PH explains American vs. European Views on Relation Between People and Civil Government
[The video is only 2 minutes & 9 seconds long.]
Under the European model, the people are the subjects of the King or the State and are subject to the Will of the King or the State.
But the Framers of the American Constitution implemented the radically different conception that The People are the original source of political authority (Federalist No. 22, last para). The American People CREATED the federal government when they ratified the US Constitution. The federal government is not a party to the Constitution – it is merely the creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms.
But Americans are losing the vision our Framers implemented and are reverting back to the European Model where the People are the subjects of the government and must obey the will of the government.
April 5, 2015 - Posted by Publius Huldah | Creature of the Compact | American and European models of civil government, Constitution created the federal government, Creature of the compact, Divine Right of kings, relation between People and government, The People are the original source of political power
18 Comments »
Leave a comment Cancel reply
-
PUBLIUS HULDAH
Categories
- "convention of states"
- 10th Amendment
- 12th Amendment
- 14th Amendment
- 14th Amendment citizens
- 17th Amendment
- 1st Amendment
- 20th amendment
- 22nd Amendment
- 28th Amendment
- 2nd Amendment
- 3000 page constitution
- 501 (c) (3) tax exemption
- Abortion
- Administrative Law
- Advice and Consent
- Alabama Heartbeat law
- Alan Keyes
- ALEC
- alien and sedition acts
- Allen C. Guelzo
- Amendments to the Constitution
- Amendments: Parental Rights Amendment
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Anchor Babies
- Andino v. Middleton
- annotated constitution
- Anti-Rights
- Antifa
- Arizona Illegal Alien Law
- Arizona Invasion
- Arizona Lawsuit
- Arizona's Proposition 200
- armed citizens
- Article I courts
- Article I Sec. 10
- Article I Sec. 4
- Article I, Sec. 2
- Article II Sec. 1
- Article II, Sec. 2
- Article II, Sec. 3
- Article II, Sec. 4
- Article III Courts
- Article III, Sec. 1
- Article III, Sec. 2
- Article IV Sec. 3
- Article IV, Sec. 1
- Article IV, Sec. 4
- Article V
- Article V Convention
- Article VI
- Article VI, clause 2
- Article VI, clause 3
- Balance of Powers Act
- Balanced Budget Amendment
- Basic Concepts
- Bible and civil government
- Bills of attainder
- Birthright citizenship
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackstone's commentaries on the Laws of England
- Build the Wall!
- Bureau of Alcohol Firearms and Tobacco (ATF)
- Censorship by those who control the fed gov't
- Census
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention
- Checks and Balances
- Chip DeMoss
- Christian Gomez
- Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
- Climate Change Treaty
- Code of Federal Regulations
- Commander in Chief
- Commerce clause
- common law
- Compact for America
- concealed carry reciprocity act
- Congressional Research Service Report
- Constitution Drafting Project
- Constitution is not a suicide pact
- constitutional convention
- Control the Border
- convention lobby
- Convention of States project
- COS
- Council on Foreign Relations
- coverture
- covid
- covid virus
- COVID-19 scam
- Creature of the Compact
- Creek Indians
- Criminal Code (US)
- cultural relativism
- Danbury Baptists
- Daniel Webster
- David Barton
- dead voters
- Decentralization of government
- Declaration of Independence
- Definitions and Basic Concepts
- Delegates to a convention can't be controlled
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Labor
- derelection of duty
- Dick Act of 1903
- District of Columbia
- dog and pony show
- Donald Trump
- due process clause
- Edwin Vieira
- Einer Elhauge
- Elastic clause
- Election of President
- Election of U.S. Senators
- Elections Clause
- Electoral College
- Electors
- Eli Richardson
- Engel v. Vitale
- enumerated powers
- Enumerated Powers of Congress
- Enumerated Powers of Federal Courts
- Enumerated powers of the president
- equal protection clause
- establishment clause
