Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion Of America's Founding Document
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 1 month ago to Books
Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion Of America's Founding Document
Author, Senator Mike Lee ISBN 978-1-59184-777-9 216 pages, excluding citations
The book is well written and well founded. The Senator once clerked on the supreme court,
now serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Joint
Economic Committee and has been named chairman of the Senate Steering Committee.
The book delves into the history of abuses and usurpation's of certain politicians and judges of our
past and present as they pertain to the disregard and outright disdain for the letter and spirit of the document.
Details of those that have supported, those that have distorted our Constitution and of the repercussions
of same are contained within. In his last chapter he offers suggestions on "What You Can Do to Reclaim the Constitution."
It is a good reference book for historical record and perspective. The author spends some time on
defending religious freedom, making him sound like a mystic, but his arguments are Constitutional
not religious. He may be a religious man and that may not appeal to some objectivists, but how many atheist
politicians have we had? Most of the book is devoted to powerful arguments for original intent and the
history of problems resulting from deviation, distortion and outright disrespect.
All in all, he seems like a better candidate for President than anyone running. Too bad he isn't.
I would recommend adding this book to your reading list and library.
Happy reading!
O.A.
Author, Senator Mike Lee ISBN 978-1-59184-777-9 216 pages, excluding citations
The book is well written and well founded. The Senator once clerked on the supreme court,
now serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Joint
Economic Committee and has been named chairman of the Senate Steering Committee.
The book delves into the history of abuses and usurpation's of certain politicians and judges of our
past and present as they pertain to the disregard and outright disdain for the letter and spirit of the document.
Details of those that have supported, those that have distorted our Constitution and of the repercussions
of same are contained within. In his last chapter he offers suggestions on "What You Can Do to Reclaim the Constitution."
It is a good reference book for historical record and perspective. The author spends some time on
defending religious freedom, making him sound like a mystic, but his arguments are Constitutional
not religious. He may be a religious man and that may not appeal to some objectivists, but how many atheist
politicians have we had? Most of the book is devoted to powerful arguments for original intent and the
history of problems resulting from deviation, distortion and outright disrespect.
All in all, he seems like a better candidate for President than anyone running. Too bad he isn't.
I would recommend adding this book to your reading list and library.
Happy reading!
O.A.
Even before then. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by Congress in 1798. Adams did not like criticism...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Always a pleasure to hear from you.
O.A.
One of the great difficulties today-definitions. I prefer the plain meaning of the words as understood at the time. I also believe the clear aspirations expressed needed to extend to all and that some of the founders knew, as written, it would eventually force the issue. And so it has in many cases. Unfortunately many have twisted and abused it contrary to the spirit and the letter with word games to our loss.
Respectfully,
O.A.
comment on what he says. But I have reservations
about the phrase "original intent". Some people
seem to want to use that idea to say that a term
in, or an Amendment to, the Constitution doesn't
really mean what it says. For instance, that the
First Amendment doesn't really mean what it
says, and that "no establishment" doesn't real-
ly mean "no establishment", and that public
schools should still be allowed to shove pre-
scribed prayer down the pupils' throats (as was
done in my case, for instance, and in defiance
of the Court's ruling,for years). Also, that "equal
protection of the laws" doesn't really mean "e-
qual protection of the laws", and that Jim Crow
should be allowed to return. Etc.
I would not disagree. To be clear, I mean, that those that call themselves conservative do not practice the primary meaning of the word. (Google search, "conservative") "1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."... particularly when it comes to Constitutional principles.
Just as a liberal of today no longer holds or practices classical liberal views in politics.
Thank's for the opportunity to elaborate.
Regards,
O.A.
The constitution was designed to protect the people from government. Do you think the worlds kakistocracies were going to leave that one alone.
Like I'm fond of saying: America was never a conspiracy but she sure has been the subject of many...
I would rather see him as the next supreme court justice than president. I think he would be Ted Cruz's appointee if Cruz were to win.
He seems like a very affable fellow too. I find he is one of the few in congress that I can stand.
Regards,
O.A.
Many "conservatives" do not deserve the moniker. Very few that claim it actually wish to conserve original intent.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I don't recall any attention to that particular.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Yes. Quite right.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I concur.
O.A.
I wrote the following a while ago, and surely it could have more depth, but have a look at
http://noruler.net/3460/failures-of-t...
Load more comments...