1 Remember Democrats like a dog eat dog world.  Some even like a Prezzie eat dog world.

2 Don't say REVOLUTION to Tepid Wind.

3 Did he use the word Revolution?

4 Vive la constitución! Vive la Jefferson! Vive la Tenche Coxe!

5 It's not revolution it's fundamental transformation. That's much easier to sell, obviously.

6 love it...

7

 

Reynolds must read the comments here at the HQ...

What he's saying has been said, repeatedly, in the threads here.

 

8 All right, so let's agree it doesn't make sense to do what they say anymore.

Now what?

9 The Constitution was created precisely to prevent a power-hungry elite from exercising unlimited state (i.e. Government) power arbitrarily. So of course, (lower-echelon AND upper-echelon) Leftists just ignore it. Brilliant!

10 8 Take a nap?

11 I mean, I like teh Instapundit, and lord knows his wife is hot, but he seems to exist in a bit of a bubble himself.

12 Government employees should act as though their pensions depend on the Constitution being observed.

13 However Reynolds reached the conclusion I'm ok with.  Welcome to the party Reynolds.

14 It is an agreement between the Government and the people. It cannot be unilaterally modified or abrogated.

Violations are grounds for divorce.

15 If the poll numbers in Glenn R's piece are correct, that more than half of the country sees the govt as a threat to their personal freedom, how did we get stuck with him for another term?

16 ¡Sí, Soros! ¡He dejado en libertad los prisioneros y ahora vengo por ti! (Does deadly ritual flamenco dance to confuse enemies.)

17

He's correct... The Constitution is a contract between the Feds, the States, and WE the People.... it puts Limitations on the Federal Government, while giving it Powers and Responsibilities.

 

"IF" one side ignores the plainly stated terms of a contract, is that contract any longer binding?

 

It plainly States CONGRESS shall declare War... It clearly States that all Bills having to do with Revenue shall start in the House... it clearly states that the Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed... it clearly states we have a Freedom of Association (yet we MUST do business with everyone, no matter what, or be sued).... it clearly states 'equal application' of the law, yet the Feds decide which laws they will, or will not, enforce, and on whom....

 

I can go on and on....

18 We have the guns, we make the rules. You follow the rules.

19 That's going to turn into a si say sy routine if I don't stop now.

20 The Constitution is a living, breathing document, and I don't think that Obama was elected by a fair election when a city less then 50 miles from me has areas that voted 100% for one party. So I don't have to be bound by that document. Is that how it works?

21 "...how did we get stuck with him for another term?"
===============

I'm still reeling over this. If reality wasn't enough to take get that SOB thrown out of office, then are we effectively looking at the end of one-term presidencies, except maybe for Republicans?

22 There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time — THIS is something I have been thinking about lately.

23 Bingo.   I've been telling people I know on the Left for years that they better be damn careful about the living, breathing shit.   Once it's apparent that one side has decided to abandon the rule book?   Game on, bitches. 

The thing that separates the United States from tyranny is supposed to be the Constitution.   If that is to be ignored, then we are under tyranny with all the implications that flow from that.

24 16 ¡Sí, Soros! ¡He dejado en libertad los prisioneros y ahora vengo por ti! Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv) Good grief. Enough already with the French.

25

If the poll numbers in Glenn R's piece are correct, that more than half of the country sees the govt as a threat to their personal freedom, how did we get stuck with him for another term?

 

---

 

As  Drew  says,  the  only  poll  that  matters  is  on  election  day.   People  say  the  government  should  stop  spending  money  too,  yet  nothing  ever  gets  cut.

 

Its  time  for a  few  states  to  start  calling  for a  convention.  You  don't  have  to  actually   get  one  called,  you  just   need to   make  it  look  possible.   I  really   liked  Randy  Barnett's  proposal  for  a  covention.

26 ...how did we get stuck with him for another term? Posted by: L, elle

I so wish someone could answer this to my satisfaction.  I keep coming back to the sad position that most really prefer social slavery.

27 "17 He's correct... The Constitution is a contract between the Feds, the States, and WE the People.... it puts Limitations on the Federal Government, while giving it Powers and Responsibilities. "IF" one side ignores the plainly stated terms of a contract, is that contract any longer binding? It plainly States CONGRESS shall declare War... It clearly States that all Bills having to do with Revenue shall start in the House... it clearly states that the Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed... it clearly states we have a Freedom of Association (yet we MUST do business with everyone, no matter what, or be sued).... it clearly states 'equal application' of the law, yet the Feds decide which laws they will, or will not, enforce, and on whom.... I can go on and on.... Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (lZBBB) " Contracts are a Capitalist invention. Capitalism is evil. Don't you know anything?

