"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country"


PDA






Harve Curry
December 28, 2005, 10:34 PM
No this is not a typing exercise.
Or should I write:
"When is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is being attacked from within, and our elected officials tell us no it isn't. Same as the anti gunners when they tell us the Constitution is a "flexible framework" , like a living trust you can "work within". That is a lie more akin to the old expession don't pea down my back and tell me it's raining.
America should use it's citizens to house keep America.
Instead our goverment is of taking away and violating rights, is militarizing police and making up all sorts of other paramilitary/LEO's departments.
The People should be the ones traveling armed, aware, ready to backup and support the police if that's what it takes.

Jeff Cooper's "Condition White, Yellow, Orange, and Red" should be taught to all Americans, hunters, shooters, and in the schools.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GRB
December 28, 2005, 11:47 PM
The United States Constitution is definitely a framework or base, it is also living and changeable - if you disagree with that you do not understand the Constitution at all. The thing is though that the left, almost every leftist I have heard including left wing republicans like George Bush (the current one) believe they can change this and that by tweaking laws or doing it as they see fit. The truth of the matter is that the Constitution needs to be amended in order to be changed as it was with the Bill of Rights and later amendments. This takes quite a good deal of work, and quite a good deal of votes and is a politically dangerous thing to do. So instead you get people like george Bush, Charles Schummer, Feninstein and the like trying to change thjings their own way because they would never be able to garner enough support to do it the right way. Yes we are being attacked and we are our own worst enemy - at least those of us who want to cut liberties and stifle our rights by cutting corners.

DigitalWarrior
December 28, 2005, 11:55 PM
I heard a great explenation here.

If you think it might be time, run inside your home, unlock your rifle, load it, then bring it with you when you stand on your lawn.

If your neighbors call the police, it is not time. If they get theirs it is.

longeyes
December 28, 2005, 11:58 PM
I prefer:

"The quick brown Fox jumped over the lazy, sleeping Bush."

Biker
December 28, 2005, 11:59 PM
I heard a great explenation here.

If you think it might be time, run inside your home, unlock your rifle, load it, then bring it with you when you stand on your lawn.

If your neighbors call the police, it is not time. If they get theirs it is.
Hah! Very good! You don't mind if I...*borrow* that, do you?
Biker
:evil:

Lobotomy Boy
December 29, 2005, 12:28 AM
Let's not forget to say "Hi!" to the nice men from the NSA monitoring us "terrorists." Perhaps we should invite them over for a refreshing beverage?

GRB
December 29, 2005, 12:32 AM
Please don't include me in the "us terrorists". Thanks

cropcirclewalker
December 29, 2005, 12:55 AM
The United States Constitution is definitely a framework or base, it is also living and changeable - if you disagree with that you do not understand the Constitution at all. <snip> If there is anything that gets my skivvies in a knot it is this comment. A "Living" constitution. :barf:

St. Peter was admonished not to build his church on a foundation of sand. Sand moves. Bedrock does not.

I understand, Mr. Bartley, that you are trying to say that in order to change the constitution it is necessary to make serious and difficult changes. I agree.

The bullflop that we have experienced in the last 100 years makes me sad. The lack of soberiety with which we changed it.

Look at prohibition.....Carrie Nation and other do-gooder dullards (mods, please excuse if I am using non acceptable name calling) knew they had no constitutional basis upon which to outlaw alcohol, so they made an amendment.

Bad Juju.

The price we have paid for their "tinkering" is inestimable.

When prohibition was repealed we hadda find something for the G-men to do, so we dreamed up the NFA 34. And the beat goes on.

Not that .gov pays any attention to the constitution anymore, anyway but if our rulers back in 1918 had enough sense, they could have kept us from a tremendous task of recovering our firearms rights.

Please.

The constitution is a listing of fundamental concepts. Fundamental concepts do not change.

The sky is blue. The grass is green. God gave us certain unalienable rights. Honesty is the best policy. Stay the heck out of your neighbor's business. No foreign entanglements. Liberty.

It only to like 5,500 words to lay out the fundamental principles.

The founders were probably the most intelligent and altruistic beings ever in any time and any place. Their work, without question (from me, anyway) has been the most perfect document created my mortal man.

Really, though, it was not a hard task if you just consider the basics.

