Skip to comments.Algernon Sidney’s Advice for Article V Opponents
Posted on 10/21/2019 1:57:34 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Our Founders textbook to revolution was Algernon Sidneys Discourses Concerning Government. Alongside John Lockes Two Treatises of Government, these famous works were refutations of another influential 17th century book, Patriarcha by Sir Robert Filmer. In Patriarcha, Filmer invoked the Bible to defend the English monarchs divine right to rule. Among his arguments, he painted dire consequences to the established order if the people ever attempted to limit kingly prerogatives.
In the background to these works was the 1649 execution of King Charles I. Monarchists could point to the subsequent short-lived English commonwealth, a volatile republic with a written constitution and ask, Do you really want a repetition? See what happens when you violate Gods laws?
Sidney countered that no one in Gods creation was born with a crown on his head nor a saddle on his back. All men were created equal, and if the princes received this truth some of them might be restrained from doing evil. Since all men were created equal, the law applied equally to the people, Kings and their magistrates.
Like Article V Opponents today, those who prefer the status quo instead of an Article V COS to restore the blessings of liberty, Filmer acknowledged the occasional awful king made life difficult for the people, but it was nonetheless better to bear the burden than risk societal upheaval once again.
As Sidney put it, Those who desire to advance the power of the Magistrate above the Law, would persuade us that the difficulties and dangers of inquiring into his actions, or opposing his will when employed in violence and injustice, are so great that the remedy is always worse than the disease, and that it is better to suffer all the evils that may proceed from his infirmities and vices . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
The U.S. Constitution already covers the necessary law.
Changing the Constitution cannot fix a government that regularly disregards the Constitution.
Get your elected officials to respect the Constitution that we have, then we can discuss changes.
As originally set up under the Constitution, judges had little real power, because they could be ignored if they issued a stupid decree. The President had the power to fire and replace any federal bureaucrats who obeyed a judge instead of him.
Similarly, the President had little real power, because he was not given a massive army of armed bureaucrats to impose his will. He had to depend on getting voluntary cooperation.
I certainly have no disagreement with your points.
The Constitution is regularly trampled by bureaucrats, unelected judges, political lackeys and intelligence agencies... I just don’t see anything in the proposal to change some “mere words on paper” that will suddenly change that.
Holding the bastards to their oaths of office would be a better first step.
Any attempt to change the Constitution no matter how limited the initial scope would quickly be taken over by leftist NGOs and wealthy leftists.
While Conservatives go to work, leftist cash the trust fund/welfare checks and go about altering the intent and scope of any changes to favor socialism and the inclusion of all the issues they stand on.
Think Shiftless’ impeachment hearings for a working model of what the Committees would look and behave like - no conservatives allowed.
My point is to transfer more power back to We The People, by limiting the physical-force power of the federal government.
A better plan than passing a law making it illegal to break the law.
We actually DO have the power, we just don’t exercise it
...and just how is a COS going to accomplish that?
Like my tagline says.....
We actually DO have the power, we just dont exercise it
B I N G O !
“Get your elected officials to respect the Constitution that we have...”
The Rats take the position that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ and subject to change based on current events.
This Meme is the product of historical ignorance and logical inanity. When the Constitution is amended, the government and our elected officials normally obey the amendment:
We passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery, do we have slavery? More important, do we have a government practicing slavery or permitting slavery? Do our elected officials practice slavery?
We have a constitutional amendment requiring the popular election of Senators rather than by legislatures, do our governments elect Senators by their legislatures or by popular election? How do our elected officials behave in this regard?
We passed the constitutional amendment permitting income tax, does the government obey the Constitution concerning income tax? Our elected officials are only too eager to obey this constitutional amendment.
We passed an amendment prohibiting a president serving more than two terms, has any President since serve more than two terms?
Your entire presumption is absurd.
Constitutional amendments do achieve desired results.
And, there, I think, is the heart of the problem with our American Republic. It is the Judiciary that has slowly but inexorably assumed more and more power, in direct violation of the Constitution's balance of power.
We are now, it seems, a Judicial Oligarchy...
Nobody questions your ignorance...
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Are the rights of the people to keep and bear arms infringed?
You cherry-pick your Constitution.
Let us discuss 'hate crimes' slave! Then we can turn our sights on onerous taxation slave! If you still have any fight left in ya, we can discuss '...shall not be infringed.' slave!
The best slave is the one who no longer notices the burden of his chains.
Quite the contrary. In this discussion it is you who carries the burden that all elements of the Constitution have been transgressed and simply not observed because you want to prevent remedial amendments. That is what you said.
In making your argument that none work, your argument fails if some do work.
How much of the right to bear arms do you really believe would exist if there were no Second Amendment? You are determined to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Shall we throw up our hands and submit to de facto amendment of the Constitution on virtually a daily basis by the bureaucracy, Congress and the courts or shall we avail ourselves of the constitutionally sanctioned remedy?
I suspect that you are motivated by propaganda emanating from the National Rifle Association. I don't know you personally and I might be entirely wrong, however, I have been posting here for years that much of the antagonism toward fixing the Constitution with the provisions of the Constitution that allow for fixing it come from the NRA, an organization riven by dissension but determined to sell the rest of the Bill of Rights to retain the second.
(Full disclosure: I fully support the right to bear arms even as I object to the selfish stance of the NRA.)
There is no danger to the right to keep and bear arms as expressed in the second amendment from the exercise of Article V-the arithmetic simply belies that fear.
Great post, history, education, discussion. Thanks. BUMP!
I have in no sense implied that the Constitution has failed in all respects to limit tyranny. I have stated, quite clearly and without contradiction that adding amendments to a Constitution that the government ignores at will is a fool’s errand.
There is no reason to believe that a people who will not hold their government to it’s current restraints will ever produce a single idea that could improve on those current limits.
The very ignorance that drives the article 5 push dooms it to failure; that being the thought that increasing the amendments to be ignored, perverted, and selectively applied will avoid the real work of taking responsibility for enforcing those limits.
So IOW's our resident wordsmith is without long winded prose.
Let me introduce you to your government...
(Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune. I hope that is not too harsh for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.