28 "...how did we get stuck with him for another term?"

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (0PiQ4)

Because we allowed the media to detach Obama from the workings of the government, and our candidate was unable, or unwilling to force the issue.

29 "Good grief. Enough already with the French."
===============

Exactly!

30 Reynolds: If you believe SeidmanÂ’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if thatÂ’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesnÂ’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.

And the only thing that puts that "almost" in there (Reynolds doesn't add) is that the question then becomes, is what do we have to replace this system with?

Obama is a classical tyrant, but he is not the worst tyrant imaginable. I expect that I would be worse, for instance.

31 This leaves you hoping that when you awaken in the morning, you will hear that al Qaeda (or some other group of impotent idiots) have managed to "nuke" DC sometime overnight, so we can begin anew in the morning.

32 "18 We have the guns, we make the rules. You follow the rules. Posted by: The New Social Contract at February 25, 2013 06:11 PM (WI2es) " Pretty much. Marxism. Kinder and gentler than Capitalism.

33 I so wish someone could answer this to my satisfaction. I keep coming back to the sad position that most really prefer social slavery.

I think this is  true, and given the way they've voted, they're probably right to defer to others.  They're to stupid to vote for themselves.

34 Enough already with the French.

sic semper . . .

35 (Does deadly ritual flamenco dance to confuse enemies.) Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv)


You know the rules.   *taps foot*   C'mon, up goes the webcam. 

36

13 However Reynolds reached the conclusion I'm ok with. Welcome to the party Reynolds.

 

Yup.

The more the merrier.

 

The Left has used the Constitution to gain power, and aplaud it when it suits them.

And now they want to discard it?

Well we know they aren't very good at 'results oriented thinking'...and this is a prime example of not carrying out a thought to it's logical conclusion.

 

 

 

37

And the only thing that puts that "almost" in there (Reynolds doesn't add) is that the question then becomes, is what do we have to replace this system with

 

----

 

We  don't  have  to  replace  the  system,  we  first  have  to  make  sure  that  there is a  system,  and  then  we  modify  the system.  

38 How can I be a tyrant and look this good?

*does that annoying little brush-off-the-shoulders gesture*

39 "20 The Constitution is a living, breathing document, and I don't think that Obama was elected by a fair election when a city less then 50 miles from me has areas that voted 100% for one party. So I don't have to be bound by that document. Is that how it works? Posted by: illegally posting anonymously on the internet at February 25, 2013 06:11 PM (feFL6) " The Constitution has been aborted. You're welcome.

40 To  be  fair,  I  think   Insty  has  been  at  the  party  for a  while.

41 >>> Enough already with the French. On ne peut avoir jamais trop francais.

42 In order to fix this government over-expansion we should probably elect a guy who has experience busting up big organizations and selling off the pieces at a profit.

43 35 (Does deadly ritual flamenco dance to confuse enemies.) Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv) --------------------------- You know the rules. *taps foot* C'mon, up goes the webcam. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Take us away. at February 25, 2013 06:15 PM (Gk3SS) No. No no no no no NO NO.

44 The problem is the group that has abandoned the restrictions of the Constitution control the police and military. The time is coming but it's not here yet. May God have mercy on us when it comes because it will be worse than we can imagine. Make no mistake it's coming, probably when the inevitable financial collapse comes, so keep your powder dry.

45

Obama is a classical tyrant, but he is not the worst tyrant imaginable. I expect that I would be worse, for instance.

 

 

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 25, 2013 06:14 PM (QTHTd)

 

 

Which is exactly why, at THIS point in history, they are pushing to take any Militarily Viable Weapons away from the Citizenry.

 

ONLY an Armed Populace has any say in what comes after a failure of Government.

 

Jefferson and such KNEW this to be true.... some of us remember... and those of the Left FEAR it.

46 "25 16 ¡Sí, Soros! ¡He dejado en libertad los prisioneros y ahora vengo por ti! Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (bxiXv) Good grief. Enough already with the French. Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:12 PM (GEICT) " :-)

47 That's an excellent column nailing the point I had made in my head on this hike I'm on wrt a post I'd told Mero last night I was shining my dancing shoes for this evening. In the end my fears and rage at the Ohio poll workers antics are predicated on the idea that the United States of Chicago will not stop and is too pervaisve and invasive. The GOP's failure to sound the alarm for reform is just as onerousn. I'll elaborate in a bit.

