause” in Article IV of the Constitution to turn our states into Republican forms of government instead of the democracies as they now operate. Everyone sees the problems with the big cities/high population centers that control everything in each individual state but do not realize that it is because they operate as democracies instead of Republics as our Constitution stipulates.
I agree with your concerns and conclusion.
I have more to learn, but it is nice to know where to go and send others so they might see and start to understand and in turn hopefully be able to help steer the counties, states and the country back on course.
May be impossible, but if we don’t work towards doing so it definitely won’t.
Thanks again