The Constitution Correctly Understood

[Separatist]

From The Enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee:
http://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Relevanc ... bert+e+lee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...[Southerners] understood the Constitution to be a "structural and procedural document, specifying who is to exercise what powers and how. It is a body of law, designed to govern, not the people, but the government itself; and written in language intelligible to all, that all might know whether it is being obeyed." -(Forrest McDonald)

In the "creedal nation" of Lincoln, Kristol and even the likes of Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama, men play gods and dissatisfied with the world as they find it, attempt to remake it. American imperialism has roots in the creedal nation mentality. Lincoln's war against the Confederate States, the Spanish-American War, Wilsonian Democracy, and more recently in U.S. engagements in Iraq and beyond stem from a hegemonic creedal nation.

[JohnnyL]

From The Enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee:
http://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Relevanc ... bert+e+lee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...[Southerners] understood the Constitution to be a "structural and procedural document, specifying who is to exercise what powers and how. It is a body of law, designed to govern, not the people, but the government itself; and written in language intelligible to all, that all might know whether it is being obeyed." -(Forrest McDonald)

In the "creedal nation" of Lincoln, Kristol and even the likes of Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama, men play gods and dissatisfied with the world as they find it, attempt to remake it. American imperialism has roots in the creedal nation mentality. Lincoln's war against the Confederate States, the Spanish-American War, Wilsonian Democracy, and more recently in U.S. engagements in Iraq and beyond stem from a hegemonic creedal nation.

Wow, we've gone so far astray...

[Robin Hood]

Interesting.
I've never understood the issue between the south and the north. I know they didn't go to war over slavery. I read it was "states rights", but I don't know what that was in practice.

I know the south came pretty close to victory at one stage.

[lundbaek]

In 1987 the Prophet told us that "We must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers." His next statement was "Have we read the Federalist Papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it? '" These statements have never been repealed or modified, just largely ignored.

[David13]

Interesting.
I've never understood the issue between the south and the north. I know they didn't go to war over slavery. I read it was "states rights", but I don't know what that was in practice.

I know the south came pretty close to victory at one stage.

I don't know why I feel compelled to answer this, maybe because I was a history major.
One of many issues was states rights. Others included foreign alliances and economic base.
States rights deals with the concept whether or not there should be local or home rule. In some areas it's totally acceptable and legal to openly carry a gun, for instance.
In others, only criminals do that, due to ridiculous laws that only affect law abiding citizens.
The issue arises then should there be an overriding federal policy (law) or one size fits all cookie cutter law that is imposed on all the USA, including very diverse areas, whether that law (policy) fits or not?
For instance slavery, driver's licenses, gun laws, or many other issues. Who gets to choose? The people who live there? Or the federal bureaucracy in Washington? The 'know it all' pundits in the capitol or the people affected by the law?
It's still a big issue, and in a way much like the Scotland issue you may know about.
dc

[Robin Hood]

Thanks for that David13.
I understand the Scotland comment, but you will know, having studied history at undergraduate level, that it is a very different situation.
However, I realised some time ago that history is written by the winners. The north won the US civil war and therefore the narrative I swallowed was the one I was supposed to.
My father, however, has had a life long interest in the subject and I learned from him that the official version was not necessarily correct.
Last year an American family visited our ward. They were from one of the southern states and vehemently anti-north. They started talking about states rights etc, and said the slavery issue was a smoke screen. One of them even said the thr confederate flag was the only flag he owed allegience to!
That is why I asked the question.
Thanks once again for your comments.

[David13]

Well, the slavery 'smoke screen' is actually revisionist history. If you read contemporary (to the Civil War) newspapers, you will see nothing of the "War to End Slavery".
That came up later when it became politically correct to emphasize the "Civil Rights Struggle" and was emphasized by a long tv program sponsored by General Motors which repainted the whole conflict as this great moral crusade to free the slaves, when it was no such thing.
But it fit the popular and current 'politically correct' agenda. So the man in the street (average Joe) took it as gospel.
It wasn't.
The entire "Civil Rights Struggle" crowd, all Dems, all liberal, all left wing, grotesquely ignore the most basic and fundamental civil right there is. The right to self defense and to use whatever tools to defend oneself.
The gun.
All of a hypocritical sudden they are vehemently opposed to any such God given (of course, they don't believe) or natural (suddenly they rewrite nature too) right.
And nobody should have a gun, except the superhuman and "highly trained" cops. Watch the cops. Some of them make the old Keystone Kops look like real pros.
So you see, with all this perversity going on, some of us do get excited, sometimes.
dc

[kennyhs]

Interesting.
I've never understood the issue between the south and the north. I know they didn't go to war over slavery. I read it was "states rights", but I don't know what that was in practice.

I know the south came pretty close to victory at one stage.