48

In order to fix this government over-expansion we should probably elect a guy who has experience busting up big organizations and selling off the pieces at a profit.

 

---

 

You  rang.

49 Every once once in  while I read something that gives me the willies. This excerpt from GR is one of them.

50

Time for a Conservative Spring!

 

(It's working so well for the folks in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. - and best of all, Liberals LOVE all of these Peoples' Revolutions.....)

 

51 "YouÂ’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you donÂ’t possess."


My favorite part.

52 41 >>> Enough already with the French. ---------- On ne peut avoir jamais trop francais. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (LCRYB) Hey he responded to something I wrote! Shit. It's in French.

53 Obama made people feel secure as wards of the state. Autonomy is overrated. His new slogan was chosen carefully. FORWARD. For Wards.

54 Glenn. R is suggesting a Constitutional Convention, is that even a possibility really? We've got all the hard red Southern states that could lead, but so many of the swing states seem more blue or purple at best. So what else then?

55 4 Mero, Pretty much I have at least an initial position anyway tonight bud....

56 @47
Hey sven I am looking forward to reading it. Are you going to post it in the ONT or on a blog? ( like the one AllenG  should probably look into)

57 "41 >>> Enough already with the French. On ne peut avoir jamais trop francais. Posted by: ace at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (LCRYB) " Oui. :-P

58 Reynolds used to play the I'm a Libertarian pox on both their houses card a lot. It may have been gradual, but I remember one day seeing something that would have garnered a heh an he wrote something like (paraphrasing) and this why Democrats are evil and shot on sight. And I was like, dude.

59 There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. amen long time forgotten

60 Somehow I thought everyone here thought Glenn Reynolds is exactly the same as Luap Nor.


You mean libertarians can come in more than one flavor?  Who knew?

61 Shorter version:we're  boned.

62 7 wheatie, Yup...but said well by him is good the idea gans steam

63 On ne peut avoir jamais trop francais. I will not put your jimmy cream in my throat?

64 "YouÂ’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be
tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to
exercise power you donÂ’t possess."

You won't enjoy the experience.

65 Oh good! Multicultural comment thread. Got Spanish and French here. Yay! We're cool now!

66

Glenn. R is suggesting a Constitutional Convention, is that even a possibility really? We've got all the hard red Southern states that could lead, but so many of the swing states seem more blue or purple at best. So what else then?

 

----

 

Its  only   possible  if  we  try.   If  you  wait  until  you  have  2/3  (or is  3/4)  of the states  in  line,  no.   But  if you get  5  to  propose a  convention  using  the framework  Burnett  laid  out,  then you  start  the  groundswell.  Maybe  it  never  works  out,  maybe  it  starts  rolling and enough  Senators  see  the  way  the  wind  is  blowing.   Maybe  it  is something  a  true  leader  can  campaign  on.   But  start the  process.   Let's  roll.   This   country  is  worth  saving.

67 Nobody in here ever lumped all libertarians in with Ronnie nut job,many in here are professed libertarian or libertarian leaning.

68 The power of govt could be trimmed a bit.  I'm thinking a Scottish Claymore is the right tool for such "adjustments"

69 La gauche riche nuveax est devenu le nuveax marxistes.

70 If libtards will roll over for criminals,  Islamo-Nazis,  Marxist professors,  OWS dorks,  social deviants etc.  they will roll over for the anyone who is acting in a threatening manner.

Conservatives haven't done this.

Yet.

71 Ixnay with the Enchfray.

72 "65 Oh good! Multicultural comment thread. Got Spanish and French here. Yay! We're cool now! Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:21 PM (0PiQ4) " Nous sommes chaud. :-P

73 SH maybe you're right. Glenn said that his leftist Occupy students were just as interested in the idea as the tea party types. With our luck, we get it happen, and we'd wind up with Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing up the new draft.

74

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!!!

 

Because it worked out so well for the French!

75

Translaçion:

 

The nuveax rich Left have become nuveax Marxists.

76 74 To be fair,the guillotine might come in handy.

