The essay I copied this portion from is much longer, but well worth the read. Whoever wrote it [anyone know?] has a very good grasp of our Constituions original principles, imo..
Interesting post with some salient and contemporary points. I wonder how many federal congressmen and senators, as well as the 50 state house representatives, would agree with the "Declaration of Constitutional Principals? Not many, I presume.
I agree it is well worth the read as is the original you linked to...I too would like to know who wrote this...
Does this mean we're living in an "oligarchy" since political power is concentrated in the hands of nine judges who think of themselves as above the common man?
Sounds like Mark Levin, of "MEN in Black" a constitutional specialest,by the way it's a great read.
Its bit late for that ain't it..
Just another document to ignore..
I would have to read this more carefully, but it looks pretty good on a quick peruse. My favorite line in it is one of my main soapboxes:
"It may not be applied in the way it was intended by those who wrote and adopted the original act"
Although I think it should, more clearly, read:
"In may not be applied in a way other than it was intended by those who wrote and adopted the original act."
Private citizens are not subject to the constitution. The constitution only applies to the goverment. Private citizens are protected from the goverment by the constitution, and more specifically by the amendments.
The Federal Gov't is the subject of the Constitution. The States created the Federal Gov't to perfect the Union and power flows upward from the States. The idea that a State may not enact something that appears to go against the Constitution is bogus, since it may not affect the interests of the Union at all and would be allowed.
Outstanding post and article - thanks.
So if terrorists outside the U.S. mail anthrax into the U.S., we can't prosecute them?
check later