I don't know why I feel compelled to answer this, maybe because I was a history major.
One of many issues was states rights. Others included foreign alliances and economic base.
States rights deals with the concept whether or not there should be local or home rule. In some areas it's totally acceptable and legal to openly carry a gun, for instance.
In others, only criminals do that, due to ridiculous laws that only affect law abiding citizens.
The issue arises then should there be an overriding federal policy (law) or one size fits all cookie cutter law that is imposed on all the USA, including very diverse areas, whether that law (policy) fits or not?
For instance slavery, driver's licenses, gun laws, or many other issues. Who gets to choose? The people who live there? Or the federal bureaucracy in Washington? The 'know it all' pundits in the capitol or the people affected by the law?
It's still a big issue, and in a way much like the Scotland issue you may know about.
dc

The people who live there should get to choose, just as the federal bureaucracy should turn the land over to the States, The government is not
supposed to own land.

[Jason]

Interesting.
I've never understood the issue between the south and the north. I know they didn't go to war over slavery. I read it was "states rights", but I don't know what that was in practice.

I know the south came pretty close to victory at one stage.

I don't know why I feel compelled to answer this, maybe because I was a history major.
One of many issues was states rights. Others included foreign alliances and economic base.
States rights deals with the concept whether or not there should be local or home rule. In some areas it's totally acceptable and legal to openly carry a gun, for instance.
In others, only criminals do that, due to ridiculous laws that only affect law abiding citizens.
The issue arises then should there be an overriding federal policy (law) or one size fits all cookie cutter law that is imposed on all the USA, including very diverse areas, whether that law (policy) fits or not?
For instance slavery, driver's licenses, gun laws, or many other issues. Who gets to choose? The people who live there? Or the federal bureaucracy in Washington? The 'know it all' pundits in the capitol or the people affected by the law?
It's still a big issue, and in a way much like the Scotland issue you may know about.
dc

The people who live there should get to choose, just as the federal bureaucracy should turn the land over to the States, The government is not
supposed to own land.

Of course...if the majority of the people don't oppose the government owning land....then its back to King Benjamin and Mosiah's stance on it...

[David13]

The majority of the people don't have the slightest clue about how things are supposed to be.
They just go along with their favorite smiling politician, and whatever he says. Particularly if he is handing out government (the people's) money left and right.
If he told them to stand on their heads, a huge percentage of them would spend their time standing on their heads.
dc

[Jason]

The majority of the people don't have the slightest clue about how things are supposed to be.
They just go along with their favorite smiling politician, and whatever he says. Particularly if he is handing out government (the people's) money left and right.
If he told them to stand on their heads, a huge percentage of them would spend their time standing on their heads.
dc

Hence the challenges!

[ChristopherABrown]

The majority of the people don't have the slightest clue about how things are supposed to be.
They just go along with their favorite smiling politician, and whatever he says. Particularly if he is handing out government (the people's) money left and right.
If he told them to stand on their heads, a huge percentage of them would spend their time standing on their heads.
dc

Hence the challenges!

Sadly, this is correct. Mostly because free speech has a purpose, and it is widely abridged. However there is a way out of the trap. And that is to be accountable to defining the prime constitutional intent which the framers wove into the framing documents.

Fortunately, that is far simpler than many would believe. It is as simple as recognizing these basic definitions from the framers, contained in this inquiry, one directly stated, and the other inferred.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

I've not gotten one good reason for not agreeing and accepting those intents as prime, and fully of the framing documents. From our agreement can come a form of rare and sacred unity based in our collective recognition of our unalienable rights and protection of them. That unity can be lawfully used to control our states, then the federal government.

This is not a political proposal, it is about law. By agreement the American people can become "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". It will however lawfully purify politics and save our nation.

[lundbaek]

Truth be known, most Americans do not want to live and abide by all the principles of the US Constitution. They see it as a Smørgåsbord, or a buffet from which they pick and choose the principles they want to uphold and ignore those that inconvenience them.

[David13]

Cafeteria Constitutionalists.
dc

[ChristopherABrown]

Truth be known, most Americans do not want to live and abide by all the principles of the US Constitution.

It is designed to limit the federal government and structure it accountably to principles of the republic.

Perhaps we do not know where or how to apply our efforts to make the government constitutional as it and corporations de evolve us. This has become a quandary over generations, generational cognitive dissonance about committing themselves to something political. There is an attitude that it is a waste of time.

Generations have failed to contain the governments conquest. Often there is no hope in people because no common sense strategy is apparent in the media.

A search through the framing documents with critical thinking about WHAT could actually have effect is the only recourse. Why would it have effect? What would the framers have intended to make the constitution work outside of elections to enforce and perpetuate it?

Constitutional enforcement is a concept Americans would discuss, and after they saw it start to work, the attitude will change, but the authority in control of national media discussion. logically, does not want it discussed.

[Jason]

Truth be known, most Americans do not want to live and abide by all the principles of the US Constitution.

It is designed to limit the federal government and structure it accountably to principles of the republic.

Perhaps we do not know where or how to apply our efforts to make the government constitutional as it and corporations de evolve us. This has become a quandary over generations, generational cognitive dissonance about committing themselves to something political. There is an attitude that it is a waste of time.

Generations have failed to contain the governments conquest. Often there is no hope in people because no common sense strategy is apparent in the media.

A search through the framing documents with critical thinking about WHAT could actually have effect is the only recourse. Why would it have effect. What would the framers have intended to make the constitution work outside of elections to enforce and perpetuate it?



