(Article changed on September 23, 2013 at 20:27)
(Article changed on September 22, 2013 at 14:09)
If you are at all interested in this article by its title,
then you likely have been following the downward trend of the
Appreciating what we do have
In the matter of protecting our rights, I am a proponent of working with what exists--namely, the Constitution--as, in our present circumstances, this would be more likely to ensure the protection of the rights that previous generations have enjoyed. I am acutely aware that many have little to no respect for the Constitution any longer and often believe that hopes and appeals to it are useless in today's world (see here and here). Hopefully, my small contribution here will help to minimize the damage such negative opinions of the Constitution may have propagated among the populace.
I might first remind you that the framers were
not totally happy with the Constitution as signed, either. I suppose we should not chide anyone for that
belief today, but what of an alternative?
Some have suggested either replacing the Constitution with something totally
different, creating a new constitution, or completely overhauling the existing
one. We have been seeing tremendous
pressure on the dollar both from large, failed corporations and from their
government cronies, who have been providing them with bail-outs using our monetary
resources and labor, all on top of the efforts to destroy our rights (probably
a coordinated assault--deep
politics at work). But consider what
kind of influence the "banksters" (as we have come to define them, thus far) would
likely have in such a process. Today, we
see their undeniable influence in both the legislative and executive branches, so
it is doubtful we would ever be able to prevent them from influencing a
convention. Predicted result: By allowing any major change in the foundation
of our government, we would likely lose much more than we would gain as a
Coordinated efforts, as I interpret them, to make the
Let's take a look at how elites manipulate our view of the Constitution to help their goal of eliminating it. This will be presented from the viewpoint of an amateur (myself) against the wise and learned experts that the elite enlist to slyly move public opinion against the Constitution. I like amateur interpretations better because the Constitution was written for the common man and was meant to be understood by him. About a year ago, I had the chance to attend a Constitution Day event at a local Purdue campus given by Professor Frank J. Colucci, who stated that he thought it dangerous to leave the Constitution only to courts, judges and lawyers, and that the document was never meant to be complicated. He quoted Chief Justice John Marshall in speaking of the lack of legalese in the Constitution, and that if it had been wordy in that way, it "could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public" (taken from McCulloch v.
Expert manipulation of our views of the Constitution
Expert opinion (A): Source--National
Archives and Records Administration, Assertion--"When James Madison drafted the amendments to
the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon
the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights."
1) "that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others", which made it into our current First Amendment as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The 1776 Declaration had no such language.
2) "freedom of speech" stated in the 1788 proposal, which phrase does not appear in the 1776 Declaration (it only included "freedom of the press").
3) Our current Third Amendment, re: housing of soldiers in
time of peace, is exclusive to the 1788 proposal; no mention whatsoever in the
4) From our Fourth Amendment, re: no unreasonable searches,
etc., the following familiar words and phrases are exclusively from the newer