THE ROOTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY (Authentic American Political Philosophy)

The Institute for American Liberty ^ | 1997 | J. David Gowdy

[unspun]

AMERICA'S MORNING NEWS

Scores

Giants.............9+++
Shrugging Titans...0

[patriciaruth]

bookmarked. thanks.

[farmfriend]

PInging the short list.

[unspun]

Wake up the children! Ping your neighbors! Bookmark the references! Look in, all who benefit from the sustaining power of truth, soul, and sacrificed blood, that established your privilege of being American!

All are invited to review authentic American Political Philosophy in this article and by links. Learn (objectively) the historical facts of what America has declared itself to be -- and why. Learn the principles woven into our successful experiment in self governance. Learn the ring of authenticity from the authors. Sense their conviction to self-evident truths. Know it by your "inner sense," as Locke described. Feel free!

(It is good to study the authentic, repeatedly -- the better to discern and declare the differences of counterfeits.)

___________________________________________
Algernon Sidney and John Locke even win on hairstyle.
Wavy hair, straight men.

[Roscoe]

An up late bump.

[Misterioso]

Liberty-loving, freedom-seeking atheists need not apply. What a waste of space.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!!

[tet68]

Bump to the top.

[nicmarlo]

And as of this moment:

Iraq's 55 Most Wanted Scoreboard: 17 down, 38 to go! : )

---

Our second President, John Adams stated: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Why would Adams declare that our Constitution is made only for a moral people and a religious people?

Thanks for the ping, unspun. Looks like a great read. To be read later; bookmarked and

bumPING!

[Free the USA]

bttt

[WhiteGuy]

Bump for later

[Dataman]

In response to these rhetorical questions, I propose that liberty is not defined in a sentence, or as a rule -- Liberty is based upon certain principles -- the knowledge and application of which are required to fully comprehend and uphold liberty, respectively.

Isn't it sad that so-called libertarians (at least the FR type of libertarians) completely miss this point?

[tacticalogic]

(It is good to study the authentic, repeatedly -- the better to discern and declare the differences of counterfeits.)

Studying the authentic is good. Confusing someone's elses of opinion of the authentic with the authentic itself is not.

[MeekOneGOP]

bumpity bumpity . . .

[Anamensis]

I'm a freedom-loving atheist but I've come to the conclusion that it's a good thing our Constitution claims that our rights come from "God." Do they? No, how could they, there is no god. BUT.... what that "comes from God" claim does is draw a line in the sand over which our enemies should never step. It marks where we stop negotiating, explaining, reasoning and wheedling... and start shooting. It says, "No matter how well you argue, I am unreasonable on this point. You will never get me to give up on this point, even if you can make a great case for your side. Here is where, even if my intelligence fails, my emotions kick in and I will unapologetically bomb the snot out of you."

And that's GOOD, because people who have no line, no wall to place their back against, can be pushed all the way to the gulag.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[MrLeRoy]

James Madison stated: "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."

Indeed---but where did any of the Founders say that government could create virtue in the people, or that government was even fit to decide what "virtue" is?

[unspun]

Liberty-loving, freedom-seeking atheists need not apply. What a waste of space.

Oh come on, we love you man! Come read about the foundations of the freedom of how you worship / don't worship, that you enjoy!

[unspun]

Studying the authentic is good. Confusing someone's elses of opinion of the authentic with the authentic itself is not.

Authentic is essentially what is according to that which the authors... authorized.

[unspun]

Indeed---but where did any of the Founders say that government could create virtue in the people, or that government was even fit to decide what "virtue" is?

People have to discern such things as virtue and principle and govern themselves by them.