Constitutional enforcement is a concept Americans would discuss, and after they saw it start to work the attitude will change, but the authority in control of national media discussion. logically, does not want it discussed.

....without morals and moral principles....there will never be enough common ground and overall acceptance of the principles of freedom (of which morality is the most important part)...

...if or when the people are willing to abide by God's laws (even just the most basic 10 commandments)...then the political will quickly resolve itself.

The very nature of wickedness is selfishness...and thus a "law unto themselves". As people become more wicked they become more incapable of being governed.

When people become more righteous..."if ye are not one ye are not mine"...they become more capable of being governed as well and more importantly self-governed according to law....whether God's laws or laws for the general benefit and welfare of mankind.

[ChristopherABrown]

Truth be known, most Americans do not want to live and abide by all the principles of the US Constitution.

It is designed to limit the federal government and structure it accountably to principles of the republic.

Perhaps we do not know where or how to apply our efforts to make the government constitutional as it and corporations de evolve us. This has become a quandary over generations, generational cognitive dissonance about committing themselves to something political. There is an attitude that it is a waste of time.

Generations have failed to contain the governments conquest. Often there is no hope in people because no common sense strategy is apparent in the media.

A search through the framing documents with critical thinking about WHAT could actually have effect is the only recourse. Why would it have effect. What would the framers have intended to make the constitution work outside of elections to enforce and perpetuate it?

Constitutional enforcement is a concept Americans would discuss, and after they saw it start to work the attitude will change, but the authority in control of national media discussion. logically, does not want it discussed.

....without morals and moral principles....there will never be enough common ground and overall acceptance of the principles of freedom (of which morality is the most important part)...

...if or when the people are willing to abide by God's laws (even just the most basic 10 commandments)...then the political will quickly resolve itself.

The very nature of wickedness is selfishness...and thus a "law unto themselves". As people become more wicked they become more incapable of being governed.

When people become more righteous..."if ye are not one ye are not mine"...they become more capable of being governed as well and more importantly self-governed according to law....whether God's laws or laws for the general benefit and welfare of mankind.

Agreed, a full set of moral standards are what works really well, but in our case, any function at all from philosophical commonality in perceptions of the intent of the framers, will actually suffice to deal with the situation lawfully and peacefully.

To firstly recognize that the constitution is a limit and structure for government that protects unalienable rights, and that our agreement upon that fact is what makes it enforceable. Then our agreement upon legally potent methods of creating unity adequate to enforce direction upon state legislations who have the real power is the second part.

This simple two part inquiry is designed to do that

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

I think many, many despite all of their differences can agree upon those two definitions by inquiry, of most prime of constitutional intent.

The challenge is to distinguish the effort in its universal context, it's commonality under law, then to reach out without judgement, seeking agreement and acceptance on unity for the peoples benefit.

[Jason]

Truth be known, most Americans do not want to live and abide by all the principles of the US Constitution.

It is designed to limit the federal government and structure it accountably to principles of the republic.

Perhaps we do not know where or how to apply our efforts to make the government constitutional as it and corporations de evolve us. This has become a quandary over generations, generational cognitive dissonance about committing themselves to something political. There is an attitude that it is a waste of time.

Generations have failed to contain the governments conquest. Often there is no hope in people because no common sense strategy is apparent in the media.

A search through the framing documents with critical thinking about WHAT could actually have effect is the only recourse. Why would it have effect. What would the framers have intended to make the constitution work outside of elections to enforce and perpetuate it?

Constitutional enforcement is a concept Americans would discuss, and after they saw it start to work the attitude will change, but the authority in control of national media discussion. logically, does not want it discussed.

....without morals and moral principles....there will never be enough common ground and overall acceptance of the principles of freedom (of which morality is the most important part)...

...if or when the people are willing to abide by God's laws (even just the most basic 10 commandments)...then the political will quickly resolve itself.

The very nature of wickedness is selfishness...and thus a "law unto themselves". As people become more wicked they become more incapable of being governed.

When people become more righteous..."if ye are not one ye are not mine"...they become more capable of being governed as well and more importantly self-governed according to law....whether God's laws or laws for the general benefit and welfare of mankind.

Agreed, a full set of moral standards are what works really well, but in our case, any function at all from philosophical commonality in perceptions of the intent of the framers, will actually suffice to deal with the situation lawfully and peacefully.

To firstly recognize that the constitution is a limit and structure for government that protects unalienable rights, and that our agreement upon that fact is what makes it enforceable. Then our agreement upon legally potent methods of creating unity adequate to enforce direction upon state legislations who have the real power is the second part.

This simple two part inquiry is designed to do that

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

I think many, many despite all of their differences can agree upon those two definitions by inquiry, of most prime of constitutional intent.

The challenge is to distinguish the effort in its universal context, it's commonality under law, then to reach out without judgement, seeking agreement and acceptance on unity for the peoples benefit.

You can't get to the perceptions of the intent of the framers without being like unto the framers...that's the part that everyone who likes to get involved and advocate political this or that...tends to forget.