- ex post facto laws
- Exceptions clause
- excise taxes
- Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction
- Executive Orders
- Existentialism
- Fabian socialism
- fabian socialists
- Faithful Delegate Laws
- Federal Convention of 1787
- federal election of 2020
- federal enclaves
- Federal Form of government
- federal judges
- Federal Reserve Act of 1913
- federal spending
- Federalism
- Federalist No. 49
- Federalist Paper No. 45
- Federalist Paper No. 46
- Federalist Paper No. 78
- Federalist Paper No. 80
- Federalist Paper No. 83
- free and fair elections
- free exercise clause
- Free Speech
- full faith and credit clause
- General Welfare Clause
- George Mason
- George Soros
- George W. Bush
- ghost voters
- Globalism
- God-given Rights
- Google Censorship
- Gov. Greg Abbott
- Guardians of the Constitution
- gun control
- Health Care
- Health Insurance – Auto Insurance analogy
- Heidi Cruz
- Heritage Foundation
- High crimes and misdemeanors
- homosexual marriage
- Hugo Black and the KKK
- IAMtv
- IMF Articles of Agreement
- Impeachment
- Imposts [tariffs]
- Incorporation doctrine
- Insurrection Act
- Insurrections clause
- International Monetary Fund
- International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Interposition
- Interstate Commerce Clause
- interstate conventions
- Isaiah 33:22
- Isaiah 3:12
- James Madison
- James Perloff
- Jarrett Stepman
- Jim Crow laws
- Jim DeMint
- Joe Biden
- Jordan Sillars
- Jucicial Review
- Judicial abstension
- Judicial Abuse
- Judicial Supremacy
- Kamala Harris
- Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
- Kevin Gutzman
- Kim Davis
- Koch Brothers
- Law of the Land
- Liberty Amendments
- Liberty Fest
- Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick
- Madison Coalition
- Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787
- Madison's letter to Edward Everett
- Madison's Notes on Nullification (1834)
- Madison's Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800)
- mail-in voter registration
- Mail-in voting
- man made anti-rights
- Marbury v. Madison
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Levin
- Mark Meckler
- marque and reprisal
- Marriage
- Marriage Amendment
- Martin Luther King
- Marxist revolution
- Matthew Spalding
- McGirt v. Oklahoma
- Medicare
- Merchant Seamen healthcare
- Michael Farris
- Michael Seidman
- Militia
- multiculturalism
- National Constitution Center
- National Popular Vote
- national sales tax
- national value added tax
- national VAT tax
- National Voter Registration Act
- natural born citizen
- Naturalized citizens
- Necessary and Proper clause
- New Hampshire Faithful Delegate Law
- Newspeak
- Nick Dranias
- North American Union
- not on the list
- Nullification
- nullification deniers
- Oath of Office
- obamacare
- Oklahoma
- on the list
- organic law
- Original and appellate jurisdiction
- Original Intent or Evolving Constitution?
- Parental Rights Amendment
- parentalrights.org
- Parents' Bill of Rights
- Pastor Earl Wallace
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Personal Responsibility
- Phony right wing
- Phyllis Schlafly
- Pledge of Allegiance
- political questions
- Pragmatism
- prayer in public schools
- precedents
- President's enumerated powers
- President's powers
- Presidential Electors
- prevailing dogma
- privileges and immunities
- Professor David Super
- Progressive Education
- Progressives
- Publius Huldah
- Purpose of amendments to constitution
- Randy Barnett
- re-writing the Constitution
- Recess Appointments
- Red Flag Laws
- Red States
- refugee resettlement
- Regulation Freedom Amendment
- Rep. Jodey Arrington
- republican form of government
- Reserved Powers
- Resistance to tyranny
- Retained Powers
- Rights
- Rob Natelson
- Robbie George
- Robert A. Levy Cato Institute
- Robert P. George
- Roe v. Wade
- Roman Buhler
- Rule of Law
- Rule of Man
- Rulemaking by Executive Agencies
- runaway convention
- safety nets for the poor
- same sex marriage
- Saul Alinsky
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment Resolutions
- secure these rights
- Self Government
- Sell out Republicans
- Sen. Mike Lee
- Separation of Church and State?