Peace (God would smile down on us)

Honest Friendship (essentially universal)

Commerce (Capitalism at its finest)

Mind yer own business.

Pray tell, what is so hard to understand about the above?

Lobotomy Boy
December 29, 2005, 12:56 AM
Sorry Glen, but I'm not the one making those decisions. The following is a flier passed out by the Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (call the number on the flier to verify its authenticity):

Front page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

Back page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Notice that by participating in this discussion you might qualify as a "'defender' of US Constitution against federal government..." under the "Right-Wing Extremist" catagory. Of course I don't consider us terrorists, but according to this very frightening document, the federal government does. Doesn't this make you a bit nervous when our president defends torture, seeks to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act in order to fight a war on avian flu, and blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment and the FISA act? I wonder if we'll be bunkmates in Gitmo? I'll warn you up front that the second they start squeezing my gonads with the pliers, I'll probably start naming any name they want to hear.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 29, 2005, 01:13 AM
Notice that by participating in this discussion you might qualify as a "'defender' of US Constitution against federal government..." under the "Right-Wing Extremist" catagory. Of course I don't consider us terrorists, but according to this very frightening document, the federal government does

Doubtful since the front of the document specifies that they are looking for groups that are "attempting to affect political or social change by criminal activity". Talking on an Internet forum is not criminal activity.

Whether you like it or not, there are more than a few groups who claim to be "defenders" of the Constitution who seem unable to use the political system that document established to make their changes and instead want to change things by violence. Now do you believe that the FBI considers you on the same level as those groups? If not, then what purpose does it serve to give that impression. If so, then what basis do you have for that assumption?

cropcirclewalker
December 29, 2005, 01:41 AM
I yam leaning toward the impression of Mr. Lobotomy Boy. When I first read the sheets, I was chilled. :eek:

I swore an oath to protect and defend my constitution. The cowflop that I see going on now leads me to believe that the normal ordinary citizen could be at risk. :uhoh:

Hey, I gotta bad heart. Do you think when they haul me down to gitmo (I was there once before in the USN) that they will continue my medications that I get from the VA? :p

I love my constitution. I hold my present .gov in extreme low regard. :(

kage genin
December 29, 2005, 01:51 AM
If there is anything that gets my skivvies in a knot it is this comment. A "Living" constitution.
+1
All too often this "living document" argument is used to justify why violation of one of our rights is justified. Antis use it all the time to justify infringement of the 2nd amendment. If the founding documents of our country are fluid and changable, then so is the foundation of the country.

odysseus
December 29, 2005, 03:20 AM
That's an awesome post. Thanks.

If there is anything that gets my skivvies in a knot it is this comment. A "Living" constitution. :barf:

St. Peter was admonished not to build his church on a foundation of sand. Sand moves. Bedrock does not.

I understand, Mr. Bartley, that you are trying to say that in order to change the constitution it is necessary to make serious and difficult changes. I agree.

The bullflop that we have experienced in the last 100 years makes me sad. The lack of soberiety with which we changed it.

Look at prohibition.....Carrie Nation and other do-gooder dullards (mods, please excuse if I am using non acceptable name calling) knew they had no constitutional basis upon which to outlaw alcohol, so they made an amendment.

Bad Juju.

The price we have paid for their "tinkering" is inestimable.

When prohibition was repealed we hadda find something for the G-men to do, so we dreamed up the NFA 34. And the beat goes on.

Not that .gov pays any attention to the constitution anymore, anyway but if our rulers back in 1918 had enough sense, they could have kept us from a tremendous task of recovering our firearms rights.

Please.

The constitution is a listing of fundamental concepts. Fundamental concepts do not change.

The sky is blue. The grass is green. God gave us certain unalienable rights. Honesty is the best policy. Stay the heck out of your neighbor's business. No foreign entanglements. Liberty.

It only to like 5,500 words to lay out the fundamental principles.

The founders were probably the most intelligent and altruistic beings ever in any time and any place. Their work, without question (from me, anyway) has been the most perfect document created my mortal man.

Really, though, it was not a hard task if you just consider the basics.

Peace (God would smile down on us)

Honest Friendship (essentially universal)

Commerce (Capitalism at its finest)

Mind yer own business.

