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.
This is the first time in the history of the United States that a state was admitted to the Union ERRONEOUSLY with an "unconstitutional" state constitution. There is no precedent in law for this current, blatant situation!
You better go back and read your U.S. Constitution, particularly Article VI, Clause 3 relating to the "oath of office."
Yep...MUD
BTW...excuse my naivete, but how is Restorationism diff'rent from Libertarianism...aside, of course, from the obvious fact that Harry Brown is a LeftWing DITZ?!?!?!!!
Ready to argue...bring it on!!
For your information, the issue is so serious that it is now being taken to Federal court for resolution, BECAUSE a whole crew of Federal officers have failed to report this serious violation. In the meantime, back at the ranch, a ND state senator has tried to put a Band-aid on it by passing an amendment to the state constitution. It must be corrected at the Federal level, because for the past 112 years North Dakota officers have made decisions and acted under color of state law without authority, and they can be sued personally for violating the civil rights of North Dakota citizens who are also, first and foremost, United States citizens.
The problem is that from the beginning, there's always been some elasticity in the Constitution that the party in power made use of. Some things are doubtless clearly unconstitutional, but there's always been more leeway for government than some people would admit.
You can win support by showing where government doesn't work and where it's overly intrusive or oppressive. But arguing that most of what's evolved over the years is unconstitutional is harder to prove and not likely to convince a wide audience. Even Jefferson and Madison didn't refuse to take on new powers when they thought that not doing so would hurt the country.
North Dakota has initiative and referendum, but that is not the remedy here. What is needed is a writ of quo warranto issued by a Federal judge, so that the normal relator, the Attorney General of North Dakota, will be required to come before the U.S. Supreme Court and defend the legitimate status of North Dakota as a "state." He will have a hard time doing it, for the state constitution has been violative of the U.S. Constitution for 112 years, as of Nov. 2, 2001...and still counting.
The people, state and federal governments all presumed there to be a valid state charter. What harm has actually been done? Who is wronged?
I think the Fed court will be far less doctrinaire about this thing, facilitate an inclusion, and get on to the next item in the docket.
I hear you about the label thing. I like to think of my self as an independent. But, I’ve yet to find someone I cared to vote for other than a Republican. (Except when I cast a protest vote against Illinois Governor George Ryan.)
I’d more readily accept the label Conservative before Republican, only because we’ve had too many Republicans break bad on us. Restorationist sounds good too. In fact, there is a Constitution Party whose platform is focused on restoring the Constitution to its rightful prominence. But rather than splintering Conservative efforts any further, I'd prefer to help move the Republican Party back to its roots.
Check replies 53, 62, 69, 71, 81, 86 and 89 to understand the seriousness of the North Dakota situation.
I am. Check my FR homepage.
I give up trying to get this through your head. A lot of people have been wronged, and they will find remedy in the courts under Hafer vs. Melo 502 U.S. 21 (a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court). And, the damages will come not from the state, but rather from the pockets of the state officials who knew of the violation and looked the other way.
I wholeheartedly agree, the only chance we have is Cleaning up the GOP from the inside. most FReepers have like minded friends, if we would all get on the inside, we could make a huge difference.
For a number of reasons, I love that case.
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.