WE THE PEOPLE...

toodeemo · Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:55 pm

I've noticed that many members of a party named after a refreshing drink made from leaves filtered through water love to quote the US Constitution. Or more appropriately, certain parts of the Constitution that serve their purpose. Most of them are familiar with "WE THE PEOPLE" and the unfettered right to arm bears...I mean bear arms. However, hardly any of them have taken the time to read the entire document. So here, for your edification, enjoyment and hopefully understanding is a link to the the US Constitution. The most quoted and least understood document in the history of American Literature. Since this site is all about literature, this should interest most of you. What is particularly interesting is the information found in the Articles. They lay the groundwork for the Bill of Rights. That pesky section of the Constitution that deals with the individual rights and responsibilities of all of us.

A close reading of the Articles will show some clarification of the Bill of Rights that follow. In particular, the Right to Bear Arms against the common enemy is pre-empted by the Federal Government's ABSOLUTE RIGHT to fight against the common enemy and to stop insurgencies which may arise within the borders of the US. Yes, that means those who espouse the overthrow of the US Government are not going to be able to hide behind the right to arm bears...ooops there I go again...bear arms when they try to overthrow the US Government if things don't go their way in November.

Please read the Constitution in its entirety if and when you get the chance. And let's talk about what it really says, or at least what we can reasonably interpret it to mean. It is more important today...a week before we vote on important issues and a lunatic fringe that threatens us from within...than it ever was. I contend that knowing your rights means knowing your responsibilities to. And those are found by following the link below.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

stahrwe · Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:38 pm


	toodeemo wrote: I've noticed that many members of a party named after a refreshing drink made from leaves filtered through water love to quote the US Constitution. Or more appropriately, certain parts of the Constitution that serve their purpose. Most of them are familiar with "WE THE PEOPLE" and the unfettered right to arm bears...I mean bear arms. However, hardly any of them have taken the time to read the entire document. So here, for your edification, enjoyment and hopefully understanding is a link to the the US Constitution. The most quoted and least understood document in the history of American Literature. Since this site is all about literature, this should interest most of you. What is particularly interesting is the information found in the Articles. They lay the groundwork for the Bill of Rights. That pesky section of the Constitution that deals with the individual rights and responsibilities of all of us. A close reading of the Articles will show some clarification of the Bill of Rights that follow. In particular, the Right to Bear Arms against the common enemy is pre-empted by the Federal Government's ABSOLUTE RIGHT to fight against the common enemy and to stop insurgencies which may arise within the borders of the US. Yes, that means those who espouse the overthrow of the US Government are not going to be able to hide behind the right to arm bears...ooops there I go again...bear arms when they try to overthrow the US Government if things don't go their way in November. Please read the Constitution in its entirety if and when you get the chance. And let's talk about what it really says, or at least what we can reasonably interpret it to mean. It is more important today...a week before we vote on important issues and a lunatic fringe that threatens us from within...than it ever was. I contend that knowing your rights means knowing your responsibilities to. And those are found by following the link below. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

i suspect that you are rather young and idealistic. I also suspect that you have taken little time to contemplate the document you espouse. Why do you suppose that after specifying the duty of the government to raise and field armed forces against the foes of America both outside and as you say within, the second ammenment stipulates the need for a healthy militia? If we are to consider the ammendments were enumerated in order of importance we may well suppose that said right was deemed of high importance. Why?

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson tells us:


	Quote: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

The founders envisioned a benevolent government but also knew that power corrupted people and despots were apt to arise. The ultimate check of government power was an armed citizenry.

Try re-reading the Constitution and think about it this time.

toodeemo · Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:49 pm

[quotei suspect that you are rather young and idealistic. I also suspect that you have taken little time to contemplate the document you espouse. Why do you suppose that after specifying the duty of the government to raise and field armed forces against the foes of America both outside and as you say within, the second ammenment stipulates the need for a healthy militia? If we are to consider the ammendments were enumerated in order of importance we may well suppose that said right was deemed of high importance. Why?

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson tells us:


	Quote: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

The founders envisioned a benevolent government but also knew that power corrupted people and despots were apt to arise. The ultimate check of government power was an armed citizenry.

Try re-reading the Constitution and think about it this time.[/quote]

I'm 58 and have been practicing law since 1981. I read the Constitution for a living. In this time. Not in the time of muskets. And in this time and place, a bunch of lunatics "fearing the government" is not adequate grounds for revolution. And nothing happening here raises itself to the level of tyranny. However, if you try to take a gun to the government, that WILL be treason. You will be dealt with accordingly.

