8 Mar

Why the Constitution matters [Reader Post]

                                       

The Constitution.

What does it mean to you?

To me, it stands as the shield against tyranny. Where the Declaration announced the intention to engage in a truly free and open society, the Constitution extended just enough power to a federal government to protect that free and open society.

The framers of the Constitution understood the need for a common, centralized, government entity to provide for those things the state and local governments and individuals could not provide for themselves. Things such as a defense against other nations hostile to us, an overreaching or tyrannical state imposing it’s will and infringing upon it’s neighbor’s freedom, a common representation of the states for other nations to negotiate and treat with, and to protect the individual against abuse of power.

However, the framers also understood that giving too much power to a centralized government could result in it’s own kind of tyranny, something they had fought a war to be free from. So, the Constitution was written as a “granting” of powers to the central government, in effect, and intention, limiting the federal government to only those powers. This “limiting” of powers is the shield to the states and individual from central government tyranny.

The thing is, though, that a shield is only as good as the person holding it. In the case of the Constitution, it’s use as a “shield” is only as good as we, the people, allow it to be. To have the Constitution be a strong shield against tyranny, one must believe in it and hold it inviolable. As a people, we have not done so. We, as a people, have let politicians, since the ratification of the Constitution, twist meanings and words, propose their own definitions of terms, and insert their own viewpoints of the framers’ intentions. In effect, the Constitution is no longer the “Supreme Law of the Land” as envisioned by people such as Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc.

We, the people, like to believe that we are a nation ruled by laws, and that those laws stem from the granted powers and the limitations of that power, to the federal government. However, when the standard describing what powers are granted, and what limitations are imposed on that power, is continually changing based on the people’s current viewpoints, we no longer can stand as a “Nation of laws”, but rather, we become a nation of “Rule by men”, where the only limitation on the federal government’s power is entirely dependent upon the morality and benevolence of the person(s) holding that power.

“Rule by men” leads to completely arbitrary ideas on what “freedoms” we, the people, can enjoy. It leads to completely arbitrary ideas on what constitutes a “right”. When these arbitrary ideas are involved, one man’s “freedom” or “right” becomes another man’s enslavement, infringing on his “freedoms” and “rights”, and the arbiter over the conflict depends entirely upon the people in power at that time. And when the people in power are able to arbitrarily change the “rules”, tyranny is the result.

We have become a nation where “rule by men” is commonplace, where we extend “rights” to every manner of people, groups, and entities, based not on a standardized rule of law, but rather, on which person, group, or entity is most politically expedient. Because of this, equality has become an arbitrary idea, and used as the reasoning behind which person, group, or entity will be favored. And, since the arbiters of the “standard” and the arbiters of “equality” are not limited in their power, and are the ones who decide exactly what the “standard” is, and what “equality” means, what may be protected for a person, group, or entity today can be just as easily infringed upon tomorrow.

And this is what people do not understand. About the Constitution, or about what, exactly, constitutes a “right”. And why? Because of dependency upon government, specifically, the federal government, in which they place the responsibility over their lives. It is easier to place ones life at the hands of another than to bear the responsibility themselves, and to do so, they depend on government not only for the handouts, but also the “protection” of those things they wish to engage in, and to get the handouts, they arbitrarily label them as “rights” and falsely claim the Constitution “protects” that “right”, even at the expense of inviolable rights specifically delineated by the Constitution, simply because they want it.

I urge everyone to read The Federalist Papers. In it, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay offer the arguments FOR the Constitution. They argue for the extending of powers, by the states and people, to the Federal government. And to do so, they address the counter-arguments and reservations of the critics to the Constitution at the time, explaining both the need for the granted power, and the limitations on those powers. By them, the meanings of the clauses, phrases, and sections within the Constitution can be defined, more clearly than anywhere else.

Without the understanding of the original intent of the Constitution, there can be no standard of law. Without the standard of law, we, the people, are entirely dependent upon the benevolence of government to protect us from tyranny. And given the history of the world, dependence upon government benevolence leads, almost invariably, to tyranny.

This entry was posted in Constitution, History, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, March 8th, 2012 at 9:12 am
| 478 views

46 Responses to Why the Constitution matters [Reader Post]

  1. johngalt says: 1

    I had meant to include the links I use to both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers in the original article. Here they are;
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

    ReplyReply
  2. Curt says: 2

    @johngalt: Put em in for you John

    ReplyReply
  3. johngalt says: 3

    @Curt:

    I appreciate that Curt.

