Fine. Obvious.
So why do so many people not believe that is the case or, alternatively, why are we in these shitty situations if that's true...?

I think the statement is fine but it's not leading to the right questions or answers/comments.

I remember 20 years ago concluding that we live in interesting times. And may it not get even more interesting. Well, here we are and it is even more "interesting". And it will continue to get even more interesting. Jeez.

Flootus5, some days I need some of your optimism. Negativity does no good.

I think it boils down to that I am not as pessimistic about our current predicament. Although, why, sometimes I don't know.

The People certainly do have standing, they just need to stand up and show it. Apparently that won't happen until the refrigerators are empty, the gas tanks are empty, and the banks have closed their doors. Then watch what happens.

DiU was a typo, my bad, it was meant to be DoI for yes, Declaration of Independence.

On "Standing", hopefully you'll recall that we saw much of government courts so "ruling" against the efforts to bring Obama's ineligibility. I ought not have to explain that further.

Yes indeed, the history is indeed relevant, but most of us have BTDT. The problem with all that is tilting all the windmills over and over which it's impossible to fix them in the rush of the Rulers making even more.

Bad laws are a multitude, such that mankind cannot survive while also worshiping the "rule of law". The People have NO role in the so-called Balance of Powers, which are entirely the province of our Rulers in the legislative, administrative and judical branches of government.

Why else would we feel a compelling need for "illegal" resistance? Why else would GaltGulchOnline, DumpDC, The 10th Amendment Center, nullification and secession movements need to exist?

I have no idea what a "DiU" would be, as any acronymic simplification of the Declaration of Independence would be "DoI". You have provided no rational that the Declaration of Independence did actually need to be repeated.

And as far as the future States getting the consent of their citizens, is not that inherent in the process of the People electing representatives to, gee whiz folks, guess what, represent the citizens?

Having recognized your basic disdain for anything approaching an achievable "rule of law", all the talk, talk, talk, you provide does not nothing to help the matter at hand. The statement that the people were not given any role in the Balance of Powers is simply - wrong. The problem is that not enough are participating.

And the role and meaning of participating should be another whole post.

However, I agree that there is little sign that we are going to get "back to the Constitution." Because there is - deliberately - not enough education going on about the Constitution. And some of your blanket statements are in evidence of that.

Furthermore, "Talk, talk talk," about the founding documents is absolutely relevant to the matters at hand. If one is to refuse to acknowledge the basis of the eternal rationality of the founding documents of the American "experiment", then we are truly lost. When this is accepted by an individual, that individual is truly lost.

As to Citizens having been ruled to have no standing..... huh? What? When? Where? Can we be a little more specific/realistic i.e. rational, here?

Sorry, the DiU did most certainly need to be repeated, or by reference, incorporated into the Constitution.

Those 56 men who later wrote up the Constitution didn't do that! Kinda sad that Thomas Jefferson wasn't there to make that point!. After that convention it required 2 more years to ratify the thing, and even then Rhode Island had not so ratified. Never have I seen any reports of the various States getting the consent of their citizens, have you?

Nothing of all that good stuff on your provided link is part of the "Supreme Law". So while all the talk talk talk about all that is indeed interesting, it is not even relevant to this matter. The Constitution became effective in 1789, and has bit by bit been trashed by the very GOVERNment it created. There's no sign that somehow we're going to ever even get "back to the Constitution". The people were not given any role in the Balance of Powers, so here we sit helpless to do anything about any of this. Citizens have been ruled to not have "standing, right?

Once again Walter Williams is right. With such intelligent and logical black men as Williams and Thomas Sowell, how can there be some many stupid black men who fall for Obama's race baiting in Ferguson? Do they ever listen to the black men with no agenda, no need to use them and who have common sense? They would know then they do not need D.C. to grant them their rights, they already have them. Go to work, get out of the streets, and for God sake, quit spouting talking points - like the oft repeated, "Black people matter." Of course they matter, all people matter, and they all have rights not granted by some D.C. dictator wanna be.The only thing government can do is steal our rights via executive actions.

Yes. I believe the "intellectual" mouthpieces for these pols, of which Obama is clearly the one who feels most restrained, like to call it the "living Constitution". With the clear implication that it should more easily changeable, to reflect the modern, progressive, i.e. Socialist ideas the Founders were unfortunately ignorant of. I believe Larry Tribe is foremost among these, and is constantly self-promoting himself for the Supreme Court. Reason #1,245 for a Republican win in 2016.

Our consititution outlines the limited "rights" of the government to control the citizens.

As Paine put it in "Rights of Man":
"A country's constitution is not an act of its government. It is an act of the people in constituting a government."

But it seems that if that grant lasts too long, the bureaucrats forget that we have the power to take it away. The next time we write one, let's put in a sunset clause.

