Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have yet to prove the photos have a thing to do with Waco.  I seriously doubt you ever will be able to.  Several of them I strongly suspect are Iraq or the previously mentioned dump shooters. Especially the guy with the unscoped M-14. As I stated before.  Waco photos on the net are about as documentable as UFO photos.  That never stopped the conspiracy guys though. Bottom line.  Waco is a perfect example of when nutcases meet dumbasses. Nothing more.   I have met guys like you before. Why don't you tell me about prussian blue? ETA: If they are "dump shooters" why not explain the scorched go karts? You know...the go karts at the back of the Compound? Why was so much critical evidence lost, or destroyed? Was it ever proven that the B-D was involved in child abuse (something the ATF has no jurisdiction in) or the mfging of illegal weapons? Info for those who are interested I have no idea what "Prussian Blue" is.  I also don't see anything that looks like a go cart, and you STILL have not answered my very reasonable questions. Typical conspiracy BS. Instead of answering cogent questions concerning the authenticity of your photos you just throw more crap out. I was a student at Baylor during Waco.  I watched the whole deal on a live feed in my dorm commons area with a great many others. (Mt Carmel, not Caramel BTW)  I know more of what really happened that day than you ever will, and 99% of the stuff thrown around about the event today is made up bull.

I was a kid when Waco happened.  I remember it very well.  I'm still unsure what to make of the whole thing.  Prussian Blue is the informal name of a chemical associated with Zyklon-B, which is what the Nazis used in their gas chambers to kill Jews and other "undesirables".  It also happens to be the name of a music group made up of two 14-year old girls with blonde hair and blue eyes who have extreme Nazi/Aryan leanings.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have yet to prove the photos have a thing to do with Waco.  I seriously doubt you ever will be able to.  Several of them I strongly suspect are Iraq or the previously mentioned dump shooters. Especially the guy with the unscoped M-14. As I stated before.  Waco photos on the net are about as documentable as UFO photos.  That never stopped the conspiracy guys though. Bottom line.  Waco is a perfect example of when nutcases meet dumbasses. Nothing more.   I have met guys like you before. Why don't you tell me about prussian blue? ETA: If they are "dump shooters" why not explain the scorched go karts? You know...the go karts at the back of the Compound? Why was so much critical evidence lost, or destroyed? Was it ever proven that the B-D was involved in child abuse (something the ATF has no jurisdiction in) or the mfging of illegal weapons? Info for those who are interested I have no idea what "Prussian Blue" is.   I also don't see anything that looks like a go cart, and you STILL have not answered my very reasonable questions. Typical conspiracy BS. Instead of answering cogent questions concerning the authenticity of your photos you just throw more crap out. I was a student at Baylor during Waco.  I watched the whole deal on a live feed in my dorm commons area with a great many others. (Mt Carmel, not Caramel BTW)  I know more of what really happened that day than you ever will, and 99% of the stuff thrown around about the event today is made up bull.

Something holocaust deniers talk about.
They claim there should be more than trace amounts of a certain chemical in the gas chambers used in the death camps.
Front right foreground of the first pic I posted.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have yet to prove the photos have a thing to do with Waco.  I seriously doubt you ever will be able to.  Several of them I strongly suspect are Iraq or the previously mentioned dump shooters. Especially the guy with the unscoped M-14. As I stated before.  Waco photos on the net are about as documentable as UFO photos.  That never stopped the conspiracy guys though. Bottom line.  Waco is a perfect example of when nutcases meet dumbasses. Nothing more.   I have met guys like you before. Why don't you tell me about prussian blue? ETA: If they are "dump shooters" why not explain the scorched go karts? You know...the go karts at the back of the Compound? Why was so much critical evidence lost, or destroyed? Was it ever proven that the B-D was involved in child abuse (something the ATF has no jurisdiction in) or the mfging of illegal weapons? Info for those who are interested I have no idea what "Prussian Blue" is.  I also don't see anything that looks like a go cart, and you STILL have not answered my very reasonable questions. Typical conspiracy BS. Instead of answering cogent questions concerning the authenticity of your photos you just throw more crap out. I was a student at Baylor during Waco.  I watched the whole deal on a live feed in my dorm commons area with a great many others. (Mt Carmel, not Caramel BTW)  I know more of what really happened that day than you ever will, and 99% of the stuff thrown around about the event today is made up bull.     I was a kid when Waco happened.  I remember it very well.  I'm still unsure what to make of the whole thing.  Prussian Blue is the informal name of a chemical associated with Zyklon-B, which is what the Nazis used in their gas chambers to kill Jews and other "undesirables".  It also happens to be the name of a music group made up of two 14-year old girls with blonde hair and blue eyes who have extreme Nazi/Aryan leanings.

The only "Prussian Blue" I can think of is a Testor's paint color I used to use on model Airplanes.

My take on the whole thing is, Waco COULD have been a powerful force for proper change in government.  It SHOULD have led to the removal of Clinton from office, jail time for Reno, and a host of other positive things.

What actually happened is a bunch of howling  nutcases such as Alex Jones took over and completely destroyed any chance of that with "documentaries" and pics such as these.