    ReplyReply
  4. Ditto says: 4

    You must also read the other side of the argument that insisted on ensuring we had a “Bill of Rights,” known as “The Anti-Federalist Papers.” Otherwise, you will have an incomplete understanding about the debate.

    Anti-Federalist Papers
    ThisNation.Com The AntiFederalist
    Index to the Antifederalist Papers
    The Federal convention of 1787 & Ratification of the Constitution

    ReplyReply
  5. johngalt says: 5

    @Ditto:

    Yes, that is true Ditto. I probably should have mentioned those as well, as they helped shape the arguments of Madison, Hamilton and Jay and the other Federalists.

    ReplyReply
  6. Ditto says: 6

    I dare say that, given the continual growth and over-reaching and encroachment of today’s government into every part of our life, it is crucial that the Anti-Federalists Papers be read and well understood, because they were very concerned with the dangers of giving too much power into the hands of the government.

    ReplyReply
  7. Nan G says: 7

    Ditto and John….
    Notice the high level of the debates between these groups of men who founded our country?
    No stupid “gotcha” junk.
    Just substance.

    ReplyReply
  8. The Constitution represents a bargain between us citizens and our government. So long as the government abides by the Constitution, we “consent” to be governed. If the Constitution no longer binds the government, then it no longer binds us either. The “governing class” ought to keep that in mind.

    ReplyReply
  9. FAITH7 says: 9

    Excellent Johngalt!

    “Our” Constitution, the greatest document ever written… A document “that matters” because it is a “road block”, to the Power of [our] Government against our Freedoms and our Liberty as “Free” Americans – as it was meant to be.

    This Constitution ‘thing’ does not sit well with present day Liberals, Progs, Socialists, communists and by his own admission….our current President… and his ilk.

    The following site hosts an interesting piece on the Bill of Rights – called the Bill of “No” Rights. By State Rep Mitchell Kaye. I believe it has been around since 1999… and sadly here we are 13 and then some years later…dealing with the same b/s with yet another generation of stupidity and willful ignorance… to the true intent of Our Constitution. I pasted the last one from the piece, but all of them are worth repeating….

    Sadly by today’s standards, and the “Ruled by men” – as to what people “expect today” is the same if you read this essay as “The [new] Bill of No Rights”… Which is precisely why we need to keep up the “FIGHT”… and “try” to re-educate the brainwashed, and malcontents of today’s America…

    http://kaliajer.com/Bill_of_No_Rights.html

    ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

    ReplyReply
  10. FAITH7 says: 10

    Again excellent….

    “It is easier to place ones life at the hands of another than to bear the responsibility themselves, and to do so, they depend on government.

    Many of us evil God (higher power) believing Christians places one’s life in his [God's](hands , not the Government.

    The Government does not provide “Freedom” nor “Liberty” . Today it only provides a modern form of slavery…. and hopelessness.

    Hence the reason for [the Government] wanting God out of our Lives and replacing Government [as the new God]. A bullet train to tyranny…

    God is the one who wants us to be free….not the Government, nor the “Rule of Man”.

    People in America need to realize “Freedom isn’t Free”. Let’s hope and pray we do not lose this precious thing we know as “Freedom”….

    I signed up for Hillsdale College “Constitution 101″ through the Mark Levin’s show website. Just sayin’… http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp

    ReplyReply
  11. FAITH7 says: 11

    @#10 I meant to emphasis they depend on Government not cross it out. I tried to correct this but could not.

    ReplyReply
  12. anticsrocks says: 12

    @Nan G: Good point, Nan.

    ReplyReply
  13. anticsrocks says: 13

    @FAITH7: If God helps those who help themselves, why isn’t that good enough for our government? It constantly wants to help those who don’t help themselves.

    ReplyReply
  14. anticsrocks says: 14

    Great post, JG!

    “Rule by men” leads to completely arbitrary ideas on what “freedoms” we, the people, can enjoy. It leads to completely arbitrary ideas on what constitutes a “right”. When these arbitrary ideas are involved, one man’s “freedom” or “right” becomes another man’s enslavement, infringing on his “freedoms” and “rights”, and the arbiter over the conflict depends entirely upon the people in power at that time. And when the people in power are able to arbitrarily change the “rules”, tyranny is the result.

    Shades of Bill Whittle there, JG.