Pray tell, what is so hard to understand about the above?

odysseus
December 29, 2005, 03:26 AM
Now how's this for circular logic? Why also do they mention the UN?

I agree with Bartholomew Roberts, it's about your actions. Having an opinion on something is one thing, trying to bomb a building is quite another. However outside of all that, it's still interesting to note the groupings of people and what they feel is bad mojo. So the Fed feels not accepting the UN is right up there with the rest of them. Ouch.



Front page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

Back page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Notice that by participating in this discussion you might qualify as a "'defender' of US Constitution against federal government..." under the "Right-Wing Extremist" catagory. Of course I don't consider us terrorists, but according to this very frightening document, the federal government does. Doesn't this make you a bit nervous when our president defends torture, seeks to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act in order to fight a war on avian flu, and blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment and the FISA act? I wonder if we'll be bunkmates in Gitmo? I'll warn you up front that the second they start squeezing my gonads with the pliers, I'll probably start naming any name they want to hear.

Ezekiel
December 29, 2005, 03:44 AM
If the founding documents of our country are fluid and changable, then so is the foundation of the country.

"Duh!" As well it should be. Any unilateral acceptance of Amendments, in a vacuum, is grotesque. If you accept unilateral 2nd Amendment rights, then you are saying it is okay -- all Amendments being unilaterally defended -- to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. (Silly!)

As society changes, we must modify the "code": I just do not want the process to be easy or knee-jerk.

SomeKid
December 29, 2005, 08:17 AM
"Duh!" As well it should be. Any unilateral acceptance of Amendments, in a vacuum, is grotesque. If you accept unilateral 2nd Amendment rights, then you are saying it is okay -- all Amendments being unilaterally defended -- to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. (Silly!)

As society changes, we must modify the "code": I just do not want the process to be easy or knee-jerk.

The theatre is private property, and the 1A simply says "Congress shall make no law..."

The 2A is worded differently, and it is important. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1 leaves room for private individuals to set their own conduct on their own property, 2 does not.

Lobotomy Boy
December 29, 2005, 09:04 AM
Doubtful since the front of the document specifies that they are looking for groups that are "attempting to affect political or social change by criminal activity". Talking on an Internet forum is not criminal activity.


Where, in this document, is "criminal activity" defined? If talking on the Internet is not now defined as a criminal activity (and you can't say that is the case empirically since you don't know what is and what is not defined as criminal activity when the administration holds people indefinitely without trials and without filing charges), how can you be so sure that the Hilary Clinton administration won't change the definition?

Your argument is akin to: "The Brownshirts burning the ghetto is of no importance since I am not a Jew." Be very careful when making such assumptions, because the National Socialists passed out documents very much like the FBI's "How to identify a terrorist," only the word "terrorist" was replaced with "Jew." Wouldn't it be unfortunate if your particular characteristics happened to fit that profile?

Ezekial mentions the example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. What is worse: sounding a false fire alarm or telling people to stay in a burning theater because it really isn't on fire--there is simply a minor problem with the HVAC system?

Folks, I smell smoke. We might want to keep our eyes open.

1911 guy
December 29, 2005, 09:13 AM
We have seen what happens when .gov fools with it. The "living document" bullcrap was dreamed up to act as a direct assault on the second ammendment, claiming we were too civilized to need an armed populace anymore. Tell that to New Orleans.

The Constitution is a delineation of power, defining what powers the federal gov't has and leaving all others to the states. This has been kicked pillar to post and is no longer recognized in our courts. If you think the Constitution is a living document, remember that the reasons we all choke down blood pressure meds come from jackasses with that same opinion who happen to wear black robes. Anyone who takes an originalist approach to the Constitution is labeled archaic, a religeous zealot or anti-(fill in the blank).

Harve Curry
December 29, 2005, 09:35 AM
Well I still beleive in the United States of America.
I beleive in the fundamental practice of good faith and good will, and at the same time I know that evil exists.
Reread my first post, it's summary is about a resource not being used.
I have'nt read that notice some of you are talking about and probably won't.

Hawkmoon
December 29, 2005, 03:33 PM
The theatre is private property, and the 1A simply says "Congress shall make no law..."