For the SHTF to happen, someone would have to lay out a call to action. Unless he used carrier pigeons or private courier, the NSA would just send someone over and pick him up. The same technology that allows us to communicate also allows them to monitor communications. That sucks! By that measure, there will never be a SHTF moment.

It's similar to tax revolt. The Boston Tea party was over a small use tax, 3% I think. Today, with the withholding system they take magnitudes more than the Tea Stamps of the 1700s. There is no way to revolt. You have no choice if you get a paycheck. The boss has no choice but to turn over the "trusted funds" that are your taxes. The company could lose all the assets by refusing to forward the money to the IRS. It seems to me everywhere we look our not so benevolent government has boxed us in. That was not the founder's view of freedom.

I spend a little time with my Constitution as well, although I haven't been moved to carry a copy with me at all times as Dr. Williams does. Last night I was once again shocked by how little power is given to the executive branch. In my printed version it only amounts to about a page. Civilian commander in chief, cabinet, pardon power, appointments, state of the Union, and he is supposed to convene Congress.

Section 4 was interesting. It's one sentence long. It covers the reasons a President and cohorts can be removed.

There were no provisions for Czars, Executive Orders, and political arm twisting...so I'm guessing these are all power grabs that Presidents have exploited over the years. Our current President was a Constitutional professor. I'm guessing that means he studied carefully all of the things not specifically ruled out by the Constitution and determined that if he moved quickly he could get away with those things. I deduce this because he certainly couldn't be reading the same straight forward and humble document that I study a couple of times a week.

I would like to get back to the original document, this living breathing version is about to strangle me.

If you look at The 10th amendment, the last of the bill of rights, it is also succinct. Any powers not given directly to the federal government nor specifically removed from the States, are to be left to the separate States, or to the people themselves. When you consider that, and then make a short list of the alphabet soup entities of federal government agencies, one has to ask if they are even Constitutional on the face of it. IRS, FBI, CIA, HUD, DEA, HSA, etc... None of that is enumerated in the Constitution. Which begs, why do we have them? Probably the same reason the Executive branch has so much power, congress is delegating their power to these agencies.

The Constitution was written to limit the powers of a central government, not to allow us our rights. We, meaning the voting public over the generations, have allowed our government to do more and more for us. To quote Dr. Williams, "...because we are too damned dumb to take care of our own problems."

I'm in favor of an article 5 convention, to reign in these guys in Washington and repeal the 17th amendment; allowing the Senators to be chosen by the State legislature. This leaves each Senator beholding to his home State, rather than the lobbyists. And term limits and some sort of balanced budget amendment should be looked at too.

Except that the Declaration of Independence is considered one of the Founding documents. It didn't need to be repeated.

http://chapin.williams.edu/exhibits/foun...

Elsewhere, Dean has raised the interesting point that it wasn't written into the Constitution exactly how the citizens were to go about replacing a government gone bad. The Declaration clearly states that the citizens have that right, as yet another right inherent to the People, but how to go about it? How does that jive with enemies "domestic"? I would suggest that the definition of enemies "domestic" are those that threaten the inherent rights of the People. And this then leaves the enemies "domestic" as those playing a role in the government gone bad.

What many seem to forget is that the Constitution was never intended as an entitlement document, giving the government power over the people. Rather, it was intended as a warning to the government of just how much power the people would tolerate before deciding it needed replacing again.

The Constitution exists in order to prohibit certain actions not to create them. Like the 10 Commandments, its purpose is to keep the government on the straight and narrow and protect the freedoms of the citizens. The number one problem we have today is the disregard for the Constitution and the number one cure would be to follow it to the letter.

Unfortunately little of the Declaration of Independence and/or the sage words of some Founders ended up in the "supreme law" we call the Constitution. Thus we're in this pickle!

Too bad, by the time TSHTF I will be long dead and gone!

Governments are paupers which own only whatever they can steal using Force. No government owns our Right to Life and all that entails, nor any other of our "rights". No matter how many constitutions and laws Govs might foist upon us, they cannot "give us" what they don't own.

okay, but in reality they are not our "leaders", they are our Rulers. Only by getting rid of the whole game of government force might the subjects be free to so restrain the looters.

I've been looking through a bunch of IRS instructions.
At the moment I don't feel like I have squat for rights.

And thank goodness that they are dismayed that the Constitution restrains them. Some of our leaders do not feel such a restraint even if it is there.

The most difficult thing for a people's representative to do is say, "No." It is also the one thing that must be said, regularly, if government is to be sustainable. Our constitution, generally, restrained them from saying "Yes," but unfortunately was not sufficiently clear for those who professionally parse words to get around the law.

All I can say to this is, well DA. Lol