Comments on: The Constitution: Amendments

By: leocorionsociety

leocorionsociety — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:35:54 +0000

All its corporate acts express more and more faithfully the human thoughts and feelings with which the minds of its individual members are imbued. Such community is in the human form, therefore, just so far as the individual minds composing it are human. The moment one ceases to do its work, or appropriates more that its share of the juices elaborated, or more than it needs to fit it for the performance of its appointed use, that moment comes disease to itself and disease to all the rest. And if it perseveres in this abnormal course, sooner or later death inevitably ensues. Notwithstanding there exists authority and obedience, there is nothing like tyranny on the one hand or slavishness on the other. There must be perfect freedom.

By: Leo Corion Society

Leo Corion Society — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:34:13 +0000

.. In other words, the relation, mutual dependence, and intercommunication of the societies composing the whole, and the uses they respectively perform, correspond to those existing among the various organs of the human body and their respective uses. One is a perfect type or representative image of the other body. It should appoint its wisest and best men to preside over its interests, because every one is aiming to subject himself to the government of the highest good and truth. And so the form or order of that community becomes more and more human.

By: Leo corion

Leo corion — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:53 +0000

When it is said, therefore, that our government is in the human form, the meaning is that it is in human order; that all its parts, or all the innumerable societies of which it consists, are so arranged and adjusted as to express most perfectly the truly human principles which constitute the essential spirit of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

By: Leo Corion

Leo Corion — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:27:45 +0000

MAXIMUS HOMO defines: “… new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form …
“~The Declaration of Independence.

As our Founding Fathers envisioned it!

When we speak of a form of government; no one thinks of any external or visible shape, but of the nature and adjustment of the various parts composing the government, and by means of which it is administered. A person, who reads and understands our constitution or organic law of the State, sees therein its form of government. We speak, also, of the form of society in a particular nation; and by this is meant the nature and relation of the several parts composing such society, the nature and arrangement of its social, industrial, commercial, educational, artistic, moral, and religious elements. Again, we speak of the form of a government; and by this we mean the character, connection, order, subordination, etc., of its various functionaries, the mode of their appointment, and their respective duties. ..

By: leo corion

leo corion — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:22:22 +0000

The demise of our republican form of government.

“Our Founding Fathers predicted the inevitable demise of their republican form of government, which is presently upon us:
‘It takes time, observed John Jay, to make Sovereigns of Subjects and for them to realize that the government is their own.'
'The Republic will degenerate into a democracy with the politicians promising largess and the people voting their own self-interest,' quipped Madison.
'The lawyers will get into Congress to manage the Constitution, license paper money and pillage the treasury,' remarked Amos Singletary.
'The Supreme Court judges, ignorant of its historical setting, will be unable to interpret the Constitution and the original intent of its provisions; and there will arise a two-party system, divided along economic interests, leading to deadlock as the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties,” opined Madison. Re: The Federalist Papers, en essentia.

By: Leo Corion

Leo Corion — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:16:52 +0000

The Electoral College was intended by our Founding Fathers to preserve the ancient Precedent established by the Israelites on the Plains of Encampment
when Levi was in the Midst: also when the thirteen Chieftains of the lost tribes who had settled in Scandinavia held a TING to elect their King; likewise when the Pope is chosen: and this is the reason that when George Washington was likewise elected he was given the title of ~Mr. Precedent.

“The Electors…one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves…
. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.” ~Amendment XII.

By: What Would Madison Do? | Tenth Amendment Center

What Would Madison Do? | Tenth Amendment Center — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:30:03 +0000

[...] But, on the face of it, we cannot expect progressives to be overly-sensitive to the charge that, because they declined to play by the rules, their whole racket is illegitimate. After all, they got their way, and they and their fellow spendthrifts are more or less in charge at every level of government. Why should they regret having bypassed the burdensome formality of the amendment process? [...]

By: What Would Madison Do? | The Ruthless Truth blog

What Would Madison Do? | The Ruthless Truth blog — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:43:19 +0000

By: macatac

macatac — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:56:09 +0000

We NEED to get the government to follow what constitution and amendments we already have. Do you really think they will follow any new amendments when they refuse to follow what already exists? Instead they play off the minds of the majority with hegelian dichotomies. Ex: They PLAY back and forth with abortion or not, with the idea of religious fanatics vs. extremist pro-death leftists. We go back and forth like this ad infinitum.

These are the dichotomist straw men, when the constitution plainly already answers the question. THe right to life liberty, and the pursuit. Nothing less or more. This is where the debate lies, and NOwhere else.

Yet, even when the republicrats (republicans) had a majority and the presidency, one conveniently turned independent, so they couldn’t change abortion legislatively. I don’t believe they ever intend to, the independency of one, was planned in my opinion. Repubs never change anything except general economic policies, and military policies
In almost all republicrat and demopublic debates, the constitution seldom enters the stage, they appeal to you thru all the falsities of rhetoric, and stay far from the strict logic of the constitution. I think my friend had it just right, and many years ago at that. His representative was arguing a point with him, declared that we have a living constitution. My friend replied to the gentleman that this absolutely could not be so. He was asked wht not? He responded; If the constitution was living, sir, I am sure it would march right down here and smack you in your smug face. That, sir is why I know nthe constitution is not a living document

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:47:00 +0000

Darkwolfe wrote:

You’re doing fine Terry. I never take offense to an opposing point of view so long as the discussion is respectful. In that, you are doing just fine and the discussion is quite good!

Good purpose too.

Darkwolfe, thank you.

I’m content to leave it at that for the time being. Due to the nature and purpose of this site the subject will undoubtedly come up again, and we can pick up the discussion where we left off if it seems convenient. I appreciate your willingness to hear me out. And I’m always ready to have a lively, mutually respectful discussion with those I disagree with on a given issue.

Looking forward to the next go-round.