Comments on: The Vision of the Founders: Dead and Gone http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/ Concordia res Parvae Crescunt Mon, 20 May 2013 03:03:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism | Tea In Politics http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-908248 The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism | Tea In Politics Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:42:47 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-908248 [...] Kevin R.C. Gutzman, “The Vision of our Founders: Dead and Gone,” The Tenth Amendment Center, Dec. 14, 2009. Referenced at: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/ [...]

]]> By: The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism | Why the TEA Party? http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-908247 The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism | Why the TEA Party? Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:41:08 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-908247 [...] Kevin R.C. Gutzman, “The Vision of our Founders: Dead and Gone,” The Tenth Amendment Center, Dec. 14, 2009. Referenced at: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/ [...]

]]> By: The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism | Why the TEA Party? http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-907029 The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism | Why the TEA Party? Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:31:09 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-907029 [...] Kevin R.C. Gutzman, “The Vision of our Founders: Dead and Gone,” The Tenth Amendment Center, Dec. 14, 2009. Referenced at: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/ [...]

]]> By: The Vision of the Founders: Dead and Gone | partisanrangershow http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-753289 The Vision of the Founders: Dead and Gone | partisanrangershow Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:23:54 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-753289 [...] Click Here to Read Entire Article Share this:TwitterFacebookDiggStumbleUponEmailPrintLinkedInRedditMoreLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

]]> By: THE JUDICIARY: The Supreme Court & Judicial Activism | My Blog http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-687214 THE JUDICIARY: The Supreme Court & Judicial Activism | My Blog Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:46:41 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-687214 [...] Kevin R.C. Gutzman, “The Vision of our Founders: Dead and Gone,” The Tenth Amendment Center, Dec. 14, 2009. Referenced at: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/ [...]

]]> By: kldimond http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-530924 kldimond Sun, 17 Apr 2011 05:19:28 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-530924 The Bill of Rights was a "never again" document. It specifically addressed the abuses of the British crown. It should be–and I contend was meant to be–seen not only as a limitation on the federal government, but also as a code of minimum freedom for a state's good standing in the union.

Why Greenslade, et al, would disagree… who knows? They believe, perhaps, in localized tyranny? Jefferson sure didn't. "I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." That was Jefferson. I am with Jefferson. I believe that our Constitution, in spite of the would-be tyrants that participated, is with Jefferson.

…and what about that tree?

]]> By: kldimond http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-530923 kldimond Sun, 17 Apr 2011 05:18:56 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-530923 Going to TEXT, the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law…" Hark, the other 9 amendments don't limit themselves to Congress. Only the First. Why? Greenslade, et al, would probably argue that the "Congress shall not…" applies to the whole of the document. But what argument really makes this a reality? Wishcraft? The Preamble doesn't make that argument, because while it counters abuse, it also adds declaratory aspects. It mentions "declaratory" before it mentions "restrictive." Hmm.

The VISION of the United States was freedom of the PEOPLE–not of dictators because they happened to be "local," i.e., state dictators. The big picture version of the Constitution is that the Anti-Federalists, opposed to a strong federal authority, decided to make the best of it by insisting that freedom be written into the Constitution, that federalism be used to fight the inevitable advance of tyranny. A check. A balance.

]]> By: kldimond http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-530921 kldimond Sun, 17 Apr 2011 05:17:38 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-530921 It must be stated that the Supreme Court may well have been wrong in this case. It often is, and Jefferson (for instance–and already) made no bones about despising the Supreme (or any other) Court. It appears, among other things, that this case was decided at a time of a fad about States' rights. Was the Court swayed by a fad? To insist that it could not have been deifies the Court, which is patently absurd.

It also is interesting that the 14th Amendment can be read as a refutation by the Congress of that bad decision, especially in view of the "incorporation" doctrine, which I regard as an unnecessary evil, were it not for the Marshall Court's softheaded concession to ultrastatism.

]]> By: kldimond http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-530920 kldimond Sun, 17 Apr 2011 05:14:55 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-530920 The Preamble to the Bill of Rights: http://www.billofrights.org/
Excerpting the essential:

…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…

…misconstruction, abuse, declaratory, restrictive. All of these words are used, not just a few. Note "declaratory."

The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"…prohibited by it to the States…" Hmmm. What was prohibited by the Constitution to the States?

According to Greenslade and Gutzman, and apparently Natelson, not much could be. Gutzman refers to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in 1833. Since he neglected to mention it by name, it was Barron v. Baltimore. Barron sued Baltimore under Takings (Fifth Amendment–Baltimore, by paving, ruined harbor space of Barron, thus "taking"). Unanimous, but without the participation of Justice Baldwin. Why?

]]> By: Kevin R. C. Gutzman http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/14/the-vision-of-the-founders-dead-and-gone/comment-page-1/#comment-400276 Kevin R. C. Gutzman Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:13:50 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4066#comment-400276 The idea that an amending convention would be "a knife to the back" is widely touted by the John Birch Society. In being denominated "a radical revolutionary" by members of that group, I'm in good company: they used to say that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist. Yes, they did.

Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment conventions. How, then, can I be "a radical revolutionary" for having said that such a convention is the only solution to the problem we face? George Mason sponsored Article V in the Philadelphia Convention, and the Convention then added the provision. Article V was ratified by the People when they ratified the Constitution. It is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. Only someone who thinks Eisenhower was a Communist would say that using the Constitution amounts to stabbing it in the back.

Mason's reason for pushing for an amendment convention provision was that Congress might be the problem. If Congress were the problem, he said, we would not be able to count on Congress to initiate the process of amending the Constitution to correct the problem. This is precisely the situation we now face: Congress is part of the problem. Article V is the only route to a solution.

Mr. Owens wants to redefine another common term, as well: "rebellion." Check the second definition here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebellion

No doubt, the American Revolutionaries were in rebellion. George III's behavior was unconstitutional, and the Revolutionaries rebelled against him.

]]>