Posted on 09/15/2011 5:15:29 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
Michael E. Newton’s new book Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers is a must read for anyone interested in America’s founding and should be part of every patriot’s library. His book is clear, concise, well documented, and chock-full of quotes from the founding fathers.
Newton takes the reader back to Colonial America when angry mobs were protesting British tyranny. He brilliantly juxtaposes the debate over separating from Great Britain and how the founders skillfully navigated America through the stormy waters that resulted from the Declaration of Independence.
After defeating the English, he expertly guides you through the articles of confederation and the drafting of the Constitution. Newton does an outstanding job of including writings from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and shows how precariously the Constitution hung in the balance.
Another aspect of Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers that I particularly enjoyed was how well the author explained the Colonial economy and how America’s politicians have been hindering our economy from the very beginning.
Newton concludes his brilliant book masterfully by stating “America needs the principals put forth by the Declaration of Independence and the limited government established by the Constitution. Liberty without government leads to anarchy while government without liberty leads to tyranny. Liberty and limited government must work together to promote the perfect balance between liberty and power.”
Angry mobs!!!! Good heavens. Sounds so uncivil.
Not limited enough. We need to amend the Constitution to address several errors, loopholes, and ambiguities.
I’m definitely looking up this book. Thanks for posting.
Leave the constitution alone. Amending it is a kettle of fish we'd rather not open at this stage.
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.
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.
There are many things wrong with it. That’s why it comes with an amendment process. To fix the errors.
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.
"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.
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.
It would never make it out of the House.
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.
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.
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.
"you" is meant as an indefinite pronoun. It's not pointing to anyone in particular.
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.
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.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Well stated.
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.