Oh dangitall, here we go, try to have some rational talk about the 2nd amendment and "The Militia", and it turns into a Tin Hatter Type vs. Everyone Else mass masturbation.  Who to trust or believe?  Well, I can write the .gov off my trust list, but after that then exactly who is telling the truth?  And then we get shown photographs?  I can't even make a stickman picture with The GIMP, but I know that talented folks can make a picture of anything from anything that looks like anything, and then my mind gets to take it from there.

Who to trust?  Who, exactly?  Maybe no one?  Extremely tough thing to hash out, a lot of emotion and pot stirring, very hard to make and keep things on a friendly level with this kind of thing, potentially very destructive.

Back on topic, well, just see my sig line.  It is all there in clean, clear language.  I'll even provide the links:
Powers of congress (Go down to the line concerning the calling up of the Militia)
Executive Branch Powers (Read the first line)

As the USCon is written, the .gov calls up the Militia, has command of it, provides for it, uses it to suppress insurrection and enforce the laws of the nation, etc.  I see this clearly, in black and white letters, and understand it.  In my mind, all the quotes, studies, intent, and particularly any type of political agenda that wants you to believe that the Militia is a force for preventing tyranny is wrong, because it is not spelled out that way in the supreme law of the land, the USCon.  I have no problem with the idea of citizens having to use force or arms to eliminate tyranny, but you should just stick with that, a citizen, or group of citizens.  According to the USCon, you can't be "The Militia", and start an insurrection.  You have to be, or be a part of, something else at that point.

I mean, you do believe the USCon is the Supreme Law of The Land, right?  Well then, there it is.

Quoted: Oh dangitall, here we go, try to have some rational talk about the 2nd amendment and "The Militia", and it turns into a Tin Hatter Type vs. Everyone Else mass masturbation.  Who to trust or believe?  Well, I can write the .gov off my trust list, but after that then exactly who is telling the truth?  And then we get shown photographs?  I can't even make a stickman picture with The GIMP, but I know that talented folks can make a picture of anything from anything that looks like anything, and then my mind gets to take it from there. Who to trust?  Who, exactly?  Maybe no one?  Extremely tough thing to hash out, a lot of emotion and pot stirring, very hard to make and keep things on a friendly level with this kind of thing, potentially very destructive. Back on topic, well, just see my sig line.  It is all there in clean, clear language.  I'll even provide the links: Powers of congress (Go down to the line concerning the calling up of the Militia) Executive Branch Powers (Read the first line) As the USCon is written, the .gov calls up the Militia, has command of it, provides for it, uses it to suppress insurrection and enforce the laws of the nation, etc.  I see this clearly, in black and white letters, and understand it.  In my mind, all the quotes, studies, intent, and particularly any type of political agenda that wants you to believe that the Militia is a force for preventing tyranny is wrong, because it is not spelled out that way in the supreme law of the land, the USCon.  I have no problem with the idea of citizens having to use force or arms to eliminate tyranny, but you should just stick with that, a citizen, or group of citizens.  According to the USCon, you can't be "The Militia", and start an insurrection.  You have to be, or be a part of, something else at that point. I mean, you do believe the USCon is the Supreme Law of The Land, right?  Well then, there it is.

United States Code, Title 10, section 311, paragraph A states that we are all in the 'unorganized' militia.

Quoted: Quoted: As the USCon is written, the .gov calls up the Militia, has command of it, provides for it, uses it to suppress insurrection and enforce the laws of the nation, etc.  I see this clearly, in black and white letters, and understand it.  In my mind, all the quotes, studies, intent, and particularly any type of political agenda that wants you to believe that the Militia is a force for preventing tyranny is wrong, because it is not spelled out that way in the supreme law of the land, the USCon.  I have no problem with the idea of citizens having to use force or arms to eliminate tyranny, but you should just stick with that, a citizen, or group of citizens.  According to the USCon, you can't be "The Militia", and start an insurrection.  You have to be, or be a part of, something else at that point. United States Code, Title 10, section 311, paragraph A states that we are all in the 'unorganized' militia.

Reading comprehension is important for these types of discussions.  I never said we are not all part of any kind of Militia.  Please show me in the above paragraph anywhere were I said otherwise, except for where I mentioned a person involved in an act of insurrection.

Quoted: Reading comprehension is important for these types of discussions.  I never said we are not all part of any kind of Militia.  Please show me in the above paragraph anywhere were I said otherwise, except for where I mentioned a person involved in an act of insurrection.

Except for? Drop the silly exclusions. All able-bodied adult males are in 'the militia', like it or not, be they insurrecting or not. Unless you have a cite ready to show that insurrecting militiamen are legally expelled from the militia, you may want to supersize your own order of reading comprehension.

Quoted: I mean, you do believe the USCon is the Supreme Law of The Land, right?  Well then, there it is.

The militia created the governent, it can destroy it if it pleases.

Quoted: Quoted: I mean, you do believe the USCon is the Supreme Law of The Land, right?  Well then, there it is. The militia created the governent, it can destroy it if it pleases.

Watch out Strat, some people will get all caught up on that silly "M" word...

