Warriors in defense of our constitution..

[ironglow]

  We should all strive to defend our constitution..beginning with the Bill of Rights..the document which outlines the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE as opposed to the government.  The rights therein should be held as inviolable by ANY government or administration.  Here are a growing group of "constitution warriors" who are fighting the fight for all of us;
 
  http://townhall.com/columnists/erikstanley/2011/09/14/what_is_pulpit_freedom_sunday_all_about/page/full/
 
  The Bill of Rights is a founding document..much older and pre-dating the IRS.
 
  I cannot understand why the preachers of the 1960s...ever stood for this BS..  But praise God, they are ready to right an old wrong..
   ****************************************************************************
 
     " http://townhall.com/columnists/erikstanley/2011/09/14/what_is_pulpit_freedom_sunday_all_about/page/full/
 
  Article #1, Bill of Rights:
 
   " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

[ironglow]

A related movie..worth seeing..  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5iue0Wi3gY

[Gary G]

Ironglow, just curious, do you support this?


"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

[ironglow]

Ironglow, just curious, do you support this?


"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
How is that question related to the movie?
 
    In any case, no successful corporation, school, military, charitable organizations or even the Boy Scouts can successfully operate with such a nebulous arrangement as to allow only 2 years allowable planning ..followed by total uncertainty.
      Thus, I cannot go with a 2 year leash of uncertainty upon our military.  It takes much longer than that to develop & build a new airplane or tank..say nothing about a new aircraft carrier of defensive missle system.

[BUGEYE]

Ironglow, just curious, do you support this?


"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

back then you reached behind the kitchen door for your gun, put some biscuits in your pocket and you were ready for war.
I have my own aircraft carrier in the backyard, but I'm durned if I can figure how to get it to the beach.
it would be better if we kept a standing army/navy etc.

[ironglow]

  Right on Bugeye;
  If we are to compete with adversaries who plan many decades in advance..the colonial "minuteman" model isn't the answer.
  If some politician is advancing such an idea as Gary posted above, he had better leave 1775 ..do not collect $200..and go directly to the 21st century..    

[Gary G]

It makes you wonder how Switzerland and Costa Rica have survived so long under such a policy doesn't it?

[Gary G]

And so can we conclude from the above conservation that the neo-cons, that is the new conservatives, would say that the constitution should be strongly upheld, except when it does not agree with neocon ideology, and then it should be disregarded there because that part wouldn't work in modern times. Wasn't this in direct opposition to the old conservatives of the 30's, 40's and early 50's? Does this philosophy not make it a living document as Obama has said? Is there a basic difference here between republicans and democrats?


Could any of this explain how we got into such a mess as we are in now?

[ironglow]

It makes you wonder how Switzerland and Costa Rica have survived so long under such a policy doesn't it?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Certainly an apt comparison
   #1 Switzerland; A small nation in mountain fastness surrounded by nations concerned with their own protection and defense.      And...
   #2 Costa Rica..a small 'banana republic' of a nation of little import on an international scale, which can depend upon nearby nations, and confident the USA would protect it, by invoking the Monroe doctrine..

[ironglow]

And so can we conclude from the above conservation that the neo-cons, that is the new conservatives, would say that the constitution should be strongly upheld, except when it does not agree with neocon ideology, and then it should be disregarded there because that part wouldn't work in modern times. Wasn't this in direct opposition to the old conservatives of the 30's, 40's and early 50's? Does this philosophy not make it a living document as Obama has said? Is there a basic difference here between republicans and democrats?


Could any of this explain how we got into such a mess as we are in now?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
   You called it..now face it..The preamble to our constitution says;
*************************************************
  " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
**********************************************************************
   Any leader or congress which thinks for one moment that they can wait until the enemy actually attacks..before "calling out the minute men"..is operating with G2 that is about 250 years out of date. 
  Back in 1775, it was muskets, cannons and bayonets. Today, it is ICBMs, Mach II jets and nuclear, chemical, biological and cyber warfare...
   The founding fathers expected us to follow the constitution..but I am confident they wouldn't have had us to be stupid enough to confront a nuclear exchange or biological attack with a musket...even if it had a bayonet already affixed!
 
  Obviously, the US could today, have 50,000 muskets w/bayonets and all the shot & powder they can use..but I dare say that would not "provide for the common defense" of our nation, given the technology we face today.
 
   BTW:
     We are in the mess we are now, because a large percent of the voters decided to vote with their heads placed in their posterior portions... 
      Who were pleasantly aided by those who knew better.... but didn't bother to vote.

[Gary G]

I guess my thoughts would be that if you trade with other countries if is profitable for both, and in their best interest of profit to maintain that mutual peace. Of course if you provoke them, they might wish to attack you and that would not be "avoiding entangling alliances".  Now if you provoke, your argument is necessary. Perhaps, if we had listened to our founding fathers, we could have followed the constitution. Other countries have without attack; I pointed out two above. The constitution did provide for a Navy as a deterent. The fathers were afraid of a standing army as it can just as easily be used on the people as some fear may happen. Now, when you decide it is expediate to compromise one part of the constitution, it is easily followed by compromising other parts until the whole document is useless as has been done. We were an exceptional country, now we are like all the rest.

[BUGEYE]

even if it had a bayonet already affixed!

I had to laugh when I read that.  I could picture a man with a muzzle loader trying to hold off a russian armada.

liberals will be the death of us yet

[nw_hunter]

even if it had a bayonet already affixed!

I had to laugh when I read that.  I could picture a man with a muzzle loader trying to hold off a russian armada.

liberals will be the death of us yet

I have to agree Bug.......The Liberals in the Democrat and Republican parties have signed our death warrant.

[ironglow]

I guess my thoughts would be that if you trade with other countries if is profitable for both, and in their best interest of profit to maintain that mutual peace. Of course if you provoke them, they might wish to attack you and that would not be "avoiding entangling alliances". Sure, the 9/11 murders were surely the fault of the U.S. Now if you provoke, your argument is necessary. Perhaps, if we had listened to our founding fathers, we could have followed the constitution. Other countries have without attack; I pointed out two above.And I pointed out the strategic differences between those countries and the U.S.    How about the other 190+- other countries in this world?  The constitution did provide for a Navy as a deterent. The constitution was penned at a time when enemies had to take a couple months minimum to cross the ocean...things happen more quickly now..  The constitution didn't mention radio, TV, or the internet..but we assume the 1st amendment also applies to them.. The fathers were afraid of a standing army as it can just as easily be used on the people as some fear may happen.  Now, when you decide it is expediate to compromise one part of the constitution your opinion; not established fact, it is easily followed by compromising other parts until the whole document is useless as has been done. We were an exceptional country, now we are like all the rest. The world will continue on when Ron Paul is gone...the cemetery is full of "indispensable people".