The 2A is worded differently, and it is important. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1 leaves room for private individuals to set their own conduct on their own property, 2 does not.
That argument also ignores the reality that it is legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater -- if there is a fire. What is not legal is to cause a panic through falsely proclaiming that there is a fire. Since the intent of the 1st Amendment was (and, I presume, still is) to prevent the government from persecuting people for expressing opinions contrary to government dogma, I do not see this as an inherent conflict.

xd9fan
December 29, 2005, 03:47 PM
I heard a great explenation here.

If you think it might be time, run inside your home, unlock your rifle, load it, then bring it with you when you stand on your lawn.

If your neighbors call the police, it is not time. If they get theirs it is.


I do like this post!!! (the only problem I see with this is that there are differant grades of sheeple....who takes the first step thing??)

Old Dog
December 29, 2005, 03:50 PM
Hawkmoon is quite correct. That argument also ignores the reality that it is legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater -- if there is a fire. What is not legal is to cause a panic through falsely proclaiming that there is a fire. Since the intent of the 1st Amendment was (and, I presume, still is) to prevent the government from persecuting people for expressing opinions contrary to government dogma, I do not see this as an inherent conflict.
Jefferson's speeches and writings were pretty clear with regard to the intent of the 1st Amendment ...

"[Montesquieu wrote in his Spirit of the Laws XII,c.12:] 'Words carried into action assume the nature of that action. Thus a man who goes into a public market-place to incite the subject to revolt incurs the guilt of high treason, because the words are joined to the action, and partake of its nature. It is not the words that are punished, but an action in which words are employed. They do not become criminal, but when they are annexed to a criminal action: everything is confounded if words are construed into a capital crime, instead of considering them only as a mark of that crime.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

"The following [addition to the Bill of Rights] would have pleased me: The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the [United States] with foreign nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:450, Papers 15:367

azredhawk44
December 29, 2005, 04:05 PM
Since the intent of the 1st Amendment was (and, I presume, still is) to prevent the government from persecuting people for expressing opinions contrary to government dogma, I do not see this as an inherent conflict.

On the same logical route, it is therefore the purpose of the second ammendment to prevent the government from persecuting people who train in arms for the eventuality that they may need to use them, either in personal defense, defense of the state from a foreign power, or in defense of the citizenry from the state by insurrection.

Somehow, I don't see either piece of logic holding up in court.

In fact, that FBI flier points out that if you are a member of a right-wing group engaged in paramilitary training, you are probably a terrorist.

As opposed to a left-wing group engaged in paramilitary training? Wouldn't that be most of the FBI, DEA, ATF, NSA, CIA et. al?

Bartholomew Roberts
December 29, 2005, 07:00 PM
Where, in this document, is "criminal activity" defined?

The term doesn't need to be defined in the document because most people with an ounce of common sense understand the term to mean "things that are against the law" or as it is more commonly known "criminal".

If talking on the Internet is not now defined as a criminal activity (and you can't say that is the case empirically since you don't know what is and what is not defined as criminal activity when the administration holds people indefinitely without trials and without filing charges), how can you be so sure that the Hilary Clinton administration won't change the definition?

Yes, I can say empirically that talking on the Internet is not a criminal activity. That I even have to argue this point says a lot about the ridiculous degree of hyperbole people are using to bolster their arguments.

The administration has held one American citizen, Padilla, without charges for several years before finally charging him. This is admittedly bad, though I would also point out that numerous courts upheld this decision and we aren't privy to all the information they received regarding his case. In any case, you have plenty of good evidence to make a case without making leaps to things like "The government thinks anyone who defends the Constitution is a terrorist".

That isn't what the document you have a copy of says and the fact you don't seem to understand an important distinction in basic written English worries me.

Your argument is akin to: "The Brownshirts burning the ghetto is of no importance since I am not a Jew." Be very careful when making such assumptions, because the National Socialists passed out documents very much like the FBI's "How to identify a terrorist," only the word "terrorist" was replaced with "Jew." Wouldn't it be unfortunate if your particular characteristics happened to fit that profile?