The People created the goverment, and they can destroy it if they please.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean, you do believe the USCon is the Supreme Law of The Land, right?  Well then, there it is. The militia created the governent, it can destroy it if it pleases. Watch out Strat, some people will get all caught up on that silly "M" word... The People created the goverment, and they can destroy it if they please.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean, you do believe the USCon is the Supreme Law of The Land, right?  Well then, there it is. The militia created the governent, it can destroy it if it pleases. Watch out Strat, some people will get all caught up on that silly "M" word... The People created the goverment, and they can destroy it if they please. I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

+1 but it'd have to be We The People as in a majority of US Citizens.  Unfortunately, we're not likely to ever have that kind of majority unless the government was to be taken over by a dictator who abolished Congress or something extreme along those lines and by then, it might be too late.  

Quoted: +1 but it'd have to be We The People as in a majority of US Citizens.  Unfortunately, we're not likely to ever have that kind of majority unless the government was to be taken over by a dictator who abolished Congress or something extreme along those lines and by then, it might be too late.

Bush himself said

quit throwing the consitution in my face it is just a god damned piece of paper

The constitution as law was never meant to be a ruler of the people, it was only meant to hold the government accountable to the people.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,........Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The purpose of law is to protect the minority/individual from the majority mob intent on violence.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. Frederic Bastiat

Quoted: Quoted: +1 but it'd have to be We The People as in a majority of US Citizens.  Unfortunately, we're not likely to ever have that kind of majority unless the government was to be taken over by a dictator who abolished Congress or something extreme along those lines and by then, it might be too late.   Bush himself said quit throwing the consitution in my face it is just a god damned piece of paper The constitution as law was never meant to be a ruler of the people, it was only meant to hold the government accountable to the people. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,........Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. The purpose of law is to protect the minority/individual from the majority mob intent on violence. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. Frederic Bastiat

That's exactly right.  What I'm saying is that it would take a critical mass of people, most likely a majority, to stop a tyrannical government.  The Constitution does exist as a written recognition of pre-existing basic human rights.  A minority of people would lack the power to hold the government accountable.  That's all I meant by the need for majority support.  As for the quote of GWB, I've heard the quote before, I'm offended by it and I haven't seen much reference to it in the media.  I don't know what the context was, but I'm not sure if that matters with such a quote. Didn't he say that after hurricane katrina ?

Quoted: Bush himself said quit throwing the consitution in my face it is just a god damned piece of paper

Have any of those who were supposedly there when this was said actually been named?  Articles I've read only state that it was some 'congressional leaders'.  Sounds like this belongs on snopes to me unless somebody...anybody can name some names so those people can confirm or deny it.

Quoted: It's community based as in American common law, ten neighbors that agree make the township, ten townships make the precinct, ten precincts make the county, counties = state. Each ten households elect/appoint the peace officer, that means you have ten officers per 100 people that is a sizable force backed up with each head of house-hold available to be deputized and under the super-vision of the Peace Officer, the militia is in the same way grown from the bottom up, entire families even with disabilities contribute to the support of their own defense and security & justice system. From Precinct level all the way up through county level provide part time compensated officers for advanced training and management of the armories. AirForce and Navy is funded through excise tax & import export for international commerce protection. The founders/ anti-federalists already laid the foundation in law from the history of the world, there is a natural balance to nature and to governments as well, if the tree out-grows it roots system it will fall over dead, if government is too large it will also topple civilization. ]

And while your plan might have worked 300 years ago, we are a LITTLE too BIG for that to work NOW, in case you didn't notice.

As I have often noted here and elsewhere, your posts are not rational. I honestly don't know what meds you are on, but you need to have your dosages checked. You live in a world of hundresd of years ago, you rail against the current world; you are essentially born 300 years too late. Sorry to tell you that.

So who here agrees that the Individual has the right to bear arms?

Does someone not in the MILITIA get to keep their weapons?

All the right to bear arms gets us is a fair chance to fight.

Just because we can fight does not mean we will not get our ass kicked. It just means we get to put our fates in arms, against the tyrany of powers.

Our firearms guarantee the option to fight. If we fight neither side wins. America .... Our America will die.

The civil war forever changed the country.

The true test will be weather we come to the aid of each other when they try to fight our true believers. Will we come to their aid or shrink from the loss of our lives. Will you fight if you have not been backed into a corner? Will you fight or hide?

Quoted: So who here agrees that the Individual has the right to bear arms? Does someone not in the MILITIA get to keep their weapons?

The authors point was you as a private individual have a duty to be armed under all circumstances and no law can be made to the contrary.

Quoted: I honestly don't know what meds you are on, but you need to have your dosages checked. You live in a world of hundresd of years ago, you rail against the current world; you are essentially born 300 years too late. Sorry to tell you that.

Drugs are fine as long as you are the one pushing them ? have you no shame ?

Laws do not change with time, what was true 300 years ago is true today.

