Liberal Madness and the Constitution of the United States

On any given day we see lots of discussions about politics, and inevitably many of these discussions distill down to what is written in the Constitution of the United States. Crazy left wing ideas and initiatives get shot down based on what the founding fathers wrote into the Constitution, but why do these crazy left-wing radical ideas keep coming up? Part of the answer is because many liberals have never taken the time to actually read the Constitution in its entirety (it's not that hard, liberals; you should try it sometime). But this doesn't explain away all of the unconstitutional and radical ideology. Inevitably, some people spouting some of this nonsense will state that they have in fact read the Constitution, and then they will proceed to twist their interpretation of some other section of the Constitution to suit their particular argument. This is often the case with liberal lawmakers at the State and Federal level.

Earlier last year my wife and I visited Mount Vernon which is the estate of George Washington. I have an interesting connection with Washington; his real birth date (not the national holiday date) is the same as mine. My mother never failed to remind me of this while growing up, particularly the part about never telling a lie (as I'm sure any parent can appreciate). What a golden opportunity, right? But I digress.

The Mount Vernon estate is a fascinating place, and I highly recommend visiting it if you haven't already. When we completed the tour of the estate there was a gift shop where I picked up a copy of a book entitled "U.S. CONSTITUTION and Other Key AMERICAN WRITINGS". It's a spectacular book containing all the key foundational writings surrounding the formation of the Union of the United States. It contains all the usual suspects like the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the Civil Rights Act and many others in addition to the Constitution of the United States.

Several of the chapters are dedicated to The Federalist Papers. For those unfamiliar, The Federalist Papers were a series of (77) essays which were written between 1787 and 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. The purpose of The Federalist Papers was to answer any lingering questions people (politicians in particular) had about the Constitution and promote the ratification of the same. Remember, the Constitution of the United States was finally ratified in 1789, one year later.

To just sit down and read the Federalist Papers is a pretty daunting undertaking. At (672) pages, it's hard to know where to begin. I had never read through them all, only bits and pieces previously. One of the great things about the book which I referenced above is that it highlights the critically important elements of the Federalist Papers, and excepts the most relevant ones for reading. This was a giant help in understanding the order in which to consume them.

The Federalist Papers is a remarkable compilation of documents. They explain in intricate detail the logic and reasoning behind the formation of the Union, and contrast it against other forms of government throughout history. One of the most unique parts about the Federalist Papers is, they give equal weight to all other forms of government at the outset and then explain both the benefits, and the benefactors, as well as the shortcomings and the disadvantaged in each one of these forms. They explain this from the "common citizen's" point of view, as well as every other point of view from bottom to top. And, they explain these things from every angle, executive, legislative and judicial. It truly is a fantastic and enlightening read!

It occurred to me about halfway though that the vast majority of liberals have clearly never taken the time to read The Federalist Papers, because if they had they would never be suggesting some of the things they repeatedly do in recent times. It's like Ragu spaghetti sauce...'it's all in there'. The essays explain why all of these crazy initiatives don't work, but they do it in such a way as to not be dismissive of the ideas at first, rather embracing them for their seeming attributes and then going on to explain where they fail...and why.

Most modern K-12 schools touch on the US Constitution (maybe...sometimes), but it's usually done early around grade 6 or before, and much of that is lost. Civics education above grade 6 is usually an elective and is often passed over as 'boring'. In depth examinations of the underpinnings of the Constitution, and documents such as The Federalist Papers may get a mention here and there, but rarely gets an in-depth look even in college. I took several Civics and Political classes in my early college years, and I can say the Federalist Papers were rarely ever discussed in any level of detail. It probably should be required reading, especially now when it seems so many people have lost complete sight of what this country is founded upon and the meanings behind the way things are.

In modern society today it seems people just believe that "freedom" is being able to be "as jiggy as you wanna' be", and "being able to do whatever the hell you like" without any consequence. This isn't the way things are, and that's not what "freedom" and "liberty" is all about.

Just thought I'd throw this out there for those who may be interested.

Best

edit - BTW, if you're interested in the book I referred to, here is a link to it...

U.S. CONSTITUTION and Other Key AMERICAN WRITINGS

Over the past 4 years we've heard countless liberals discounting the Constitution of the US and talking about how it should be revised, re-written, or discarded entirely. They talk about how the Constitution is an "obstruction" to what they perceive as the 'right way' to govern the people. This astonishes me every single time I hear it! Clearly, the people saying this have never actually read the Constitution, let alone taken the time to understand it. Anyone who had would never make such a short sighted and misinformed statement.