Once again, the profile mentions "criminal activity". There are no shortage of people who support the Constitution and remain unmolested by the FBI. Why do you think that is? I'd also add that if you can't make your point with the facts available without invoking Godwin, then you should probably stop arguing it until you can; because you aren't doing your cause any favors by declaring the sky is falling when it isn't. When you cry "Wolf!" over things like this, people start ignoring you when you point out REAL problems (like detaining American citizens for two years with no charges)

HonorsDaddy
December 29, 2005, 09:04 PM
"Duh!" As well it should be. Any unilateral acceptance of Amendments, in a vacuum, is grotesque. If you accept unilateral 2nd Amendment rights, then you are saying it is okay -- all Amendments being unilaterally defended -- to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. (Silly!)

As society changes, we must modify the "code": I just do not want the process to be easy or knee-jerk.
It is perfectly acceptable, and legal, to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, if there is a fire.

Would you like to try another angle by which you may pretend to support the 2nd Amendment while assisting its destruction?

Yes - that was meant to be inflamatory and insulting. As you've been a member here since 2003, you have no excuse for making that fire in a theater comment in ignorance - i KNOW there have been a dozen or so posts explaining this simple concept to you.

Wllm. Legrand
December 29, 2005, 09:21 PM
The United States Constitution is definitely a framework or base, it is also living and changeable - if you disagree with that you do not understand the Constitution at all. The thing is though that the left, almost every leftist I have heard including left wing republicans like George Bush (the current one) believe they can change this and that by tweaking laws or doing it as they see fit.

Sir, your intentions are good as evidenced by your post, which was read in full. However, some observations seem in order.

One, for the constitution to be "living and changeable" this requires that words not have meaning. I disagree. While some may disagree as to whether the Constitution is binding upon us who never approved it (Read Spooner on this point), it does clearly spell out what it means, primae facie.

Two, "left wing Republicans" is a bit of a repetition. I don't know of any "real" Constitutional loving Republicans, except perhaps Ron Paul. There is only ONE political party: the GOVERNMENT/STATIST party. It is for GOVERNMENT. It REQUIRES government. It EXISTS because of government.

I feel your pain. I was once like you. Shoot, you sound like me in the 1990s. But the problem that the political parties attempt to inculcate in the entire populace is that it is the OTHER POLITICAL PARTY that is the source of most problems. Whether the shill for the one party is a Sean Hannity or an Al Franken, the game is the same. Only when people understand that GOVERNMENT, not the other politcal party, is the problem can real understanding or the ROOTS of the political crisis in which this nation is immersed become plain.

Reaching this degree of HONESTY is, frankly, beyond most people who have been raised in ideologies that do not permit the conception of worlds where there IS less government. That is topic for another show.

Wllm. Legrand
December 29, 2005, 09:26 PM
If there is ONE THING that the people of this country can be sure of, no matter what your political stripe, it is this:

THE CONSTITUTION NO LONGER SERVES AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE U.S.A. IT DOES WHATEVER IT WANTS, AND MANUFACTURES THE JUSTIFICATION LATER. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO EVENTUALLY ACCEPT IT, NO MATTER WHAT.

Old Dog
December 29, 2005, 09:50 PM
The Constitution? Yes, it does. Have you ever worked for the government? It's simply not that easy for government to "do whatever it wants and manufacture the justification later." It takes a bit of time and effort for government to do things, and we've still got a few checks and balances that work quite well. Would I deny that some of our Constitutional rights have been infringed and some may be in dire jeopardy? No, of course not; but the fact that we can get together and be heard about all this bodes well for the future. Look at the growing groundswell of outrage about the whole issue of eminent domain and the fact that state governments are beginning to take action to counter the Supreme Court ruling.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO EVENTUALLY ACCEPT IT, NO MATTER WHAT.No need to shout. But I think you seriously underestimate the American populace. Having grown up in the '60s and '70s, I've seen government challenged -- successfully -- and I see an ever-growing movement now that is beginning to understand the citizens' role in opposing unjustified, morally wrong or outright illegal government actions. Don't you believe the anti-war movement had any part of the Nixon administration's getting the troops out of Viet Nam? Don't you believe that public frustration with the Clinton administration's failures and Clinton's lying had anything to do with getting the Republican majority back in Congress? There are far more examples on the local and state levels. I've seen examples here in my state when new firearms issues have been debated in the state legislature. Public activism can work for us on any issue so long as we organize and stay focused.