    The Battle of Big Ideas, Part 1: CONSTRAINED vs. UNCONSTRAINED

    ReplyReply
  15. Blast says: 15

    A couple of things. I am in total agreement when it comes to supporting the Constitution. A few years back I was lambasted here when I spoke out against the 4th Amendment usurpation by the Bush Administration, with the so called “Patriot Act”. I say the same thing about Obama for much of the same. Since the founding of the Republic there have been different options about the interpretation of the Constitution. Good people can disagree. Hamilton and Jefferson, two of our founders would be a good example. The problem comes in when it is political and standing up for the Constitution comes in second place.

    ReplyReply
  16. johngalt
    so precious is the POST, for every one who are accepting this kind of false way of imposing the law, from those LEADER AND ADVISORS and
    the law they want, the law they decided from the start, the law they aimed at implementing before they even got put there by their alike minions knowing perfectly their AGENDA to change the rules,
    by shunning the CONSTITUTION, WHICH are so strong but become weak if the people allowe it,
    even OBAMA ADMITTED JUST LATELY THAT HE WAS RESTRICTED BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION WAS INTERFERING,
    IMAGINE THAT STATEMENT FROM A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ,
    imagine if he is given more times , he will kill THE CONSTITUTION,
    I THIN THE PEOPLE have misunderstood WORDS ” TOLERANCE” THEY HAVE MISQUOTE IT with accepting any order OBAMA decide to implement ON HIS OWN, BECAUSE HE HAS WON .
    and the damages are at this time so great to envisage, and only the top of this iceberg look alike is discovered by the tolerant GOOD PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT NATION,
    THE PEOPLE have underestimated the fact that it was impossible to destroy AMERICA, BECAUSE OF IT’S LAWS INSTITUTE CENTURY PAST, SOLID AS THEIR PURE STEEL, UNBREAKABLE,
    now they are shocked to discover the power of a president wish to destroy it all with lies and charming smiles and his executives signed decisions coming from his own perspectives
    THAT COMMUNIST IS BETTER THAN FREEDOM.
    and he is sticking to it from the beginning to now push by the COMMUNIST IDEAL OF THE WORLD HE FOLLOW believing to have the magic solution with his eyes shot TO NOT SEE THE FAILURE WITH DESTRUCTION OF LIVES
    all over the world past and present.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  17. Skookum says: 17

    JG, thank you, for the post. I am surprised that you fail to mention the creativity of the SCJs in interpreting the Constitution and the willingness of people like Ginsberg to scrap the Constitution entirely if she were given the job of rewriting the paper, so that she could use the Constitutions of other nations, and the willingness to look to other countries to find the answers to legal problems. Thus the one paper that separates us from the rest of the world is being tossed aside by the same people who are charged with its preservation and interpretation. Our Constitution is being compromised by the Supreme Court Justices and since they are the supreme law of the land, our country is being destroyed by nine people in robes.

    It is the mantra of every Lib in the country, that the Constitution is an outdated relic of the past and should be rewritten or that it is a living breathing entity to be interpreted in any fashion by any tyrants who need it to change to suit their particular form of tyranny. Our current form of tyranny is Liberalism, the obfuscation of Socialism and they are winning the argument, for we can only stand on the ramparts to defend the Constitution, but they have unease a relentless and unceasing attack that measures success in millimeters and centimeters. This is the insidious enemy we face, and the control nearly all the propaganda outlets, so unless you are an analytical person, you are swept up in their message of hatred and self-deprecation. And now, back to our main topic.

    ReplyReply
  18. johngalt says: 18

    @Skookum:

    I didn’t mention the SC specifically because they are but a mirror of those in power, instituting the “rule by men” method of controlling our lives. One needs look no further than Obama’s two supreme court placements to see what I mean. They are both mirror images of Obama and how he sees the Constitution, and the useful idiots on the left and the useless idiots on the right both facilitated it. Using the Supreme Court, or the court system in general, to enact government law and directive, is just another method of arbitrarily choosing who “wins” and who “loses”.

    ReplyReply
  19. Skookum says: 19

    JG:

    Using the Supreme Court, or the court system in general, to enact government law and directive, is just another method of arbitrarily choosing who “wins” and who “loses”.

    It’s true, but more importantly, it runs counter to the idea of the law of the land and how it must function to maintain the integrity or strength of the overall system. The system is in critical failure and without the willingness to correct the compass bearings of our ship of state, but instead, to just offer more corruption to combat or neutralize the corruption of the previous administration, the ship of state is headed for the breakers with morons and criminals at the helm and with no hope of regaining our true bearings.

