14

Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion Of America's Founding Document

Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 8 months ago to Books
33 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 8 months ago
    Thanks. My problem with Conservatives pointing out the destruction of our Constitution is that they also are happy to participate in the destruction. It is conservatives that gave us the NSA, civil asset forfeiture, etc.

    In addition, conservatives pretend they are originalists, however they will say nonsense things like "where in the constitution do you find that right?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 8 months ago
      Hello dbhalling,
      Many "conservatives" do not deserve the moniker. Very few that claim it actually wish to conserve original intent.
      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 8 months ago
        The Constitution and the very idea of the US is not conservative
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 5 years, 8 months ago
          Hello dbhalling,
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 8 months ago
    Read it. It is outstanding. Lee would be a great pick for Supreme Court. His father argued many cases before the Supreme Court and Lee grew up talking about those cases around the dinner table. He had a lawyer's training before he ever went to law school, and a firm understanding of the Constitutional principles to put them in context.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kilroy 5 years, 8 months ago
    This would not be an issue if those in power were held to their oath of office part of which is to defend the Constitution. There should be some legal challenge and punishment to those who violate their oath.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lysander 5 years, 8 months ago
      Check out Brian McClanahan on Liberty Classroom, has a great course on 10 (13) worst presidents and 10 best presidents. His criterion is do they abide by their oath, that's it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 8 months ago
    Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are cut from the same cloth.
    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...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by davidmcnab 5 years, 8 months ago
    Does it deal with how copyright keeps getting extended just as Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, in direct violation of the "limited times" phrasing in the Constitution?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 8 months ago
      Hello davidmcnab,
      I don't recall any attention to that particular.
      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by davidmcnab 5 years, 8 months ago
        That is just one more issue where the will of the Founding Fathers had been subverted. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 they explicitly say "for limited Times". But with copyright terms being extended every time Mickey Mouse is about to expire, this has effectively become "Forever".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 8 months ago
    Not having read Senator Lee's book, I can't really
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 8 months ago
      Hello LibertyBelle,
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo