Literal interpertests of Constitution like Ron Paul

[grapevine]

Ron Paul was a literal interpertest of Constitiution. Thing is what made his beliefs superior to any others. I mean how many 9-0 decisions are made by the Supreme Court? Every candidate for public office believes in the constitution, Just what makes there belief superior? Political Parties started by people saying were in the Constitution does it say you can do this, Someone else were in the Constitution does it say you can't?

Paul was vocal about the constitution. I have seen a few people at townhall and other places whine about the GOP not choosing Paul. Republicans did not want him. Won Virgin Islands, some of Maine but few wanted him. And he didn't get behind Romney in Tampa either. That can cause a few problems. At least I don't think he advocated breaking any laws he felt were unconstitutional. Worked within system for changes.

Brings me to other literalist. Bo Gritz. There were people in our ward following him. Told us to read Bible about Mark of Beast church won't tell us what to do. like he needs to warn us Brethern won't. JS actually said don't worry about Mark and no successor said anything different. Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith.

But Gritz advocated overthrow basically. Don't obey tax laws that are unconstitutional get rid of federal reserve and disobey any unconstitutional law, Law you feel is unconstitutional. That could lead to mass confusion I think. Anarchy. He lost TR when he refused to pay taxes and left church. Probably did other things. People think constitution is already hanging by thread so need to fix it. Rex Rammell that way too. Church had to stop him say some prophecy nonsense and don't gather LDS people for things that are not your business. We know what is going on.

Interesting about the Gritz followers someone in his early 80's thought liability insurance was unconstitutional so refused to purchase it. Told judge he had gth insurance. Spent some time in county jail and Grtiz followers wanted Officer that pulled him over, Judge, Idaho Governer and Attorney General, and Three county sheriffs arrested. County Commissioners said if you disagree with how he was treated go through system. They were trying to be heroes. All through scriptures and Articles of Faith we are to honor law people in stations. People like that if everyone was that way on "there interpretation" and what should happen mass confusion.

[Guest]

Ron Paul was a literal interpertest of Constitiution. Thing is what made his beliefs superior to any others. I mean how many 9-0 decisions are made by the Supreme Court? Every candidate for public office believes in the constitution, Just what makes there belief superior? Political Parties started by people saying were in the Constitution does it say you can do this, Someone else were in the Constitution does it say you can't?

Paul was vocal about the constitution. I have seen a few people at townhall and other places whine about the GOP not choosing Paul. Republicans did not want him. Won Virgin Islands, some of Maine but few wanted him. And he didn't get behind Romney in Tampa either. That can cause a few problems. At least I don't think he advocated breaking any laws he felt were unconstitutional. Worked within system for changes.

Brings me to other literalist. Bo Gritz. There were people in our ward following him. Told us to read Bible about Mark of Beast church won't tell us what to do. like he needs to warn us Brethern won't. JS actually said don't worry about Mark and no successor said anything different. Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith.

But Gritz advocated overthrow basically. Don't obey tax laws that are unconstitutional get rid of federal reserve and disobey any unconstitutional law, Law you feel is unconstitutional. That could lead to mass confusion I think. Anarchy. He lost TR when he refused to pay taxes and left church. Probably did other things. People think constitution is already hanging by thread so need to fix it. Rex Rammell that way too. Church had to stop him say some prophecy nonsense and don't gather LDS people for things that are not your business. We know what is going on.

Interesting about the Gritz followers someone in his early 80's thought liability insurance was unconstitutional so refused to purchase it. Told judge he had gth insurance. Spent some time in county jail and Grtiz followers wanted Officer that pulled him over, Judge, Idaho Governer and Attorney General, and Three county sheriffs arrested. County Commissioners said if you disagree with how he was treated go through system. They were trying to be heroes. All through scriptures and Articles of Faith we are to honor law people in stations. People like that if everyone was that way on "there interpretation" and what should happen mass confusion.

