Comments on: The Legal Foundation of our Republic

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:24:59 +0000

The Bill of Rights never were meant to apply to the States but just the federal government incorporation is an Un-Constitutional ruling derived from the 14th Amendment relatively recently too.
That is why State constitution have their own such protection of such rights.

By: JMB

JMB — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:29:38 +0000

This Republic of ours is being systematically destroyed, and if we do not regain our Constitutional defenses soon, even our own historians will have no recollections nor references left to ponder, as to what the hell a Republic, ever was.

This federal government will continue to unilaterally dispose of its own constitutional place, and rightful function, until we finally come to realize that talk is worthless, when effective actions are needed.

By: Patrick Henry Lives

Patrick Henry Lives — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:13:08 +0000

It seems extreamly doubtful that it was the intention at the time of enactment/ratification that children born to persons here in violation of law were intended to be rewarded with citizenship. The intention rather was to give the slave population citizenship, which they did not possess before. In declaring the intended purpose of this provision, it is not conteplated that we go back in time to reexamine everybodies claim to citizenship. Amendments are prospective, not retrospective.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:33:04 +0000

It would be nice to clarify the Constitution by amendment. I’ll grant you that. Of course, some of the provisions you put above would, in fact, change it. For example, all people born on US soil are US citizens. That was the original intent.

The “anchor baby” issue has been prevalent these days, and so I can see the reason for wanting to amend. Nonetheless, this issue is not as easy as most would like to believe.

There are millions of “anchor babies” that were born 20, 30 and 50 or more years ago to illegals who immigrated here. These now-adult anchor babies who’ve been here all their lives for many decades have children, granchildren, and so on….

I think a change in law would have to give deference to some sort of laches principle in order to do justice.

For all you know, you are the decendant of an anchor baby from England, Ireland, Germany, Poland, or any other country. All it would take is one of your grandparents or great-grandparents to have come here in violation of immigration laws, which of course, happened way back when, too.

By: Patrick Henry Lives

Patrick Henry Lives — Sun, 17 May 2009 19:14:38 +0000

I have been working on this for a couple days to show how easy it really would be to fix the problems with the federal government. When I get the article developing this complete, I will submit it for posting. Meanwhile, study this and see if it doesn’t answer the problem.

The biggest sources of abuse vis-a-vis the states are the General Welfare Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the 14th Amendment. Thus, we do not need to change the Constitution, but RESTORE it and to provide a mechanism by which the States can enforce it. Section two, which give the States the power to enforce the Amendment by legislation is a guarantee to the power of nullification. Thus, there is no need to rely on Congress to police itself. See if I am not right!

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

1. Strict adherence to the letter of the law being necessary for the preservation of a written constitution, the laws and Constitution of the United States shall be enforced according to their original intent, and not otherwise. Save and except the second Amendment, the first eight Amendments shall not be construed to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise made applicable to the States. Citizenship under Fourteenth Amendment shall not extend to the children of persons present in the United States in violation of law. Congressional power under Article 1, Sec. 8 to regulate commerce among the several States shall be limited in all cases to the measure of its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The federal government possesses only limited, enumerated powers. Congress shall not have power to Tax or Spend under the General Welfare Clause except in accordance with its enumerated powers.

2. The States shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

By: Patrick Henry Lives

Patrick Henry Lives — Sun, 17 May 2009 19:06:30 +0000

So far as I know, there is no rational basis for objection. About 20 years ago there was a move afoot to try and change our system of govenrment to a parlimentary type like England has. Many conservatives (John Birch Society, etc) were very against the idea of a con-con for fear that “any thing could happen.” However, this fear is really unfounded. Any Amendment proposed in a con-con has to have a 3/4 vote of the states before it is ratified, so there is no reason for alarm. We are at a crisis in our country. If we do nothing, we face almost certain ruin. Ron Paul says the dollar is on the verge of collapse. Where will we be then? What about the plan for North American Union? Where will we be if that is thrust upon us by Washington insiders? I fully support secession before allowing ourselves to be made slaves to an all-powerful central Obamunist government or North American Union, but I can see no harm in trying to fix the nation first by taking away Congress keys to the family car!

Blessings,

Patrick-Henry-Lives

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:57:51 +0000

Well, I think the number one reason why it’s a bad idea – in my opinion – is that I don’t want to change the constitution from how it is. Changing the constitution is not my goal…..

Secondly, if the federal government doesn’t follow the simple rules in the constitution already, what makes anyone think that new amendments will be followed for long either?

To me, even good constitutional amendments (which I find highly unlikely in a society that believes a far-off government should be the cure for virtually everything), are nothing more than a short-term band-aid. In time, even if not in yours or mine, we’ll still end up with a federal government doing what they do today. Violating virtually every principle of limited government.

Instead, it’s my belief that for our future, and for the future of our children and grandchildren, we should be spending our energy to find a way to create a culture of non-violent resistance as a way to rein in this runaway central government. Saying no to unconstitutional federal “laws” is just the blueprint. Whether it’s resisting the drug war, or saying no to real id, or refusing stimulus money, or any of the new “firearms freedom acts,” or any number of things, there’s a lot that can be done…..and I believe we’re seeing just the very beginning.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:13:51 +0000

Patrick, I agree. I have heard people nay-say the notion of having a con-con, and I am not so sure why it is thought to be a bad idea. I do realize the difficulty in prevailing upon so many states. But other than that, I don’t know what the negatives would be.

I know Michael Boldin thinks it is a bad idea. Maybe he can expound further.

By: Patrick Henry Lives

Patrick Henry Lives — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:58:40 +0000

Resolutions are fine, but since the federal government typically has ignored the Constitution, there is little reason to suppose it will now suddenly have a change of heart. Even if it did moderate its usurpations for a time, it is almost a mathematical certainty that it will renew them again at a later time. Thus, after all is said and done, we must ask what the next step after resolutions is?

If secession is to be avoided and the union preserved, the States should demand a Constitutional Convention to take the matter in hand and restore the balance of powers between the States and federal govenment. With 35 states presently considering 10th Amendment Resolutions, there is a sufficient number to require a Convention for proposing Amendments to reign a self-serving and inept federal power that has brought the nation to the brink of ruin and shown its is incapable of governing aright. We take the keys to the family car from teen agers when they demonstrate they lack maturity to use the privilege responsibly and obey the law. Congress is no different. To ignor its reckless and irresponsible behaivor can only involve us all in ruin. It should give our conscience no qualms to reign them in. Indeed, it is the only patriotic and responsible course remaining to preseve liberty and save the Union.