It’s president’s day (yawn). Another day that overpaid state and Federal employees get as a vacation.
Considering where our country started, from the “founding fathers”, can you clearly see where we are today, and where we are heading?
It makes a sane person angry. Government dependence (the goal of socialism/communism) is at an all time high, government is bigger than ever, and our freedoms are evaporating.
Obama took an oath a few weeks ago to protect and defend the constitution (a joke). What would the founding fathers think of our “president” and what would they do about him?
Ideals of Constitutionalism
Though Constitutionalism, the spirit of Constitution, had already been alive and practised for many years, the Magna Carta, by general consent of history, is now widely accepted as the world’s first major constitutional document. Indeed it is interesting to read the constitutions of the USA, both the Federal Constitution and those of individual States, as well as the constitutions of many Commonwealth countries, and to note how many passages from Magna Carta have simply been copied word for word.
Magna Carta provided Britain’s reformers with a firm foundation, a cornerstone on which subsequent constitutional documents could be added to form the assemblage which, combined with unwritten custom, is commonly referred to as Britain’s “Constitution” today.
Constitution limits absolute power. This it achieves by placing conditions on the use of that power, by requiring the sharing of power with those subject to it through a process of debate, and by establishing boundaries beyond which the Law may not intrude.
In its early days the Constitution may be weak, it may have little of practical value to say. But once the principle has been established that the Central Power, whatever form it may take, is itself subject to some superior framework of rules and procedures which define the use of that power to any extent whatsoever, the nation is on the right path, and it is only a matter of time before the rules defining the use of Centralized Power are strengthened.
No Government, President or Monarch, no institution of Law or Enforcement, should be created or be allowed to exist and to function without a Constitution. No one should have power over others, unless and until that power and the conditions of its use have been strictly defined. In the words of Thomas Paine: “Government without a Constitution is power without right” (What better description is there of today’s government?).
Today we understand clearly and accept fully the idea that Constitution limits absolute power. Yet for early reformers of autocratic Monarchies it was a contradiction in terms to talk of limiting absolute power. If the power is absolute, then how can it be limited except through a greater power, and what is the nature of that greater power?
The “greater power” which sets limits on Autocrats and Parliaments is the power of reason and custom.
Relying for support on the strength of public opinion, from the most influential to the broad mass of the people, the spirit of Constitutionalism was originated and developed by theorists and idealists, and based on a universally recognized, instinctive awareness of what is right and wrong in law and social conduct.
“The idea of Constitutionalism is older than the existence of written Constitutions. Constitutionalism places limits upon Government, proscribing the means by which official power may be exercised. Constitutionalism establishes boundaries between the State and the individual, forbidding the State to trespass into certain areas reserved for private action.
Now, we have a president with no regard for the constitution, who wishes to be dictator and has taken many measures to attain this status (NDAA). We are headed right down the same path as communist Russia and Nazi Germany.
“All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts not only because of their historical development – in which they were transferred from theology to the theory of the state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent god became the omnipotent lawgiver – but also because of their systematic structure, the recognition of which is necessary for a sociological consideration of these concepts. The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology. Only by being aware of this analogy can we appreciate the manner in which the philosophical ideas of the state developed in the last centuries.”
“The exception is more interesting than the rule. The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything. In the exception the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.”
“Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignity (also known as the “Crown Jurist of German National Socialism, also known as Nazism)
WB: If you want to concoct a philosophical theory of extrajudicial killing, Carl Schmitt is Mr Ground Zero. Schmitt was just the kind of chap who could have written a wonderful 16 page memo explaining extra-judicial killing under Presidential authority. In fact, for Hitler, that is apparently precisely what he did.
Socialism. The Nazi Party believed in statist socialism nearly identical to what Obama proposes. Towards that end…
Hitler nationalized healthcare, the banking system, and the transportation system. Obama has proposed doing the same or in the case of healthcare has already done it.
Hitler blamed a specific group for the economic woes of the majority, Obama has done the same. In Hitler’s case it was the Jews. In Obama’s case it’s the nebulous “top 1%” of earners, the vast majority of which are certainly white.
Hitler re-distributed wealth. He took the accumulated wealth of German Jews and gave it to those who did not earn it. Obama has proposed to do the same, but so far the GOP Congress has slapped him down time and time again.
Hitler used propaganda and event staging as a tool to control the masses. Obama does the exact same thing.
Hitler pitted various groups within Germany against each other. Obama has been very adept at doing likewise to further his political ends.
