Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

@WilliamSchooler Common Law or Natural Law was an attempt to study the affects of two statements; "Do all you say" and "Do no harm to another". These are in agreement with Biblical principle. In the early days of America I am told [still reading on...] There was no law in the states. The practice of Common Law was by choice and disregard a judgement made you "Outside of Law" or Outlaw. At that point, the outlaw would have the rights of animals and no protection of the courts.

I am told this system was highly developed and Blackstone was a standard in the science of Common Law.

I, myself say some things are also just as plain as the nose on our face. Some peoples willful acts would result in the end of society, or the race of man if practiced to perfection. This is simple logic. Keeping ones word and doing no harm has to do with our relations to others. Thus anarchy or immorality or hedonism will not support a society, and they have precepts in common, ultimately self is center, and the preservation and magnification of self. As long as self is center of our being, we will ultimately be isolated from all, and the culture will fail. Yet to pursue selflessness is not 'natural' to self centered man, this is something he must learn. This is where religious principle, understanding of origin and destiny shape our culture. And the pursuit of religious principle, specifically Christianity is something the majority of the founders embraced as being the purest of such teachings. Even Jefferson had a Bible based religion, though he denied deity of Jesus. Some say Franklin also was a deist, but I see something more, as he believed in Gods sovereign hand to 'raise a nation.' It's not very deist to believe in a God who governs the affairs of men.

History is our text book. We must build on the failures and successes of the past. There is nothing new under the sun. You may choose to live, to be; but where will you destination be?

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Mark 10:45

2 years, 9 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

@Michael Boldin@Roberto Benitez

Definition of CEDE transitive verb1 : to yield or grant typically by treaty 2 : assign, transfer

del·e·gate (dl-gt, -gt)n.1. Representatives who is entitled to speak but not vote.tr.v. (-gt) del·e·gat·ed, del·e·gat·ing, del·e·gates 1. To authorize and send (another person) as one's representative.2. To commit or entrust to another: delegate a task to a subordinate.

Thanks Mike. Technically cede works, but I like Delegated Representative better.

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

@Roberto Benitez What do you think is the best way to teach our American History?

If we are to reach future generations, history shows we must train the children. Today, we are simply those whom have a sense that something is wrong and are looking back to understand what we have been handed to us. The majority of Americans are blissfully ignorant of the conflict, happily plying their trades and seeking their short termed welfare, and we will find them weak allies in the battle to revive the glory of Americanism.

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

@Roberto Benitez Thanks for your little clips, they are very helpful. But I am a bit uncomfortable with the definitions democratic leanings as it clouds the importance of precepts and principles of delegated limited authority of Republicanism. This was the doorway for the camels nose so to speak. It was a Republican form of government we were handed, not a Democratic one. While we had some elements of democracy built into the Constitution, it was anathema to the founders that we would be one.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin; Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

It is the abuse of the 14th [and all the amendments for that matter] that bothers me, thus I wonder if it could have been drafted in such a way that the states were more protected from its abuse by their federal head.

“ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

The founders had the freshness of rebellion and war that gave them the diligence to carefully lay out the precepts they understood would best to ensure their continued prosperity. Subsequent generations have only the memory and history to kindle their desire where the founders pledged their lives and fortunes to be able to have the discussion. That is what I feel that in the drafting of the 14th and other amendments we find a lack of gravity and diligence to defend sovereignty at all costs. It was hotly debated in the founders days; today it is at best, a footnote.

The schools are ultimately the source of our hope for changing the tide today. We need Americanism taught throughout, and from the bottom up, through the local community's, not the States though it may help, but violates principle of self rule. Today we have federally mandated Marxist Multiculturalism and Revisionism in place of true history and the founders faith. The result, unfortunately is we've become an aggressor amongst the nations, propping up dictators everywhere to protect our interests to our shame.

[Washington told us this would happen] Today our cherished religious freedom is being used to write our epitaph where we once fought wars to protect it.

Oh Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore.

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

@Mike Maharrey@Roberto Benitez My thought was even the drafting of the 14th amendment seems to be ceding a power to the USA that empowers it to rule over states in a way that caused a huge step toward federalism. While it was for humanity and good, it also ceded power. It is in that ceding of power that the states loose sovereignty. It is the practice of empowering the feds that disturbs me. Even now we vote issues, some needs are great such as jobs, healthcare and environment. But we see these agency's quickly moved beyond the reach of the voters, and accept them as law. And soon the burden of regulation without representation begins to crush the people and industry, and those who would wield power are emboldened. The law of the nature of corruption will always trump natural rights, because it is naturally lawless, thus the need for all diligence to contain power, even when a great good is possible through it.

I am completely beside myself that our government has taxed the unborn US citizens for whim and passion of entitlements. I would think a simple spreadsheet would show that not everyone can drive a Lamborghini, but John Q public loves the idea! Our current spending course unsustainable, and it must be stopped. It is not that a proposed entitlement seems good or bad, but whether it should be discussed at a federal level.

Regarding the 14th, maybe it would have been better to draft an expiring law that REQUIRED states to adopt their own amendments regarding citizen rights. Once compliance was achieved, then it would have no further power as it does now, and the abuses that followed it. Sounds like the creation of the IRS. :P

Power corrupts, bind it with chains, and never loosen it...EVER.

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

@Roberto Benitez Wasn't it also required that a male also own land? Ditto on children of illegal immigrants being unnaturally born. One might consider the 14th amendment as being as inappropriate to the Constitution as was the Norths resistance of the sucession of the South.

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

@phreedomphan Gods justice transcends time. The innocent are not forsaken, even if the perpetrator manages to escape the temporal justice of our day. A conviction of eternal judgement will curb mans passions. If we rely solely on written law, there will be no end of law books or lawyers to interpret them. That is the beauty of 50 independent laboratory's of innovation. Freedom is a bit raw, but our Constitution was meant to give states opportunity to rule inwardly according to conviction of its citizens, and we can observe states and nations and learn from their successes and failures. Is not that the wisdom we glean from history? When we harm others, we become liable, and inflame justice. John Adams did not envision a secular state, but one based on biblical morality:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Consider a corporation. It will decide only based on cost, it does not have any concern for others. And no amount of law will make it better because its nature is forever for its own gain. And man is by nature no different apart from religious conviction.

We come into the world with no guarantees or possessions. We have our our naked life, and we leave the same way. We work to make ourselves comfortable first, then we should work for the betterment of others, but if we legislate that, we may find ourselves lockstep with brother Karl.

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

@phreedomphan

CNN was unusually candid with other things that COULD be regulated, like not wearing a necktie when using paper shredders or lighting gas stoves with matches. Point being there is no end to what one can make laws about. And no end to folks who would desire make laws to CONTROL others. I like to think of Power based on proximity. When found at a federal level or state for that matter, it is very difficult to address concerns from the citizens. The more localized a law is, the more responsive to the people. Thus Federal and State Law should NEVER be whim or passion, but RULE of PRINCIPLE, precepts that will endure through time.

Today we sadly see [actually we would be shocked to the bone to see] much of what we use in our daily lives is federally controlled. The argument for how much power would be delegated was hot even at the signing of the Constitution. Our current problem is the abuse of power, and if we will except the Constitution as LAW, it is the CRIMINAL abuse. Not other way to see it. No room for do gooders anymore. Law should be blind. The question is not whether we should cede authority for anything, say cellphone inertia switches, but whether we it is proposed at the right level to do so.

The question of power is not can it be used for good, but should it be used at all? Isn't that the libertarian principle? Many American founders I believe felt that if power was only ceded to prevent infringement of individual rights, then liberty would flourish. The least amount of power ceded at the lowest level is best.

Personally I think precepts like Moses commandments, and judges to weigh individual incidents is the best form of government we could hope for. Maximum Liberty and minimal law. The secular version of this is Common Law.

If we would grasp the precepts of Common Law, adding to it eternal diligence to defend against those who desire the power control others, then we would fully realize our human potential. And finally, if we remember our "self evident truths..."; God Gives Rights, and all those who violate another's rights will have to answer to their Creator.

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

I will take my chances on the road!

2 years, 10 months ago on Proposed cell phone ban recommendation could lead to federal overreach

Reply

From what I know, the founders were confident that the idea of limited government would spread liberty throughout the world. I wonder what happened? Was it just that others never saw the magnificence of the concept? Or did we never really grasp it that we would promote it?

I have always enjoyed reading the original 13 state constitutions! Good stuff!

@Michael Boldin@tascmanwylie

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

This just showed up on CNN, an excellent example of feds run amok.

8 other things the government should ban

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/opinion/alford-phone-driving/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply

And as logic follows, these limitations were not to the states either. The states were free to set up a theocracy if they wanted. The could expel undesirable elements if they wanted. Each state could freely choose its course in time to set up a government most suitable to its needs. The federal head was simply to prevent states or any other nation from forcing or overtaking individual states in a way that infringed on the God Given declared right to govern themselves. The Constitution was simply to provide the safety and security that individual states could never achieve alone, or without great ability or time.

Our republic is an incredible entity, or was. Thankyou Mike B for bringing this to the masses. It revives my hope that we can turn the tide.

John Adams said he worked to perfect government so we could enjoy our prosperity. Unfortunately we citizens have neglect our responsibilities, and suckled at the breast of prosperity. The founders gave their fortunes and lives to establish a great nation. May we too catch their vision, never forgetting the liberty is not free, but requires eternal vigilance, and the blessings of Divine Providence.

2 years, 10 months ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!

Reply