Conference back40::soapbox

    
    couldn't you have put this in another topic??? I mean really.

    Well, he's got a point, even if he did have to create a new topic to
    bring it up.

    why not respond to the gist of the note itself instead of placing blame
    on where the note is placed.  The mods can move it if they want, and I
    don't think u r a mod yet.

    How about this:
    
    I think most of those who get into office know good and well what the
    Constitution means, but don't care.  They feel what they are doing is
    right, even though they trash their oath and our founding document.
    
    or..
    
    Most know what the Constitution is and what it means, but it was
    thoroughly gutted years ago, so they do not feel compelled to follow
    it.  Precedent has been set to ignore it or "read into" it
    rationalizations for doing whatever they can to buy votes.
    
    or...
    
    Some Congress critters are publically educated and know not a whit
    about the Constitution.  A test would be wonderful thing, and would
    show who has no business being in office (though such a test could
    easily be abused by those creating it, who are already in power, for
    keeping out political adversaries).
    
    or...
    
    The Constitution can mean anything we want it to mean, since it is a
    "living" document.  There is no solid ground on which to stand,
    therefore our rights are negotiable, and the federal government is free
    to infuse itself with whatever powers it can trick the people into
    giving it.
    
    or...
    
    The Constitution is actually irrelevant, as we have been in a state of
    emergency for decades now.  Not one President has reinstated it,
    therefore, the key is to *pretend* to follow it to keep the masses
    off-balance.  Legally, it doesn't matter if we follow it or not.
    
    
    
    
    I could go on, but I'll spare you my other 15 scenarios.  8^)
    
    
    -steve                         

    .0
    
    The only people qualified to hold office under your plan would be
    naturalized citizens.  Native-born citizens aren't taught enough about
    the Constitution - most can't even list the first ten Amendments.  We
    hold immigrants to a FAR higher standard - ask Colin Walters, who is
    Welsh by birth.

Not all naturalized citizens.  I've submitted the paperwork for our daughters
to be naturalized.  I suspect they'll be citizens before they can speak in
sentences, much less understand the Constitution.

    .4
    
    > I think most of those who get into office know good and well what the
    > Constitution means, but don't care.
    
    I think you are wrong.  I think most office holders do care.  They,
    unlike you, understand that the Founders, well aware that times change,
    built the Constitution to be a living document, a document that can
    adapt to serve needs the Founders never envisaged.
    
    As to why the government is out of control, that is the natural
    tendency of all governments - it is in fact the raison d'�tre of all
    organisms.  (In case this is too obscure, I'll explain that a
    bureaucracy is an organism.  Its first purpose is survival, and its
    second purpose is propagation.)
    
    What is needed is a surgical reduction of government - the same way we
    humans surgically reduce our own population through war, and the same
    way nature surgically reduces the populations of other species through
    starvation, disease, and other means.  But the idea that bombing is a
    valid approach is mistaken.  An organism that is attacked fights all
    the harder to protect itself.  The surgery must be done on a willing
    patient.

    nuke DC, just lemme know 24 hrs, first!

    It's "the people" who need to be given tests on the Constitution.
    
    The politicians are just parasites that do what they need to do to
    stay in office.
    
    When the day comes that politicians are thrown out on their butts for
    not adhering to the Constitution, that's when you'll get Constitutional
    government. Not before.
    

    For a start, how about:
    
    1) The United States was taken over on:
    	a) March 9, 1933
    	b) March 6, 1933
    	c) 1832
    	d) 1868
    	e) all of the above
    
    2) The proof that the Federal Reserve's money is a fraud is:
    	a) "freemen's" checks cleared
    	b) "freemen's" checks bounced
    	c) all of the above
    
    3) The proof that our goverment is occupied is:
    	a) The super secret pineapple bomb
    	b) The organized campaign to discredit a seismologist
    	c) The discovery of the mind control phrase "Warp Factor 3, ENGAGE!"
    	d) Tornados in Montana
    	e) all of the above
    
    4) The Federal Reserve is controlled by:
    	a) Jews
    	b) International Bankers
    	c) Foreign Bankers
    	d) all of the above
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    Hmmm... since Mr. Bill is our liberal Rush Limbaugh, I hereby annoint
    him with the new name:
    
    
                            Blush...
    

Mr. Bill lacks Mr. Limbaugh's breadth.

>                <<< Note 707.12 by ACISS2::LEECH "extremist" >>>

>    I wasn't saying that this was THE truth, though I believe there are
>    a few reps who fit this scenario.

	So now you don't think it's "most"?

    the proof that our gov't is occupied is the 
    microchip implantation in the butt thing.

      .7
  
>    > I think most of those who get into office know good and well what the
>    > Constitution means, but don't care.   
    
>    I think you are wrong.  
    
    This was just one scenario off the top of my head.  I wasn't saying
    that this is what I believed, but it is ONE possibility (and there are
    one or two reps who seem to fit this bill...unless they are simply
    ignorant of the most basic Constitutional concepts).
    
>    I think most office holders do care.  
    
