The word Democracy gives you a warm fuzzy feeling that everything is all right. You couldn't be more wrong! It is the steppingstone to communism!
Why A Replubic
+Status Of Constitution
What Is Liberty
- Govt Regs
- Law Enforcement
- UN Involvement
- Living Constitution
Constitutional Matters - Living Constitution - Show Print View!
The United States of America has had three Constitutions.
1. Articles of Confederation
The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781.
2. The U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787, but signing wasn't enough. It had to be ratified by nine of the 13 states before it became binding. That happened when New Hampshire ratified it on June 21, 1788.
Under U.S. Constitution "We the People" had a Republic. That means "Rule of Law" government. We had fiscal control over the Federal Government. Now Federal government controls local governments with fiat money bribes.
3. Case Law used as U.S. Constitution
1913 – a Living Breathing Constitution? Is it? Could be, since 1913. that is when Democracy, which is a stepping stone to Communism, got a strong foothold in the U.S.A. The 17th Amendment facilitated the Living Constitution/Progressive movement.
Once Democracy was in place and the Rule of Law was set aside, the Left/Communists/Neo-Cons were free to do as they pleased.
Under a Living Constitution "We the People" have a Democracy (a dictatorship by the Majority). That means "1.Ruler's Law" government.
So Under a Living Breathing Constitution
Okay, so today we end up with basically two factions, i.e. two distinct groups of people. One, probably most Conservatives believe in the Constitution, the 1787 version. The other faction, the Left likes the case law version. The later is "rule of law." While the left version(case law) is whatever they want the law to be. So that be tyranny!
Okay, that is too simply of an explanation. So you want more.
When Clarence Thomas joined the Supreme Court in 1991, he found with dismay that it was interpreting a very different Constitution from the one the framers had written—the one that had established a federal government manned by the people’s own elected representatives, charged with protecting citizens’ inborn rights while leaving them free to work out their individual happiness themselves, in their families, communities, and states. He found that his predecessors on the Court were complicit in the first step of this transformation, when in the 1870s they defanged the Civil War amendments intended to give full citizenship to his fellow black Americans. In the next generation, Woodrow Wilson, dismissing the framers and their work as obsolete, set out to replace laws made by the people’s representatives with rules made by highly educated, modern, supposedly nonpartisan “experts,” an idea Franklin Roosevelt supersized in the New Deal agencies that he acknowledged had no constitutional warrant. Then, under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1950s and 1960s, the Nine set about realizing Wilson’s dream of a Supreme Court sitting as a permanent constitutional convention, conjuring up laws out of smoke and mirrors and justifying them as expressions of the spirit of the age.
That is from Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution
During an interview between Congressman Jim Clyburn (SC) and Judge Andrew Napolitano, several important questions were asked. The answer were a significant indictment on those who disregard the rule of law.
Shane Krauser offers poignant commentary that is indisputable if one believes that the Constitution must be followed. Listen in to this hard-hitting action.
Why Should Congress Have to Follow the Constitution? (Shane Krauser)
Constitutional Matters - Living Constitution Show Print View!
Help me promote this website!