Do you really believe that you -- and the rest of us -- are that powerless?

yonderway
December 29, 2005, 10:32 PM
The United States Constitution is definitely a framework or base, it is also living and changeable - if you disagree with that you do not understand the Constitution at all.

*ahem*

Scalia must not understand the Constitution at all. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/scalia14031301a.asp)

GRB
December 29, 2005, 11:15 PM
Our Constitution is NOT a "living" document.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have seen what happens when .gov fools with it.That is quite the strange statement to make if you uphold the second AMENDMENT (or change as in when the 'gov fools with it') to our constitution. I am guessing your words are driven by your dislike of liberals who want gun control. The constitution is in essence a living document, meant to be changed as needed but in order to change it the change requires a great effort and great agreement on the part of our governing officials. If you think it not living (in the sense that it was written with the idea of it being changeable), then please explain the Bill of Rights, the very first changes to the constitution. Please be careful how you think of our basic law when driven by what I hesitate to say seems like flaming emotions that have been fanned by the rhetoric of leftist extremists. Heck, if the constitution was not meant to grow and or shrink through change (like a living document), we would not be having a discussion of the second amendment at all because there would have been no second amendment. You seem to be getting caught up on the leftist extremist definition of living in that they are tryimng to make it seem as if the interpretation of our constitution can change from year to year to fit the times. That would not make the constitution a living document as how it is referred to by liberals like Schumer (although he wants you to believe such. What it really would do is to make our constitution just so much fluff to be twisted in half truths, inuendo and outright lies about its interpretation. Schumers uses the term living document to his benefit and you seemingly immediately claim oh no it is not a living document. Take a step back and look at how this evil man is trying to use you to defeat your own constitution and destroy your rights.

Lobotomy Boy
December 30, 2005, 08:13 AM
Please be careful how you think of our basic law when driven by what I hesitate to say seems like flaming emotions that have been fanned by the rhetoric of leftist extremists.

I keep seeing unchallenged statements like this and the more I think about them, the less sense they make. What do you mean "leftist extremists"? Does being an absolutists on the Bill of Rights a leftist extremists? Does this mean leftist extremists are ardent supporters of the right to keep and bear arms? That doesn't sound like any leftist extremists that I've ever met. By this definition, Scalia is a leftist extremist, which points out the nonsensical nature of calling Constitutional absolutists "leftist extremists." I believe such statements are nonsensical name calling, weak attempts by those who support tyranny to shame people into towing their anti-liberty party line and I am challenging them.

GRB
December 30, 2005, 03:36 PM
Lobotomy Boy,

Maybe you need to reread what I have written and control your own emotions. I was not saying what you thoguht I was saying at all, rather much the opposite. If you cannot see that, then indeed you have fallen prey to the tactics used by leftist extremists in that they try to turn words we use to their own advantage and to destroy us. They do this with their use of the term "living document" as applied to the Constitution by them. Yes the constitution is a "living document" but not as the ultra leftists, like Schumer, would lead you to believe. It is living in that it can be chaged as needed as was done by the framers of the Constitution when they wrote the Bill of Rights in order to CONSERVE our rights. That it is a living document is a good thing, that it takes an amendment and I believe a 2/3 majority of Congress to pass an amendment is a good thing - it is living but will not be changed by whim or by political fancy as Schumer and other leftists like Feinstein would like to see it changed. The leftists take this long held concept of the constitution being a "living document" (which is by no means a new concept, and by nbo means a bad thing) and try to distort the essence of our laws and rights by misuse of the concept and of those two words. They twist things around so well that even conservatives now have a problem with the constitution being called a living document (or with the concept that our Constitution can be changed or AMENDED as needed). Since it can only be changed by amendment there is nothinbg wrong with our ability to change it - that is how is was established in the first place by the very people who wrote in. If there was actually something wrong with being able to amend it - we would not even have a 2nd AMENDMENT - don't you get that! The second amendment to the constituion, the second change, the second growth or add on was the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. This change was excellent, don't you agree?

While it is changeable by amemdment, the likes of Schumer and Feinstein want it to be changeable by their whim, that of their political party, or by the whim of the high courts. That is not a good thing, that is a terrible thing, that was never meant to be by the framers of the constitution and; that is misuse of the CONCEPT, if not the exact words of "living document" as historically applied to the constitution.