77 Let's start wth the First and silence the Press and the Left. Since they support the idea.

78 A new speech by former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has emerged--a 2011 address at Cameron University in which the Secretary of Defense nominee accused India of using Afghanistan to fight a proxy war against Pakistan by sponsoring terror attacks against it. Video of the speech was obtained by Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon by using the state's Open Records Act. Hagel had refused to grant authorization to release the video. There is no apparent basis for Hagel's charge. India has been the repeated victim of terror attacks emanating from Pakistan, including the notorious attacks in November 2008 against an international hotel and a Jewish center in Mumbai. The Free Beacon quotes Sadanand Dhume, former India bureau chief at the Far Eastern Economic Review, concluding that Hagel's remarks as "over-the-top and a sharp departure from a U.S. position that has seen democratic India as a stabilizing influence in Afghanistan and Asia more broadly." Dhume added that Hagel's position is "exactly the sort of statement that would have frayed ties with New Delhi." At the Nation of Islam Annual Saviours' Day Convention, keynote speaker Louis Farrakhan took his usual Anti-Semitic tone with a current affairs twist. Farrakhan endorsed Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense saying Hagel's controversial "Jewish lobby" comments were a good thing that will save America from war for Israel. Iran, Hamas, Farrakhan and cock sucking Jewish Senators in name only support hagel. I hope they all drop dead

79

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:21 PM (0PiQ4) "

 

dhurka, dhurka.... Islamic Jihad....

80

Reynolds used to play the I'm a Libertarian pox on both their houses card a lot. It may have been gradual, but I remember one day seeing something that would have garnered a heh an he wrote something like (paraphrasing) and this why Democrats are evil and shot on sight. And I was like, dude

 

----

 

He  was  pretty  clearly  a  full  blown  Mitt  supporter.  I  think  Obama  convinced him  that Obama  was  much   much  worse. 

 

What  upsets  me  about  the  libertarian  movement  is  its  lack  of  focus  on the big  picture.   And  it  seems  to get a  bum  rap  around  here.   I  consider  myself  a  libertarian, but  primarily  on  economic  issues  and  with  respect  to the  federal  government.   Must  less so at  the social  level.

 

But  the  libertarians  today,  like  the youth  who  are  so  infatuated  with  it,  only  care  about  pot,  gay  marriage  and  abortion.   I  doubt  that  they  are  all  potheads.  So  while  they  are  focusing  on things  that  really  only  affect  5%  of  the  population (gay  marriage)  or  50%  of the population  (abortion),  they  don't  care  about  the  things  that  affect  100%  of  the population  --  the  threat  to our  economic  liberties.  

 

 

81 And the only thing that puts that "almost" in there (Reynolds doesn't add) is that the question then becomes, is what do we have to replace this system with?


The Constitution. As it was written. With life altering penalties for violating it.

82

Si nous sommes désossées... puis ils sont désossées trop.

 

[If we are boned...then they are boned too.]

83 Reynolds is no dummy and he's putting it into language that almost any dummy can understand if only they'll take the time and effort to think it through.

84 All good stuff until he says that people care. They don't. They like cutting spending in the abstract I suppose but not in the details. They just kept a guy with 8% unemployment that ran on cancer states and binders full of women.

85 Hey he responded to something I wrote! Shit. It's in French. Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:19 PM (GEICT) All latin-based languages are understandable with the universal medicine.

86 Unfortunately, neither the States nor the Individual can employ nullification like that. The Constitution is what the federal SCOTUS says it is. We do not get to interpret it and even the governors don't get to interpret it in a way inconsistent with the findings of SCOTUS. It may be true the feds are ignoring the real Constitution, but so long as the SCOTUS goes along with redefining the Constitution as a living breathing document, we are out of luck

87 The power of govt could be trimmed a bit. I'm thinking a Scottish Claymore is the right tool for such "adjustments"


I'm thinking a Vietnam Era claymore would be better.

88 The problem is that half the population is afraid of government for different reasons. Some are afraid of losing freedom; some are afraid of corporate interests amassing power through cronyism; and the cult of the vajayjay is afraid of their wombs being invaded (or something). So now I not only fear the government, I resent my neighbor who calls on the government to exert its authority against me. Oddly enough, last night's Oscars ceremony pretty much cemented my fear and loathing of the government. They are everwhere and we cannot get away from them. And their enablers cannot in Hollywood, the press, and other cultural institutions are just fine and dandy with it. So between ubiquitous government and the culture that feeds it, just where the hell are we supposed to turn? Where will battle lines be drawn?

89 The Constitution is what the federal SCOTUS says it is.


How many divisions does scotus have?

90 85 All latin-based languages are understandable with the universal medicine. Posted by: CAC at February 25, 2013 06:28 PM (6v/2T) Hey braggy mcbraggerson, either share or (as I was recently told) stfu.