    ReplyReply
  20. SKOOKUM
    hi,
    I heard one of the smart CONSERVATIVES also mentioned in this manner, that they liberal are teaching the students that right is wrong and wrong is right,
    no wander the student contest the right and obey the wrong of the LEADER which believe it since his
    birth somewhere not known by AMERICANS, because never proven to them in theses last years of asking him to produce the legal document, not the false one which does not sell to AMERICANS still now.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  21. FAITH7 says: 21

    anticsrocks@13 – The Government knows this very well…Sadly, clear away the smoke and mirrors and it all boils down to Votes and Power…and that is Power over people.

    ReplyReply
  22. Aqua says: 22

    @Blast:
    In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, I think it a lot of the Patriot Act was justified. I was not for seeing it continued after it was supposed to sunset in 2005. Goes to show you that once the idiots in Washington get their hands on a new power they don’t want to let it go.

    ReplyReply
  23. Smorgasbord says: 23

    Unfortunately, the Constitution also allows people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc., to get elected to a Federal office because of all of its freedoms, including the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, there is no way to regulate common sense in making a free choice.

    Many times I have wondered what our founding fathers would think of the country they started, if they could see it today.

    You can download high resolution copies of the Constitution at:
    http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

    The Declaration of Independence at:
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html

    The Bill of Rights at:
    http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

    The National Archives web site is at:
    http://www.archives.gov/

    ReplyReply
  24. Ditto says: 24

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin, in Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755

    ReplyReply
  25. Smorgasbord says: 25

    @johngalt: #5
    HISTORY LESSON
    When you mentioned Jay, you reminded me that on one of the tour busses in Washington DC the lady said that of the streets that are letters, there is no J street, because the person who was in charge of naming the streets hated Jay and didn’t want anything that sounded like him in to be a street name. I checked. There ain’t one.

    ReplyReply
  26. Smorgasbord says: 26

    @FAITH7: #10
    I signed up too. It is free, but you can donate if you want to.

    ReplyReply
  27. Smorgasbord says: 27

    @anticsrocks: #13
    The more people the government helps, the more votes for politicians who promise them more money for doing nothing. The politician who promises the most, gets their vote.

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord says: 28

    @Skookum: #17
    The USS Constitution is still afloat, but it is listing way too far to the left from all the holes the liberals have put in it. The next captain will have a lot of patching to do. Let’s make sure we supply them with all the patching material they will need.

    ReplyReply
  29. anticsrocks says: 29

    @Smorgasbord: Yep, I hear ya. Bill Whittle made a great video about this very subject.

    The Vote Pump

    ReplyReply
  30. Smorgasbord says: 30

    @anticsrocks: #29
    When Whittle says Social Security and Medicare programs are used for buying votes, we paid into them, so we EARNED the payments we are getting now. It isn’t our fault the politicians took that money and spent it on themselves. I know you agree with that.

    If I could have put all that money into a retirement account, I would have had millions of dollars in it at retirement time and could pay for my own medical care and retirement. As I have said before, politicians can’t stand to see a government account increasing and can’t touch it, so they touch it.

    Galveston county Texas did it right. They opted out of Social Security when there was a choice, and now, some of the employees who have worked there long enough are retiring with more money coming in than when they were working. I never did look into exactly how they do it, but sometime I should.

    ReplyReply
  31. Ditto
    yes the best, to shut any oponant of the CONSTITUTION,
    THANK YOU for it,
    I’m listening to FOX saying OBAMA want more stimulus,
    how come he spend so much oversea in his last years of office, not thinking
    of what might be coming to demand expanses to be done in AMERICA WHEN NEEDED BY THE PEOPLE,
    NO, HE SPEND IT ALL, and now there is no money in there for AMERICANS TO BE HELP,
    UNLESS HE BOROUGH SOME MORE INTO THE FUTURE OF THE YOUNG AMERICANS,
    can you imagine him with 4 more years in there?