If you did not see that this was my point, and if you still just do not understand what I mean, then by all means ask me politely for further explanation, or simply make a point of polite disagreement with me. Please don't call what I said nonsensical simply because you misunderstood the point of my words and; please don't make your point by mischaracterizing what I said. You never once saw me write that ultra leftists are in favor of the right to keep and bear arms as you implied! As I said, if you misunderstood then just ask or make your point politely. Thanks

rick_reno
December 30, 2005, 04:19 PM
I prefer:

"The quick brown Fox jumped over the lazy, sleeping Bush."

Longeyes - I still say Bush likes being President, he doesn't like doing President.

Molon Labe
December 30, 2005, 05:25 PM
I don't know of any "real" Constitutional loving Republicans, except perhaps Ron Paul. There is only ONE political party: the GOVERNMENT/STATIST party. It is for GOVERNMENT. It REQUIRES government. It EXISTS because of government.

I feel your pain. I was once like you. Shoot, you sound like me in the 1990s. But the problem that the political parties attempt to inculcate in the entire populace is that it is the OTHER POLITICAL PARTY that is the source of most problems. Whether the shill for the one party is a Sean Hannity or an Al Franken, the game is the same. Only when people understand that GOVERNMENT, not the other politcal party, is the problem can real understanding or the ROOTS of the political crisis in which this nation is immersed become plain.

Reaching this degree of HONESTY is, frankly, beyond most people who have been raised in ideologies that do not permit the conception of worlds where there IS less government.Wow. ++1.

I also used to be a Republican-kind-of-guy. Was once a big fan of Limbaugh and Hannity. And then I realized everyone was just playing a game. And no one - the politicians, government, the people, the "left wingers," the "right wingers" - wants to see the game end. Reminds me of the movie "The Running Man."

I have also stopped the pathetic practice of "document worship." Personally, I couldn't care less about the 2nd Amendment... you'll never hear me bring it up when discussing my right to keep and bear arms. And I'm getting close to the point where the Constitution is irrelevant to me. It's been so utterly contorted & abused that it ceases to have real meaning.

So now I spend my time buying ammo and preparing for that rainy decade...

longeyes
December 30, 2005, 05:42 PM
I still say Bush likes being President, he doesn't like doing President.

Right. He likes doing US, though.

The Constitution isn't living or dead, it's undead. Time for another good zombie thread, this one in all seriousness. Start identifying them: you can spot 'em by how they walk and how they smell.

Ezekiel
January 1, 2006, 12:14 PM
The Constitution isn't living or dead, it's undead. Time for another good zombie thread, this one in all seriousness. Start identifying them: you can spot 'em by how they walk and how they smell.

We can all meet at the Winchester for a spot of tea!

hoppinglark
January 1, 2006, 12:22 PM
i think the best thing we can do is register 3rd party and actually become a dues paying member.

Get some attention on the issues and what we feel.

hugh damright
January 1, 2006, 01:13 PM
The constitution is in essence a living document, meant to be changed as needed but in order to change it the change requires a great effort and great agreement on the part of our governing officials. If you think it not living (in the sense that it was written with the idea of it being changeable), then please explain the Bill of Rights, the very first changes to the constitution.

If I may ... I believe that the US Constitution frames a specific form of government ... I do not believe that the Constitution is so "living" that our basic form of government changes.

The BoR was not intended to change the Constitution, it was intended to clarify it. However, I think it's fair to say that there are some who intended the 14th Amendment to alter our basic form of government, so I think the 14th may be a better example of the "living Constitution" theory.

What if, for example, the Second Amendment was replaced with something that said "a King's Army, being necessary to the security of monarchy, only the military shall bear arms" ... did the Framers intend the amendment process to be used for such a purpose?

Old Dog
January 1, 2006, 01:28 PM
Hmm ... here's what our Supreme Court's own website has to say about this ... (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf)

This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

Ezekiel
January 1, 2006, 01:48 PM
This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

Strikes me as the question of a "living Constitution" has been answered.

Others can debate whether it should be such.

Lupinus
January 1, 2006, 02:06 PM
It isn't a living document, however, you have to keep in mind modern things that have changed a bit since it was made, as well as be willing to add to it and adapt it where needed.