91 It may be true the feds are ignoring the real Constitution, but so long as the SCOTUS goes along with redefining the Constitution as a living breathing document, we are out of luck

How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?

92 Je pas orgasme dans votre bouche.

93 Bleagh. Just posted bunch of rambling horse shit. Just scrape it off before you enter the next post. Sorry.

94

"If you believe SeidmanÂ’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if thatÂ’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesnÂ’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory."

 

I've been thinking along those lines for a few years now. I felt paranoid and foolish at first for thinking this way, but now? Now, not so much.

 

But here's the big question: does anyone in their heart of hearts believe the hardcore true believers of the professional Left (for lack of a better term), having spent literally decades scheming, plotting, maneuvering, and making their long march through the institutions in order to attain power, are going to give up that power as the result of free and fair elections? I don't, not for a moment. We can argue among ourselves all day long, do all the navel-gazing and soul-searching we like, attempt to pinpoint What Is Wrong With The GOP (a great deal, as it turns out), but none of that matters. The fix is in. 

95

Posted by: tommylotto at February 25, 2013 06:29 PM (LBxr1)

 

 

And that is exactly what the Feds want you to believe.

 

 

If they can convince us we are powerless, then indeed, we are....

 

The Founders however, believed otherwise....

96 No. No no no no no NO NO. Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 25, 2013 06:16 PM (GEICT)


Geese, ganders, suck it. 

97 "86 Unfortunately, neither the States nor the Individual can employ nullification like that. The Constitution is what the federal SCOTUS says it is. We do not get to interpret it and even the governors don't get to interpret it in a way inconsistent with the findings of SCOTUS. It may be true the feds are ignoring the real Constitution, but so long as the SCOTUS goes along with redefining the Constitution as a living breathing document, we are out of luck Posted by: tommylotto at February 25, 2013 06:29 PM (LBxr1) " But the SCOTUS derives its autorite from the Constitution, n'est pas?

98 L, elle @ 54:

The Founding Fathers didn't add the "non-convention" option for amending the Constitution until the last few days of their meetings in Philadelphia; it was presumed to that point that conventions would be the norm rather than the exception.

You want a living document? That's how you get a living document. Problem is, it is always at the cost of the power of those in power.

99 they don't care about the things that affect 100% of the population -- the threat to our economic liberties. Posted by: SH those are the libertarians in your head. the libertarians I know care about economic freedom.

100 Un plume de me tante et rouge.

101 I think the Unemployed French to English translator is saying dirty stuff @92.

102

The Constitution was supposed  to contain lines that  would never be crossed.  Strangely, even those in  the SCOTUS failed  to recognize that principle  on more than one   occasion. And these  are the ones we're supposed to trust to make sure the rules are followed? Take a look at that ridiculous decision on the 14th Amendment that  created "anchor babies" from  the plain wording that prevents it.

 

Now we have an entire administration that thinks it can do whatever it  pleases, ignoring the basic Law of the Land  in the process. What's worse, when you point out the simple fact that   there is a line, you're called "EXTREMIST!!!!!!"  It's one of those things that  is almost too simple  for some to understand.

103 96 Geese, ganders, suck it. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Take us away. at February 25, 2013 06:32 PM (Gk3SS) Ladies first. Btw, you ever get that nobility out of your eye?

104 Damn it, CAC!

105 The Constitution is what the federal SCOTUS says it is. It's not supposed to be. That was a usurpation of power on the Court's part. If that were true, then we would be living under the rule of "nine lawyers in black robes" as Mark Levin says. I've heard of a proposed amendment that would allow Congress to overrule a SC decision by a 2/3 majority. That would restore a check on the Court's power.

106 28 "...how did we get stuck with him for another term?"

Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:10 PM (0PiQ4)

***

Because Romney's chief campaign strategist was so dense as to not know (or care) that the media was wholly in the tank for Obama; a fact he confirmed in an interview Ace linked to in the sidebar. 

If Rule 1 of winning a fight is to know when you're in one, Rule 1(a) has got to be to know who you're fighting.

107

The  federal  government  has  done a  great  job  through  the  20th  century  to  make itself  more  powerful.  It  wasn't  all through  the  progressive  amendments  and  supreme  court.  Here are  just  a  couple  of  examples:

 

1.  Federalizing   the National  Guard  -  this  removed  one  impediment

2.  Income  tax  witholding  -  in  the  old  days,  the  crown  had  to  come  get  you  for  taxes,  now  your  employer  does  it.

 

There  are  many  others.

