Thanks, I was not a bit disappointed with the response it got here. This article ties together a lot of the work I've published here over the years. Most of that work was well received and engendered considerable discussion. I had thought this one would evoke even more discussion, perhaps about other simple amendments that would make unmistakable the limits of Federal powers in concluding international agreements and the hierarchy between treaty and Constitutional provisions. For example:
This is FreeRepublic, supposedly the premier conservative discussion site on the web. Why don't more FReepers want to discuss such ideas? After all, we have the intention of coming back against the Slave Party in 2010. Wouldn't it be nice to have a few concrete proposals and descriptions constructed for public consideration?
Had I made the topic a "gun thread" my guess people would have been all over it. Yet this subject DIRECTLY pertains to gun rights. Can't they see that?
Drives me nuts.
Couldn't agree more, but I don't have a problem with this: "This Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, all international agreements notwithstanding." Really, we can't force modern English on people writing 220 years ago.
In more current English, it would read "This Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, despite all international agreements." i.e., if the international agreements (treaties) don't mesh with the Constitution, then we're not bound by them, as the Constitution rules supreme.
Why all the fuss?
>>Why don’t more FReepers want to discuss such ideas?
The single most important reason to be in Iraq was the defense of the Petro Dollar. But how few are willing or able to recognize that reality?
Not surprising given the Fabian Socialist nature observable among former and current beneficiaries of the Military Industrial Complex.
Few these days, I observe, are able to articulate the ideological difference between the American and Soviet Military Industrial Complexes.
Mercantilism is as it does.
Kurtz: Are you an assassin?
Willard: I’m a soldier.
Kurtz: You’re neither, you’re an errand boy, sent by Grocery clerks to collect a bill.
Working through the notion of, and one’s role in, Military Mercantilism is an uncomfortable, but necessary, process - for AMERICANS who’ve been indoctrinated to obey, rather than question, what’s rolling down the hill from The One.
Eternal VIGILANCE not eternal OBEDIENCE.... is the price of liberty.
>>Yet this subject DIRECTLY pertains to gun rights.
>>Can’t they see that?
Homer Simpson? Articulate?
The expression of his maliable fear and hope is measured primarliy in Gun and Lead sales.
He’s busy off learning to convert the AK to full auto and playing Rambo in the woods.
Not a bad thing mind you... unless enthusiasm for the 2nd amendment comes at the expense of the ability to EXERCISE THE FIRST.
But alas, symptomatic of this dysfunctional malaise - a local LCMS “Church” has “banned email” among the congregants - while at the same time its macho leadership prattles on about “2nd amendment rights”.
What’s wrong with that picture?
Homer Simpson, Articulate?
Hmmm.... time to give Shemitta another reading.
I have long sensed that Something Wicked This Way Comes. The looming oppression has dispirited me at times, and I can see very easily how anyone might become convinced to get out of the fight, and go get some joy out of life, while there is still joy to be had. For my part, I am facing the possible loss of The Republic with a sober disquiet; arguing up front to abort Copenhagen, but grimly acknowledging that I will likely have to deal with the fallout of it, and trying to decide up-front what options will remain to be pursued.
When everything that can be shaken has been, will to pay the cost to stand up for whatever remains? That is a question for which I think it best to have formulated an answer BEFOREHAND.