- separation of powers
- sharia
- shining city on a hill
- simulated convention
- social safety nets
- social security
- South Carolina nullification crisis
- Sovereign States
- speech codes
- Spineless Republicans
- Statehood for the District of Columbia
- States Retained Powers
- States Rights
- statute law
- stop the steal
- Supremacy clause
- Supreme Court
- Supreme Law of the Land
- sweeping clause
- Tariff of Abominations
- Tarrif Act of 1828
- Task Force Report on Building a North American Community
- Ted Cruz
- Tennessee Constitution
- Tenth Amendment
- Term Limits Amendment
- The Archivist of the United States
- The Fed
- The Judicial Branch
- The Liberty Amendments
- The taxing clause
- The Ten Commandments
- The Tennessee Resolutions
- Thomas Jefferson
- Times Places and Manner clause
- Tom Coburn
- Toss-up states
- Totalitarianism
- Transgenders in the military
- Treaty Making Powers of the United States
- Troxel v. Granville
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
- UN Declaration of Rights
- Uncategorized
- under the law
- unfaithful delegate laws
- Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
- United Nations
- US District Court Middle District of Tennessee
- USMCA Trade Agreement
- Usurpations of power
- Vattel
- Virginia Resolutions of 1798
- Voter eligibility
- Voter Qualifications
- voter registration
- Washington's Farewell Address
- What our Framers gave us
- what our Framers really said
- What States must do when the feds usurp power
- whiskey rebellion
- why convention was added to Art. V
- William Barr
- Wolf-PAC
Archives
- January 2024 (2)
- August 2023 (1)
- March 2023 (1)
- October 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (1)
- November 2021 (1)
- August 2021 (2)
- June 2021 (2)
- April 2021 (1)
- March 2021 (1)
- January 2021 (3)
- December 2020 (2)
- October 2020 (1)
- September 2020 (2)
- July 2020 (1)
- June 2020 (1)
- May 2020 (1)
- February 2020 (2)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (2)
- October 2019 (1)
- September 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (2)
- May 2019 (1)
- April 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (2)
- November 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (2)
- January 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (1)
- November 2017 (1)
- September 2017 (1)
- July 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (2)
- May 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (2)
- March 2017 (2)
- February 2017 (1)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (1)
- November 2016 (1)
- October 2016 (1)
- September 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (2)
- February 2016 (5)
- January 2016 (3)
- December 2015 (1)
- November 2015 (2)
- October 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (4)
- August 2015 (4)
- July 2015 (2)
- June 2015 (2)
- May 2015 (4)
- April 2015 (3)
- March 2015 (2)
- February 2015 (3)
- January 2015 (1)
- December 2014 (1)
- October 2014 (1)
- September 2014 (1)
- April 2014 (1)
- February 2014 (3)
- January 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (1)
- September 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (1)
- July 2013 (2)
- April 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (2)
- January 2013 (2)
- December 2012 (1)
- November 2012 (1)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (2)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (2)
- March 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (1)
- April 2011 (1)
- March 2011 (2)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (2)
- December 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (1)
- December 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (2)
- June 2009 (4)
Pages
-
Recent Posts
- Help! Google has locked me out of my Gmail account.
- Why James Madison trembled at the prospect of an Article V Convention
- What’s the real agenda behind red-flag confiscations and gun controls?
- Parents’ Statutory "Bill of Rights" – a massive Transfer of Power over Children from Parents to Governments
- Comments on the proposed Amendments to the Tennessee Constitution
- Article V Convention Legislation filed in Congress shows how Applications will be counted: it’s not what Lobbyists promised you
- Mark Meckler’s “COS” Board Member has drafted new Constitution which imposes gun control
- STOP an Article V Convention – read the proposed new Constitutions which our enemies want to impose
- Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses
- Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
Meta
-
- Thank you for subscribing! You should get a confirmation email. If you don't, check your spam file!
[…] More… […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Publius Huldah explains American vs. European views on relation between People and Government | NCRenegade | April 6, 2015 |
THIS is great for this minute!! Sure explains a great deal.
PH, those dear, expressive hands. God love you. Oh, and how He does!