My grandpa and an uncle were gritz followers. They even to some kind camp/retreat things gritz held. Because of this, my grandpa racked up quite a stash of sks and ak-47 ammo. I remember thinking, while in my early teenage years that they and gritz were crazy and that's when I was more clueless about politics than I am now. Luckily, my grandpa's and uncles views are much less paranoid now. But I will say, because of this, we have ammo for rabbit huntin for years to come.

[VirginiaCougar]

Ron Paul was a literal interpertest of Constitiution. Thing is what made his beliefs superior to any others. I mean how many 9-0 decisions are made by the Supreme Court? Every candidate for public office believes in the constitution, Just what makes there belief superior? Political Parties started by people saying were in the Constitution does it say you can do this, Someone else were in the Constitution does it say you can't?

Paul was vocal about the constitution. I have seen a few people at townhall and other places whine about the GOP not choosing Paul. Republicans did not want him. Won Virgin Islands, some of Maine but few wanted him. And he didn't get behind Romney in Tampa either. That can cause a few problems. At least I don't think he advocated breaking any laws he felt were unconstitutional. Worked within system for changes.

Brings me to other literalist. Bo Gritz. There were people in our ward following him. Told us to read Bible about Mark of Beast church won't tell us what to do. like he needs to warn us Brethern won't. JS actually said don't worry about Mark and no successor said anything different. Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith.

But Gritz advocated overthrow basically. Don't obey tax laws that are unconstitutional get rid of federal reserve and disobey any unconstitutional law, Law you feel is unconstitutional. That could lead to mass confusion I think. Anarchy. He lost TR when he refused to pay taxes and left church. Probably did other things. People think constitution is already hanging by thread so need to fix it. Rex Rammell that way too. Church had to stop him say some prophecy nonsense and don't gather LDS people for things that are not your business. We know what is going on.

Interesting about the Gritz followers someone in his early 80's thought liability insurance was unconstitutional so refused to purchase it. Told judge he had gth insurance. Spent some time in county jail and Grtiz followers wanted Officer that pulled him over, Judge, Idaho Governer and Attorney General, and Three county sheriffs arrested. County Commissioners said if you disagree with how he was treated go through system. They were trying to be heroes. All through scriptures and Articles of Faith we are to honor law people in stations. People like that if everyone was that way on "there interpretation" and what should happen mass confusion.

The problem with Gritz and Paul is that they claim to be literal Constitutionalists, but they really aren't. Both are part of a 1960s reinterpretation of the Constitution and original intent that grew out of the Red Scare, which caught up ETB and many others. Their ideas are often far removed from original intent.

Ironically, many of the supposed "literal" arguments that this group makes are anti-federalist arguments - those that argued against the constitution. It is downright funny to see the very Conservative/Libertarian wing of the Utah Legislature call themselves the "Patrick Henry Caucus." Not because Henry wasn't a true American (he was) but he was vehemently upposed to the Constitution ("I smell a rat.") To claim his name and "Literal Constitutionalism" is absurd.

Thomas Paine is another example. He certainly writes passionately for the Revolution but he wasn't a Constitutionalist. He spoke so harshly against George Washington and the Constitution that Washington refused to help him and let him rot in a French Prison for a year.

I find it very odd that today those that most use the rhetoric of Constitutionalism are often among those most removed from it. Gritz and Paul are perfect examples. (Add Beck, ETB, and many others to that list as well).

[il Padrino Ute]

The problem with Gritz and Paul is that they claim to be literal Constitutionalists, but they really aren't. Both are part of a 1960s reinterpretation of the Constitution and original intent that grew out of the Red Scare, which caught up ETB and many others. Their ideas are often far removed from original intent.

Ironically, many of the supposed "literal" arguments that this group makes are anti-federalist arguments - those that argued against the constitution. It is downright funny to see the very Conservative/Libertarian wing of the Utah Legislature call themselves the "Patrick Henry Caucus." Not because Henry wasn't a true American (he was) but he was vehemently upposed to the Constitution ("I smell a rat.") To claim his name and "Literal Constitutionalism" is absurd.

Thomas Paine is another example. He certainly rights passionately for the Revolution but he wasn't a Constitutionalist. He spoke so harshly against George Washington and the Constitution that Washington refused to help him and let him rot in a French Prison for a year.

