Skip to comments.
Angry Mobs & Founding Fathers should be part of every patriot’s library
http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/09/14/angry-mobs-founding-fathers-should-be-part-of-every-patriots-library/ ^
Posted on 09/15/2011 5:15:29 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: Todd Kinsey
Angry mobs!!!! Good heavens. Sounds so uncivil.
To: Todd Kinsey
the limited government established by the Constitution Not limited enough. We need to amend the Constitution to address several errors, loopholes, and ambiguities.
3
posted on
09/15/2011 5:18:31 AM PDT
by
Huck
(If you are in a union, then bow to your COMMIE masters.)
To: Todd Kinsey
I’m definitely looking up this book. Thanks for posting.
4
posted on
09/15/2011 5:19:38 AM PDT
by
NakedRampage
(Fortis cadere, cedere non potest (A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield))
To: Huck
If anything gets amended...It will be liberals revoking the bill of rights with special emphasis on the removal of #1 and #2.
Leave the constitution alone. Amending it is a kettle of fish we'd rather not open at this stage.
5
posted on
09/15/2011 5:25:32 AM PDT
by
NakedRampage
(Fortis cadere, cedere non potest (A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield))
To: NakedRampage
What’s the point of having an amendment process if you won’t use it? Both the 1st and 2nd amendments should be amended. I understand that people are scared to do it. Ok then, we’ll muddle along with unlimited government in the meantime.
6
posted on
09/15/2011 5:27:31 AM PDT
by
Huck
(If you are in a union, then bow to your COMMIE masters.)
To: Huck
"We need to amend the Constitution.."Absolutely NOT!
Please tell me that you simply forgot to "close sarcasm".
There is nothing at all "wrong" with our Constitution, and any wholesale re-writing of it would result in a wholesale trashing of it.
7
posted on
09/15/2011 5:29:03 AM PDT
by
Designer
(Nit-pickin' and chagrinin')
To: Todd Kinsey
I'll have to add it to my growing library of books on American History. A collection started because of the Glenn Beck TV show, and his book recommendations. I wish I was this interested in American History back in my youth. See what political activism does to you.
8
posted on
09/15/2011 5:29:39 AM PDT
by
NavyCanDo
To: Designer
There are many things wrong with it. That’s why it comes with an amendment process. To fix the errors.
9
posted on
09/15/2011 5:31:06 AM PDT
by
Huck
(If you are in a union, then bow to your COMMIE masters.)
To: Huck
The question is
how that process will be used, by those in power and those who wish to see our freedoms stripped away.
If we set about to re-word #2 so as to add the words "the individual right to bear arms...", we'll more likely end up with a version that says "The governments right to determine an individual's right to own a bb gun." Do you trust our current GOP leadership? Do you doubt that they would sell out our most cherished freedoms in the blink of an eye? Because I don't.
10
posted on
09/15/2011 5:32:19 AM PDT
by
NakedRampage
(Fortis cadere, cedere non potest (A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield))
To: NakedRampage
Re: Second Amendment, I would simply remove the introductory clause, that has caused all the controversy. I would probably also add that no state or local governments can infringe either, rather than rely on substantive due process.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any government under the jurisdiction of the United States."
You could take it one step further and define "arms." That would be nice.
11
posted on
09/15/2011 5:37:35 AM PDT
by
Huck
(If you are in a union, then bow to your COMMIE masters.)
To: NakedRampage
1st amendment--I would revise the freedom of religion section, which also has gone badly awry. The establishment clause needs to be re-written and clarified. Something along the lines of:
The right of the people to freely exercise their religion shall not be infringed by any government under the jurisdiction of the United States, including expressions of faith occurring at public events or in public spaces.
12
posted on
09/15/2011 5:41:10 AM PDT
by
Huck
(If you are in a union, then bow to your COMMIE masters.)
To: NakedRampage
we'll more likely end up with a version that says "The governments right to determine an individual's right to own a bb gun." It would never make it out of the House.
13
posted on
09/15/2011 5:42:44 AM PDT
by
Huck
(If you are in a union, then bow to your COMMIE masters.)
To: Huck
What you see as shortcomings in the original text are simply magnified examples of leftist judges and activist lawyers "interpreting" so as to misconstrue the original meaning and intent.
A better idea is to make sure that everyone has an understanding of the history of the founding of this country.
Oh, and a good grasp of the English language.
14
posted on
09/15/2011 5:53:42 AM PDT
by
Designer
(Nit-pickin' and chagrinin')
To: Huck
I absolutely agree with posts 11 and 12 — such wording would be a massive improvement. My object is that once we so much as open those amendments to change...They’re gone forever, courtesy of the left, its judges and lawyers, its politicians and powerbrokers.
15
posted on
09/15/2011 6:00:31 AM PDT
by
NakedRampage
(Fortis cadere, cedere non potest (A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield))
To: NakedRampage
In a country that elects democrats who would open the Constitution to the amendment process?
I know that you and others say you would only change, delete, or add a little to remove ambiguities.
But that's what "you" would do. What would "they" do!
There better be a very solid majority before any amendment process is undertaken.
16
posted on
09/15/2011 6:45:50 AM PDT
by
hfr
(Liberalism is a moral disorder that leads to mental disorder (actually it's sin))
To: hfr
Correction to self:
"you" is meant as an indefinite pronoun. It's not pointing to anyone in particular.
17
posted on
09/15/2011 6:48:58 AM PDT
by
hfr
(Liberalism is a moral disorder that leads to mental disorder (actually it's sin))
To: Designer
I’m confused. We do have an amendment process that has been used and should continue to be used. Are you saying that we should not use what the Founders put into place?
On the other hand, there are those who are calling for a Constitutional Convention, in which you could potentially throw the baby out with the bath water by opening things up to total change and not know what you’d get after the process. That is something that I would vehemently oppose, and from your comment, I suspect you would too.
18
posted on
09/15/2011 7:53:38 AM PDT
by
TEXOKIE
(Anarchy IS the strategy of the forces of darkness!)
To: TEXOKIE
"Are you saying that we should not use what the Founders put into place?"I hope it would be understood that I do agree with the amendment process, but a look at some of the very ill-considered amendments we already have should indicate that the process does not guarantee good amendments.
We could cancel half of what is already there and end up with a better Constitution.
I stand by my position that there is nothing fundamentaly "wrong" with our Constitution, and a constitutional SCOTUS and POTUS and Congress could "fix" practically everything that has been bastardized overnight if they wanted to.
Any "ambiguity" is simply the result of (usually leftist) lawyers and judges "interpreting" for us. They need to stand down.
19
posted on
09/15/2011 11:04:26 AM PDT
by
Designer
(Nit-pickin' and chagrinin')
To: Designer
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Well stated.
20
posted on
09/15/2011 11:35:06 AM PDT
by
TEXOKIE
(Anarchy IS the strategy of the forces of darkness!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson