RE: [FSP_DFW] Running for Congress
“The bill of rights were amendments to the constitution.
Your definition of anti-Americanism isn't getting any clearer.”
I mentioned a SC decision that said anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void and no law at all. The Bill of Rights are not repugnant to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights do not apply to or bind citizens, they apply to and bind government as government is not authorized to monkey with them. The entire Constitution makes no demands on the People, private citizens. However, the Constitution has the same meaning without the Bill of Rights. Hamilton or Madison didn’t want the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. He said something like the Constitution delegates powers to government so including something that is not a power will only be a point of contention. The Bill of Rights delegates no power to government.
Anything repugnant to the Constitution is anti-Americanism.
Thanks for your input, Skip,
I have an email discussion group on MSN but there is very little activity there. You are welcome to help get more activity there; the theme of the board is,
“Welcome to U.S. Citizenship discussion group. Please feel free to discuss your ideas of the Constitution, its intent and meaning, the government it creates, and citizens’ duty in citizenship.”
Also, Joanne Campbell’s elucidated Constitution is posted there under “Files”; she did the best work on explaining the Constitution that I know of. I recommend everyone download it.
The mountain freedom faces was aptly illustrated this morning when making yard sales handing out FSP flyers. I asked at one yard sale if they were interested in freedom and a woman then told me she lost a Son in Afghanistan. I replied that was a shame and asked her if she realized the U.S. government sending her son into foreign wars without a Declaration of War from Congress on the country was a crime. She told me don’t start that bullshit with her and get off her property. In leaving she said anything her government did was OK with her. I did not argue with her but just left.
I believe any force government, Federal & State, uses against any Citizen’s freedom or Rights is a crime against that Citizen as well as a crime against every Citizen. In America, the Republic, citizens (as Jurors) are the dispenser of justice, not government, its courts or Judges. I am not at all sure citizens can ever correct the situation of government criminal unconstitutionality. All I hope for is simply to change the direction of government action from escalating unconstitutionality to diminishing it toward constitutionality. The only hope for that to happen is a knowledgeable citizenry, knowledgeable on the Constitution and the duty of citizens’ in citizenship.
From: FSP_DFW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FSP_DFW@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Skip
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 1:23 PM
Subject: [FSP_DFW] Re: Running for Congress
I'm of the opinion that there is nothing more important for free
staters to discuss. A board that exists solely to announce FSP events
is not all that useful; a calendar on a website could serve as well.
I seldom come to this board simply because there are almost never any
meaningful or interesting discussions on it. And so I missed out on
the opportunity to join the discussion between CM and Allan while it
was active. Without a clear vision of how to restore liberty to people
and to force state and federal government to abide by constitutional
limits, or even whether doing so is worthwhile, there is little chance
that 20,000 activists in NH will be able to accomplish that goal.
I doubt most FSPers really desire true liberty anyway. Most just seem
to be a new breed of conservative who selectively support certain
liberties, but who continue to support anti-liberty positions that
conflict with their personal point of view. Same old same old. "We
support your right to all the liberty that we agree with."
I've had extensive dialogue with FSPers who think national borders
should be closed, who approve of ethnic profiling, who support the
currently active wars of agression in the middle east, who are
indecisive or antagonistic toward eliminating victimless crime law,
and who believe noise ordinances to criminalize drivers with load bass
audio systems are a proper function of government.
At the same time, yahoo sucks, and I'd love it if CM (or CS) and Allan
would continue the discussion on a better forum. I'll join you in the
discussion if you do. My position would be similar to CM's, in that I
believe that not only is our government broken and unfixable, but it
is intrinsically wrong to govern others by force in the first place.
People should be able to voluntarily enslave themselves, if that is
what they wish to do, but noone should be able to force anyone to
submit to be governed.
So if the discussion lands on another board, Allan or CM, let us know