I find it very odd that today those that most use the rhetoric of Constitutionalism are often among those most removed from it. Gritz and Paul are perfect examples. (Add Beck, ETB, and many others to that list as well).

You can add Obama, Holder - hell, the entire IRS - and Mrs. Clinton to that list too.

[VirginiaCougar]

You can add Obama, Holder - hell, the entire IRS - and Mrs. Clinton to that list too.

In some ways, probably so. However, they don't tend to use Constitutional rhetoric.. As far as the whole IRS, the Constitution is pretty explicit about taxation, Art. 1 Sec. 8. In fact, one of the primary reasons for the Convention was to cement the taxation powers of the federal government, something that wasn't working in the articles of Confederation.

It is funny to see this all play out. Take guns for example. The event that cemented Washington's participation in the Constitutional Convention, adding his clout and name to that event is Shay's Rebellion. Former soldiers taking up arms against the government because they hadn't been paid (they had due cause). Washington saw that as anarchy and wrong. Yet listen to today's rhetoric on guns and government from the right, it is the opposite of what Washington believed.

Compare today's new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the NRA and the right (quite different than when I was growing up as a teenage NRA member) to what Adam's passionately and correctly stated about guns and original intent:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

We live in strange political times.

[USUC]

In some ways, probably so. However, they don't tend to use Constitutional rhetoric.. As far as the whole IRS, the Constitution is pretty explicit about taxation, Art. 1 Sec. 8. In fact, one of the primary reasons for the Convention was to cement the taxation powers of the federal government, something that wasn't working in the articles of Confederation.

It is funny to see this all play out. Take guns for example. The event that cemented Washington's participation in the Constitutional Convention, adding his clout and name to that event is Shay's Rebellion. Former soldiers taking up arms against the government because they hadn't been paid (they had due cause). Washington saw that as anarchy and wrong. Yet listen to today's rhetoric on guns and government from the right, it is the opposite of what Washington believed.

Compare today's new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the NRA and the right (quite different than when I was growing up as a teenage NRA member) to what Adam's passionately and correctly stated about guns and original intent:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

We live in strange political times.

Adams? What was Madison's take on the intent of the 2nd amendment?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[creekster]

In some ways, probably so. However, they don't tend to use Constitutional rhetoric.. As far as the whole IRS, the Constitution is pretty explicit about taxation, Art. 1 Sec. 8. In fact, one of the primary reasons for the Convention was to cement the taxation powers of the federal government, something that wasn't working in the articles of Confederation.

It is funny to see this all play out. Take guns for example. The event that cemented Washington's participation in the Constitutional Convention, adding his clout and name to that event is Shay's Rebellion. Former soldiers taking up arms against the government because they hadn't been paid (they had due cause). Washington saw that as anarchy and wrong. Yet listen to today's rhetoric on guns and government from the right, it is the opposite of what Washington believed.

Compare today's new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the NRA and the right (quite different than when I was growing up as a teenage NRA member) to what Adam's passionately and correctly stated about guns and original intent:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

We live in strange political times.

Except in private self defense? Thats a pretty big exception really swallowing the rule, isnt it? And are you suggesting that Adams means no one back then should have had a musket for hunting? That's a little hard to believe. Are you certain that when he says "Guns" he doesn't mean artillery?

[grapevine]

Another interpertationist is Walter Williams I read his columns and hear him when he fills in for Rush. Does believe in the 17th amendment since it is constitutional. Very rabid against Farm Subsidies paying people not to raise pigs and grow wheat. Quotes Presidents that refused aid in disaster no constitutional authority. Said Jefferson Davis was not going against Washington anymore than General Washington was going against London. Wanted freedom. Says they were not fighting for slavery but states rights. Slavery got eliminated decades earlier in America than it would of had confederate won. Few countries that blood gained independence and ended slavery.

