[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document Mike Lee
The still-unfolding story of America’s Constitution is a history of heroes and villains—the flawed visionaries who inspired and crafted liberty’s safeguards, and the shortsighted opportunists who defied them. Those stories are known by few today. In Our Lost Constitution, Senator Mike Lee tells the dramatic, little-known stories behind six of the Constitution’s most indispensible provisions. He shows their rise. He shows their fall. And he makes vividly clear how nearly every abuse of federal power today is rooted in neglect of this Lost Constitution. For example: • The Origination Clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, but contempt for the clause ensured the passage of Obamacare. • The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the NSA now collects our private data without a warrant. • The Legislative Powers Clause means that only Congress can pass laws, but unelected agencies now produce ninety-nine out of every one hundred pages of legal rules imposed on the American people. Lee’s cast of characters includes a former Ku Klux Klansman, who hijacked the Establishment Clause to strangle Catholic schools; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who called the Second Amendment a fraud; and the revered president who began his first of four terms by threating to shatter the balance of power between Congress and the president, and who began his second term by vowing to do the same to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, the Constitution has always had its defenders. Senator Lee tells the story of how Andrew Jackson, noted for his courage in duels and politics, stood firm against the unconstitutional expansion of federal powers. He brings to life Ben Franklin’s genius for compromise at a deeply divided constitutional convention. And he tells how in 2008, a couple of unlikely challengers persuaded the Supreme Court to rediscover the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Sections of the Constitution may have been forgotten, but it’s not too late to bring them back—if only we remember why we once demanded them and how we later lost them. Drawing on his experience working in all three branches of government, Senator Lee makes a bold case for resurrecting the Lost Constitution to restore and defend our fundamental liberties.
View this title on Amazon.com Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23. Senator Mike Lee Just another slobbering Establishment Tea Party stooge wrapping himself in the flag and claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be.
#3. To: Willie Green (#1) Just another slobbering Establishment Tea Party stooge wrapping himself in the flag and claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be. There are too many quasi-experts on the Constitution around who don’t support a strict adherence to the Constitution, but rather their very specific interpretation of the Constitution. They live with the erroneous belief that their interpretation is the only right interpretation and dogmatically insist others agree with them. It can be said they all have a very common disorder: Banal human arrogance.
#4. To: Gatlin (#3) Willie Green (#1) --- Just another slobbering Establishment Tea Party stooge wrapping himself in the flag and claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be. Thank you Chief Cheep Gatlin of the canary clan, for confirming your alliance with a self confessed anti-constitutionalist. It's obvious that you can't specify your charges against the patriots on this forum. -- Is it a failure of intellect, or are you just chickenshit?
#5. To: All canary clan members. -- Gatlin challenged, will he debate? (#4) There are too many quasi-experts on the Constitution around who don’t support a strict adherence to the Constitution, but rather their very specific interpretation of the Constitution. They live with the erroneous belief that their interpretation is the only right interpretation and dogmatically insist others agree with them. It can be said they all have a very common disorder: Banal human arrogance. --- Gatlin
There are too many quasi-experts on the Constitution around who don’t support a strict adherence to the Constitution,
I support a strict adherence to our Constitution (with the exception of the 16th Amendment), and do not consider myself an expert, merely a student of the document.
but rather their very specific interpretation of the Constitution. They live with the erroneous belief that their interpretation is the only right interpretation and dogmatically insist others agree with them. Read my discussions with Nolu Chan to see who is dogmatic. -- Chan dogmatically insists, --- I appeal to the common sense and the common principles inherent in the document.
It can be said they all have a very common disorder: Banal human arrogance. --- Gatlin Spoken like the very arrogant major that you pretend to be.. Will you, can you debate constitutional issues? For instance, why do you insist that States have the power to bann certain weapons?
#9. To: tpaine (#5) Spoken like the very arrogant ... Arrogant … probably not. Acting like a Modern Pentathalon being somewhat headstrong, cocky, stubborn and ambitious … probably so. There is a distinct difference …
#10. To: Gatlin reconfirms that he is afraid to debate constitutional issues. (#9) Will you, can you debate constitutional issues? For instance, why do you insist that States have the power to bann certain weapons?
I am not an anti-Constitutionalist. Stop making shit up. You can't answer the States gun question above, can you? Why? ---, because it would show you up as an anti-constitutionalist, that's why.
I repeat: --- Will you, can you debate constitutional issues?
With someone who has enough intelligence … of course. --- That lets you out So you won't. Making you a chickenshit anti-constitutionalist. Thanks..
#13. To: tpaine (#10) So you won't. Making you a chickenshit anti-constitutionalist. The "Major" outed himself as a cowardly enemy of the Constitution long ago, back on Liberty Post.
#14. To: Deckard, tpaine, Gatlin (#13) The "Major" outed himself as a cowardly enemy of the Constitution long ago, back on Liberty Post. Deckard and tpaine outed themselves as constitutional idiots long ago.
#17. To: nolu chan (#14) Deckard, ---- The "Major" outed himself as a cowardly enemy of the Constitution long ago, back on Liberty Post. Poor nolu, reduced to playing neener, neener games with the truth about gatlin. Are you some relative too? (Harrowup made that claim) Is that why you defend his nonexistent honor?
#22. To: tpaine (#17) Are you some relative too? (Harrowup made that claim) I thought they supposedly hated each other at first before they eventually fell in love?
#23. To: CZ82 ----- and all (#22) Nolu, are you some relative of gatlin, too? (Harrowup made that claim)
It thought they supposedly hated each other at first before they eventually fell in love. Could be, but gat & h'rup ended as kissen cousins.
Replies to Comment # 23. There are no replies to Comment # 23.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 23. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|