U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 28, 2016
Author: Mike Lee
Post Date: 2016-06-28 07:12:57 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 26975
Comments: 124
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
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.
#2. To: Willie Green, anti-constitutionalist by his own admission. (#1)
Senator Lee makes a bold case for resurrecting the Lost Constitution to restore and defend our fundamental liberties.
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 Willy, for exposing yourself once again as an anti- constitutionalist fool.
#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.
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
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?
#6. To: tpaine (#4)
Thank you Chief Cheep Gatlin of the canary clan, for confirming your alliance with a self confessed anti-constitutionalist.
You are most welcome self-appointed Chief Shit of the only I can "correctly interpret" the Constitution movement.
I am not an anti-Constitutionalist. Stop making shit up.
I am however dogmatically against a piddly-assed pipsqueak attempting to tell me what the Constitution means and then trying to dogmatically enforce his warped views on me.
If that is a failure of my intellect or if I am just being chicken shit … then so be it.
#7. To: tpaine (#5)
Will you, can you debate constitutional issues?
With someone who has enough intelligence … of course.
That lets you out since you are totally incapable of thinking outside of the terms of logical fallacy where your errors in reasoning renders your positions invalid.
#8. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#5) (Edited)
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.
Some more of your bullshit ...
I have read many of the exchanges and I watched chan make you look like a blithering idiot.
The part I most enjoy is that you just keep going back for more "smack downs" ... almost as if you receive some masochistic satisfaction.
#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..
#11. To: tpaine (#5)
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.
tpaine "COMMON SENSE"
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7
In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.
tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET
- - - - -
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49
The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET
- - - - -
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=72#C72
I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).
tpaine posted on 2016-06-16 22:47:22 ET
- - - - -
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=74#C74
-- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.
tpaine posted on 2016-06-17 20:27:12 ET
- - - - -
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.
tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET
- - - - -
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=68#C68
nolu chan erroneously claims: --
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
- - - - -
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732
During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.
http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136
Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional..
#12. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#11)
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.
And amazingly enough, Chan responds by reposting some of my common sense replies..
Thanks Chan, you know not what you do, quite often..
#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.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#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.
#15. To: tpaine (#10)
Gatlin reconfirms that he is ...
I will not waste my valuable time or utilize my vast knowledge on you, so I reconfirm that that it is not possible for me to carry on an intelligent discussion with such a constitutional idiot ... namely you.
You are welcome.
#16. To: nolu chan, Deckard, tpaine (#14)
Deckard and tpaine outed themselves as constitutional idiots long ago.
Yea ... BIG TIME!!
#17. To: nolu chan (#14)
Deckard, ---- 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. ---- nolu chan
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?
#18. To: Willie Green (#1)
claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture
I'm sure he doesn't literally claim that - so what are you actually saying about his views?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#19. To: Gatlin (#15)
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..
I will not waste my valuable time or utilize my vast knowledge on you,
But you'll waste unlimited time on petty replies, as long as you don't have to debate.
As I've said, you're a phony chickenshit.
#20. To: ConservingFreedom, y'all canaries (#18)
Willie Green (#1) --- (Lee) claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture.
I'm sure he doesn't literally claim that - so what are you actually saying about his views? --- ConservingFreedom
All these canaries are the same. ---- Big mouths on generalities, no hat on specifics.
#21. To: ConservingFreedom (#18)
so what are you actually saying about his views?
That they're dogmatic & narrow-minded.
#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?
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#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.
#24. To: tpaine (#0)
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.
What's even more contempt is that Chief Justice Roberts agrees that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.
The US government is corrupt.
#25. To: buckeroo (#24)
The US government is corrupt.
Wow! -- You sure tell it like it is...
#26. To: tpaine (#25)
It wouldn't be so bad, but most everybody keeps voting the same PIGS into government office. The corrupt D&R party supports a corrupt US government.
#27. To: buckeroo (#26)
Relax. Trump will save us all.
#28. To: tpaine (#27)
If you believe that crap, you graduated from Trump University.
#29. To: buckeroo (#28)
Relax. Trump will save us all.