108 "101 I think the Unemployed French to English translator is saying dirty stuff @92. Posted by: L, elle at February 25, 2013 06:35 PM (0PiQ4) " Yes, but it's in less-than-standard French. :-P

109

100 Un plume de me tante et rouge.

 

Désolé, mais qui n'a aucun sens.

 

[Sorry, but that makes no sense.]

110 Reynolds did a presentation back in 93 (I think) about the second amendment that pretty much reads exactly like Heller. Maybe he's cribbing Barrett but he has a good way of think about the Constitution.

111 Barnett I meant to type.

112

Reynolds did a presentation back in 93 (I think) about the second amendment that pretty much reads exactly like Heller. Maybe he's cribbing Barrett but he has a good way of think about the Constitution

 

---

 

I  think  any  3rd  grader  would  have a  good  way  of  thinking  about  the  Constitution.  If  you  just  read  what  it  says, you get about 95%  of  the  way  there.

113 Maybe he's cribbing Barrett but he has a good way of think about the Constitution. Posted by: blaster at February 25, 2013 06:38 PM (/1U3u) Maybe he was cribbing the founders.

114 Anyway, I'll be on strike until there's a new NonCAC thread. :-P Later.

115

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at February 25, 2013 06:35 PM (+z4pE)

 

 

IMO the Line that Killed our Rights... 'The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact'...

 

ie, in the name of public saftey, we can ignore the Constitution, instead of AMEND it (as I believe the Framers intended...).

116 Romeo  -  where is  that from?

117 I'll link once again to the comment by Subotai Bahadur at Belmont Club that I posted yesterday morning, for those who missed it. He has also been questioning the legitimacy of the government as currently constituted. http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=337805#c20243073

118 and the lefties call Bob Owens a nut. NOBODY* talked about stuff like this 20 years ago. Nobody. *except crazed radicals. Mr. Instapundit is sort of the opposite of a crazed radical.

119 > 15 If the poll numbers in Glenn R's piece are correct, that more than half of the country sees the govt as a threat to their personal freedom, how did we get stuck with him for another term? Posted by: L, elle Dude. Free cell phones!

120 I've heard of a proposed amendment that would allow Congress to overrule a SC decision by a 2/3 majority. That would restore a check on the Court's power. Why 2/3rds, with a simple majority they could fix the offending bill?

121 I talked about stuff like this 20 years ago.

122

ie, in the name of public saftey, we can ignore the Constitution, instead of AMEND it (as I believe the Framers intended...).

 

No, we cannot  ignore the Contitution. Our fight is against those   who are ignoring it today. Nothing needa amending except to curb  abuses, and only then to reinforce the   Founding   Principles of limited  governmental power.

 

What is most needed, IMO,  is folks to stand up and say, "No."

123 It's not revolution it's fundamental transformation. La révolution de respiration vivante dans votre bouche ne sera pas télévisée

124 > 15 If the poll numbers in Glenn R's piece are correct, that more than half of the country sees the govt as a threat to their personal freedom, how did we get stuck with him for another term? Posted by: L, elle Seriously, a significant number of Obama voters see him as the reformer. They think Repubs run both houses of Congress and the Supreme court. That Obama is the one standing between a scary govt. and themselves. Just look at the exit poll interview videos posted here (I guess).

125 Where  I  think  Glenn  is  right,  is  this  is  going  to come  to  a  head  sooner  rather  than  later.  I  don't  know what  form  it  will  take,  nor  what  the outcome  will be.   But  the  country  cannot  continue  in  this  fashion.  

126 anyone still here or do I wait until the ONT?

127 Just  me -  so  you  better wait.

128 Go read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason", and force everyone you know to read it too.

129 120 I've heard of a proposed amendment that would allow Congress to overrule a SC decision by a 2/3 majority. That would restore a check on the Court's power. Why 2/3rds, with a simple majority they could fix the offending bill? Posted by: Jean at February 25, 2013 06:44 PM (z6Elp) The way I understand it, if a large enough majority in Congress believes that their legislation is OK as is, they would be able to overturn the Supreme Court decision. Changing the legislation would be deferring to the Court.

130

I originally adopted my nic because this guy used to get his e-mails to Glenn posted on Instapundit like they were Gospel, and I thought that was total busllshit.

 

Glenn is having an epiphany here, which has been in the making for some years.  This is not totally unexpected, but he is picking sides now.  I think some of the minor league Leftist ankle-biters that attack  him are really forcing his train of thought and decision.