Quoted: Oh dangitall, here we go, try to have some rational talk about the 2nd amendment and "The Militia", and it turns into a Tin Hatter Type vs. Everyone Else mass masturbation.  Who to trust or believe?  Well, I can write the .gov off my trust list, but after that then exactly who is telling the truth?  And then we get shown photographs?  I can't even make a stickman picture with The GIMP, but I know that talented folks can make a picture of anything from anything that looks like anything, and then my mind gets to take it from there. Who to trust?  Who, exactly?  Maybe no one?  Extremely tough thing to hash out, a lot of emotion and pot stirring, very hard to make and keep things on a friendly level with this kind of thing, potentially very destructive. Back on topic, well, just see my sig line.  It is all there in clean, clear language.  I'll even provide the links: Powers of congress (Go down to the line concerning the calling up of the Militia) Executive Branch Powers (Read the first line) As the USCon is written, the .gov calls up the Militia, has command of it, provides for it, uses it to suppress insurrection and enforce the laws of the nation, etc.  I see this clearly, in black and white letters, and understand it.  In my mind, all the quotes, studies, intent, and particularly any type of political agenda that wants you to believe that the Militia is a force for preventing tyranny is wrong, because it is not spelled out that way in the supreme law of the land, the USCon.  I have no problem with the idea of citizens having to use force or arms to eliminate tyranny, but you should just stick with that, a citizen, or group of citizens.  According to the USCon, you can't be "The Militia", and start an insurrection.  You have to be, or be a part of, something else at that point. I mean, you do believe the USCon is the Supreme Law of The Land, right?  Well then, there it is.

That is correct. The militia is a state force. The militia has a chain of command back to the governor of a state. They are according to the constitution the home guard. They are to be used if the nation is being invaded, suppress insurrections, not to start a rebellion. Take for example New Orleans after Katrina with the widespread looting. The constitution allows the governor of the state to call up the state militia to respond. The regular Army is federal. The guard can be federalized. The militia cannot be federalized. The size of a population however I don't see have any bearing on whether the militia as called for in the constitution is still viable. The southern border defacto invasion by drug dealers and illegals could be shut down completely in less than two months by simply getting the militia involved. It would also be economical and constitutional.

Quoted: Quoted: Bush himself said quit throwing the consitution in my face it is just a god damned piece of paper Have any of those who were supposedly there when this was said actually been named?  Articles I've read only state that it was some 'congressional leaders'.  Sounds like this belongs on snopes to me unless somebody...anybody can name some names so those people can confirm or deny it.

Don't hold your breath.

Quoted: Drugs are fine as long as you are the one pushing them ? have you no shame ? Laws do not change with time, what was true 300 years ago is true today.

I don't push any drugs.

No, what worked 300 years ago in a society of a few thousand people will NOT work today. Thats why I think your grasp on reality is rather thin.

Quoted: The authors point was you as a private individual have a duty to be armed under all circumstances and no law can be made to the contrary.

ALL circumstances, eh? Be sure to tell the inmates that you think they should be armed. ALL circumstances. Really now.

Quoted: Quoted: The authors point was you as a private individual have a duty to be armed under all circumstances and no law can be made to the contrary. ALL circumstances, eh? Be sure to tell the inmates that you think they should be armed. ALL circumstances. Really now.

You know very well laws are useless as a means to keep arms out of the hands of criminals, thats why everyone should be armed at all times, the criminals would always be out numbered by an overwhelming majority.

The general populace being armed,  has lower crime than the unarmed areas, criminals fear arms in the hands of the people.

Still waiting on a cite for:

Quoted: Bush himself said quit throwing the consitution in my face it is just a god damned piece of paper

Man up,  STRATIOTES. You claimed GW said it, now back it up.

Quoted: You have yet to prove the photos have a thing to do with Waco.  I seriously doubt you ever will be able to.  Several of them I strongly suspect are Iraq or the previously mentioned dump shooters. Especially the guy with the unscoped M-14. As I stated before.  Waco photos on the net are about as documentable as UFO photos.  That never stopped the conspiracy guys though. Bottom line.  Waco is a perfect example of when nutcases meet dumbasses. Nothing more.

Have someone turn you frequently lest you get bedsores.

Quoted: Quoted: Members of a state-sanctioned group?? Sounds like you're talking about individuals with guns.  Believe me I know I was in the TXSG when Katrina hit and we took orders from Red Cross. Incidentally, were you guys armed?

Nope, we were not allowed to carry weapons even if we had a CHL.  There was a detachment in training that was supposed to start being able to carry but I don't know if that ever came to fruition.  In the end, they were the absolute last people the government would have called on to use weapons so I doubt it would matter.

IS THE CONSTITUTION DEAD?







Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
March 14, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

All too often when I propose returning America's monetary and banking systems to constitutional principles, or revitalizing "the Militia of the several States", I find myself assailed with the retort that "the Constitution is dead"; that attempts to apply its true principles--its "original intent"--as a means of limiting the powers of contemporary public officials are futile; and that my exhortations to the contrary are irrelevant, impotent, and even innately, if innocuously, screwball in character. Although no man is likely to be taken for a prophet in his own country, one's being spurned in that role does not, by itself, prove his pronouncements erroneous. Especially when the argument against his prophetic gift is as self-evidently nonsensical as that "the Constitution is dead".