So you can't get the first part...recognition for limit and structure...because everyone wants something different. Law unto themselves. And then you sure as heck aren't going to get agreement on "legally potent" methods of creating unity ADEQUATE to enforce any sort of direction upon state legislators for your second part.

People are more divided than they've ever been before in history. Pick your topic...

Question 1 - Sure. Also stated that the Constitution was only designed for a moral people...and wholly inadequate to the governance of any other.

Question 2 - Perhaps. Does it matter though if everyone is yelling about something different? From marijuana to same sex marriage to new age....etc etc etc. You can't even get a bunch of ranchers facing the same basic problem to agree to any sort of unity and effort.

Good luck to you. I've been involved in a number of political and educational efforts....I'm convinced its up to God to clean up...not to mention He states that in the scriptures...

After the cleansing....if we are both still around...then lets talk.

[ChristopherABrown]

You can't get to the perceptions of the intent of the framers without being like unto the framers...that's the part that everyone who likes to get involved and advocate political this or that...tends to forget.

But they did distill and write down those intents with the Declaration of Independence and the constitution manifesting them as law. There is no reason we cannot get to those intents through what they wrote for us to use for that purpose.

So you can't get the first part...recognition for limit and structure...because everyone wants something different. Law unto themselves. And then you sure as heck aren't going to get agreement on "legally potent" methods of creating unity ADEQUATE to enforce any sort of direction upon state legislators for your second part.

So then are the Declaration of Independence, constitution and Bill of Rights useless?

And BTW, I get agreement upon this in face to face encounter EVERY time.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

People are more divided than they've ever been before in history. Pick your topic....

I'm looking for agreement and unity, upon, for instance, the right to our lives. Do you want your life? Your rights? Your freedoms?

Question 1 - Sure. Also stated that the Constitution was only designed for a moral people...and wholly inadequate to the governance of any other.

Question 2 - Perhaps. Does it matter though if everyone is yelling about something different? From marijuana to same sex marriage to new age....etc etc etc. You can't even get a bunch of ranchers facing the same basic problem to agree to any sort of unity and effort.

With the purpose of free speech abridged, I cannot even present what they can agree upon to them. They have no idea of what I propose. I was banned form the oath keepers forum, the dailypaul, the ronpaulforum and a couple of others for seeking agreement upon these prime constitutional intents.

There is a reason the usenet was removed in 1994 and dot com given to commerce.

Logically I conclude they were all fronts for the infiltration working to prevent any effective unity and mislead patriots into non effective action. Even if they are not, their actions have the same effect.

I deem it moral to state agreement with an intent that protect ones life and the lives of others as well as all of their other rights. Are you okay with that? Can you agree as well, despite the infinite disagreement we might find?

Good luck to you. I've been involved in a number of political and educational efforts....I'm convinced its up to God to clean up...not to mention He states that in the scriptures...

After the cleansing....if we are both still around...then lets talk.

I've always agreed with the phrase that "God helps those that help themselves" and that sharing Godly principles and intents finds approval from God.

[Jason]

You can't get to the perceptions of the intent of the framers without being like unto the framers...that's the part that everyone who likes to get involved and advocate political this or that...tends to forget.

But they did distill and write down those intents with the Declaration of Independence and the constitution manifesting them as law. There is no reason we cannot get to those intents through what they wrote for us to use for that purpose.

If you can get people to read them...I have yet to see much action let alone success on that endeavor...

So you can't get the first part...recognition for limit and structure...because everyone wants something different. Law unto themselves. And then you sure as heck aren't going to get agreement on "legally potent" methods of creating unity ADEQUATE to enforce any sort of direction upon state legislators for your second part.

So then are the Declaration of Independence, constitution and Bill of Rights useless?

And BTW, I get agreement upon this in face to face encounter EVERY time.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Pretty much. Its all just old paper...unless read, studied, and applied.

People are more divided than they've ever been before in history. Pick your topic....

I'm looking for agreement and unity, upon, for instance, the right to our lives. Do you want your life? Your rights? Your freedoms?

Define life, rights, and freedoms. Then get everyone else to agree to those definitions. Once everyone is in agreement....then we can proceed.

Question 1 - Sure. Also stated that the Constitution was only designed for a moral people...and wholly inadequate to the governance of any other.

Question 2 - Perhaps. Does it matter though if everyone is yelling about something different? From marijuana to same sex marriage to new age....etc etc etc. You can't even get a bunch of ranchers facing the same basic problem to agree to any sort of unity and effort.

With the purpose of free speech abridged, I cannot even present what they can agree upon to them. They have no idea of what I propose. I was banned form the oath keepers forum, the dailypaul, the ronpaulforum and a couple of others for seeking agreement upon these prime constitutional intents.

There is a reason the usenet was removed in 1994 and dot com given to commerce.

Logically I conclude they were all fronts for the infiltration working to prevent any effective unity and mislead patriots into non effective action. Even if they are not, their actions have the same effect.

I deem it moral to state agreement with an intent that protect ones life and the lives of others as well as all of their other rights. Are you okay with that? Can you agree as well, despite the infinite disagreement we might find?

