Posted on 02/18/2008 9:44:45 PM PST by dcwusmc
Giving away our constitutional rights
By Kevin Eggers Napa Monday, February 18, 2008
American freedom is the ideology that English philosopher John Locke described in his “Second Treatise,” greatly influencing Thomas Jefferson, who, in a 1789 letter to painter John Turnbull, said that Locke was one of the three greatest men who ever lived:
Jefferson having penned Locke’s idea of freedom into America’s Declaration of Independence that all people are born with unalienable rights, a birthright to freedom that is above any form of government.
Our founding fathers lived through the tyranny of an unchecked monarchy, where laws, rights and taxes were continually modified to favor British rule and suppress the people. They saw the history of democracies, the mob-rule mentality, manipulated majorities suppressing the rights of the individual, manipulated majorities granting benefits to themselves, the ever-increasing taxation, and the eventual moral decay and monetary suicide of past democracies, always eroding into oligarchy rule.
Denouncing monarchies and democracies, our founding fathers crafted our Constitution into a republic system of governance — a limited government system centered on natural law, bound by set laws, protecting American freedom from a government consisting of people, with the character flaws we all possess.
As a sister document to the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution was purposed in protecting people’s rights from the people within government. As a binding contract between sovereign Americans and the federal government (which was granted existence by the separate states, through the Constitution), our founding fathers protected our freedom by enslaving the federal government to the Constitution, requiring a sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” This contract was to allow Americans the freedom to live responsibly, in a free enterprise society, respectful of each other’s liberties, while our elected and un-elected government employees (servants) provided for the protection of our liberties.
Understanding that cautious evolution of the Constitution was necessary, our founding fathers required a specific way for our federal employees to create new laws: through the safeguard of the amendment process. Added later, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, stating, specifically, what individual and state rights are untouchable and above any federal government action.
Our founding fathers left future generations of Americans an instruction manual (of sorts) for the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, plus many other writings, so there would be no misunderstanding of the original intent of Constitutional laws.
Thomas Jefferson’s greatest fear was that the justice system, judges, unelected and unaccountable to the people, might bypass the amendment process by reinterpreting unchangeable laws, ignoring original intent, to further personal agendas. James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, said, “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
There was the hypocrisy of our founding fathers in regards to unalienable rights, compromising on the continuation of slavery, so as to ratify the Constitution. Still, our founding fathers, recognizing their own character flaws, enslaved themselves to set laws (those in government), creating a near-perfect document, our Constitution, where government’s purpose is the protector of, and servant to, our freedoms.
Our government has never allowed the people in foreign countries their right to freedom that our Constitution protects, instead creating and supporting UN formulated democracies and dictatorships, which grant and rescind rights, to further corporate/government partnerships.
Two-time Medal of Honor recipient, General Smedley Butler, wrote “War is a Racket” in 1935, where he said, “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.” “I spent most of my time being a high-class, muscle man for big business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers.”
In 1998 President Clinton signed the executive order titled, “The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties,” subjecting Americans to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From Article 18: “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” From Article 29: “these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” The UN declares what freedom people must live under, as the corporate-controlled UN refers to people as “human resource” and “human capital.”
Most of today’s lawyers and judges have a poor understanding of the Constitution, as most Constitutional law classes teach case law, the most recent reinterpretations of Constitutional laws, never studying the Constitution itself. Students are being guided toward UN-emphasized social justice (not equal justice) and communitarian law, the same law practiced in the European Union (“new European Soviet” as stated by Gorbachev) where people’s individual liberty is subservient to the corporate/government desires for the Soviet-like “common good.”
Ping to your list, if you please!
Curious...When Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli without the approval of congress......did he violate the Constitution?
Is there a point to your question or is it just another piece of troll bait?
BTTT!
If he is an admirer of the Constitution, why does he not support the Constitution Party?
>>American freedom is the ideology that English philosopher John Locke described in his “Second Treatise,” greatly influencing Thomas Jefferson, who, in a 1789 letter to painter John Turnbull, said that Locke was one of the three greatest men who ever lived:<<
A quick off topic - if kids today read only one book about government and the basis of America it should be the 2nd Treatise. Its even short and clear as well brilliant.