Plainly, the Constitution is anything but "dead" with respect to certain individuals' access to and employment of political power that affects the lives of every American every day. To the contrary: It is very much alive and active in regard to elections to Congress and the Presidency, to the enactment of statutes, to decisions of the Supreme Court (and hundreds of other tribunals), to the President's command of the Armed Forces of the United States, and so on. Every transaction in these domains transpires under color of the Constitution, with at least tacit appeal to its authority, and at least in semblance according to its procedures.

True enough, many things done procedurally in the name of the Constitution are substantively unconstitutional. But no one in or seeking office in the General Government or the States dares to admit that he is acting outside, with disregard, or in contradiction of the Constitution, that he intends to violate it, or even that he may be justified in doing so in any particular future circumstances. Even those public officials who flout it in practice nonetheless acknowledge the Constitution to be just what it says it is: "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI, Clause 2), which everyone, themselves included, must follow. They invoke the Constitution as the source of their authority, and assert that their actions are fully consistent with it. That this may constitute self-deception, hypocrisy, deceit, or even perjury cannot falsify the Constitution's character as "the supreme Law", or deny the efficacy of the transmission and exercise of power pursuant to it.

That criminals violate a law does not negate it. So how is it that the powers the Constitution grants--and all too many that it does not grant--are fully alive; whereas the limitations on power that the Constitution also prescribes, in language no less intelligible and forceful, are supposedly "dead"? Simply because many individuals filling public offices under color of the Constitution choose to assert the powers but to forget the limitations? On what theory of constitutional government can such a pattern of misbehavior be legitimate? On what theory of law can officials enforce the parts of a law that grant them powers, while refusing to obey the parts of the very same law that impose disabilities on them?

Of most practical concern, if "the Constitution is dead" with respect to its limitations on governmental power, then how can anything that public officials do be legally wrong? If public officials refuse to obey the Constitution as to its limitations--and supposedly need not do so because it is to that extent "dead"--then how can Americans criticize, challenge, and condemn what they are doing? On what grounds can Americans chastise them for their misdeeds? If "the Constitution is dead" as to its limitations, then no public official violates his "Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (Article VI, Clause 3) when he disregards those supposedly ineffective restraints. Similarly, if "the Constitution is dead" as to its limitations, then it is "dead", too, as to the individual rights it guarantees, because these rights establish fundamental constraints on governmental power. Thus, no public official violates even Congressional statutes ostensibly protecting civil rights (e.g., Title 18, United States Code, sections 241 and 242) when he disregards those rights as nonexistent.

Moreover, if, on the basis of the excuse that "the Constitution is dead", Americans supinely obey public officials whenever the latter transgress the Constitution, then by their acquiescence they themselves admit that

   *
     any statute Congress enacts, any judicial decision, and any order of the President to the Armed Forces is "law"--and even "supreme law", because there is nothing superior by which to judge it; thus,
   *
     "law" is just another name for raw power; and, therefore,
   *
     those who succeed in seizing control of the machinery of government can do whatever they like.

If "the Constitution is dead" as to its limitations, then public officials in the exercise of unbridled power need consult only their own wills, appetites, and vices for direction. They are accountable to no one but themselves. In the truest sense of the term, they are utterly lawless. And common Americans are impotent, imbecile, and impertinent to say anything within the law against them.

It is useless to invoke the electorate as the ultimate--or even a potential--"check and balance" on rogue public officials. For who is to check the electorate, if not the Constitution? The Constitution imposes constraints on voters, as well as officials:

   [t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials * * * . One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

If "the Constitution is dead" as to its limitations, though, then the voters, too, may do whatever they choose, and thus become a source of the problem, not its solution. As recent experience has repetitively proven, they may elect the worst possible miscreants to the highest public offices. And that such corrupt characters have been chosen "by the people" will enable them to camouflage their crimes under the whitewash of "democracy". (Which, no doubt, is why this buzzword has suddenly become so popular in political discourse.) Thus, voters unrestrained by the Constitution will simply provide further evidence for History's teaching that unbridled democracy leads straight to tyranny. When has it not?

On the other side, if "the Constitution is dead", then to what authority can patriots appeal against the depredations of malign public officials and a corrupted electorate? Without the Constitution, patriots are mere dreamers or rebels whom the Establishment can condemn as crackpots or criminals.

In short, if common Americans concede that "the Constitution is dead", they will surrender the high ground, the initiative, and even their own best weapon, and put themselves at their enemies' mercy.

Moreover, if "the Constitution is dead", how and with what should or could patriots attempt to replace the present political apparatus that oppresses them? A viable strategy for reform outside of the Constitution must posit some alternative legal structure. Any reasonably intelligent individual can determine what the Constitution means (or ought to mean, perforce of its "original intent"), and how it has been misinterpreted and even perverted over the years. If improper interpretations and applications have stemmed from failures in the original draftsmanship, patriots can propose amendments with some confidence, on the basis of experience. Thus, any necessary reforms can be constructed upon a solid foundation of knowledge, continuity, and above all legitimacy. What, though, can anyone predict about some entirely novel arrangement that would replace the Constitution?