    ReplyReply
  32. Smorgasbord says: 32

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #31
    Obama does not want a free USA, and is doing all he can to bring it down. The propaganda media is doing all they can to help. Except on Fox, has anyone heard about Sheriff Joe Arpaio declaring Obama’s birth certificate a fake? No.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yerPzQ4doyU

    ReplyReply
  33. Smorgasbord
    hi,
    what do you think will derive of the SHERIF decision,
    I think he will hold for a while, till fall?
    bye

    ReplyReply
  34. anticsrocks
    hi,
    check this up above on 32 smorg

    ReplyReply
  35. anticsrocks says: 35

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Beezy, I will check it tomorrow evening. I have to grab some sleep before work tonight.

    Keep the liberals chasing their tails while I am gone!

    ReplyReply
  36. Dink Newcomb
    here,
    aww..you tryin to get gully wit boy ?!?

    ReplyReply
  37. anticsrocks
    yes sr will do
    have a good night sr

    ReplyReply
  38. Smorgasbord says: 38

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #33
    Sheriff Joe said he isn’t giving up. He didn’t go into Obama using someone else’s Social Security card very much. I am guessing that will be his next step. Neither the democrats nor the propaganda media have denied Obama is using someone else’s card. That means they know he is using it,or they would be all over anyone saying he is.

    I donated to Sheriff Joe’s re-election campaign fund even though I don’t even live in his state. Anyone against King Obama is a friend of the USA, and I want him to keep his job. Anyone who want to donate, even just a few dollars, can do it at:
    http://www.sheriffjoe.org/

    ReplyReply
  39. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 39

    I agree with the bulk of this post. But also I believe that words have multiple meaning and are characterized by period and conditions at the time of their writing. One of the jobs of the SC is to sort through these matters and rule on matters of law today according to the Constitution of yesteryear. Every time they make a ruling that goes against their right-wing bias, ultra-conservatives cry, “Tyranny”.

    I use to be like this, when a young left-wing radical; but then I grew up.

    ReplyReply
  40. Liberal1[objectivity]
    you cannot excuse the wrong decisions made at any time by a leader of this highest position
    which any words affect the whole WORLD looking up for THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A LEADER WITH NON PROVEN BACKGROUND BE IT MENTALY DRIVEN TO AN ANTI AMERICAN LEANING, OR PHISYCAL PRESENCE NOT PROVEN TO BE FROM AMERICA, AND YET PUSHED IN POWER BY THOSE KNOWING SURELY THE CRIME THEY WHERE DOING TO BECOME THE TOOLS OF PROPAGANDA TO HELP HIM WIN WITHOUT ANY VETTING, ANY EFFORT WHICH OUR CANDIDATES ARE HAVING
    TO GO THROUGH IN A SOMEWHAT UNCIVIL MANNER BY THE SAME AMERICANS WHO MADE IT SO SLICK EASY FOR THE ONE AND HIS GANG TO ACCESS THE POWER UNDESERVED,,
    IF HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A REAL AMERICAN WITH DEDICATION TO THIS AMERICA, HE WOULD AT SOME POINT IN TIME COME OUT AND RESIGN TELLING OF HIS FAILED EFFORTS TO BE THE LEADER, BUT NO, INSTEAD HE ENJOYED SPENDING AMERICA TO FAVOR FOREIGN AFFILIATIONS HE FAVOR TO MAKE REVOLUTION ON COUNTRIES NOT A THREAT TO AMERICA,
    AND HE MADE SOME DECISIONS TO IMPLEMENT A RULE HE BELIEVED IN WICH IS IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNIST AFFILIATIONS AND ANTI AMERICAN, BECAUSE DESTRUCTIVE TO THE REAL LAWS OF THE LAND,
    HIS WORDS NO MATTER THE CONTEXT WHERE MEANT TO PURSUE HE RADICAL LEANING AND IT DID HURT AMERICA, NO MATTER IF NOW FOR THE SAKE OF WINNING VOTES HE TRY TO GET JOBS IN THE MARKET TO COVER HIS PREVIOUS ACTIONS and failed decisions which never in his time profit AMERICANS, he is the leader responsible for what misery is growing not decreasing, until he and his crew are out of the WHITE HOUSE, IN NOVEMBER. BEING DONE ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND by the tolerant PEOPLE who are getting tired of enduring the suffering without complaints,
    but many who see that misery , from all over, know and are
    advising the people to change this leadership in NOVEMBER,
    they come from all walk of the SOCIETY TO TELL OF THE DANGER.

    ReplyReply
  41. johngalt says: 41

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    I don’t believe that you agree with anything I stated, Lib1. I say this because of your “but” statement. In order to believe as you do, one must suspend the idea of the “standard” as the basis for all law, and instead subscribe to the theory that a piece of paper written in a different time has no bearing on how things should be done today. That theory has no “standard” as a basis for law, and the new law rendered upon the people today is based on the whims of men. It is because of this that I call it tyranny, Lib1.