I wrote the OP to address this very issue. The results of the recent elections are a very telling example of how far we've allowed policy makers to stray from the foundations our forefathers set forth for this country, and the results should serve as a clear illustration and wake-up call to those wishing to destroy these roots.

Going forward, I am cautiously optimistic people will step back and take the time to understand what freedom and liberty is all about, and why it is so vitally important not only to us here in the United States, but also to the World at large. The deeply concerning part though is, even though we saw a clear majority of "The People" speaking out against the radical left, still somewhat less than half of the population still voted to continue on that path of destruction.

The vote is just for one president. And a president just represents one party. Freedom and liberty isn't just about one party or one president. Freedom and liberty...and justice for all...is about all of us, all parties, all presidents...and all people.

I genuinely hope some people will take time to reflect upon this, and contemplate what really matters beyond some of the petty issues they allow themselves to be consumed with.

Thanks for the link FCD. Funnily enough I think I’ll get a copy

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The real reason that they keep attacking the constitution is because they want to make it "in their own image". They want to either do away with it or make it suit themselves. Fight, fight, to keep it because it's for all men (well women as well) not for a select few and be damned with the rest.
It really is one of my bugbears that the UK has not gotten a written constitution established in law. Please please anybody from the UK do not spout to me the "Magna Carta" BS. because if you would care to read it and understand the why and how it was only for the select few at that time and even the "updates" were not for the ordinary citizen.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk



Not to take away from your OP, it's spot on. I'm looking forward to CERN closing the "clown world" dimension and putting a substantial lock on it. Everyone loves a circus, but nobody wants to bring the clowns home. We all know the flower squirts water, and are no longer amused.

a reply to: Dalamax

I think you will enjoy it. It's laid out in a very organized way and very informative without all the usual noise.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think you’re right on a lot of the topics, especially our parents and educational system failing to teach the young the importance of the constitution.

But one thing I’d like to add is that the constitution is being attacked on all fronts. While the left certainly hear that on a lot of issues, there has been bipartisan support on certain things, and some have been successful.

I think the biggest items I’ve seen in the past twenty years are the following:

1. Patriot act and other spying laws

2. Civil asset forfeiture without due process

3. Private entities being allowed to express eminent domain (this one is nuanced, as some things still can be argued to benefit the nation as a whole. One thing that I think should be done to rectify it is if someone stands to make profit after the property acquisition, royalties should be paid to the selling party)

4. Use of espionage act in cases where espionage clearly wasn’t the intent. This takes certain rights away from the defendant, including that they can’t even argue their intent in court. Intent has a strong basis in our law, and it’s how most criminal cases are argued.

Edit: forgot a big one that’s been getting exponentially worse my whole life.

5. Inflation. Inflation is a hidden tax that disproportionately affects the poor and middle class. I’ve seen my own purchasing power decrease by multiples in my short life on most goods and services. The reckless way in which politicians have spent and printed money is a hidden tax most Americans don’t even realize is happening to them. Ideally the government should move more to a debit system, where they have to immediately find the funding for any spending they vote in. It would be a lot harder to pass things if that was the case.

a reply to: network dude

Oops...I should have said "Prego"...not Ragu. Oh well, I was close.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree, and thank you for pointing this out! You are correct, the Constitution is not immune from attack on the right also.

Very good point, and good supporting examples.

Thank you!

Edit...One counterpoint I might offer though is...your item #3 is primarily a tool used by the left to help out their cronies. Additionally, while I wholeheartedly agree with you on item #4, the even more disturbing fact about the espionage act is where it DOESN'T get enforced when it should. And we've seen countless examples of this with the current administration. The list of people who should be in jail for Treasonous acts against this nation is as long as my arm! Lastly, I do have to disagree a little bit with item #5. Inflation is something largely attributable to the left. Inflation is bad, but de-flation is even worse, and typically the conservative direction on spending is back toward balanced budgets which discourages runaway inflation like we have right now.

Overall though, I agree with your statements.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Honestly I don’t even see it as being political.

I just think a lot of politicians are susceptible to human faults like greed and power.

If we think of the parties as collective groups, neither group has a majority who want to assault the constitution. I’m confident if we showed and explained the examples above, a vast majority of Americans would oppose those things. And politicians rarely talk about any of those.

What I think we see is a calculated silence on them, and instead the parties find wedge issues that are kind of insignificant to the masses.

