In defense of Jefferson.
During the early years of our country there was no such thing as a school system and he tried to get us to become an educated country (verses how Europe and the rest of the world relied exclusively on the Educated Rich).
Jefferson saw a school in every settlement and every child educated such that they would develop our country from the “Roots” up and not from the “Top Down”.
Where’s the silver lining in the umbra and penumbras of Chief Injustice Roberts ruling? I want my Silver Lining!
Let’s assume obama wants to destroy this nation. And I believe that is fact. What other reason could there be? His talking point is those who choose not to have insurance shouldn’t get healthcare paid for by those who do. Then he exempts illegal aliens and they’re the ones who fill up the hospital emergency rooms. But do all the democrats who pass anything this guy puts in front of them want to destroy it, too?
He gets everything he wants. And all the democrats march to his drum. And the republicans seem afraid to scream the obvious. From where does he get his power?
Lawyers and congress have screwed up America’s laws so bad that for every law there is an opposite law or ways of legally getting around the law.
This statement is wrong in a very important respect. It should more properly read:
The Constitution, negotiated 225 years ago this summer in Philadelphias Independence Hall, provided for a limited national government.
The difference eludes the author and is critical to understanding what plagues us today. The guarantor of limited government was not the Supreme Court or even the Constitution per se. In the American Republic the guarantor of limited government was the sovereignty of the states. Power divided is power constrained. And until the original balance is restored and the primary governing powers returned to the states we will continue our descent into tyranny.
A fascinating article which has made me ponder as to whether this nation would be better off without a written Constitution with only Natural Law as its guide as in Britain? I would like to hear Mr. Di Leo propound on how our laws and mores would have evolved sans a written constitution. Yes, I realize England is in a worse mess of progressive pottage than we are, but Americans are a more independent lot, or at least once were.
After the ‘Roberts Rule’ I no longer feel any constitutional protections. At a minimum, with a better understanding of Natural Law, our educational institutions could not so easily dismiss the works of Adam Smith and John Locke.
Does anyone here know if Mark Levin has addressed this issue of Natural Law vs written constitutions? It does make for an interesting foray into fanciful jurisprudence.