Here, the experience of the Founding Fathers is highly instructive. The so-called "American Revolution" was anything but a "revolution", in the truest sense of that term. It was a War of Independence--from England, but not from the basic precepts of English law. It was an attempt to perfect those precepts, by substituting as the controlling principles of government fixed constitutional powers and disabilities in place of fluid political precedents. For rule according to the English scheme of reliance on political precedents had proven deficient, because that system could so easily be bent to usurpation and tyranny.

Today, the overexpansion of supposed governmental powers is the result of political precedents: Americans acquiesce in it simply because it has happened, not because it can be proven to have a constitutional basis. Unlike the situation confronting the Founding Fathers, though, the present political Establishment cannot claim that its usurpations are sanctioned by traditional political norms: that political precedents contrary to the Constitution are justified because such precedents always have been. To the contrary: The Establishment's usurpations are precisely that: exercises of powers which We the People never delegated to their government, and therefore to which no public official acting under color of the Constitution may claim any right perforce of any precedent. Indeed, any precedent for a contemporary usurpation is itself nothing but an usurpation.

And an earlier crime cannot legitimize a later one. "[N]o one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it." Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970). Thus, the task facing contemporary Americans is actually less daunting in principle than the one that confronted the Founding Fathers: For they had to create a new Constitution from whole cloth, when the very principle of constitutionalism was novel and unproven. Whereas, now, We the People merely have to defend the Constitution, and rectify its imperfections.

This, however, raises the more profound question of whether, if one concedes that "the Constitution is dead"--such that it cannot be revived, improved, and preserved--one must also concede that constitutionalism is futile, too. Did the Constitution fail simply because it was fatally flawed, or because any attempt to limit political power by legal rules, no matter how carefully contrived, is inevitably doomed? Is "government" in the only worthwhile meaning of the term--that is, organized political power controlled by and answerable to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"--impossible?

Without the Constitution, Americans must fall back on the "self-evident" "truths" of the Declaration of Independence, that

   all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But the Constitution is the product of, embodies, and depends upon these truths. If "the Constitution is dead", does not its cause of death extend to the Declaration as well? If the Constitution has proven unworkable perforce of its own internal incoherence, and its principles have thereby exposed themselves as fallacies, then are not the principles on which they rest, the "self-evident" "truths" of the Declaration, also tainted as no less erroneous?

If so, is the Declaration not also wrong in its assertion that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce the[ people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"? So, must We the People allow themselves to be "reduce[d] * * * under absolute Despotism", and that "absolute Despotism" then be suffered to continue in perpetuity, until it spontaneously collapses of its own imbecility and corruption, taking down all of society with it?

Any patriot must reject this conclusion out of hand--along with the premise on which it rests. What is "dead" is not the Constitution, or constitutionalism, or the Declaration of Independence, because they embody ideas and ideals that cannot die. But they can find themselves bereft of defenders. All too many Americans no longer entertain these ideas or cling to these ideals, not because they believe them wrong and unattainable, but simply because they lack the gumption to stand up for the way of life the Founding Fathers bequeathed to them.

This, however, is not an unalterably fatal condition. Common Americans once possessed gumption, and they can again. After all, it does not require heroic self-sacrifice--for one does not sacrifice himself by fighting for what is his. It does not require extraordinary courage--for even a cornered rat will resist an attacker. It requires only enough energy and determination to overcome the political sloth that throws in the sponge because that is the least tiresome thing to do.

If Americans cannot muster that energy, then for all practical purposes their country is dead. And the fault for that fatality cannot be attributed to the Constitution.

© 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved



In other words, We the People need to get off our lazy butts and take this government back.....the sooner we do, the less likelihood for violence being required.  And thats what I'm talking about.  Time to do what it takes to get those "elected representatives" listening to and responding to the demands of their constituents, rather than their own agendas.....here's a link to get started...makes it easy for you to sound off...hold their feet to the fire, and monitor their reactions...then vote to back up what you say....

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

Now, go to work.

Some of you guys make me sick, and I will not call you my countrymen.  Pull your heads out of the sand, do the ones destroying your freedom and this country have to burn down your church or come to your house before you will believe it?  I suppose if they did, many of you would continue to comply with their demands.

-Ben

tag

Quoted: You know very well laws are useless as a means to keep arms out of the hands of criminals

I suppose that since people still kill people in spite of laws against murder that you think the laws on that should be done away with as well?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bush himself said quit throwing the consitution in my face it is just a god damned piece of paper Have any of those who were supposedly there when this was said actually been named?  Articles I've read only state that it was some 'congressional leaders'.  Sounds like this belongs on snopes to me unless somebody...anybody can name some names so those people can confirm or deny it. Don't hold your breath.

Oh, I won't.  Every time I see the quote posted I ask for a source with verifiable names.  It is incumbent upon those making allegations to back them up.  I have yet to see said 'quote' backed up with names.

Quoted: So who here agrees that the Individual has the right to bear arms? Does someone not in the MILITIA get to keep their weapons?

The way I read the 2A it's that the individual right to bear arms cannot be infringed because the Militia is necessary.  Not being in the militia (under/over age) does not exempt one from the duty of owning military arms.