I find it comical that the same people who are strict constitutionalists, or those who portray themselves as such, go to the writings of the founders that are not IN the constitution to prove their point. Read Jefferson in today's context. Maybe YOU will be enlightened. Draw a gun on the President, and you will suffer the consequences. It's really that simple.

stahrwe · Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:45 am

toodeemo wrote:

stahrwe wrote:

i suspect that you are rather young and idealistic. I also suspect that you have taken little time to contemplate the document you espouse. Why do you suppose that after specifying the duty of the government to raise and field armed forces against the foes of America both outside and as you say within, the second ammenment stipulates the need for a healthy militia? If we are to consider the ammendments were enumerated in order of importance we may well suppose that said right was deemed of high importance. Why?

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson tells us:


	Quote: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

The founders envisioned a benevolent government but also knew that power corrupted people and despots were apt to arise. The ultimate check of government power was an armed citizenry.

Try re-reading the Constitution and think about it this time.

I'm 58 and have been practicing law since 1981. I read the Constitution for a living. In this time. Not in the time of muskets. And in this time and place, a bunch of lunatics "fearing the government" is not adequate grounds for revolution. And nothing happening here raises itself to the level of tyranny. However, if you try to take a gun to the government, that WILL be treason. You will be dealt with accordingly.

I find it comical that the same people who are strict constitutionalists, or those who portray themselves as such, go to the writings of the founders that are not IN the constitution to prove their point. Read Jefferson in today's context. Maybe YOU will be enlightened. Draw a gun on the President, and you will suffer the consequences. It's really that simple.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read posted on Booktalk.org. Jefferson was not envisioning a lone person attempting to assassinate the president, or an attempt to overthrow a dysfunctional government like we have now. He was envisioning a government run amok--A despotic government and considering that they had just dealt with one it was a major concern of theirs. The government of any country should never be more powerful than the people. As for what is in the constitution, the founders deliberately left some things vague so that they would, "find their own feet," as the constitution cured. But they did leave their thoughts on the document in The Federalist Papers and I also commend to you Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) which is considered to the one of the most comprehensive treatises on the constitution.

It doesn't surprise me that lawyer doesn't understand the constitution, afterall, Obama taught it and he hasn't got a clue about what is in it either.

toodeemo · Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:19 pm

It doesn't surprise me that someone who has little understanding of law and lawyers would make that comment about those who do. You can fight your battles with theory, or you can face the reality of what is and is not the law. The idea that losing an election gives you the right to overthrow the government with violence is ludicrous. Especially when you are in a clear minority on the issue in the first place. People who think they have the right to "reclaim" their country seem to miss the point that it is not THEIR country. It's OUR country. Weeding out politicians through elections is the way to effect change. Threatening to overthrow the duly elected government...the one elected by the PEOPLE...is treason. Pure and simple. Even the framers would agree with that. And they did. In the Constitution. So go on screaming about socialism and Obamacare and whatever you find actionable tyranny. It's difficult to find tyranny in policies founded by elected representatives. In fact, that is quite the opposite of tyranny. You're just angry about being on the less popular side. That's your right. To deny that right WOULD be tyranny. But don't come knocking on my door with musket in hand expecting me to join your numbers. Then, you understand, you would be faced with my brand of justice in the face of treason.

stahrwe · Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:39 pm


	toodeemo wrote: It doesn't surprise me that someone who has little understanding of law and lawyers would make that comment about those who do. You can fight your battles with theory, or you can face the reality of what is and is not the law. The idea that losing an election gives you the right to overthrow the government with violence is ludicrous. Especially when you are in a clear minority on the issue in the first place. People who think they have the right to "reclaim" their country seem to miss the point that it is not THEIR country. It's OUR country. Weeding out politicians through elections is the way to effect change. Threatening to overthrow the duly elected government...the one elected by the PEOPLE...is treason. Pure and simple. Even the framers would agree with that. And they did. In the Constitution. So go on screaming about socialism and Obamacare and whatever you find actionable tyranny. It's difficult to find tyranny in policies founded by elected representatives. In fact, that is quite the opposite of tyranny. You're just angry about being on the less popular side. That's your right. To deny that right WOULD be tyranny. But don't come knocking on my door with musket in hand expecting me to join your numbers. Then, you understand, you would be faced with my brand of justice in the face of treason.