Most culture war topics wouldn’t even affect me no matter which side “wins”. They’re issues that deep in the margins, yet they take a seemingly majority in public discourse. I don’t see that as happenstance.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Mmmmm...not sure if I agree fully with that. I would argue the left is far more apt to want to violate the Constitution than the right...on issues which have direct impact on all of society. And, that last part is key.

However, to your point about Americans opposing (Constitutional) related things, this was the point of my OP and highlighting of the need to read The Federalist Papers. In other words, I think you are correct for many cases, and those people who object would have a change of heart if they were more informed, hence the OP.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

A clear and simple truth is that any form of government created by man and human nature is vulnerable to individuals, or groups of individuals, intent on manipulating the powers of that government to fulfill their own desires, usually for self serving and malevolent purposes.

The original constitution was initially written and constructed, primarily, to protect the individual states rights of sovereignty to govern their individual populations and the first 10 alterations to the bill of rights were the first alterations proposed from the outset of the writing and ratification of the constitution to protect the individual rights of the citizens of this nation.

The first 2 amendments to radically alter and subvert the purpose of the original constitution were the 16th and 17th amendments ratified in 1913. These 2 amendments alone destroyed the original intent and purpose of the entire document and it's destruction was imminent at that point.

I have harped here on this subject numerous times over years but it seems to deaf ears, evidently.

The 16th authorized the federal government to tax every individual personally, thereby usurping the states leverage over the federal government's funding while at the same time enslaving every individual to the power and authority of the federal government. Individual freedom was lost with the passage of this amendment. The first income tax was collected by Abraham Lincoln to finance the Civil War. The 16th amendment was ratified in 1913. Guess what comes soon after. Yep! World War 1. And every war since then has been financed by your income tax.

The 17th amendment, ratified at the same time, altered the way Senators were selected. Originally written, Senators were selected by the individual states legislatures. Originally intended, they were to represent the individual state's interest in the federal government and to maintain a certain amount of leverage and restraint over the federal government. The passage of the 17th neutered the states leverage over the fed and the fed soon became omnipotent to reign over both the states and we the people.

These 2 amendments alone spelled the destruction of this republic and the government subjugation of every individual in it. Freedom was lost on February 3, 1913.

Edit: According to Ask AI & Question AI www.iAsk.ai:

Historical Context of Senate Selection

The original Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1788, established a system for selecting senators that was markedly different from the current practice. Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures rather than by direct popular vote. This decision was rooted in several key historical and philosophical considerations.

1. Federalism and State Sovereignty

One of the primary reasons for this arrangement was to reinforce the federal structure of government that the framers envisioned. The Constitution aimed to balance power between the national and state governments. By allowing state legislatures to select senators, the framers ensured that states had a direct role in the federal legislative process. This mechanism was intended to protect state interests and maintain a degree of sovereignty within the federal system.

2. Concerns About Direct Democracy

The framers were wary of direct democracy and its potential pitfalls, which they believed could lead to mob rule or hasty decisions driven by popular passions rather than informed deliberation. Many of them were influenced by Enlightenment thinkers who advocated for a republic governed by elected representatives rather than direct participation by all citizens. By having state legislatures choose senators, it was thought that more educated and experienced individuals would make these selections, leading to a more stable and deliberative Senate.

3. Representation of State Interests

Senators were intended to represent not just the people but also the states themselves as political entities. The selection process through state legislatures meant that senators would be accountable to their respective states’ governments, ensuring that they would advocate for state interests at the national level. This dual representation—of both individual citizens through the House of Representatives and states through the Senate—was designed to create a balanced legislative body.

Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

1. U.S. Constitution

The foundational legal document outlining the structure of government in the United States provides explicit details about how senators were originally selected.
2. “The Federalist Papers”

A collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay advocating for ratification of the Constitution; these essays provide insight into the framers’ intentions regarding governance structures.
3. “The American Political Science Review”

A leading academic journal that publishes scholarly articles on political science topics; it includes analyses on constitutional design and electoral systems which contextualize changes like those seen with the 17th Amendment.
Probability that this answer is correct: 95%

a reply to: charlest2

Hamilton was actually opposed to the Bill of Rights (or any other Amendments) being appended to the Constitution initially. His reasoning was that by enumerating certain rights it would unintentionally leave out other rights which he felt were implied in the original document. So, in other words, the BOR created a situation were ALL rights had to be spelled out, as any omissions would potentially be viewed as not being rights. There was a certain amount of truth in his thinking, but it's hard to conclude absolutely one way or the other.

It's an interesting thing to ponder when you look at the Constitution as a whole.