Hitler abused his executive power. Obama has threatened to rule by fiat as well.
Hitler tried to deficit-spend his way to German prosperity and exponentially increased the German national debt. Obama has done the same.
Hitler continually blamed his predecessors for his nation’s ills. Obama does the same.
Hitler commanded blind devotion from his followers, many of whom were known to faint at his speeches and events.
Hitler indoctrinated school children with Nazi propaganda. Mmm mmm mmm, Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm mmm mmm…
Hitler continually interjected himself into the affairs of other nations, and as with Obama, always making things worse as a result.
Hitler had issues with his origins and parentage as does Obama.
Hitler had his “Hitler Youth Brigade” made up entirely of Aryan members, Obama had (it’s fizzled, thank God) his “Obama Youth Brigade” made up 100% of young black males.
AWD says:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
18th February 2013 at 2:03 pm
AWD says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
18th February 2013 at 2:15 pm
Llpoh says:
I am sure the presidents were happy. The people? Not so much.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
18th February 2013 at 2:16 pm
backwardsevolution says:
“Governments no longer are in control. It’s the big corporations, what I call the corporatocracy. We’re seeing that they’re doing everything in their power to benefit the status quo and to hell with everybody else.” John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
In the first part of the video below, John Perkins talks about the revolving door between corporations and government. One minute you’re the CEO of Haliburton and then, voila, the next you’re the vice-president. Look at Eric Holder (Attorney-General), Lanny Breuer (Assistant Attorney-General, who stepped down after the Frontline documentary called “The Untouchables”), and Lanny’s assistant – ALL of them came from the law firm who invented MERS, Covington & Burling LLC in Washington, D.C. Hank Paulson, CEO of Goldman, and all of a sudden he’s Treasury Secretary. We could fill pages with revolving door positions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLe9u9SffO0&playnext=1&list=PLBCACFB35DCC1A864&feature=results_main
This is a good-old-boys league and we’re not in it. It doesn’t matter what it’s called (socialism, nationalism, communism, scumism) – these guys are fighting to stay on top and maintain their status quo. If they feel they’re losing the battle, they will tighten up the screws until their system is maintained.
It’s the same type of guys who went after King John at Runnymede (Magna Carta), except they were called barons and lords. They owned the land (mostly given to them because they had fought prior battles for various kings), and they didn’t like the taxes imposed on them. It was a battle between the Divine Right of Kings and the elite, and we all know who won eventually – the elite did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
Obama (or Bush or Clinton) is/was not in control. There is a plan, an agenda, and they all follow in lock-step. If you don’t play (Kennedy), you’re disposed of. You don’t get into Harvard or Yale by just having money; you must have the proper IDEOLOGY. You must want to be one of them and play their game.
Obama is lazy and self-centered. In fact, he appears like an empty suit, nothing but a void inside. He wants “something for nothing” just like the rest of them, and he plays along, but he is no more running things than I am.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
18th February 2013 at 2:39 pm
backwardsevolution says:
In short, we have a cartel of kings, but only one reads the teleprompter. It’s probably not a heck of a lot dissimilar than the interests who formed the Constitution, but a big difference is that back in their day people were more independent.
The only reason the cartel hands out free shit to the people is because they maintain control of the masses this way, not to mention padding their own pocketbooks. They practically give away housing and cars because it benefits them.
As long as people keep taking free shit, these guys will maintain control.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th February 2013 at 3:09 pm
Stucky says:
Oldie but goodie.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
18th February 2013 at 3:40 pm
AWD says:
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
18th February 2013 at 3:44 pm
Stucky says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
18th February 2013 at 3:45 pm
Tom says:
Has anyone seen this proposed legislation in New York mandating that gun owners have $1 million in liability coverage as a condition of gun ownership?!
http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-state-bill-to-require-liability-insurance-as-condition-of-gun-ownership
Wake up America! This is an end run around the Constitution…
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
18th February 2013 at 3:48 pm
Eddie says:
The US Presidency. A totally shitty job that no sane person would want…but damn, the retirement plan is hard to beat.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th February 2013 at 3:57 pm
flash says:
…just wait till the elected ass-hats who currently ignore the rule of law as establish in the founding Constitution get the go ahead to write a new one.
http://americanpolicy.org/2013/02/06/action-alert-stop-the-con-con/
Action Alert: Stop the Con Con
February 6th, 2013 by Tom DeWeese
I have enclosed two very important petitions and I’m asking you to sign them right way.
