Posted on 12/23/2001 7:32:51 PM PST by dcwusmc
I am a RESTORATIONIST and I thank FReeper CHUCKSTER for the use of the term. I came to this position as a libertarian but others have come to it via conservatism and liberalism. At its essence the Restorationist philosophy holds that the United States live as part of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and that we have strayed FAR from our Constitutional roots. We hold that this situation is untenable to our survival as a nation and that we must restore our Constitution as the SUPREME law of the land. We must go back to our roots or we will DIE as a free nation.
This is NOT an issue of the WOD, though I still oppose it on Constitutional grounds. It is NOT an issue on RKBA though I support it unconditionally on Constitutional grounds. It is an issue of National SURVIVAL.
For those of you who are in favor of the WOD, let's agree that we need to get our Constitution restored FIRST, then we can see if the WOD can ever be Constitutional. First things FIRST, in other words. We must stop politicians and bureaucraps of ALL persuasions from using the Constitution as toilet paper. Hence RESTORATIONIST.
Your comments and suggestions are invited.
FReegards,
David
Richard, you might want to chime in here....
Until and unless that disease is overcome, all attempts to restructure government, to eliminate the WOD, or to dismantle the welfare state will amount to nothing more than a proverbial rearranging of the chairs on the deck of the Titantic.
PATRIOTS are not "Revolutionaries" trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
PATRIOTS are "Counter-Revolutionaries" trying to prevent the government of the United States from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. - Unknown Author
What brings the PATRIOTS out of the woodwork?
When the constitutional process, the system of checks and balances set up by the Founders, has not just been thrown out of kilter, it has been thrown out the window. These socialist maneuvers are what attracts PATRIOTS to the streets of America.
David
FReegards,
David
Tex, I am leaving the WOD out of this. What I said was, AFTER we restore our Constitution as the supreme law of these United States, we can then look at the WOD and see if it can ever be made Constitutional or if it must be abandoned as an affront to a free people. If it can be made to conform to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights AND a large majority of the citizenry support doing it, so be it. I suspect that it will never be able to comply with Constitutional requirements, but maybe I'm wrong.
If that's the case, this is not a thread you'll like. And it has NOTHING to do with libertarian OR conservative, except to the extent that a Constitutional Republic would be worth conserving!
In 1995 I accidentally found a "flaw" in the North Dakota state constitution. Since 1889, from the time of drafting its first constitution to the U.S. Congress, its state constitution erroneously directly only state officers of the legislative and judicial branches of state government to take the "oath of office" (required in Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution). It completely leaves out the same requuirement for state officers of the "executive" branch of state government.
Please note that the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, section 4, required that each of four states (including North Dakota) draft a state constitution "that was not repugnant to the Consitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence." The flaw mentioned above was reported by me to a U.S. Attorney; he did absolutely nothing and died of a brain tumor only last year. Any number of ND officials have been told about the "flaw" but they all ignore it to avoid the stigma of letting out the facts that the ND constitution is actually "unconstitutional" in its present format.
This shows the ignorance that exists and the failure to follow the U.S. Constitution. I reported the flaw to parties as listed in Title 18, Section 2382 of the U.S. Code. Nothing happened! The news media also failed to report it, and I have exposed it on three hour-long talk shows...without anyone demanding immediate correction. Yes, the U.S. Constitution needs following!
Screw the king, but its gonna take all our horses and all our men to put this humpty dumpty together again. The creeping socialism has corroded many beyond repair. My personal opinion is that little gets done until we have at least 3 Supreme Court replacements, and in actuality probably at least 5. But the incremental approach has proven very successful for the socialists, perhaps we can use their own strategy against them.
I must have missed the recension of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I know that sounds sarcastic but the last time I looked the Supreme Court was still basing all of its decisions on constitutional arguments., we still have a representative form of government with 3 separate but co-equal branches of government, the vote is still freely available to every citizen of age to vote, and the courts are still available for redress of grievances against the government. Now, every action taken by any government is going to either be accepted, praised or hated by different segments of the population. However; just because you or I hate the action of whatever type does not make that action defacto "unconstitutional" it just means that we don't like it.
I don't think omitting the requirement in the ND State Constitution would render it repugnant.
I watch what the pols do, not what they say. Talk is cheap, and few elected officials fear God.
Bill and Hill took the oath. What's it worth to them?
What's missing is only the most characteristic feature of the kind of government the Constitution would create if followed: enumerated powers. Each authority having a limited set of specified powers, and no others.
Now, every action taken by any government is going to either be accepted, praised or hated by different segments of the population. However; just because you or I hate the action of whatever type does not make that action defacto "unconstitutional" it just means that we don't like it.
However, the fact that an action violates the Constitution most certainly does make it unConstitutional.
I think it was discussed during the convention whether an oath should be required, and the idea was nixed 'cause the Christian sensibilities were piqued by demanding oaths, in light of the Biblical prohibition.
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.