    And once this way of thinking becomes commonplace enough, it gets applied to the idea of law in general, and new “law” is made to favor some while disfavoring others and entirely dependent upon who is in power.

    Your own political ideology leads nowhere else but tyranny, Lib1.

    ReplyReply
  42. Nan G says: 42

    Just the other day Sec Defense Leon Panetta told the Legislative Branch that his
    Executive Branch was feeling free to go to war and use the military while not even asking the Senate/House.
    In fact it wasn’t the Constitutional exception that we got attacked first…..it was that an International Coalition gave permission instead.
    Only a couple days went by and we have these headlines on Drudge:

    Obama impeachment bill introduced in Congress…

    Declares use of military without approval ‘high crime, misdemeanor’…

    WASHPOST: Record number of Americans now hold ‘strongly negative’ view on Obama…

    Seems as though Obama thought Congress had abdicated to him.
    Looks more like Obama attempted to usurp from Congress and they put their collective feet down.

    ReplyReply
  43. johngalt says: 43

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    There is a problem, as well, with the line of thinking that you displayed in #39, Lib1. That is, the idea you put forth of the Constitution not applying to today’s modern world. This is nothing but a tactic used by the left to confuse people into believing that the Constitution was written with specific issues in mind that only applied to “yesteryear”. What it really shows is the serious lack of understanding regarding the Constitution itself, and the principles put forth in the document. Those principles are applicable regardless of individual, “modern” problems facing the US today, and, as well, can be, and should be, considered timeless.

    It is, as well, nothing more than an attack on the Constitution itself in an effort to remove the barrier it places against tyranny. And ignorance of yours, and other liberal/progressive supporters’, of this type of attack, and it’s effects, is neither excuse, nor reason, to engage in it.

    I see, as well, that you attempt to downplay the word “tyranny”.

    Definition of TYRANNY
    1 : oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government

    2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
    b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

    3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force

    4 : an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

    What else can we call an act such as Obamacare, that seeks to oppress our choices regarding our own healthcare? What else can we call an act like the “contraceptive mandate”, which seeks to destroy a group’s natural right to religious freedom? What else can we call an act that seeks to limit, or inhibit, a company’s right to engage in free enterprise? The only term of accuracy for such acts is tyranny, regardless of your marginalizing the use of the word. That you do so, and strongly defend such acts, is very telling about your character, Lib1.

    As I have said before, right is right, no matter who is in power at the time.

    ReplyReply
  44. anticsrocks says: 44

    I wish to take liberal 1′s idea of a living and breathing Constitution and apply it to a mortgage, or auto loan. I mean the mortgage was written 20 years ago, so let’s look at it through the prism of today’s political climate (occupy wall street) and, voila! No more payments!

    That absurdity is exactly what the left wants to do to our Constitution, for if you can breach the firewalls of it, where does it end?

    Odd, I have never gotten a liberal to answer that question – If you allow (insert latest federal gov’t powergrab here), where does it end? Who limits those powers?

    ReplyReply
  45. Smorgasbord says: 45

    @Nan G: #42
    If the republican party hasn’t merged with the democratic party and become one, why haven’t they acted on Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s declaration that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake and that Obama is using someone else’s Social Security card? They are still “republicrats” to me.

    Have any of you republicans contacted your politicians and asked them to act on the info? I did mine a long time ago, but got the same non-answer I usually get, AND THEY ARE ALL REPUBLICANS. I’m going to ask them to respond to the new info.

    ReplyReply
  46. Smorgasbord says: 46

    @anticsrocks: #44
    I used the same logic with Obama’s father not being born in the USA. To qualify to be president, the Constitution says that a person must be a “natural born” citizen. At the writing of the Constitution that meant that both parents had to be born in the USA. Obama’s father wasn’t.

    There is an amendment that now states that if a person is born in the USA, they are automatically a US citizen, and the libs use it to say the “natural born” citizen rule doesn’t apply any more. The amendment only applies to being an American, not being qualified to be president. Obama isn’t qualified to be president, and I am sure he will be proven to be an illegal alien that somehow was allowed to be president. How will the democratic party and the propaganda media explain that? Oh, yes, I forgot. It’s George Bush’s fault.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site