My organization, the American Policy Center (APC), is in the thick of a battle to stop a dangerous call for a Constitutional Convention – or a “Con Con” as it’s called.
I urgently need your help to slam the door on this insanity once and for all.
Let me explain.
More and more state legislatures are considering resolutions to call for a Con Con in order to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
These resolutions are coming from conservative Republicans.
They are not part of some diabolical left wing conspiracy.
These legislators are genuinely concerned with the spending orgy taking place in Washington, DC over the bailouts and other connected programs.
They simply want to do something to stop it.
I certainly understand and agree with their concerns.
So, why am I so opposed to a Con Con?
Because I believe that a Con Con would be used as a tool to totally destroy our precious Constitution – not improve it.
Here’s why.
What these legislators don’t seem to understand is that there is no way to control what is discussed at a Con Con once it is called by Congress.
No way at all. Period.
Article V of the Constitution does not provide answers to ANY of these questions:
Who would choose the delegates?
What qualifications must they have to be delegates?
What powers would the delegates have?
No one knows the answers to the above questions until Congress decides how to proceed!
The fact is, once 34 states (two thirds) petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States’ hands.
The states cannot control the debate! To only discuss one issue like a balanced budget amendment – it’s simply impossible.
Once the 34 states call for a Con Con, the Congress is obligated to call for the Convention. Once Congress acts, the states have no more say in the matter.
Congress decides. That means Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Congress would decide HOW delegates would be chosen.
Maybe Congress would let the state governor choose the delegates.
Maybe it would let the state legislatures choose? Maybe delegates would be chosen by a special blue ribbon panel?
Or maybe by a vote of the people. A plebiscite. Who could then vote in such a plebiscite? All eligible voters? Or just Taxpayers? (don’t bet on it.)
Or would we possibly – in the interest of “enfranchisement” allow all citizens and “undocumented workers” to vote in this “special election.”
I can hear that argument now from the news media – all in the name of “inclusion” and fairness. You’ve heard those outrageous arguments in every debate.
Congress would decide the answers to all of these issues.
And what would be the qualifications for delegates?
Should they all be lawyers?
Constitutional scholars?
“Proportional” representation?
Selected members of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)?
There are no formal answers to any of these questions. All of these things
would only be answered after the 34th state voted for a Con Con resolution and put the mechanism in operation in Congress..
Again, Congress would decide!
Do you want to risk our Constitution on such uncertainty? Do you want to make it an open target to every American-hating special interest group?
I don’t. And that’s why I am rushing into action to stop it.
But there is more to this battle.
Once the delegates are chosen, they become “super delegates” answerable to no one – not even to Congress.
The fact is, once chosen, the Delegates to a Con Con become the most powerful force in the nation. Congress can’t tell them what to do. The President can’t tell them how to act.
They can enter the convention, close and lock the doors, and meet in complete secrecy and do whatever they want.
That’s exactly what happened at the first and ONLY Con Con in 1787.
A brief history lesson:
The states in 1787 were operating under the Articles of Confederation – a very loose association of the sovereign states.
But they were having trouble dealing with interstate commerce among the states. So they decided to hold a convention to simply discuss how to address that issue.
Ten of the eleven states that were sending delegates specifically instructed their delegations to discuss nothing more than the commerce issue.
Congress, in allowing the meeting to commence, sent a strongly worded resolution to the delegates saying the meeting was limited to “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. “
But once the delegates gathered at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they quickly closed and locked the doors and met in secret for a month, telling no one what they were doing.
When they were finished, they had created a completely new government unlike any before seen in the history of man.
We were lucky then. We had great patriots and brilliant minds like Ben Franklin, James Madison and George Washington – men dedicated to the very spirit of liberty, as outlined in The Declaration of Independence.
But, it was completely against the instructions of their states and their U.S. Congress.
And today we have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and hordes of leaders who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, written by dead slave owners lacking in “social justice.”
A Constitution Convention would simply allow these people to put the Constitution on an operating table, take out their scalpels, and cut to shreds the greatest governing document in the world.
And there is more.
Many of the proponents of a Con Con have attacked my opposition, saying it is overblown.
They say that no matter what comes out of the Convention, the Constitution says that two thirds of the states still have to ratify it in order to allow the changes. So we are safe!
Frankly they are seriously deluded.
First of all, given the history we have had in fighting battles like the Equal Rights Amendment in recent times, we’ve seen evil forces change the rules in the middle of the fight; we’ve seen courts make outrageous rulings – all to illegally enforce ratification that a majority of the people actually opposed.