I always find it fun to get into an argument with a lib who thinks the 2A has to do with the Nat'l Guard and, besides, how could any American militia hold its own against the force of the US military.  Not even getting into posse comitatus I just use their own liberalness against them.  I ask them who they think is winning n Iraq and whether they have tanks and aircraft carriers.

Quoted: Quoted: You know very well laws are useless as a means to keep arms out of the hands of criminals I suppose that since people still kill people in spite of laws against murder that you think the laws on that should be done away with as well?

Most laws, especially the big ones like laws against murder, rape, stealing, assault, etc, are at the foundation of the basic human morals shared by all cultures.  The laws are merely there to serve as a written reminder of those pre-existing rules in those cases.  I know that STRATIOTES is trying to get at is the fact that laws are incapable of stopping anybody from doing illegal things in their own right and that enforcement is never 100% effective (even though LEO's do a good job, everyone is human).  Besides, we need the laws so that our legal system has something to charge criminals with when they go on trial.  They need some kind of rulebook/playbook to work with, and that's what the law really is.  

Quoted: Quoted: You know very well laws are useless as a means to keep arms out of the hands of criminals I suppose that since people still kill people in spite of laws against murder that you think the laws on that should be done away with as well?

Stated another way, laws against inanimate objects never work because inanimate objects can do nothing by it's self, bad people can use any object for evil, good people can use any object for good, as a result i advocate arming everyone as a general rule and leave disarming and controlling bad people based upon their evil actions and not the inanimate object.

"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands") --Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You know very well laws are useless as a means to keep arms out of the hands of criminals I suppose that since people still kill people in spite of laws against murder that you think the laws on that should be done away with as well? Stated another way, laws against inanimate objects never work because inanimate objects can do nothing by it's self, bad people can use any object for evil, good people can use any object for good, as a result i advocate arming everyone as a general rule and leave disarming and controlling bad people based upon their evil actions and not the inanimate object. "Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands") --Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)

Laws against inanimate objects. This cartoon pretty well sums up that fallacy.

Quoted: Except for? Drop the silly exclusions. All able-bodied adult males are in 'the militia', like it or not, be they insurrecting or not. Unless you have a cite ready to show that insurrecting militiamen are legally expelled from the militia, you may want to supersize your own order of reading comprehension.

Silly exclusions?  Then you believe the USCon is full of silly exclusions?  In the USCon, it states in clear language that the Militia, as one of it's duties, is to suppress insurrections.  How can you be both in the Milita and involved in an insurrection?  Shoot yourself?  Arrest yourself?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thoms Jefferson Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819)

Quoted: Silly exclusions?  Then you believe the USCon is full of silly exclusions?  In the USCon, it states in clear language that the Militia, as one of it's duties, is to suppress insurrections.  How can you be both in the Milita and involved in an insurrection?  Shoot yourself?  Arrest yourself?

Again: Show me the specific clause that discusses kicking people out of the militia for whatever reason, and you may have a point. Until then, you are just engaging in idle speculation.

Quoted: Quoted: Silly exclusions?  Then you believe the USCon is full of silly exclusions?  In the USCon, it states in clear language that the Militia, as one of it's duties, is to suppress insurrections.  How can you be both in the Milita and involved in an insurrection?  Shoot yourself?  Arrest yourself? Again: Show me the specific clause that discusses kicking people out of the militia for whatever reason, and you may have a point. Until then, you are just engaging in idle speculation.

Show me any part of the USCon where it clearly states that every person is a member of the Militia.  Yes, there is a US code that deals with that issue, but it is not in the USCon.  The US Code can be changed easily, compared to a USCon amendment.

Again, tell me where it states in the USCon that every person is a member of the Militia.  It's not there.  All the intent in the world of the writers and fathers of our country doesn't end up becoming law unless it's in the USCon, right?

Quoted: Show me any part of the USCon where it clearly states that every person is a member of the Militia.  Yes, there is a US code that deals with that issue, but it is not in the USCon.  The US Code can be changed easily, compared to a USCon amendment. Again, tell me where it states in the USCon that every person is a member of the Militia.  It's not there.  All the intent in the world of the writers and fathers of our country doesn't end up becoming law unless it's in the USCon, right?

That is a stupid argument. Show me where the Constitution says I can't rob a liquor store? Show me where the Constitution says murder is illegal?

Deal with it. The USC is the law of the land until struck down by the USSC or changed by Congress.

Quoted: That is a stupid argument. Show me where the Constitution says I can't rob a liquor store? Show me where the Constitution says murder is illegal?

Apples and oranges.

Deal with it. The USC is the law of the land until struck down by the USSC or changed by Congress.

You are proving my point.  Thank you.  Much easier to change the USC than the USCon.

Quoted: You are proving my point.  Thank you.  Much easier to change the USC than the USCon.

And that is completely and totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The legal definition of 'Militia' is very expansive. We are all in it, like it or not, regardless of what tangents you go chasing. Unless, of course, you have that hidden cite ready to go that shows otherwise. Until then, all you are doing is trying to throw up some straw-man arguments to hide your original (and incorrect) point.

Quoted: Bush himself said quit throwing the consitution in my face it is just a god damned piece of paper

Tag.


