FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response


Comment by Dennis Wilson
Entered on:
Any serious study of the Constitution (i.e. any study not conducted within a government controlled school) should include what Lysander Spooner wrote about **QQ**The Constitution of No Authority**QQ**.

His following comment is even more appropriate today than it was in 1870 when he wrote it:

**QQ**But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.**QQ**

Why would he say such a thing? Read his unerring logic at http://tinyurl.com/y5sdeb

Follow up that reading with the book **QQ**Hologram of Liberty**QQ** by Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T Party)

And for those who might want to further their study of the Constitution, including the ability to leave comments and to suggest changes, I recommend Judge Narragansett**Q**s New Constitution Project found at http://tinyurl.com/aj88l

Yours in Liberty,
Dennis Lee Wilson


Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Happy CONstitution Day everybody!


Comment by William Shaw
Entered on:

Many people have been and still are ignorant of documents which they should read in detail and thourly understand before accepting as beneficial to themselves and others.
Proof is in this one document and others we believe we are sighning which will do no harm but give us security.
NO document is capable of protecting, only those who enforce it, You and Me !


Comment by Jan Paul Burr
Entered on:
Why do those who talk about the Constitution almost always leave the impression it is the only Constitution and ignore the state constitutions. Until 1925, the U.S. Constitution only stopped the Federal government from interfering with speech, religion, etc.

Until 1877, the State of N.H.**Q**s Constitution blocked Catholics or any non-protestant from holding high office in the state. Until 1818, the Danbury Baptists that Jefferson wrote to with his statement of **QQ**separation,**QQ** still had to pay taxes to support religion in the state.

In the early 1900**Q**s during war, two arrests and convictions of socialists protesting the draft were upheld by the Supreme Court. One for a speech and one for a pamphlet and at the same time, allowed similar actions during peace-time so even at the federal level, there were restrictions even on political speech.

The majority wrote and approved the constitutions of the states (all of which, by the way, have God in them) and ratified the U.S. Constitution and still, to this date, only the majority (a super majority of states) can amend the Constitution of the U.S. and a majority can amend the Constitution of states.

He is right that our **QQ**rights**QQ** came from the creator. However, what is missing is that in any society, including this one, the people agree to surrender some rights in order to have a more orderly society. What rights are surrendered or rather what rights are protected are found in the State Constitutions for all things left to the states. The U.S. Gov. was not to meddle in moral and social policy in the states. Neither for nor against. Some of the Bill of Rights which began to be incorporated after 1925 and applied to the states still aren**Q**t applied to this date. Never, not once, have all the Bill of Rights ever been applied to the states fully. But, the State Constitutions are always applied to the citizens if they have a responsible state government and state Supreme Court.

The U.S. Constitution is vital to our Republic but we are a Republic and not a democracy nationally. Thus, each state still needs a state constitution that protects the rights the people have deemed worthy of protection. While that may differ from state to state (gambling, prostitution, alcohol, age of consent, etc.) it still relies on the State**Q**s Constitution to decide whether the restrictions are constitutional or not.


Comment by William Shaw
Entered on:

Old Man, Well done !
The only problem is, The people must be active and assure these documents are not interpeted by those who wish to deceive us. A printed document protects no one, actions do !
I hate to admit it, but dubya stated the Constitution was just a peice of paper, and he was right for once in his miserable life.
Written documents are usless unless the people stand up and defend it ! So why havent We ?

Make a Comment