The Ron Paul forums don't surprise me. The modern libertarians tend to be more anarchists than anything else. One of the reasons they struggle really hard to agree on anything. That and they are fed a modern load of BS when it comes to economics and money...big banker propaganda from the beginning.

I'm generally in agreement with you...but it gets choked off when you really start defining what it means to protects ones life and the lives of others. Marijuana laws or lack thereof is a very easy example to start with...

Good luck to you. I've been involved in a number of political and educational efforts....I'm convinced its up to God to clean up...not to mention He states that in the scriptures...

After the cleansing....if we are both still around...then lets talk.

I've always agreed with the phrase that "God helps those that help themselves" and that sharing Godly principles and intents finds approval from God.

Good phrase. 1st we have to live the principles ourselves...and then certainly share. I've found the most success by starting with just basic morals....essentially the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even with that Foundation though...its extremely difficult to find agreement going beyond that.

This forum is good example.

At the end of the day we are living in one of the most wicked periods in the history of the earth. Can't even watch a cooking show on television without getting bombarded with mockery of God, mockery of marriage, mockery of family, and blasted with darkness. We are ripe...and in the words of John Taylor..."the world is diseased and it requires a world's remedy"....

Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan
himself.

― Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol I

Despite this precarious situation I don't believe there will be any means of successful revision or revolution and submit the following commentary from John Taylor for food for thought on it...

One thing more upon this subject, and I have done. In Europe, there has been of late years a great mania for revolutions—a strong desire to establish republican governments ; but let me remark here, that the form of government will not materially affect the position of the people, nor add to the resources of a country. If a country is rich and prosperous under a monarchy, it will be so under a republic, and vice versa. If poor under one, it will be under another. If nations think proper to change their form of government, they of course have a right to do so ; but to think that this will ameliorate their condition, and produce happiness, is altogether a mistake. Happiness and peace are the gifts of God, and come from Him.

Every kind of government has its good and evil properties. Rome was unhappy under a kingly government, and also under a republican form. Carthage as a republic was no more happy than many of its monarchial contemporaries ; nor was Corinth, Holland, or Venice ; and republican Genoa has not manifested anything very much in favor of these principles. France was unhappy under her emperor, she was unhappy under her kings, and is unhappy as a republic. America is perhaps some little exception to this ; but the difference lies not so much in her government, as in the extent of her country, the richness of her soil, and abundance of her resources ; for, as I have already mentioned, "Lynch law" prevails to an alarming extent in the south and west. In the state of New York, in the east, there are mobs painted as Indians resisting the officers of the law, and doing it with impunity ; and it is a matter of doubt whether persons having paid for property, shall own it, or be dispossessed by their tenants, not in law, for the constitution and laws are good, but in practice defective, through popular clamor and violence. I refer to the estates of Van Ranseller and others ; and, in the west, to Joseph and Hyrum Smith, who were murdered in Carthage jail, without any redress, although their murderers were known to the officers of state ; and to the inhabitants of a city, ten thousand in number, together with twenty thousand others, principally farmers, labourers, and mechanics, occupying a country about ten miles wide, and thirty long, most of which was well cultivated and owned by the occupants,—who were all forced by continual harassing by lawless mobs, to leave a country in which they could not be protected, and seek an asylum in a far off desert home, there being no power in the government to give redress.

It is altogether an infatuation to think that a change in government will mend the circumstances, or increase the resources, when the whole world is groaning under corruption. If there are twenty men who have twenty pounds of bread to divide amongst them, it matters but little whether it is divided by three, ten, or the whole, it will not increase the amount. I grant, however, that there are flagrant abuses, of which we have mentioned some, associated with all kinds of governments, and many things to be complained of justly ; but they arise from the wickedness of man, and the corrupt and artificial state of society. Do away with one set of rulers, and you have only the same materials to make another of ; and if ever so honestly disposed, they are surrounded with such a train of circumstances, over which they have no control, that they cannot mend them.

There is frequently much excitement on this subject ; and many people ignorant of these things, are led to suppose that their resources will be increased, and their circumstances bettered ; but when they find, after much contention, struggling, and bloodshed, that it does not rain bread, cheese, and clothing ; that it is only a change of men, papers, and parchment, chagrin and disappointment naturally follow.

There is much that is good, and much that is bad in all governments; and I am not seeking here to portray a perfect government, but to
show some of the evils associated with them, and the utter incompetency of all the plans of men to restore a perfect government; and as all their plans have failed, so they will fail, for it is the work of God, and not of man. The moral agency of man without God, has had its full development ; his weakness, wickedness, and corruption, have placed the world where it is : he can see as in a glass his incompetency, and folly, and nothing but the power of God can restore it.

It is not to be wondered at, that those various plans should exist, for the world is in a horrible situation. Jesus prophesied of it, and said, there should be upon the earth " distress of nations, perplexity, men's hearts failing them, for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth," Luke xxi. 25, 26. Men see these things, and their hearts fear ; confusion, disorder, misery, blood, and ruin, seem to stare them in the face ; and in the absence of something great, noble, and magnificent, suited to the exigency of the case, they try the foregoing remedies, as a sailor, in the absence of a boat, would cling with tenacity to any floating piece of wreck, to save him from a watery grave.