LikeLike
Comment by Carol Boggs | April 5, 2015 |
A federal jurisdiction is alive and well in Oregon. It has subtly taken the place of the Legislative jurisdiction of the State of Oregon. This federal jurisdiction is known as “this state”. It also is known as “the state” and “said state”. Note the lack of capitalization of the letter ‘s’. Proper English required that when referring to a proper noun in this manner the ‘S’ must be capitalized. So one must conclude that it is not referring to Oregon, the 33rd State of the Union. A look at ORS 131.205 reveals that it means: “the land and the water and the airspace above the land and the water with respect to which the State of Oregon has Legislative Jurisdiction”. The key word in that def. is the word ‘respect’ which tells me that there are two jurisdictions in Oregon, ie. “this state” and the “State of Oregon”.
A voter registration card requires you to acknowledge that you are in “this state” when you sign the card for the jurat reads the same or similar to the #2 at USC 28, Section 1746. A flag of the same type and style that adorns the Executive Office of the President of the United States also stands in the foyer of not only the Sec. of State’s office but also the Governor’s office, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Oregon Department of Revenue, both houses of the Legislature, the Oregon Supreme Court and various other departments.
Attorneys, when they wish to do business in all the courts of ‘this state’ they must submit a written oath to the State Court Administrator that “”…in the practice of law the applicant will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state. I have yet to find the Constitution of “this state”.
Oregon law in 1923 required the teaching of the United States and Oregon Constitutions from 8th grade through 12th grade and in all 4 years of college. This has been codified at ORS 336.057 and 067. A review of our schools curriculum says this is not being done.
By keeping the people of Oregon ignorant of ‘who’ and ‘where’ they are it is rather simple for ‘color of law’ to prevail.
The significance of the above is that: If you vote in Oregon you have told “this state” that you are a territorial U.S. citizen and are a ‘resident alien’ with “…respect to which the State of Oregon has Legislative jurisdiction.” You have no Constitutional Rights and are merely a subject citizen similar to those in England and other parts of the world.
That’s how it’s done in Oregon. How is it done in your State?
LikeLike
Comment by Douglas R. Smith | April 5, 2015 |
It it a great tragedy that you waste your time, and deprive your Country of the benefit of your assistance, by barking up these wrong trees. You are barking up every wrong tree out there! You have been listening to Rubbish.
I wonder if the purveyors of this Rubbish are progressives trying to neutralize people who otherwise would be valuable allies; or whether they are mere conceited fools. It doesn’t matter – they cause great harm.
My advice: close the books on what you have been doing. Get a copy of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and read them. Over & over until you know what they say.
That is a good Foundation.
LikeLike
Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 |
I read from both the U.S. Constitution, the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Revised Statutes weekly if not on a daily basis. I can only derive an opinion from what I read in the Oregon Revised Statutes, the Constitutions, and court decisions concerning them. If what they say cast a bad light upon a profession dear to you what can I say in rebuttal.
I have plans to file a Writ of Mandamus in the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Supreme Court Justices must hear a mandamus under Article VII original, which is the original jurisdiction of the Oregon Legislature. In the Writ I will be arguing that the Article VII amendment to the Oregon Constitution in 1910 is void because it amends the Oregon Constitution in several additional places and was only brought to the people of Oregon for a vote once in 1910. A little matter of ‘single subject matter’. See the Oregon Constitution at Article IV, Section 20. This will bring back the original court system and the people of Oregon will have Constitutional courts again and not legislative courts under the jurisdiction of ‘this state’.
All attorneys, being in ‘this state’, will not put their name to such a writ for obvious reasons so I must solicit the help of an honest and sincere attorney from another State and put my name to it as a Pro Se litigant. I will be arguing that Article VII amended of the Oregon Constitution is void of law because it violates the Oregon Constitution’s single subject rule. It effectively amends the Oregon Constitution in more than one place and each place amended must be brought to a vote before the people of Oregon. It was voted on only once in 1910.