Do you hurt yourself with your random jumps to conclusions?
No one in the Tea Party movement or the Republican party is seriously advocating the overthrow of the US Government, nor do we envision that ever being necessary, I am merely pointing out that the constitution and the founders of this nation believed that such a possibility might come about and that the best defense against a despotice government was an armed citizenry.

toodeemo · Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:53 pm

Nobody is advocating the overthrow of the government? I think you need to fine tune those rabbit ears. Just this week someone from Texas actually made the statement that violent overthrow of the government "is on the table." People are shooting bullets at "opposition" office buildings, sending toxic substances to compaign centers, breaking windows and generally escalating violence with alarming frequency. Let's not make believe. Things you've said in this thread would lead one to believe that is your philosophy and intent if things don't go your way. Just as is the case with the "leaders" of the "movement." In this day and age, words do not disappear. Even if in the final analysis we might want them to.

There are few situations in which freedom of speech is limited. As you undboubtedly know, advocating the overthrow of the government is one of those times. In my opinion, you are near that borderline. The guy in Texas has crossed it. As has Sharon Angle in my opinion. It's a fine line. Difficult to cross. Painful if you do. So while I'm flatteted that you are concerned about my well being after "falling to conclusions," I'd be more concerned about the consequences of treasonous speech if I were you.

stahrwe · Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:01 pm


	toodeemo wrote: Nobody is advocating the overthrow of the government? I think you need to fine tune those rabbit ears. Just this week someone from Texas actually made the statement that violent overthrow of the government "is on the table." People are shooting bullets at "opposition" office buildings, sending toxic substances to compaign centers, breaking windows and generally escalating violence with alarming frequency. Let's not make believe. Things you've said in this thread would lead one to believe that is your philosophy and intent if things don't go your way. Just as is the case with the "leaders" of the "movement." In this day and age, words do not disappear. Even if in the final analysis we might want them to. There are few situations in which freedom of speech is limited. As you undboubtedly know, advocating the overthrow of the government is one of those times. In my opinion, you are near that borderline. The guy in Texas has crossed it. As has Sharon Angle in my opinion. It's a fine line. Difficult to cross. Painful if you do. So while I'm flatteted that you are concerned about my well being after "falling to conclusions," I'd be more concerned about the consequences of treasonous speech if I were you.

Someone, one day; I am beginning to suspect you are not a lawyer or at least not a trial lawyer. There are also people shooting at Marine Recruiting offices too. Treasonous speech? Give me a break. The Tea Party Movement is fielding candidates for elective offices in the US, not for a rival government.

johnson1010 · Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:20 pm

Please,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/1 ... 14003.html

http://theweek.com/article/index/208532 ... -the-table

Toodeemo,

Take these exercises in futility to heart.

young-earth-theory-put-to-rest-t8061.html

epistemology-and-biblical-evidence-t9173.html

You are dealing with profound levels of self deception and magical thinking. You will face words thrown together to give the superficial illusion of argument. You will discover during the course of your conversations that there are some basic disconnects with reality in play here.

toodeemo · Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:40 pm

@Johnson

Thanks for the heads up and interesting reading. I came to the same conclusions awhile ago!

toodeemo · Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:36 pm


	Quote: Someone, one day; I am beginning to suspect you are not a lawyer or at least not a trial lawyer. There are also people shooting at Marine Recruiting offices too. Treasonous speech? Give me a break. The Tea Party Movement is fielding candidates for elective offices in the US, not for a rival government

Treason is not limited to giving comfort to a common enemy. Just ask Tim McVeigh. Guilty of domestic terrorism and treason. You need not advocate for anyone. A threat of violence or committing violence against the United States will suffice. Perhaps the technical definition will help you understand. Though I get the impression that you will not.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I now return you to the programming you are undoubtedly receiving from the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

etudiant · Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:28 pm

stahrwe wrote:


	toodeemo wrote: It doesn't surprise me that someone who has little understanding of law and lawyers would make that comment about those who do. You can fight your battles with theory, or you can face the reality of what is and is not the law. The idea that losing an election gives you the right to overthrow the government with violence is ludicrous. Especially when you are in a clear minority on the issue in the first place. People who think they have the right to "reclaim" their country seem to miss the point that it is not THEIR country. It's OUR country. Weeding out politicians through elections is the way to effect change. Threatening to overthrow the duly elected government...the one elected by the PEOPLE...is treason. Pure and simple. Even the framers would agree with that. And they did. In the Constitution. So go on screaming about socialism and Obamacare and whatever you find actionable tyranny. It's difficult to find tyranny in policies founded by elected representatives. In fact, that is quite the opposite of tyranny. You're just angry about being on the less popular side. That's your right. To deny that right WOULD be tyranny. But don't come knocking on my door with musket in hand expecting me to join your numbers. Then, you understand, you would be faced with my brand of justice in the face of treason.