There are very many philanthropists who would gladly ameliorate the condition of men, and of the world, if they knew how. But the means employed are not commensurate with the end ; every grade of society is vitiated and corrupt. " The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint." Our systems, our policy, our legislation, our education, and philosophy, are all wrong, neither can we be particularly blamed, for these evils have been the growth of ages. Our fathers have left God, his guidance, control, and support, and we have been left to ourselves; and our present position is a manifest proof of our incompetency to govern ; and our past failures make it evident, that any future effort, with the same means, would be as useless. The world is diseased, and it requires a world's remedy.

If man, then, is an eternal being, came from God, exists here for a short time, and will return, it is necessary that he know something about God, and his government. For he has to do with him not only in time, but in eternity, and whatever man may be disposed to do, or however he may vaunt himself of his own abilities, there are some things he has no control over. He came into the world without his agency, he will have to leave it, whether he desires it or not ; and he will also have to appear in another world. He is destined, if he improves his opportunities, to higher and greater blessings and glory than are associated with this earth in its present state : and hence the necessity of the guidance of a superior power, and intelligence, that he may not act the part of a fool here, and jeopardize his eternal interests; but that his intelligence may be commensurate with his position ; that his actions here may have a bearing upon his future destiny ; that he may not sink into the slough of iniquity and degradation, and contaminate himself with corruption ; that he may stand pure, virtuous, intelligent, and honourable, as a son of God, and seek for, and be guided and governed by his Father's counsels.

https://ia700706.us.archive.org/3/items ... 03tayl.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/44941/44 ... 4941-h.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mos ... ang=eng#26" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ChristopherABrown]

You can't get to the perceptions of the intent of the framers without being like unto the framers...that's the part that everyone who likes to get involved and advocate political this or that...tends to forget.

But they did distill and write down those intents with the Declaration of Independence and the constitution manifesting them as law. There is no reason we cannot get to those intents through what they wrote for us to use for that purpose.

If you can get people to read them...I have yet to see much action let alone success on that endeavor...

So you can't get the first part...recognition for limit and structure...because everyone wants something different. Law unto themselves. And then you sure as heck aren't going to get agreement on "legally potent" methods of creating unity ADEQUATE to enforce any sort of direction upon state legislators for your second part.

So then are the Declaration of Independence, constitution and Bill of Rights useless?

And BTW, I get agreement upon this in face to face encounter EVERY time.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Pretty much. Its all just old paper...unless read, studied, and applied.

People are more divided than they've ever been before in history. Pick your topic....

I'm looking for agreement and unity, upon, for instance, the right to our lives. Do you want your life? Your rights? Your freedoms?

Define life, rights, and freedoms. Then get everyone else to agree to those definitions. Once everyone is in agreement....then we can proceed.

Question 1 - Sure. Also stated that the Constitution was only designed for a moral people...and wholly inadequate to the governance of any other.

Question 2 - Perhaps. Does it matter though if everyone is yelling about something different? From marijuana to same sex marriage to new age....etc etc etc. You can't even get a bunch of ranchers facing the same basic problem to agree to any sort of unity and effort.

With the purpose of free speech abridged, I cannot even present what they can agree upon to them. They have no idea of what I propose. I was banned form the oath keepers forum, the dailypaul, the ronpaulforum and a couple of others for seeking agreement upon these prime constitutional intents.

There is a reason the usenet was removed in 1994 and dot com given to commerce.

Logically I conclude they were all fronts for the infiltration working to prevent any effective unity and mislead patriots into non effective action. Even if they are not, their actions have the same effect.

I deem it moral to state agreement with an intent that protect ones life and the lives of others as well as all of their other rights. Are you okay with that? Can you agree as well, despite the infinite disagreement we might find?

The Ron Paul forums don't surprise me. The modern libertarians tend to be more anarchists than anything else. One of the reasons they struggle really hard to agree on anything. That and they are fed a modern load of BS when it comes to economics and money...big banker propaganda from the beginning.

I'm generally in agreement with you...but it gets choked off when you really start defining what it means to protects ones life and the lives of others. Marijuana laws or lack thereof is a very easy example to start with...

Good luck to you. I've been involved in a number of political and educational efforts....I'm convinced its up to God to clean up...not to mention He states that in the scriptures...

After the cleansing....if we are both still around...then lets talk.

I've always agreed with the phrase that "God helps those that help themselves" and that sharing Godly principles and intents finds approval from God.

Good phrase. 1st we have to live the principles ourselves...and then certainly share. I've found the most success by starting with just basic morals....essentially the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even with that Foundation though...its extremely difficult to find agreement going beyond that.

This forum is good example.

At the end of the day we are living in one of the most wicked periods in the history of the earth. Can't even watch a cooking show on television without getting bombarded with mockery of God, mockery of marriage, mockery of family, and blasted with darkness. We are ripe...and in the words of John Taylor..."the world is diseased and it requires a world's remedy"....

Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan
himself.

― Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol I

Despite this precarious situation I don't believe there will be any means of successful revision or revolution and submit the following commentary from John Taylor for food for thought on it...

One thing more upon this subject, and I have done. In Europe, there has been of late years a great mania for revolutions—a strong desire to establish republican governments ; but let me remark here, that the form of government will not materially affect the position of the people, nor add to the resources of a country. If a country is rich and prosperous under a monarchy, it will be so under a republic, and vice versa. If poor under one, it will be under another. If nations think proper to change their form of government, they of course have a right to do so ; but to think that this will ameliorate their condition, and produce happiness, is altogether a mistake. Happiness and peace are the gifts of God, and come from Him.

Every kind of government has its good and evil properties. Rome was unhappy under a kingly government, and also under a republican form. Carthage as a republic was no more happy than many of its monarchial contemporaries ; nor was Corinth, Holland, or Venice ; and republican Genoa has not manifested anything very much in favor of these principles. France was unhappy under her emperor, she was unhappy under her kings, and is unhappy as a republic. America is perhaps some little exception to this ; but the difference lies not so much in her government, as in the extent of her country, the richness of her soil, and abundance of her resources ; for, as I have already mentioned, "Lynch law" prevails to an alarming extent in the south and west. In the state of New York, in the east, there are mobs painted as Indians resisting the officers of the law, and doing it with impunity ; and it is a matter of doubt whether persons having paid for property, shall own it, or be dispossessed by their tenants, not in law, for the constitution and laws are good, but in practice defective, through popular clamor and violence. I refer to the estates of Van Ranseller and others ; and, in the west, to Joseph and Hyrum Smith, who were murdered in Carthage jail, without any redress, although their murderers were known to the officers of state ; and to the inhabitants of a city, ten thousand in number, together with twenty thousand others, principally farmers, labourers, and mechanics, occupying a country about ten miles wide, and thirty long, most of which was well cultivated and owned by the occupants,—who were all forced by continual harassing by lawless mobs, to leave a country in which they could not be protected, and seek an asylum in a far off desert home, there being no power in the government to give redress.

It is altogether an infatuation to think that a change in government will mend the circumstances, or increase the resources, when the whole world is groaning under corruption. If there are twenty men who have twenty pounds of bread to divide amongst them, it matters but little whether it is divided by three, ten, or the whole, it will not increase the amount. I grant, however, that there are flagrant abuses, of which we have mentioned some, associated with all kinds of governments, and many things to be complained of justly ; but they arise from the wickedness of man, and the corrupt and artificial state of society. Do away with one set of rulers, and you have only the same materials to make another of ; and if ever so honestly disposed, they are surrounded with such a train of circumstances, over which they have no control, that they cannot mend them.

There is frequently much excitement on this subject ; and many people ignorant of these things, are led to suppose that their resources will be increased, and their circumstances bettered ; but when they find, after much contention, struggling, and bloodshed, that it does not rain bread, cheese, and clothing ; that it is only a change of men, papers, and parchment, chagrin and disappointment naturally follow.

There is much that is good, and much that is bad in all governments; and I am not seeking here to portray a perfect government, but to
show some of the evils associated with them, and the utter incompetency of all the plans of men to restore a perfect government; and as all their plans have failed, so they will fail, for it is the work of God, and not of man. The moral agency of man without God, has had its full development ; his weakness, wickedness, and corruption, have placed the world where it is : he can see as in a glass his incompetency, and folly, and nothing but the power of God can restore it.

It is not to be wondered at, that those various plans should exist, for the world is in a horrible situation. Jesus prophesied of it, and said, there should be upon the earth " distress of nations, perplexity, men's hearts failing them, for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth," Luke xxi. 25, 26. Men see these things, and their hearts fear ; confusion, disorder, misery, blood, and ruin, seem to stare them in the face ; and in the absence of something great, noble, and magnificent, suited to the exigency of the case, they try the foregoing remedies, as a sailor, in the absence of a boat, would cling with tenacity to any floating piece of wreck, to save him from a watery grave.

There are very many philanthropists who would gladly ameliorate the condition of men, and of the world, if they knew how. But the means employed are not commensurate with the end ; every grade of society is vitiated and corrupt. " The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint." Our systems, our policy, our legislation, our education, and philosophy, are all wrong, neither can we be particularly blamed, for these evils have been the growth of ages. Our fathers have left God, his guidance, control, and support, and we have been left to ourselves; and our present position is a manifest proof of our incompetency to govern ; and our past failures make it evident, that any future effort, with the same means, would be as useless. The world is diseased, and it requires a world's remedy.