-K

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have yet to prove the photos have a thing to do with Waco.  I seriously doubt you ever will be able to.  Several of them I strongly suspect are Iraq or the previously mentioned dump shooters. Especially the guy with the unscoped M-14. As I stated before.  Waco photos on the net are about as documentable as UFO photos.  That never stopped the conspiracy guys though. Bottom line.  Waco is a perfect example of when nutcases meet dumbasses. Nothing more.   I have met guys like you before. Why don't you tell me about prussian blue? ETA: If they are "dump shooters" why not explain the scorched go karts? You know...the go karts at the back of the Compound? Why was so much critical evidence lost, or destroyed? Was it ever proven that the B-D was involved in child abuse (something the ATF has no jurisdiction in) or the mfging of illegal weapons? Info for those who are interested I have no idea what "Prussian Blue" is.  I also don't see anything that looks like a go cart, and you STILL have not answered my very reasonable questions. Typical conspiracy BS. Instead of answering cogent questions concerning the authenticity of your photos you just throw more crap out. I was a student at Baylor during Waco.  I watched the whole deal on a live feed in my dorm commons area with a great many others. (Mt Carmel, not Caramel BTW)  I know more of what really happened that day than you ever will, and 99% of the stuff thrown around about the event today is made up bull.

I bet you also believe that Lon Hiroushi didn't shoot Vicki Weaver, and that Randy Weaver was part of the white supremacy movement...

Quoted: Silly exclusions?  Then you believe the USCon is full of silly exclusions?  In the USCon, it states in clear language that the Militia, as one of it's duties, is to suppress insurrections.

Show me.

In any event, a gov't which fails to uphold its own law ceases to be a legitimate gov't.

Show me any part of the USCon where it clearly states that every person is a member of the Militia.  Yes, there is a US code that deals with that issue, but it is not in the USCon.  The US Code can be changed easily, compared to a USCon amendment.

Again, tell me where it states in the USCon that every person is a member of the Militia.  It's not there.  All the intent in the world of the writers and fathers of our country doesn't end up becoming law unless it's in the USCon, right?

mi·li·tia  (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Some people are just too fucking stupid to even know the meaning of the words they read.
I suppose the FFs should have added a glossary to the US Const.

Quoted: Still waiting on a cite for: Quoted: Bush himself said quit throwing the consitution in my face it is just a god damned piece of paper Man up,  STRATIOTES. You claimed GW said it, now back it up.

Ask him what his basic law is and what he would do if his Township decided to not recognize any organized religion or religious credo for basing it's laws on.  In other words 8 of the electors decided not to recognize the 10 Commandments and specifically declared they were not a Christian community.  IIRC, he dodged similar questions in the past.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Dec 9, 2005, 07:53 Email this article Printer friendly page Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act. Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal. GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.” And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Last time I checked, the US military and law enforcement bodies ARE formed from its own citizens, and no ones "plundering" anyone. Peace Officers are elected or appointed by the township (Ten competent electors/heads of households) the militia is volunteer and donate their time and own arms in training and preparation, voluntary verses the excessive compelled taxation necessary to support professional police and militaries. If you force people to pay onerous taxes to support the organization used to collect the taxes that is indeed plunder ! Your expectation is unrealistic in a modern society and it is no wonder that you are disappointed by modern society if that is the sort of standard you are expecting to be upheld.

You know, I know that tc556guy is from NY and I disagree with nearly everything he says but when I read this post and response together I was unsure of the location of the first guy and assumed that he was from the west. Low and behold, I seem to be correct. No offense intended but the east and west hold very different views of what society is and should be like. Western folk are not all tame yet due to the size of the west we still don't plan for back up. The modern society of the east and that of much of the west is not the same. It is easier to understand if you admit this.

Quoted: You have yet to prove the photos have a thing to do with Waco.  I seriously doubt you ever will be able to.  Several of them I strongly suspect are Iraq or the previously mentioned dump shooters. Especially the guy with the unscoped M-14. As I stated before.  Waco photos on the net are about as documentable as UFO photos.  That never stopped the conspiracy guys though. Bottom line.  Waco is a perfect example of when nutcases meet dumbasses. Nothing more.

Wow, are you ignorant.

Quoted: Quoted: Silly exclusions?  Then you believe the USCon is full of silly exclusions?  In the USCon, it states in clear language that the Militia, as one of it's duties, is to suppress insurrections.   Show me. In any event, a gov't which fails to uphold its own law ceases to be a legitimate gov't. Show me any part of the USCon where it clearly states that every person is a member of the Militia.  Yes, there is a US code that deals with that issue, but it is not in the USCon.  The US Code can be changed easily, compared to a USCon amendment. Again, tell me where it states in the USCon that every person is a member of the Militia.  It's not there.  All the intent in the world of the writers and fathers of our country doesn't end up becoming law unless it's in the USCon, right? mi·li·tia  (m-lsh) n. 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. Some people are just too fucking stupid to even know the meaning of the words they read. I suppose the FFs should have added a glossary to the US Const.

Good one. About time someone looked up the word.  I really don't think it gets any simpler than that.