I do get what are you are saying Bob, but from experience and from viewing what is in the constitution and what has been changed in the constitution and what is interpreted in the constitution I think much of this can be simplified. In fact if we we took all the perfect words there were and put them on this paper would make no difference to the ones intent on corrupting it because they don’t even understand the basic understanding of its use and we call these folks educated.

I think we get way too intrenched in words and symbols as the only great concepts of all time and I disagree. After all the only good concepts are the ones backed by activities.

In fact I see a whole white house full of bumbling idiots that pronounce fancy words but cannot show acts of supporting Liberty, a concept also generated long ago but highly miss understood by most today and definitely not acted on by many, well except the 10th Amendment center.

Even many of these Federalist were great and pronouncing a proper verb to define themselves as superior but even they miss used the concept when acted on.

As many of you have worked hard to gather all these words as defining this concept show me which word carries the impact without the support of some act?

I know many wish to show intelligence by how many words they all know regardless of how many around don’t, but when it comes to understanding and the actions of is usually done not by those on pretty stages deciphering code but rather by those on the ground showing what is not working or what is working well and then fit the language around the performance and not the opposite. Or I assure you we would in no way arrive at this location in time. The act of defiance actually becomes more pronounced than the special wordings most of them don’t know anyway or they could figure out a simple concept and act on it.

When we stop making words the all mighty statement of all time will we gather real confidence in our actions, until then there are far too many blowing smoke which only adds up to smoke. This isn’t meant to be disrespectful either, I am testing this all over because words and symbols only transfer ideas supposedly but not in all cases has this been full proof at all.

I do get what are you are saying Bob, but from experience and from viewing what is in the constitution and what has been changed in the constitution and what is interpreted in the constitution I think much of this can be simplified. In fact if we we took all the perfect words there were and put them on this paper would make no difference to the ones intent on corrupting it because they don’t even understand the basic understanding of its use and we call these folks educated.

I think we get way too intrenched in words and symbols as the only great concepts of all time and I disagree. After all the only good concepts are the ones back by activities.

In fact I see a whole white house full of bumbling idiots that pronounce fancy words but can not show acts of supporting Liberty, a concept also generated long ago but highly miss understood by most today and definitely not acted on by many, well except the 10th Amendment center.

even many of these Federalist were great and pronouncing a proper verb to define themselves as superior but even they miss used the concept when acted on.

As many of you have worked hard to gather all these words as defining this concept show me which word carries the impact without the support of some act?

I know many wish to show intelligence by how many words they all know regardless of how many around don’t, but when it comes to understanding and the actions of is usually done not by those on pretty stages deciphering code but rather by those on the ground showing what is not working or what is working well and then fit the language around the performance and not the opposite. Or I assure you we would in no way arrive at this location in time. The act of defiance actually becomes more pronounced than the special wordings most of them don’t know anyway or they could figure out a simple concept and act on it.

When we stop making word the all mighty statement of all time will we gather real confidence in our actions, until then there are far too many blowing smoke which only adds up to smoke. This isn’t meant to be disrespectful either, I am testing this all over because words and symbols only transfer ideas supposedly but not in all cases has this been full proof at all.

The 10th Amendment is secondary, not primary. When I spoke to some Tea Party groups most of the people in attendance thought the 10th Amendment established the principle of not granted is reserved. This is not the case. In my opinion, it needs to be emphasized more in any 10th Amendment discussion because the principle exists independent of the Amendment. That was the point.

In early October of 1787, James Wilson, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, during a speech at Independence Hall, explained the proposed constitution and answered some of the criticisms being leveled against it. In his speech, Wilson succinctly explained the principle of powers not granted are reserved and stated why a bill of rights had been omitted from the Constitution, as originally written:

“It will be proper…to mark the leading discrimination between the State constitutions and the Constitution of the United States. When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve…if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything that is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything that is not given is reserved.

This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press,…what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?…the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press, and it would have been merely nugatory to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject—nay, that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent.”

Bob, I get you are well studied on the constitution, but I am not sure I fully get your suggestion. Too many people think a lot of things without ever delving in the pit.

One, none of these ideas shared in the constitution do a thing, only those actually using them do. Some use them to change or corrupt and others use them as intended because they know why. It is hard for me to get into the gospel of words and the almighty meanings some are so intent on displaying as the thing versus the act that shows it means anything at all and this the difference between those thinking anything and never showing the acts of.

Our founders, many of them were great minds but far from Gods and the symbols of their wisdom have surely shown us not to be the gospel. Of good intent yes, of great concept absolutely, as great map builders absolutely not or there would be no way to pervert such concepts.

Every concept I have seen by Michael and the 10th amendment center act in total support of the concept as we understand it, meaning in total defiance of this corrupt Government which is the only reason to have such a constitution or amendments at all. To be free from this ridiculousness is Liberty, is the instrument of this constitution when delivered in clear form.

Yet some will swear some symbol or word exchange is finite and must be followed like doctrine and is usually some attorney prescribing some made up group of symbols to interpreted some bogus law claiming some false authority over by the mere symbols themselves.

Ideas that support are the ones with acts attached to them and not as gospel but as effects of the original concept that of Liberty displayed, governments restricted to very small limited terms as to not expand themselves.

I don’t know about you but the actions of the 10 amendment center have been some of the most impacting I have seen to date to reach this very concept in the constitution, liberty with instructions to suspend the overpowering authorizing themselves to do what ever they feel like. To suspend these acts is in awesome support of the entire concept and thus needs no correction and all the support we can give it.

I have one comment.

As you know, the 10th Amendment is a truism because the Constitution was constructed on the principle enumerated in the Amendment. If the Amendment had never been added the principle would not have disappeared. Too many people think the principle enumerated in the Amendment is the sole basis for the principle: powers not delegated are reserved because of the Amendment.

I hope you will consider making that point in future interviews.