Many here have mentioned"individual rights", I believe that in and of itself is what our leaders see as the problem. They want us to act as groups, individuals are trouble makers, trying tohold them back. They are working to create a "what is best for the whole" society. Only the problem I see with that is it is based on the culture and education of whomever is in office, not our country as a whole. I am not sure the constitution was written on the best pretence but it was better than what they've ammended it to. It sickens me, the thought of slaves and what was done to the Indians, I often wonder if we are not getting what we deserve. A kind of justice. A country founded on the blood of the innocent now tearing itself apart from within. Sad but true.

Maybe. Then too an eloquent, liberal teacher can make quite an impression on youngsters.

Thanks,

I was aware he was the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, but other than his activities with Jay's treaty I really do not know much about the man. For the most part, with the exceptions Jay's treaty, some federalist papers and his role in the supreme court, he seems to be missing form the historical accounts I have read.

I will have to look at his early rulings as I have not thought of using those as a method to get to know him better.

It was written when men and women were still honest, when public service was not considered to be a "job" and the reward for doing that service was the service of itself.
Unfortunately times have changed.

Excellent question John...what options are there. We have identified some of the reasons we got to where we are---the educational system, voter apathy, poor candidates. An over haul of the public school system and a more informed electorate might do it but thes are extremely difficult tasks. Certainly worth trying before an uprising but it may one day come to that.

I like it when you "let your mind out to wander."

our employees in the government have sworn to
obey and uphold the constitution. . they are failing
to do this. . we can't fire them. . this is a problem.

a popular uprising, if supported by a compliant
military, could amount to "firing them," but we're
not there yet. . Rand hypothesized a solution, yet
it is ungainly in the current situation. . the secession
of the producers' States would take awhile, but
could work. . what other options are there??? -- j

No kidding. The recent movie of Lincoln was really done well, but only gave a glimpse of what he was.

Canada's Charter doesn't even need to be "ever-changing", since it allows Parliament to override it simply by writing a "notwithstanding the Charter" clause into any bill.

In practice this means that when Canada's Supreme Court declares a bill unconstitutional, the debate isn't over. Parliament takes the matter up again, and may or may not change the result. (While in the US, Congress also does screw around with the results of Supreme Court rulings, but in less honest ways.)

Yes. I like your answer better. Thanks jdg.

John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So his opinions can be found in its earliest rulings, though he was retired before even Marbury v. Madison was decided.

The Bill of Rights 1689 doesn't deserve to be on the list. It was a counterfeit, a document intended to ensure that William of Orange and his successors would never repeat James II's proclamation of tolerance for Catholics, and all the rights it declares are for Protestants only. And it led directly to the Penal Laws which destroyed Ireland.

BHO does hold it in contempt, but he's not even close to being the first. FDR belongs near the top of that list of infamy, as well as Jackson, Lincoln, Rutherford B. Hayes, LBJ, and various others.

No, all the more reason to privatize the education industry and not HAVE an "education system". Because as long as there is one, somebody has more control over what nearly all kids believe than anyone can ever be trusted to have.

You can google the media stories about the 140 and 110% "elections." Yes, those are true, this was written about in several sources, but we are no longer a country of laws. Well, we are, but the laws apply only to the little people. I think that the official turning point was when Clinton lied under oath and nothing happened. Not that this never happened before, but never so blatant and public. The only principle that matters is what is good for the Party.
As to what kind of country are we going to become? Let me re-phrase the question - what kind of country have we become? If it wasn't for our residual wealth, that was built and earned over a century, we would be a Third World nation, which is exactly what our sociopath president wants America to be. He sees all wrongs in America to be the fault of White people, so all that must be destroyed to "level the playing field." He utterly fails to comprehend that if it wasn't for the White people, he would be in Kenya with a spear, either in his hand or his back. But, we are getting closer to his ideal.

Franklin -- "a Republic, if you can keep it". Frankly, I don't see enough difference to bother with, but still it was worth saying. \

The fatal problem with govern is that it's definition is Control, which equals Force (by someone, anyone, else). So if/when we are governed Force is part of the package, right?
Yet we so-called "citizens" are prosecuted for about any manner of Force, while your government is exempt.

You are here on the Gulch seeking not to end to force, but to escape it. Even if we could get away with that, how would hiding from our Rulers cure that dilemma?

My teachers would speak of the Constitution in a positive way, but would insist on "sticking to the script" so that questions about how the Constitution is no longer being obeyed go unheard. To the teachers, the New Deal courts' view of the Constitution is infallibly correct.

(In response to a comment below) I've also taken the Hillsdale online course on the Constitution, and was not especially impressed. My question about Andrew Jackson defying the Supreme Court to enforce the unconstitutional Indian Removal Act was ignored in the Q&A period because it doesn't fit their narrative, which is biased even though it's not the same as the biased lefty narrative.

This has nothing to do with your post, specifically...sincerely...but just one phrase...

We are taught, rightfully, not to regard feelings over thinking. I believe we all know that, or I hope we do, is true.

And so we try to change things to a rational, moral point of view.

And so we should...

But, whether we like it or not, and whether reason trumps emotion (which it does)...but...

Yes, I'm older, and yet have a 16 year old son.

And so, although even I called it "emotionally", or almost did,, but I now say "rationally":

I too feel I''m "not going to be around much longer", and it concerns the Hell out of me too.

This piece is written about the Declaration of Independence, scroll to the bottom for the speech, written by Rush Limbaugh`s father that gives great insight to the Founders. http://4thestatemedia.com/?p=316

No disrespect taken. I'm curious, if there is truth and fact that these places had 140% or 110% of the vote regardless of party, why hasn't anyone jumped up and down and sued? Set an example is one of my principles, lock them up.

I'm pleased to see these teachers, that passed and graduated kids that couldn't even read, get real prison sentences. Shouldn't we be doing the same with the people that run the polls and count the votes with results so blatantly false, try them in front of their peers and put them in prison?

What kind of a country are we going to become when we no longer enforce our laws and we have no morality anymore? I'm not going to be here that much longer, but it concerns the hell out of me. We should not be tolerating the daily news that almost everyday puts tears in my eye (this morning the Joint Chiefs of Staff again kowtowing to Obamas politics).

Yes, this book is on my required reading list, along with Atlas Shrugged and The Forgotten Man.

I sort of hate to "bust the bubble" about the "peaceful" American Indian, but they had a pretty good number of very aggressive tribal groups that formed "mini-empires" and engaged in conquest of their fellow natives well before the Europeans arrived.

The group we celebrate today as the Seminoles are in fact colonists from the very aggressive Creek nation, who invaded the Florida peninsula and committed genocide on the aboriginal tribes there. They were finalizing their conquest when the Spanish arrived and complicated things.

The tribal name Comanche is not what that tribe called itself, but is a Hopi word meaning "attacker". The Comanche were the Mongols of the American plains, having mastered the art of horse warfare before any of the other tribes, raiding and taking slaves and tribute from the less aggressive tribes.

There are lots of other comparable tales of tribal conflict, and many of the wars the European colonists engaged in were in fact instigated by tribal leaders who allied themselves with the Europeans to use their technological superiority for what they intended as their own gain. Unfortunately, the Europeans turned out to be even nastier customers than the Indians, and terribly untrustworthy allies.

It may very well have been the same book.
That must have been one heck of a well-written chapter I can now only dimly recall.
But I DO remember it for being way back when.

His is one of the most significant Presidencies in history. Any post about Lincoln always sets off a great debate in the Gulch. The kids are being cheated.

Excellent info Xenok. Thank you.