I am a fifth generation Oregonian and an American conservative and will do everything in my power to conserve “…this Constitution for the United States of America.”. See the Preamble to the post-factum titled Constitution of the United States. In my humble opinion the United States Constitution should have been titled “The Constitution for the United States of America” for reasons quite obvious to me. Perhaps, you may wish to research this and find out when and why it was titled ‘The Constitution of the United States”. Am I still barking up the wrong tree and spewing so much rubbish or are my endeavors worthy of a little consideration.
Respectfully,
Douglas R. Smith
LikeLike
Comment by Douglas R. Smith | April 6, 2015 |
Well, it is difficult to impossible to figure out what you are talking about. Your arguments don’t make sense. And blaming the people who can’t figure out what you are talking about won’t help your case.
LikeLike
Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2015 |
Let’s pick a subject that is of interest to both of us, that being the threat of a convention to rewrite the United States Constitution. I would think we could be in agreement that there are basically three types of people in America. Those that are knowledgeable of the Constitution, those that are ignorant of its content, and those that don’t give a damn.
Now, those that are knowledgeable of the Constitution say that the responsibility of our Federal Government is clearly expressed and all we need to do is educate the ignorant and become a majority and put the governments (State and Federal) back within the Constitution’s Framework. Those that are ignorant are easily manipulated and swayed by those that wring their hands and cry ” the Constitution isn’t working just look at the Judicial system, look at our immigration policies, on and on ad nauseam. Then, there are those that still don’t give a damn.
It is understandable that you and others would not make sense of the situation here in Oregon until you are knowledgeable of Oregon political history over the past 130 or so years. I am certainly willing to engage in meaningful dialog and educate you and your following for I feel that the situation in Oregon is similar in the other 49 States.
If I may take the liberty and ask you a question(s) that is of grave concern to me then you may start to see where I am coming from. First, I must preface a few facts.
In Oregon, as in the other States, several prerequisites for becoming a Law Enforcement Officer are: That you are a high school graduate and that you take an oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and of your State. Now, if the police officers, sheriffs, etc. have not fulfilled the mandated statutory requirements of a high school diploma (in Oregon at ORS 336.057) the initial question that comes to mind is: Are they high school graduates? If not, then surely they do not meet the prerequisite of being high school graduates. Are they acting under color of law or in disguise? Secondly, when they took the oath to uphold the Constitutions and are ignorant of the content therein, are they committing a crime? That crime being the class A misdemeanor of False Swearing. If they know of the Constitutions and choose to violate their oath is that not the crime of Perjury of Oath which is a class C felony?
What about the Legislators, Governor etc. ?
An inquiring mind wishes to know. Will you enter into a meaningful dialog? On this post or in a more personal venue? Your choice for you have my email address.
Again, respectfully submitted, DRS
LikeLike
Comment by Douglas R. Smith | April 6, 2015 |
I don’t claim to know anything about Oregon.
But I know litigation, trial and appellate, civil and criminal. I know it from formal study and from decades of actually handling litigation for others. When you speak about litigation, I can not follow what you are saying. Which does not bode well for your winning your lawsuit.
But of course, we can talk about the federal Constitution. But I don’t argue about it.
LikeLike
Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2015 |
“Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” ~Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address 1801
Our form of government is unique and too many Americans have been taught antithetical foreign principles. And once taught, most refuse to let go even after being shown they are espousing Marxist or Monarchist principles. A truth they are going to learn one way or the other, and unfortunately for the rest of us, it’s one they insist on learning the hard way.
“The first remark that I shall make upon this subject is, that an education in our own, is to be preferred to an education in a foreign country. The principle of patriotism stands in need of the reinforcement of prejudice, and it is well known that our strongest prejudices in favour of our country are formed in the first one and twenty years of our lives.” ~Benjamin Rush, Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic 1798
A shame how quickly Americans allowed our schools to become foreign embassies.
LikeLike
Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 5, 2015 |
Yet only a handful will point out the obvious – that all the public schools should be closed down. Replace them with home schools, church schools, private schools, and privately run charity schools.
LikeLike
Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2015 |
There is a well armed population of Americans willing to defend the concept of the social contract and the primacy of the US constitution. It is only the elected false representatives of the people straying from those principles with usurpation of inalienable rights.