While I agree with you to a certain extent about the 16th and 17th Amendments, I'm not sure I would go as far as saying these two Amendments "destroyed" the Constitution and that freedom was "lost" completely. I do agree they are a negative force to the rights of States. However, I don't agree that the 16th was the creator of wars. If anything, the Revenue Act of 1861 (which was what Lincoln signed into law, not the 16th Amendment which was 52 years later) brought an end to the Civil War. Without it the Union would not have had the fiscal solidarity to prevail. And given the Revenue Act of 1861 was wholly independent of the 16th Amendment it only stands to reason that other, similar, acts would have been passed in the future. What the 16th did was 'homogenize' (for lack of a better term) this process so there weren't a series of ad-hoc Acts funding different things like wars. Believe me, I am no fan of the 16th Amendment, so please don't interpret this as me defending it, but all I am doing is saying there was precedent for federal income taxes prior to 1913 and the 16th Amendment.

Regarding the 17th, I'm not aware of any real-life examples of what you are suggesting with the Senate. I could be mistaken, but could you cite an example where the 17th caused the States to lose leverage over the fed where had the 17th not been ratified would have changed the outcome?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Let me start by addressing funding of a standing army and wars issue. The original constitution did not provide for funding a perpetual standing army. They did see the necessity of funding a standing navy but not an army. Why? The American colonies had recently fought a war against British rule characterized by what many viewed as oppressive. The presence of a standing army during peacetime was thus far associated with tyranny and despotism. The Founders were wary of maintaining a large military force that could be used to suppress civil liberties or enforce unpopular laws. This context led them to prefer a system where military funding would be contingent upon specific needs rather than guaranteed on an ongoing basis. Although a standing army, to this point has not been utilized against the citizens perse, it's potential misuse is ever present and subject to manipulation by subversive influences, I.e. false flag operations by malevolent actors.

Joe Biden comes to mind here. I don't think he and his criminal cabal is finished with us yet. What's with the drones all over the northeast right now?

Furthermore, maintaining a standing army promotes the distinct possibility that it could, or would be used to effect internationally illegal aggressive operations around the globe to advance the objectives of the financially greedy domestic oligarchs of that era and beyond, even into our time. What's the old saying? If you have a big enough stick, you are bound to use it? I think the mongers of our time recognize the truth that the citizens are more than fed up fighting and dying in illegal overseas wars at this point so now they are using our tax dollars to fund yet another illegal and pointless war in Ukraine solely to enrich the profiteers of war here in this nation. Maybe I am wrong here but I think, if our Senators were subject to oversight and control and acting in the best interest or their respective states and less control of the lobbies that fund their elections they would not be nearly as likely to support all the killing we are perpetuating globally. Being elected by popular vote requires them to raise campaign funding anywhere the can find it, and that spells bribery and manipulation.

One of my senators doesn't even bother to reply to his constituents correspondence anymore. The other just spews canned mass media replies. Once elected, they are finished with us until it's time to get reelected.

This is getting too long and you are pressing my feeble brain for answers far too complex for me to comprehend on the fly here so I'll let this go for now. LOL


PS: Look at the makeup of our present Senate now. Do you see much honor and integrity in that body right now?

I don't! It's full of thievery and corruption and lying power craving mongers only concerned with self gratification. They swear oath to the constitution but immediately turn around and betray that oath.


Yes, even in Judea Caesar had his tax collectors.

Honestly, I am going to have to read your reply again tomorrow. My first pass observations are that you are arguing a point, just to justify the point, without reason substantiating this point. But I could be wrong. Again, I will have to digest it again tomorrow.

My question to you was rather simple...can you cite an example where the 17th Amendment prevented US Senators from being able to complete their duty of office because of, and solely because of, the 17th Amendment? It's just that simple.

I've seen much rhetoric around your response, and this is fine, but I wish for you to answer this one simple question.

I have been very direct with my answers. You invoked the 16th and 17th Amendments, and I invoked income taxation which preceded these Amendments by more than five decades, namely that of the "Revenue Act of 1761". Are you not aware of this Act? Do you not understand what it represents in terms of taxation precedent? Did you not know about it?

You see, it is these very types of things I discuss which are seemingly unknown to people. To my original point in the OP, a reading of the Federalist Papers explains much of this, but people generally stop with reading the Constitution...IF they even read that fully.

I mean no harm here, but you spoke out sharply about some selected Amendments, and I generally agree these are not some of the best Amendments I would point to, BUT...I also don't believe there is evidence these Amendments are the destruction of freedom and liberty under the Constitution of the United States.

Please enlighten me where I am misguided here.