Constitution Study Group

Comment

Comment by Mike Foil on January 22, 2013 at 10:52am

I think it was Ben Franklin who also said that our Consitution and form of government was established to work with moral and religious people and that it would not survive with any other... or something very similar to that.  No wonder America is in trouble!

Comment by Mike Foil on January 22, 2013 at 10:48am

The Left talks about "collective salvation".  This concept leads to collective slavery.  God does not provide collective salvation.  That is a concept promoted by man, not God.  Each man must submit to God, on an individual basis, and find personal relationship with the Lord.  When a man has a personal, saving relationship with God; he will willingly be ruled by God.  Without that relationship, we are slaves to sin, death and tyrants.  Even when, as history proves it will happen, a nation slips into rulership by tyrants; in a man's heart he can still serve the Master of his soul.  In spite of who sits in the White House and the halls of Congress, we can still be at peace with the One who holds us in His hands. 

As we (me too) worry about the next act by Congress, the next trillion of debt, inflation, unemployment, usurption, the trampling of the Constitution, and the new king in the oval office; we tend to lose focus on King of kings.  While we may have national rulers we despise, I pray that we will find peace in our hearts as we obey the Master of our souls. 

As, I believe Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls."

Comment by Mark on January 22, 2013 at 7:24am

Man will ultimately be ruled either by God or Tyrants

Comment by Chaplain Thomas Gilbert Cole on January 21, 2013 at 9:50am

"{ALL}" Americans must come together in restoring our Christian Constitutional Republic.   The Battle Cry during our War for Independence: "{NO KING, BUT KING JESUS}"!

Comment by Frances Arthur on January 21, 2013 at 9:38am

Oh oh oh,........ I know this one! Pick me!!!

Mrs. Huldah, people prefer their convoluted idiotic theories to the simple plain, pure Truth because they have not been taught to THINK. In their simple little minds, they develop one thought and fall in love with it because it sounds good. Perhaps it is unique - they never heard anyone else say it before. Perhaps it is something they heard some radical lunatic say at an adjacent table at a restaurant. Who knows? But it gets in their mind and, since they haven't been taught any THINKING skills, such as logic, cause and effect, 2+2=4 without  benefit of a calculator, how to ask questions relevant to situations, how to listen and draw facts from information that is given, how to research information, etc., they just stick with their one little idea and assume it's a good one.

These people also have the added quirk of being incredibly frustrating in that they never want to think a new thought because then they would have to consider how that might negate a former belief. That is simply too difficult for them to handle. For example, if they have always believed that tomato sauce is the best for spaghetti, it may be extremely difficult if they encounter a meal in which only alfredo sauce is offered. Yeah, they can be that bad. It really makes it clear then why they could not deal with the paradigm shift of believing the govt is a corporation one minute to believing the truth about it later.

I hope this answer does not disappoint you too much. The good news is that SOME people can indeed be taught thinking skills later in life. This is why I focus my attention on the youth who still have a better chance.

Comment by Publius Huldah on January 21, 2013 at 9:09am

Right!  Our God-given rights never put us in conflict with each other.  God NEVER gave us the right to say whatever we want:  we can't bear false witness or slander people, make fraudulent misrepresentations,  falsely shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, etc.

 
The federal government has no jurisdiction over these issues for the Country at large.  So the federal government can't laws for the country at large addressing "slander", "libel", "fraudulent misrepresentations", etc.  The STATES retained jurisdiction to do that.  So it is the States which are to make laws securing your right to property by making laws against fraudulent misrepresentations, securing your right to your good reputation by making laws against slander & libel. 

As you can probably tell from my answer to Land Shark last night, I feel as if we are being overwhelmed by a tidal wade of stupidity.  I lie awake at night asking God to turn on the lights in the heads of our People and to give me the words to explain things better.

I've been having an argument with a fellow who thinks all our problems are b/c the US government is a "corporation".  But he can't tell me in his own words why he believes that, he can't cite any proof, he can't explain how the corporate status hurts us, and how things would get better if the federal government dissolved its [alleged] corporate status. 

Why do people prefer their convoluted idiotic theories to the simple, plain, pure Truth?   

Comment by Mark on January 21, 2013 at 8:29am

No Frances, Rights do not supercede one another. They are independent of one another. Your right to a speedy trial, to be secure in your papers and effects, or to file a writ of Habeus Corpus CANNOT be affected, abridged or superceded by MY right to bear arms, petition the govt for redress, or any other rights GRANTED BY GOD AND SECURED BY LAW. You are correct. You are not "missing" anything. The guest is an idiot and doesn't have the wisdom to remain silent.

Think about it this way; if one of the published rights secured by the Bill of rights ( or any other law for that matter) could deprive you of YOUR rights....then you don't really have any do you? Since you KNOW that cannot possibly be true, you may correctly deduce that Hannity's guest is a clueless twit who doesn;t know the first thing about the Constitution. Hope that helps.

I do not know if these records are privacy protected by law in New York, but I would suspect that they are. Thus, the moron may have actually violated their privacy. In most States, public records pertaining to private citizens (except those specifically exempted) are private and therefore publishing them may in fact violate State law.

Comment by Land Shark aka Bob E on January 21, 2013 at 5:48am

I should have snapped to that answer!  Thanks. 

Comment by Frances Arthur on January 20, 2013 at 10:40pm

Here's one. The moron who published the names and addresses of all the gun owners in Putnam County, NY was on FOX News last week. (Just so you know, my son had been watching the end of Huckabee to see a singer he liked. When he went to bed, I was working and left the TV on and overheard this. I don't normally watch Hannity.) When questioned as to why he believed he had a right to violate the privacy of all the gun owners and publish these addresses since they had a clear right in the 2nd Amendment to own them, the moron, errr publisher said that he was using his right in the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech) to publish what he wanted and since his right was listed first, it superseded the 2nd. I nearly choked.

Surely these "rights," which are given to us by our Creator and not The Constitution, don't trump one another, do they? What am I missing?

Comment by Publius Huldah on January 20, 2013 at 9:58pm

This whole business about "forcing the Senate to pass a budget" is just an excuse the RINOS are using to blame-shift away from their own refusals to control spending by voting against bad appropriations bills.

The Constitution doesn't require Congress to pass a budget.  We never had budgets until the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.

As you know, I explain this in my 2nd paper explaining why the BBA is a hoax and a trap.  You are always trying to get politicians to read it, but they refuse to read it b/c they don't care what the Constitution says; and besides clamoring for the BBA allows them to blame the Constitution for our fiscal problems.

I don't know what to tell you except that a great many people in this Country are going to pay a heavy price for their stupidity.

Would such a law be constitutional? That question no longer has any meaning.

Also, I expect it is just an empty gesture so the sponsors can show off to their constituents who are too stupid to know that the Constitution doesn't require budgets; and also that it was the Progressives who substituted "budgets" for the enumerated powers limitations on spending.  But that is sooooooo over the head of most Americans. 

They "can" make any law which a sufficient number of corrupt or stupid people in the House & Senate vote for.  And if there are not enough votes, one can always "deem" it passed.

The stupid people in your district elected a congressman who is so stupid or ignorant that he doesn't know this.  Sarah Palin,  Rush Limbaugh, every ignorant Republican who has a tongue and a voice box is complaining about how the Democrats haven't passed a budget.  They are stupid, ignorant people who don't know anything and are too lazy or conceited to learn.

Next question?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 293
• Next ›
• Page