And only $5.95
If they don’t give them away for security, they’ll give them away to keep the stock market from collapsing and their 401K’s from going into the toilet.
It’s a simple question...no need to instanly resort to namecalling...
It should be easy to answer for anyone with a keyboard and internet at their fingertips...especially a Ron Paul supporter...
Was Jefferson acting within accordance to the consitution or not?
No it wasn’t. It’s funny, but Jefferson was a proponent of a small Federal gov’t. When he was President though, he made several “extra” Constitutional moves. Seems to happen to everyone who gets the office.
“No it wasn’t. It’s funny, but Jefferson was a proponent of a small Federal gov’t. When he was President though, he made several “extra” Constitutional moves. Seems to happen to everyone who gets the office.”
Thank you....my point exactly...
Like I said...
It’s apparent that 99.999995 percent of the time, questions like that are no more than troll bait... and yours is NOT one of the exceptions. So read the article, then comment on it and stay on topic. Else depart this thread. I expect civility and you trolls can please find another thread to flame and spam, thanks.
“Was Jefferson acting within accordance to the consitution or not?”
Umm...is English your first language?
“Was Jefferson acting within accordance to the consitution or not?”
Umm...is English your first language?
Troll?...yes that’s very civil of you...
The point..which appearantly you cannot grasp...is that there are times when a president acts in manner inconsitant with some of the constitution....it is done for the greater good of preservation of the country, it citizens or protection of a vital interest...
now if you cant accept that...go dig up jefferson and hang his corpse for treason...
or maybe Lincoln...
Or Reagan..
The constitution isnt a suicide pact.....what paul proposes as foreign policy is suicide on a grand scale...
The war powers act is a usurpation of executive power as is FISA..products of the 70’s liberal congress...
There are times that require the use of troops that do not rise to the level of full scale war...and times that the gathering of inteligence on a self declared threat that require extra vigilance and tools..
Paul’s stated stance that the Iraq war is illegal..that it wasnt approved by congress....that is not only a falicy...it’s a dangerous one that emboldens our enemies...
Is hitting a post button once a problem for you?
Is “Umm” even a word?
maybe DCWUSMC will chase you off for being a troll and highjacking the thread with off topic nonsence...just to be consitant..
Nah..I doubt it..
Hey, I was just trying to find an excuse for you.
Jeez, try to do some people a favor...
Jefferson sent a squadron to protect our merchantmen. Expeditionary orders in those days were necessarily specific in goals but due to difficult communications, were vague in the means to achieve the goals. The decision to attack Tripoli was made by officials in the theatre, not by the administration.
Nothing unconstitutional.
Not familiar with the “Second Treatise.”
Can you give me a synopsis...
Absolutely correct.
But the Paulistinians won’t acknowledge the parallel:
Iraqi invaded Kuwait, a trading partner of the US, and Iraq appeared to threaten Saudia Arabia - and would control about 50% of the world’s supply of oil - important to the world economy. The US Congress approved of military efforts to throw Iraq out of Kuwait. Even the UN approved (unnecessary, IMHO). The US and a coalition of forces succeeded in removing Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. As a part of an armistice (no Peace Treaty - a ceasation of hostilities pending satisfying terms of stopping the war) - Saddam agreed to a number of conditions.
Saddam failed to live up to the terms of the armistice. Saddam continued to shoot at US planes. Saddam continued to support terrorist attacks, including those that took lives of US citizens. Saddam harbored terrorists, including those that had killed US citizens and had ties to the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Saddam refused to comply with the terms of the armistice - and, with the approval of Congress in 2002, and with a larger coalition than in 1991 - the US removed Saddam from power.
We were acting in our country’s best interest. We acted with the approval of Congress.
Yet that idiot Ron Paul claims it was ‘unconstitutional’ - which tells me that Ron Paul would not support and defend the U.S. against all enemies - foreign and domestic, and is therefore unfit to hold office - not just as President, but as a Congressman.
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.