If man, then, is an eternal being, came from God, exists here for a short time, and will return, it is necessary that he know something about God, and his government. For he has to do with him not only in time, but in eternity, and whatever man may be disposed to do, or however he may vaunt himself of his own abilities, there are some things he has no control over. He came into the world without his agency, he will have to leave it, whether he desires it or not ; and he will also have to appear in another world. He is destined, if he improves his opportunities, to higher and greater blessings and glory than are associated with this earth in its present state : and hence the necessity of the guidance of a superior power, and intelligence, that he may not act the part of a fool here, and jeopardize his eternal interests; but that his intelligence may be commensurate with his position ; that his actions here may have a bearing upon his future destiny ; that he may not sink into the slough of iniquity and degradation, and contaminate himself with corruption ; that he may stand pure, virtuous, intelligent, and honourable, as a son of God, and seek for, and be guided and governed by his Father's counsels.

https://ia700706.us.archive.org/3/items ... 03tayl.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/44941/44 ... 4941-h.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mos ... ang=eng#26" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you can get people to read them...I have yet to see much action let alone success on that endeavor…

Online, there is no way to know who is a covert agent working for the infiltration. So the questions serve as a test of unconditional support for the constitution.

Face-to-face, I've found that about 70% of the people recognize the words "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence. After the origins of "alter or abolish" are explained that do not know their origins, they accept that the DOI is the source. Everyone knows about the right to free speech, and all accept that it has a purpose. After it is explained that the enablement of "alter or abolish" protects all other rights, it is accepted that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity to alter or abolish.

Pretty much. Its all just old paper...unless read, studied, and applied.

Application is what I am doing by asking for others participation. The old paper has accurate natural law, but it must be sequentially used. First unity, a "we" must be created by agreement. In this case it is unity upon definition of prime constitutional intent. The people are the only entity that can do that.

Define life, rights, and freedoms. Then get everyone else to agree to those definitions. Once everyone is in agreement....then we can proceed.

Here you've mixed a philosophical term with a practical term. The DOI is practical and that is what we can socially agree upon. If I'm wrong, its okay with you if the next cop that pulls you over just shoots you in the head.

The Ron Paul forums don't surprise me. The modern libertarians tend to be more anarchists than anything else. One of the reasons they struggle really hard to agree on anything. That and they are fed a modern load of BS when it comes to economics and money...big banker propaganda from the beginning.

I'm generally in agreement with you...but it gets choked off when you really start defining what it means to protects ones life and the lives of others. Marijuana laws or lack thereof is a very easy example to start with...

Agreed. What you've opened with your example is the can of worms we must deal with once the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech is ended.

Media has subtly been used to divide, distract, exploit, manipulate and mislead us. So within the practical term of our unalienable rights, we can find commonality.

Good phrase. 1st we have to live the principles ourselves...and then certainly share. I've found the most success by starting with just basic morals....essentially the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even with that Foundation though...its extremely difficult to find agreement going beyond that.

This forum is good example.

At the end of the day we are living in one of the most wicked periods in the history of the earth. Can't even watch a cooking show on television without getting bombarded with mockery of God, mockery of marriage, mockery of family, and blasted with darkness. We are ripe...and in the words of John Taylor..."the world is diseased and it requires a world's remedy"....

Agreed, the corruption of the human spirit is rampant and media is a major tool for the corrupters. Accordingly, restoring the purpose of free speech can begin to see a natural correction.

First, the righteous who act with love as Jesus taught, and unify to make power protect life, see that the corrupters can not longer mislead and destroy Gods intent as it might manifest within people naturally. The purpose of free speech is restored. Alterations or abolition sees Justice restored! After a time, Gods simple but sustaining joys will return naturally to many of the corrupted by false doctrine.

Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan
himself.

― Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol I

Despite this precarious situation I don't believe there will be any means of successful revision or revolution and submit the following commentary from John Taylor for food for thought on it...

I have a very different outlook. Consider a term I know you've heard. "The prince of darkness". I'm quite sure it refers to the animalistic aspects of our unconscious existence. There are two potentially relevant aspects. Dream state sharing and compulsive hypnotic induction.

Now, consider what "cognitive distortions" are. "Satan has control now." This is all or nothing thinking. "No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land." This is a minimization. "He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him." This is entitlement and generalization. As if we are entitled to only perceive the Lords control rather than our lack of control over the unconscious mind that each of us possesses as a gift of the Lord.
Actually, also, we have unconscious societies that lack conscious control and are guided by the prince of darkness quite often, both in dreams and otherwise. And time does not matter in the same way it does through our lives.

"That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations."

All or nothing thinking and over generalizing. When humanity does not seek to introduce Gods love into its unconscious existence directly through spiritual healing, the "prince of darkness" through the dream state can cause a loss of individual control. Inciting wants and desires that require a compromise of morals to manifest. The churches use conditioning of prayer and song etc. it works, but it is not the only way.

"It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan
himself."

Considering all of the potentials for manipulation I've covered, all leadership could be controlled by the "prince of darkness" one way or the other. And cognitive distortions do not help to understand. Understanding is what God asks for. If understanding cannot be found, which is Gods way, then obedience is needed.

John Taylor for food for thought are worthy words. The framers realized that the environment of Goodness resulting from religion is very often well used was a benefit to society, but, they also knew that from the simplicity of Gods goodness, people might naturally find and provide the great rewards without any other structure but a wholesome, healthy, peaceful outlook upon life.

But most importantly, is simple natural unity upon that which protects all of Gods people from the prince of darkness and its march to tyranny, corruption and destruction. Therein is where when I meet people face-to-face and ask them if they agree and accept these two prime constitutional intents, they do.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?