 

In this country, per the Constitution, only THE PEOPLE are sovereign.  Our representatives and the President  gain authority by electoral choice of THE PEOPLE.  And whenever a government becomes destructive of these rights, the people have a right to dissolve it. 

The Supreme Court exists only because of the structure of the Constitution and the advise and consent of the Senate to a President's choice.  Rightfully, THE PEOPLE can upend and change whatever they choose.

 

I do not want to say that power flows out of the barrel of a gun, because that is Maoist-Marxist think-speak.  We are a nation of laws, and cutting down those laws to get after this......person .....who is President and mocks the Law because he is special ,  is a dangerous path.

 

 

You best be really revolutionary RED and be willing to go to the barricades over this, because half - measures will only bring MORE repression, and half the country will be rooting it on - to maintain order.  Being just parlor pink and talking the talk of a revolution will just get a lot of other people hurt.

131 I prefer  giving 3/5  of  the  states  the   option  to  nullify  a  law  to  restore  some  federalism  back  into  the  structure. 

132 Its time for a few states to start calling for a convention.
--

Although our options are getting more and more limited by the day, a constitutional convention scares the crap out of me.  What makes anyone think that the marxists won't hijack the process or wiggle themselves into key positions? 

I also distrust the GOP.  The majority have not stood up for the Constitution or conservative principles the past 4 years so what makes us think they would do it then?  Even the people we put faith in from time to time have proven to be disappointments when the pedal is to the metal (Chris Christie, Bushes, Romney, even Marco Rubio, McCain, etc). 

Anyone with solid conservative principles would be demonized (or worse) beyond anything we've seen thus far if the stakes were as high as a constitutional convention.  I don't care how a convention is "supposed" to work.  There is too much at stake and I fear the process would be corrupted.

And even best case, how would the LIV not turn it into codifying gay marriage, poly-marriage, minimum wage of $50/hour with annual 10% increases, health care "rights" (and a zillion other new "rights" to be built into Constitution 2.0), all kinds of diversity carve-outs, open borders, gun control/registration, and a whole slew of other horrors added that are not in the current constitution?

I wish I was just being pessimistic, but I haven't seen anything the past few years to make me think differently.  Granted, we don't have many options left and a CC is one, but I'm not at all sure it would solve the problem. I don't see George Washington or Ronald Reagan caliber people being at the helm.

133

In this country, per the Constitution, only THE PEOPLE are sovereign

 

---

 

What  about  the  states?  They  are  just  as  sovereign.  The  true  genius  of the  founders  was  the concept  of  dual  sovereignty.   Seperation of  powers  was  nothing  new.  Dual  sovereignty,  now  that  was  genius.  

134

The Constitution does indeed address "the Sovereign States", but again, the legitimacy of any government in this country rests with the final sovereignty of the people.

 

The GOP is indeed a leaky and worthless vessel.  There are individuals withing the party that may be admirable.  But the party itself has become rotten, just not as vulgarly enamored of power as the Democrats, which are also truly rotten. The do indeed pay lip service to Federalism, and the separation of powers, but they all worship at the altar of the false idol of government power.    Few now speak openly of the fundemental rights, liberties, and priveledges of citizens.  And our government is intent on bringing in new people to supplant the citizens and dilute the value of being a citizen of this country.

 

The President of these United States and quite a number of the other people in the central government loathe and despise you, and would blindly walk over a field of dead bodies to get and keep their power. 

135 The President of these United States and quite a number of the other people in the central government loathe and despise you, and wouldblindly walk over a field of dead bodies to get and keep their power.
--

Agree.  They will not give up power voluntarily, or easily, and any attempt will leave a lot of damage in its wake.

They are half the problem.  "The people" are the other half.

136 You best be really revolutionary RED and be willing to go to the barricades over this, because half - measures will only bring MORE repression, and half the country will be rooting it on - to maintain order. Being just parlor pink and talking the talk of a revolution will just get a lot of other people hurt.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at February 25, 2013 06:55 PM (RFeQD)

 

You need to clarify what you mean here. When you write, '...willing to go to the barricades over this...', you don't say what 'this' is. So far, it's all been talk--and rightfully so. Using your red/pink analogy, we've all been the conservative equivalents of parlor pinks to this point. I think many of us have adopted a wait-and-see attitude largely because there is not yet a consensus on what the red lines are or should be. Whatever it is, it will have to be a triggering event big enough to galvanize an active resistance into being. To make that happen, the federal government would have to commit an act of unmistakable overreach, something no one can miss, something not even the MSM could bury or explain away. I have no idea what that might be. My Magic 8-ball says COME BACK LATER.