Do you hurt yourself with your random jumps to conclusions?
No one in the Tea Party movement or the Republican party is seriously advocating the overthrow of the US Government, nor do we envision that ever being necessary, I am merely pointing out that the constitution and the founders of this nation believed that such a possibility might come about and that the best defense against a despotice government was an armed citizenry.

There is a real danger, if you ask me, in elevating any particular concept or theory on to a pedestal, and then giving it reverential treatment. If nothing else, history tells us that our experience here in the universe is fluid; it is changing, and can change quite significantly within a short period of time. This is why I think the scientific method is best: do a methodical and comprehensive job in trying to model reality, but also be prepared to have this model swept away if new evidence comes in.

The case in point here is the US constitution. Some on the political right seem to speak of this in the same dewy-eyed terms as do those speaking of the Koran, or perhaps the bible. But the reality is that it is a document that was written by a bunch of entrepreneurs, speculators, landowners, and businessmen over two centuries ago. Historically, this is interesting, but it is a huge stretch to give blanket application to its ideas and admonitions in today’s world.

Even at the time, this was not a document that was received to universal acclaim. Many historians estimate that only about 30-40% of the population of the original thirteen colonies were enthusiastic about independence from Britain. Many of the interests of the revolutionaries were self-interests. They coveted the land and resources that were potentially available in what then seemed like a huge and unpopulated land. At the time, it looked like Britain’s strategic interests may have been diverging from those of the colonists. This ruffled more than a few feathers.

To be sure, there were some thinkers that probably wanted to make the best of what was becoming a new reality, like Jefferson and Franklin- and they did, to an extent.

But to take, for example, the concept of having an armed citizenry, the differences between now and 230 years ago are stark. At that time, having just about everyone armed was a reasonable idea; in fact it was pretty much a fait accompli. The majority were either farmers, or lived in rural, or very small settlements where having a gun was a part of life. It was needed for hunting, and protection from wild animals, if nothing else. The concept was also a reflection of the times. Revolutionaries had just won a war against a much bigger power, using an irregular armed militia. So this just seemed to make sense.

Fast-forward to today, and having everyone armed in the US, all 300 million, is a recipe for disaster. Almost no one lives the lifestyle that was common in the eighteenth century today. Guns simply introduce an ultra-lethal element into a complex urban society; they serve no purpose other than mayhem. Even playing devil’s advocate for a moment, and accepting the premise that guns are needed for protection against “government”, the idea is still absurd. If there truly was some sort of coup d’etat; a takeover of the country, contrary to popular wishes, it would either have the support of the military to some degree, or it would not. If it did not, it would not survive long. If it did, the civilian type weapons in individual hands would make little difference. “Militias” wandering about with various small arms would be no match for any modern military force. In other words, the whole thing is ridiculous.

We can take certain principles from the past, for sure. The US constitution itself drew heavily from the British Bill of Rights from the previous century for example. But the narrow-minded worship of populist clichés, so favored by the tea party and its supporters, does nothing to address the very many modern day problems that confront society today in the US.

stahrwe · Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:03 am

toodeemo wrote:


	Quote: Someone, one day; I am beginning to suspect you are not a lawyer or at least not a trial lawyer. There are also people shooting at Marine Recruiting offices too. Treasonous speech? Give me a break. The Tea Party Movement is fielding candidates for elective offices in the US, not for a rival government

Treason is not limited to giving comfort to a common enemy. Just ask Tim McVeigh. Guilty of domestic terrorism and treason. You need not advocate for anyone. A threat of violence or committing violence against the United States will suffice. Perhaps the technical definition will help you understand. Though I get the impression that you will not.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I now return you to the programming you are undoubtedly receiving from the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

Thank you for the definition. Perhaps you should read it as it seems to contradict what you said in your intro. You seem very confused. You should read your posts over before submitting them.

I have not heard Sarah Palin, or Glenn Beck, or any Tea Party leaders advocate the bolded section. Tim McVeigh blew up a building, also something the Tea Party speaks against.

BTW, do you recognize my avatar?

toodeemo · Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:21 am

There is no contradiction in the definition. However, I am pretty much worn out with your ad hominem attacks and condescending attitude. Consider my discussions with you, such as they are, at an end.

Oh, is that Agnes Moorehead?

geo · Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:35 am


	stahrwe wrote: Tim McVeigh blew up a building, also something the Tea Party speaks against.

Well, that's reassuring at least.

Forum rules

WE THE PEOPLE... Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!