If you believe that crap, you graduated from Trump University.
My GED was issued by Trump U. I was in the same class as nolu chan and gatlin. I graduated with honors, while they were ranked hind tit.
#30. To: tpaine (#29)
no comment, tpaine ... you need to edit that post quickly as tyme is running out!
#31. To: buckeroo (#30)
you need to edit that post quickly as tyme is running out
See if you can find a sense of humor.
#32. To: buckeroo (#26) (Edited)
but most everybody keeps voting the same PIGS into government office.
You mean like our founding fathers set the election process as? lol
Well, you're in luck in 2016, asshole. This year a NON (D) or (R) is viable. His name is TRUMP. You can write him in if you like. The (D)'s and the (R)'s hate him... and the libtard Paultards REALLY hate him. He's your two party hatred dream come true. lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#33. To: GrandIsland (#32)
This year a NON (D) or (R) is viable. His name is TRUMP.
More bullshit from a dumb elementary school crosswalk guard. Trump is just another pigment colour but underneath he is 0bama. Kinda like you ...
#34. To: buckeroo (#33)
Is that what you pathetic Paultards have resorted too... claiming Trump is a closet Obunghole? LMFAO.
You drug addict agenda posting tool bags have been screaming 2 party= 1 party hate since LP or LF was formed... and now a VIABLE candidate is running that's hated by BOTH parties... and you assholes hate him more. F' off. You're a joke.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#35. To: buckeroo, tpaine (#24)
[Mike Lee, posted by tpaine] 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.
[buckeroo] What's even more contempt is that Chief Justice Roberts agrees that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.
I understand tpaine and buckeroo were valedictorian and salutatorian at the tpaine School for the Gifted.
Can you two can explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific!
The house of origin for all federal revenue bills is the House of Representatives.
#36. To: Willie Green (#1)
claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be.
If you read it, the Constitution is actually quite clear - there is no wiggle room in, for example, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#37. To: nolu chan, buckeroo, y'all (#35)
buckeroo] What's even more contempt is that Chief Justice Roberts agrees that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.
Can you two can explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific! ---- The house of origin for all federal revenue bills is the House of Representatives. --- nolu
Amusing post, because obviously, buck answered it before nolu asked..
Nolu puts himself forward as some sort of legal expert. --- He must have failed logic at any sort of law school he may have attended.
#38. To: tpaine, buckeroo (#37)
Can you two can explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific! ---- The house of origin for all federal revenue bills is the House of Representatives. --- noluAmusing post, because obviously, buck answered it before nolu asked..
Well, it is obvious tpaine cannot or will not answer the question, what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution.
Will either of the two graduates of the tpaine School for the Gifted make the attempt?
#39. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#38)
Slightly changing bucks comment should give you your answer: --
Chief Justice Roberts DECREED that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.
Get it yet nolu?
#40. To: tpaine (#39)
Slightly changing bucks comment should give you your answer: --
Chief Justice Roberts DECREED that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.Get it yet nolu?
Yes, I get it. You are just full of shit and do not know what you are blathering about.
Your evasive answer is the equivalent of Because Benghazi!
My question was:
Can you two can explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific!
You have failed to state what, if anything, the ACA has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution. You have failed to state that you do, or do not, claim that the ACA violated the Origination Clause, or what it was that you may claim constituted such violation.
You say that Chief Justice DECREED that Obamacase is just another tax, and that it ignored the congressional house of origin, but you have failed to identify which house you claim the ACA originated in, and why that was somehow improper. And you fail to state why or how the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice Roberts, involves or runs afoul of the Origination Clause of the Constitution.
As Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted, you should know that the PPACA did not come within the scope of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. Had it come within the scope of the Origination Clause, the PPACA originated in the House and would have thereby complied with the Origination Clause.
#41. To: nolu chan (#40) (Edited)
Slightly changing bucks comment should give you your answer: -
- Chief Justice Roberts DECREED that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.
Get it yet nolu?
Yes, I get it.
Thank you.
All the rest of your reply is mere quibbling, -- by poor, poor frustrated nolu.
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 124) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]