He is big on his interpertaion of economics and constitution if not in constitution can't get done. So one that gives lip service to Constitution. Thing is for Ron Paul he actually ran as Libertarian nominee in 1988 but in General election if people who are not Republicans or Democrats rarely get more than 5% total vote though many people are running. Most people you see in voting booth never even heard of. On Newspaper blogs a few places of townhall and other places will of course hear people whine of GOP selecting Romney and not Paul and some unfair advantage that Romney had or GOP was not using head. Thing is Romney won fair and square and no way would most of GOP select Ron Paul. Romney I think was the best candidate running last time.

In an election for a State Legislative seat a guy actually ran as Constitution party candidate with his interpretation of Constitution. Didn't garner many votes but could of took votes away from GOP candidate. Didn't garner enough votes to do it. But gave lipservice to constitution. Thing is on people that don't run as Democrat or Republican will not get many votes just take away from candidate that resembles there views. And the Two party system has worked for many years in America. And no the Republican Party was not a third party. If so name a Whig that has been elected since the middle of the 19th century.

[VirginiaCougar]

Except in private self defense? Thats a pretty big exception really swallowing the rule, isnt it? And are you suggesting that Adams means no one back then should have had a musket for hunting? That's a little hard to believe. Are you certain that when he says "Guns" he doesn't mean artillery?

Hunting would be a given. He is speaking beyond that use. It was very inappropriate to take a gun outside the home or hunting situations in those days in America. Adams is speaking more specifically of gun use in those public settings - a real tyranny of the barrel. Only upon "orders of towns, states, etc." could the gun be used in those broader settings. Washington and most of those involved in the Constitution felt the same. You brought your guns when called up to serve your country. That is very, very different than how the NRA sells things today and why I speak of Constitutional revisionism on the right.

Interesting that you bring up artillery. In the case of privateers (merchant sailors), who had pretty much all the non-governmental artillery - they were regulated and licenced by government to serve in that capacity and to have those types of weapons.

[VirginiaCougar]

Adams? What was Madison's take on the intent of the 2nd amendment?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Not what you think it might be. Madison initially opposed the Amendments. He agreed to them when he saw, politically, that accepting them would undermine the anti-ratification crowd. He felt in many ways that they were unnecessary, that they did little that wasn't in the Constitution already. He also felt that they didn't undermine what he saw as key elements of the new Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Evidence shows that Madison saw guns in the same way as Washington and Adams did - as primarily a defense of the state against foreign intrusion - not as a ready made insurrection. I think just about all the Madison quotes I've seen on guns involves this view of the well-regulated militia.

[wuapinmon]

Not what you think it might be. Madison initially opposed the Amendments. He agreed to them when he saw, politically, that accepting them would undermine the anti-ratification crowd. He felt in many ways that they were unnecessary, that they did little that wasn't in the Constitution already. He also felt that they didn't undermine what he saw as key elements of the new Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Evidence shows that Madison saw guns in the same way as Washington and Adams did - as primarily a defense of the state against foreign intrusion - not as a ready made insurrection. I think just about all the Madison quotes I've seen on guns involves this view of the well-regulated militia.

This isn't directed at you, VirginiaCougar nor anyone on the board, just an observation. I find it interesting how some people will demand a strict interpretation of the Constitution based on the putative intent of its authors while believing in the Bible "inasmuch as its translated correctly" and having a prophet on the Earth to update things as needed.

[statman]

Hunting would be a given. He is speaking beyond that use. It was very inappropriate to take a gun outside the home or hunting situations in those days in America. Adams is speaking more specifically of gun use in those public settings - a real tyranny of the barrel. Only upon "orders of towns, states, etc." could the gun be used in those broader settings. Washington and most of those involved in the Constitution felt the same. You brought your guns when called up to serve your country. That is very, very different than how the NRA sells things today and why I speak of Constitutional revisionism on the right.

Interesting that you bring up artillery. In the case of privateers (merchant sailors), who had pretty much all the non-governmental artillery - they were regulated and licenced by government to serve in that capacity and to have those types of weapons.

"Private self-defense" is also a given in the Adams quote. What he's arguing against is mobs taking up arms en masse - an unregulated militia. The right to personally bear arms was a given for Adams.