    They have a funny way of showing it.  We all could use a lot less of
    their "caring".
    
>    They,
>    unlike you, understand that the Founders, well aware that times change,
>    built the Constitution to be a living document, a document that can
>    adapt to serve needs the Founders never envisaged.
 
    Adapt to new concepts, sure.  However, we are rewriting the most basic
    concepts, the very foundation of the Constitution.  Without a
    foundation, the house will fall.
       
>    As to why the government is out of control, that is the natural
>    tendency of all governments 
    
    Exactly.  This was understood all too well when our FF wrote the
    Constitution.  It is the reason why it specifically limited federal
    powers to only that which is granted to it by the Constitution.
    
>    What is needed is a surgical reduction of government 
    
    You'll get no argument from me.  We need to do this asap.
    
>    But the idea that bombing is a
>    valid approach is mistaken.  
    
    I agree.
    
>    The surgery must be done on a willing
>    patient.
    
    If this is true, then we will never change it.  It is not in man's
    nature (or the nature of government) to give up his power, once it is
    attained.  History shows this quite well.  
    
    There are only two ways to take this power back.
    
    1) It must be forcefully grabbed using the system itself, by the people.
    2) It must be taken by force outside the system.
    
    
    I advocate choice number one.  
    
    The FF wrote the Second Amendment specifically for case #2, should 
    government every become a tyranny- to insure that the people had "teeth", 
    and could take back their own government should it ever become necessary.  
    
    
    -steve

    
    re: .13
    
    >Mr. Bill lacks Mr. Limbaugh's breadth.
    
    
    I believe the only requirement that needs be addressed is the similar
    histrionics...
    
    
    Blush therefore qualifies wholeheartedly...

   .17  what nonsense.

    
    
    I agree.. his histrionics are utter nonsense...
    

    There's a very good article in America magazine this week about
    whether Australia should adopt a constitution similar to the
    US when it declares a Republic.  

    At the state level I believe Arizona has a policy by which anyone who
    is elected to the state legislature is required to undergo training on
    the U.S. Constitution. It's so that they are aware of their state's
    rights under the Constitution.
    

    .16
    
    >>> I think most of those who get into office know good and well what the
    >>> Constitution means, but don't care.   
    
    >> I think you are wrong.  
    
    > This was just one scenario off the top of my head.  I wasn't saying
    > that this is what I believed...
    
    Then why, pray tell, did you state it as something you think/thought. 
    For most people that phrasing would be equivalent to saying they
    believed the thing in question.

  .22  that's what i was gonna ask him earlier, but he didn't answer
       my _first_ question, so i held out little hope that he'd answer
       that one. ;>

    I always love seeing the phrase "living document" used in reference to
    the Constitution.  This terminology is always rolled out when a "right"
    in the Constitution is suddenly "found" by some wacky jurist.  It is
    also used when the federal government extends it's reach even further.
    
    The "living document" aspect of the Constitution is found in it's
    ability to be amended.  that makes it a "living document".  If there is
    a need to add an additional function of the federal government or
    clarify and extend a right of citizens, then we have a way to do it.  I
    do not believe for a minute that the framers of the Constitution ever
    intended that the "living" nature of the Constitution was to ever be so
    bastardized.
    
    Any decision by the Supreme Court that relies on a "found" right should
    never be acceptable.  These should be submitted for ammendment to the
    Constitution.  

    .24
    
    The"living" nature of the Constitution is not being bastardized and
    inherently cannot be bastardized by the passage of whatever Amendments
    the Congress proposes and the People ratify.  I say this because the
    Founders placed no limit on what may be amended.  It is not overstating
    the case to assert that the Constitution could be so amended, entirely
    within the law, as to render every section that is presently in force
    null and void.
    
    As for "found" rights, I haven't the foggiest notion what you are
    talking about.  In a legal sense, everything that can be done, said,
    owned, or otherwise affected by a human being is a right, unless a law
    is passed to prohibit it.  I see no paradox in the discovery of rights
    we've had all along.  Now if you want to talk about entitlements,
    that's a horse of a different color.

>    The"living" nature of the Constitution is not being bastardized and
>    inherently cannot be bastardized by the passage of whatever Amendments
>    the Congress proposes and the People ratify.  I say this because the
>    Founders placed no limit on what may be amended.

The way I read Al's note, I believe that this is what he was saying.

It was the endless re-interpretations by SCoTUS which constitute the
bastardization .

    .26
    
    I'll buy that.

    .22
    
    It wasn't meant in a personal sense, only as a scenario (and,
    admittedly, to prompt discussion).  You did notice that there were 
    four or five different scenarios, right?   I did not intent to say any
    or all were true, or that they were my personal belief.  They were to
    spark discussion, nothing more.
    
    I should have started off my first scenario the same way I did the
    others, rather than with "I believe".  My mistake.  Sorry for the
    confusion.
    
    
    -steve

    .25
    
    .26 pretty well explained what I meant.  I must really try to write
    clearer.  It seems that I keep getting things taken out of context from
    what I mean.  I wonder if sometimes it might be intentional. Hummmmm.