Freedom of speech is a great a sacred right, but I can't just walk up to my black boss and call him a...well I will be nice and not say it. I can't just say whatever I want whenever I want without certain consequences. I can't call certain people certain names, I can't make threats against certain people, I can't defame someone without a basis of proof. You have the right to your freedom of speech, and it shouldn't be infringed by some idiot who took offense or by a woman in the work place that was offended by a joke told to someone that wasn't even about her and she simply overheard, but you have to use it within reason.

Right to bare arms is another great and sacred right. But if someone doesn't want a gun in their home or on their property (with the exception of a owner who has leased a property, then it goes to the lessee) or in their business they have the right to tell you to get out, that is a form of infringement. If you just got released from the state pen for the god knows what time or the mental ward I don't want you to be able to walk to the local gun store and buy a fully automatic AK-47. Ok for most people but not for everyone. It should not be infringed by bans or ridicules laws, but you have to use common sense that certain people have lost their right to it and that certain places don't apply it.

If you go 100% by the original constitution and BOR you should believe in slavery based solely on a persons race, the right of only white land owning men to vote, and a host of other things which were fine for the times but not now 200 years later.

It isn't a living document in the sense liberals try to use to get around it, but it isn't something which is totally solid and unchangeable or open to some interpretation to fit modern times, and it shouldn't be open to such within reason that you don't simply trash rights.

Lobotomy Boy
January 1, 2006, 10:00 PM
Freedom of speech is a great a sacred right, but I can't just walk up to my black boss and call him a...well I will be nice and not say it.

Legally you could call your boss whatever you wanted to call him. That would be Constitutionally protected speech. It would be legal but incredibly tasteless and stupid, because legally your boss could fire you for doing so and you would find yourself without gainful employment.

xd9fan
January 1, 2006, 10:20 PM
Two, "left wing Republicans" is a bit of a repetition. I don't know of any "real" Constitutional loving Republicans, except perhaps Ron Paul. There is only ONE political party: the GOVERNMENT/STATIST party. It is for GOVERNMENT. It REQUIRES government. It EXISTS because of government.

I feel your pain. I was once like you. Shoot, you sound like me in the 1990s. But the problem that the political parties attempt to inculcate in the entire populace is that it is the OTHER POLITICAL PARTY that is the source of most problems. Whether the shill for the one party is a Sean Hannity or an Al Franken, the game is the same. Only when people understand that GOVERNMENT, not the other politcal party, is the problem can real understanding or the ROOTS of the political crisis in which this nation is immersed become plain.

Reaching this degree of HONESTY is, frankly, beyond most people who have been raised in ideologies that do not permit the conception of worlds where there IS less government. That is topic for another show.


+1 big time I too went through the same house of mirrors and took a long look inside.

Lupinus
January 1, 2006, 11:22 PM
Legally you could call your boss whatever you wanted to call him. That would be Constitutionally protected speech. It would be legal but incredibly tasteless and stupid, because legally your boss could fire you for doing so and you would find yourself without gainful employment.
That is true, but if it can get me legaly fired is it truly protected? The point of that is consequence results even when something is protected. As little as fifty years ago there would have been none unless I did it in an area that was nothing but black people. Today it is not acceptable. Can say it legaly, but there are still consequences and those are perfectly legal. I can't slander you, that is totaly illegal.

If you live in the middle of KKK town I can't print out a few hundred posters of "Lobotomy Boy sleeps with [that not so nice word I didn't mention] women" put a doctored photo of you in bed with one on the posters, and plaster them all over town. To do so is knowingly spreading a lie which will result in damages to you in some serious way shape or form. Same would apply if it was spoken rather then written. Some forms of speech are illegal.

Im only trying to say that while the consititution is not a "living" document as liberals consider it, it is not rock solid and set in stone. It is changable to fit the times and should remain so.

Manedwolf
January 2, 2006, 12:56 AM
I heard a great explenation here.

If you think it might be time, run inside your home, unlock your rifle, load it, then bring it with you when you stand on your lawn.

If your neighbors call the police, it is not time. If they get theirs it is.

Unfortunately, now, it's that even if it WERE time, your neighbors would likely be inside watching insipid reality TV or celebrity scandals, or they'd have been so brainwashed into being blissninnys that even an outright police-state with checkpoints wouldn't faze them.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!