LikeLike
Comment by robert | April 5, 2015 |
But it seems that so many “conservative” Americans are too ignorant, lazy and stupid to do anything except vote for the candidates who tickle their ears. And they won’t read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. That’s what they hire politicians to do – so they don’t have to do it.
LikeLike
Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 |
When the government is the creature of the people, how is it that the court the dismiss the people for lack of standing?
LikeLike
Comment by llotter2013 | April 5, 2015 |
Standing IS an essential Principle of Jurisprudence. I’ll illustrate:
Say you NEVER mow your yard, you have hundreds of old tires and rusty cars all over your yard, garbage heaps, etc. Say you live in one State and I live in another State. I file a lawsuit against you in your State complaining about the health hazards of your yard, how you are depressing property values, etc.
Your lawyer will move to dismiss my lawsuit against you for “lack of standing”. Your yard doesn’t affect me!
Only people in your neighborhood and surrounding area have “standing” to complain about your yard – the condition of your yard does affect them.
So that is The Principle of Dismissing cases for lack of standing. A Plaintiff must have an “interest” in the subject of the litigation.
Citizens have filed lawsuits in federal court complaining about the federal government’s violations of this or that. They filed lawsuits challenging obama’s status as an natural born citizen. These cases are typically dismissed by the federal courts for “lack of standing”. Basically, the federal courts have said the Plaintiff doesn’t allege the particular interest which allows him to proceed with the litigation.
We have a great many problems in our Country – one of them is the modern day mindset of the American People that the solution to every problem with government is TO FILE A LAWSUIT AND LET THE FEDERAL JUDGES DECIDE THE ISSUE.
But our Framers NEVER said the solution to such problems is to file a lawsuit. That is merely our modern day statist mindset where we don’t want to take responsibility for dealing with problems ourselves – we want to shove them on to federal judges and have THEM decide.
What our Framers told us to do is:
1. elect more faithful representatives who will nullify the acts of the usurpers; and
2. States and the People should refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws.
Don’t file lawsuits! That’s the cowardly way out. But that is the modern day mindset.
Re the dismissals of the federal lawsuits asserting obama is not an NBC.
At first, I was solidly on the side of the plaintiffs and was enraged when the federal courts dismissed the actions for lack of standing. BUT THEN, the light came on in my head and I recollected that the federal courts have no power to remove obama from office. Only Congress has the power to remove obama from office. His ineligibility to serve as President is a “POLITICAL QUESTION” for Congress to handle. And sadly, we elect spineless ignoramuses to Congress who won’t do what is right.
So, it all falls back on us. And I see no change: American “conservatives” are still gaga over ignorant men who demonstrate no understanding of our two Founding documents – but who said or did something they like – and so they are all for them.
LikeLike
Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 |
Worth repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, ….
” … The federal government is not a party to the Constitution – it is merely the creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. …”
… and when fully internalized by the current electorate the restoration of the Constitutional Republic can/will begin …
LikeLike
Comment by slcraignbc | April 5, 2015 |
Well, of course, I am paraphrasing our Framers, those are their words…..
So HOW do we get the electorate to rediscover this? You are right – unless they rediscover that Principle – we are doomed.
LikeLike
Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 |
Amen, people talk about NWO, liberty is the NWO, but people are so ignorant and gullible to the old world order.
LikeLike
Comment by Rob John | April 5, 2015 |
Ummmmm, the New World Order is “liberty”?
What do you mean by “Liberty”? In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy redefined liberty to mean freedom from the moral laws: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/judicial-abuse-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-abortion-sexual-orientation-gay-marriage/
Is THAT what you mean? Freedom from the moral laws?
Or do you mean Freedom from personal responsibility?
Or something else? What?
The classic view – on which our Framers built – was that “liberty” means that condition of mankind which exists only with a civil government with extremely limited and defined powers such as the one created in our federal Constitution of 1787.
Sigh, I knew it was too good to be true when I saw you “liked” my post.
LikeLike
Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 |