Moreover, I want to remind you that just a year ago 75% of the American people were opposed to Obamacare – yet Congress passed it anyway.
So why would we trust that we can stop bad things from happening to the Constitution after a Con Con.
And there is this little tidbit of history that many people don’t know.
Under the Articles of Confederation, before any changes could be made to that document, 100% of the states were required to ratify the changes. That was the law of the land.
But, when the new constitution was presented to the states, somehow, magically, only three fourths of the states were needed to ratify it.
How could that be?
In short, Article VII of the new Constitution was used to guide its ratification – BEFORE it was even law of the land.
That is now a historic precedent that can be used by a new Con Con.
That means that a new Con Con could write a completely new government that no longer needs to be ratified by ANYONE. The Con Con could produce a new government that is a compete dictatorship.
So much for the argument that the Constitution will protect us.
These are the reasons why I’m working so hard to stop the Con Con.
But, in spite of these sound historic arguments against it, there is a very strong effort growing in conservative Republican circles to push for more Con Con resolutions.
We defeated it in Ohio – twice. And just recently in Virginia. But many other states are discussing the possibility.
This is a growing threat and we must stop it now – before it’s too late.
I urgently need you to take two immediate actions.
First, I have enclosed two petitions.
One is to the speaker of your state’s House of Representatives.
The other is to the head of your state’s Senate.
Each petition urges your state to take action.
If they have not passed a Con Con resolution, then the petition urges them not to. If the state has already passed a Con Con resolution on the balanced budget issue, then the petitions urge them to vote to rescind it.
And if we can warn other states not to even consider a Con Con resolution, then we can prevent the backers of this insanity from gaining even one more state. We can stop this.
So, today, please sign both petitions as quickly as possible. I will write my own letter, which will be signed by several organizations, to include with your petition (and thousands more from other loyal Americans) to each state legislative leader.
Second, I urgently need your financial support to lead this battle. Along with your signed petitions, please enclose your contribution to APC for $25 or even $35, $50 or as much as $100, or more if you can.
APC is a major leader in this effort. Our Sledgehammer Action Alert has been used to put the spot light on this very urgent issue. It was used most effectively in APC’s successful fight to stop the Con Con resolution In Ohio.
On that day we not only alerted others to join our fight, but be were able to generate hundreds of calls and e-mails in the offices of the Ohio legislators, even as the hearing was going on.
The result was that the legislature immediately cancelled a scheduled vote on the Con Con resolution — and then later dropped the whole idea.
Now we have to fight in more states. We must be ready. That’s why your contribution is so vital.
APC has been leading a very successful battle to stop the UN’s Agenda 21. In fact, I am the recognized national leader in that vital fight
But this Con Con insanity must be stopped – now. We must poison the issue so no legislator will dare touch it in any state.
That can only be done by fighting with full force – as we did in Ohio.
So please, join me in this historic fight. Sign your petitions to each of your State’s legislative leaders and send the American Policy Center a contribution to help me lead this battle.
I hope I can count on you to help me win this vital battle to stop a very ill- advised Constitutional Convention.
Sign your petitions now
Sincerely,
Tom DeWeese
President
P.S. There is a massive lobbying campaign being waged by those who are pushing for a Con Con. They are powerful and heavily funded. We need to stand in opposition to stop the growing number of Con Con resolutions being introduced in state legislatures across the nation. It is terrifying to think how a Con Con will be used to put our Constitution on an operating table to be cut to shreds. Please help me stop it.
P.P.S. Click here to view a detailed issue paper, prepared by the Ohio-based Institute for Principled Policy, constitutional scholars who carefully detail the reasons why we must stop the Con Con. This is a must read for everyone who wants to stop it.
Comments are closed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
18th February 2013 at 6:32 pm
AWD says:
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
18th February 2013 at 6:52 pm
Novista says:
Yeah, be careful what you wish for.
Leading up to 1999, there had been a movement advocating Australia become a republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999
“The Australian republic referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a two-question referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament following a bi-partisan appointment model which had been approved by a half-elected, half-appointed Constitutional Convention held in Canberra in February 1998.”
The referendum failed due to that half-ass method — 54.87% NO, 45.13% yes. How would the U.S. have looked with a “politician’s republic”?
Interesting that the oz constitution mandates referendums on Very Important Questions, yet none was held in 1914 when the first income tax (to be temporary) was passed, had to pay for oz’s share of World War One, you see. I doubt there’s one in 10,000 here who know this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
18th February 2013 at 8:30 pm