[betty boop]

Dearest sister in Christ, I’m confident that we’ll need your indispensable and ever-gracious help as co-sponsor of this Freeper Research Project….

[Malichi]

Bookmark for tomorrow. Looks like a good one.

[traviskicks]

Very interesting! Good job! My thoughts:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm

Feel free to use any of the above in your final write up, please ping me when you finish!

[YHAOS]

Thanks for the ping. This is an exciting subject, at least in my view, and I look forward to an exceptional learning opportunity. It's late, so I must be brief.

With respect to a historical subject such as this, IMHO we read too many books and not enough documents. Surely, our founding ancestors would be utterly amazed to learn of some of the things they said, thought, and did.

I haven't the link, but it's easy to google: type in Constitutional Society , click on Liberty Library , and start browsing. Warning: it's addictive, you may come to hate me.

Thanks, betty, for this opportunity.

[anonsquared]

What has “gone wrong” such that, e.g., federal judges routinely feel free to legislate their ideals of social progress from the bench?

What has "gone wrong" is that there isn't any recourse for judges who are incompetent. In the real world your pay is based on your performance.

I keep hearing people squawk that judges should have a fixed term, say 10 years, so the incompetent ones can be pushed out. I have a better idea - base their pay, benefits, and retirement on their performance.

Take the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example. Three-quarters of all of their rulings are overturned. We should take away three-quarters of their pay, benefits, and retirement for the year they make the lousy rulings. That should give them plenty of incentive to make rulings based on the Constitution instead of their will.

[StarCMC]

This might interest you two.

*HUGS!*

[Ostlandr]

Thank you for posting this most interesting thread!

I am interested in what has gone wrong with the First Amendment. How has freedom of religion- granted to us by our forefathers, including the rather secular Jefferson and Franklin- devolved into what seems to be becoming a godless society?
And how do we reclaim our society's values without ramming one particular set of values down people's throats with a gun barrel?

Does anyone have a source for the legend about the original draft of the Declaration of Independence reading ". . . life, liberty and property" instead of 'pursuit of happiness'?

[Eastbound]

Late bookmark and a bump for manana!

[tophat9000]

bump

[Ken H]

"Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries º1890, p. 746 (1833)."

--Clarence Thomas, Justice, concurring, Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

"Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right."

--Clarence Thomas, Justice, Printz v. U.S., Footnote 2.

[Yellow Rose of Texas]

.” All men are created with possessing reason and free will as a natural birthright, and are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Right out of John Locke, but instead of happiness, he said property. His book was mentioned often in wills, to be given to the oldest son.

This country was founded by not the eldest son, but by the younger sons who had no prospects in their homeland except the military, the sea, as a merchant, or the clergy. All inheritance went to the oldest son and he was expected to support his mother, and spinster sisters. Most of the original 13 states set up inheritance as equal between heirs unless otherwise written.

As for church and state, the constitution says the state shall establish no religion, not that we are free from religion. In England, the King was head of the Church of England, and in France, the king was head of the Catholic Church after the Pope, etc. The founders did not want a state religion, but freedom for the citizens to choose a religion for themselves, their families, and their communities.

[pageonetoo]

Bump. If we could only find some modern politicians with these thoughts...

[StonyBurk]

A very well written piece-- ThankYou-- Might I add for the
discussion -- Donald S.Lutz "the Relative Influence of European Writers On Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought"-American Political Science Review 189(1984) p189-197 Fairly well documented source of whom our
Founders cited in their political writings.
On Second Amendment I find many of the Law Review Articles
On Each Side-Presented as appendix to Guns Crime and Freedom,by Wayne LaPierre fairly weighs more on the side
of those who understand and agree with Joseph Story on the
Second Amendment.(I prefer Story on the Constitution-but
understand there are those who follow a different hermeneutic) And I do suggest "A Familiar Exposition on the
Constitution of the United States "by Jospeh Story,Regnery Gateway 1997 from the 1859 original as must read.

[trawler]

You wrote:


In light of breaking events — the recent ruling of a federal court in California that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its "under God" language, the recent New London eminent-domain decision of the Supreme Court, and two Supreme Court vacancies (with possibly more to come within the tenure of the Bush presidency) — as well as long-standing public quarrels over the meanings of e.g., the Second, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, we thought it would be useful to inaugurate a Freeper Research Project into theories of the Constitution, "then" and "now"; i.e., the original intent of the Framers vs. modern "prudential" and ideological constructions.

---

Professor Randy Barnett argues that " --- since the nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government. From the Commerce Clause, to the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has rendered each of these provisions toothless. In the process, the written Constitution has been lost."




After usefully pointing out that, for the most part, the Constitution "purports to bind government officials, not private individuals," Barnett poses this fundamental question:
"The real question, then, is not whether the Constitution is binding on citizens, but whether citizens are bound by the commands or laws issued by officials acting in its name. Does the fact that a law is validly enacted according to the Constitution mean that it binds one in conscience?

In other words, is one morally obligated to obey any law that is enacted according to constitutional procedures?

Barnett does not leave his readers long in suspense: his answer is that, under constitutional conditions, people are indeed obligated to obey the law.
So long as the government enacts laws that are "both necessary to protect the rights of others and proper insofar as they do not violate the rights of the persons whose freedom they restrict," people have a duty to obey constitutional laws.

Imho, they also have an equal duty to fight against unconstitutional law - and those who advocate them.







Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty
... - Google Print
Address:http://print.google.com/print?id=QWY04NYjvCUC

[bmwcyle]

ping

[Bigun]

Marker Bump!

[Bigun]

I found the quote I was looking for. I think it pertinent to the subject at hand.

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.
Federalist #62

[MamaTexan]

What has “gone wrong” such that, e.g., federal judges routinely feel free to legislate their ideals of social progress from the bench?

Governmental duplicity in the guise of the 14th Amendment has caused us to claim to be United States citizens, which is a STATUORY, or ARTIFICIAL entity.

The intent of the the Founders was for us to be residents first, and State citizens if we chose to be. A State citizen is a CIVIL entity. Civil entities are 'natural persons' or human beings because civil law is based on common law.

But don't take my word for it:

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).

______________________________________________________________________

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

______________________________________________________________________

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."

______________________________________________________________________

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."

______________________________________________________________________

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."

______________________________________________________________________

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

______________________________________________________________________

By claiming US citizenship, we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government and are therefore subject to every whim of every black-robed bandit that sits on a bench....nor do we any longer have 'rights'

Merely privileges.

[Bigun]

One more!

“Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt

[joanie-f]

A wonderful, eloquent 'kick-off' for a much-needed research/debate, Jean!

Bookmarked for later response.

~ joanie