137 The Constitution is in fact ignored. The massive size and scope of the "federal" government is a daily reminder of the end of the Constitutional order. And, no Constitution, no union. Simple as that.

138 137 Dr Foistus,

correct the Constitution is not a love letter to unlimited government and i did not sign on to that 'social contract."

I am not going to blindly trust a government that refuses to enforce the border or thwart gangs.

139 Whatever it is, it will have to be a triggering event big enough to galvanize an activeresistance into being. To make that happen, the federal government would have to commit an act of unmistakable overreach, something no one can miss, something not even the MSM could bury or explain away.

--

Assassinating American citizens without due process?  Check. 

Covering up the murder of an Ambassador and two SEALS?  Check.  Starting wars without Congressional approval?  Check. 

Forcing every citizen to purchase a product solely because they breathe?  Check.

Cult of personality, pervasive propaganda, media collusion with government, relentless demonization of political opponents?  Check. 

Government enforced physical/sexual harassment of travelers including children, handicapped, elderly?  Check.

Spending trillions while not submitting a budget for 4 years?  Check.

I'm not sure what has to happen next.  People disappearing in the night? 

140 But here's the big question: does anyone in their heart of hearts believe the hardcore true believers of the professional Left (for lack of a better term), having spent literally decades scheming, plotting, maneuvering, and making their long march through the institutions in order to attain power, are going to give up that power as the result of free and fair elections? I don't, not for a moment. We can argue among ourselves all day long, do all the navel-gazing and soul-searching we like, attempt to pinpoint What Is Wrong With The GOP (a great deal, as it turns out), but none of that matters. The fix is in.

Posted by: troyriser at February 25, 2013 06:32 PM (vtiE6)

 

I agree that the fix is in. I became convinced of that during the election in 2010 and the results in California, which were diametrically opposed to the rest of the country. I think California  is/was the laboratory for stealing elections. The Left used to just shop judges to stop referenda they didn't like. Then they figured out that elections could be messy...and unpredictable...and occasionally  the rubes on the right would win some. So why not just fix the whole thing.

 

Kind of like Stalin said, "it's who counts the votes that matters".

 

 

141 Finally, the truth! Only point missed is when people foresake their oath, they have technically resigned from their jobs, and no longer carry the authority of their previous office. In any event no one has the authority to carry out an illegal order, and since our justice system is based on the constitution, any orders contrary to the constitution can not legally even be issued. Further, since obama, under the constitution can not legally be president, any orders or directives he gives are illegal and can not be carried out. Anyone who carries out any law derived from obama is the fruit of the poison tree, and if carried forward is evidence that the person has foresaken his oath of office, has quit his job, and no longer carries the responsibility or authority of the office. Further, since our representative republic is owned, operated, and staffed by we the people as the government, under constitutional directive, anyone who has foresaken their oath, is no longer part of the government, and while operating in support of, or under guidance of anyone in the obama insurrection, is technically an insurrectionist! Only we the people are the government and only we the people have the authority to be the government, operate the government, and run this country.

142 In the fighter pilot world translation: "Green 'em up. Fight's on."

143 The other option is to place less power within the political sphere.

Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense, which existed before law was formalized.  Law is justice.

I defy anyone to say how even the thought of a revolution, of an insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice.

As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob against a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs?

Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

-- Frederic Bastiat (French guy from, like, 150 years ago)

144 87 I'm thinking a Vietnam Era claymore would be better Front Toward Enemy

145 "The other option is to place less power within the political sphere."

I tell friends who bemoan the lack of centrism today that it's because the government controls too much: it's too important and interferes in some many areas that used to be private that warfare is the inevitable result, as we are all supplicants at the king's table now, neighbors no longer.

A mortgage used to be between a person and a bank, a company used to make a washing machine and then try to sell it. There's a third party in every relationship now, one with unlimited power to dole out the dollars or the punishments.

146 You can't have a revolution without a recognized government. The illegal muts in power who have foresaken the constitution have also foresaken their authority and liability umbrellas of a given by constitutional law. So since we the people are the gov't and the insurrectionsts in power are not the government because legally they can't be, then it is the duty of the government, we the people, to expell the insurrectionists. If you have an illegal order generator, then he and anyone who follows any part of his illegal orders is also operating outside the constitutional law and has no legal jurisdiction, authority, or standing. Same as if heriberto lazcano-lazcano came in and declared himself president. But he would have probably done a better job!