Skip to comments.“…if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy,
Posted on 02/26/2013 6:53:41 PM PST by marktwain
For some reason, I just dont get juiced by the idea of listening to an hour long podcast from an economist, but Im glad that Ed Driscoll did.
He transcribed the part where Glenn Reynolds, law professor at the University of Tennessee and blogger of Instapundit fame, dropped the boom on the socialist supporters of Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman, who advocates giving up on the constitution.
REYNOLDS: Heres the problem with public officials because thats really [Seidmans] audience deciding to ignore the Constitution: If youre the president, if youre a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power viathe Constitution. If the Constitution doesnt count, you dont have any legitimate power. Youre a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you dont possess.
So if were going to start ignoring the Constitution, Im fine with that. The first part Im going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say.
ROBERTS: But his argument is that we already ignore the Constitution; its not really much of a binding document.
REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then Im free to do whatever I want! And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidmans argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if thats what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesnt seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.
Reynolds wrote a column on Feb 4th explaining those views in more detail.
Americans are out of sorts, and increasingly theyre unhappy with the government. According to a Pew poll released last week, more than half ofAmericans view government as a threat to their freedom.
And its not just Republicans unhappy with Obama, or gun owners afraid that the government will take their guns: 38% of Democrats, and 45% of non-gun owners, see the government as a threat.
Add this to another recent poll in which only 22% of likely voters feel Americas government has the consent of the governed, and youve got a pretty depressing picture and a recipe for potential trouble. Governments operate, to a degree, by force, but ultimately they depend on legitimacy. A government that a majority views as a threat, and that only a small minority sees as enjoying the consent of the governed, is a government with legitimacy problems.
Were rapidly approaching a point where Americans are going to have to make a choice to gut the power of the federal government, or the federal government is going to gut us.
Professor Reynolds suggests a constitutional convention will be the best way out, and indeed, it may be.
Myself, I have the same wary view of a convention that Matt Bracken does. Would-be elites who can steal elections can steal constitutional conventions, and I dont think for a second that the GOP wouldnt collaborate with the socialists to stay in power to keep feeding off the corpse of the Republic.
Judging by the continued arms an ammunition shortages, that appears to be a fairly common belief.
The time is drawing nigh, we will not get out of 2016 with the America that we all thought we knew.
...it seems almost mandatory.
We don’t need a constitutional convention.
Mr Glenn Reynolds. I like you. I like you a lot. I am proud to hear you are a fellow Tennesseean Yes, the time is drawing nigh....
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the 2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.That from the United States Supreme Court. Now take a look at what one lower court says the Presser case stands for:
Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States. The courts are uniform in this interpretation. See, e.g., Thomas, 730 F.2d at 42 (1st Cir.); Peoples Rights Org., 152 F.3d at 538-39 n. 18 (6th Cir.); Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269 (7th Cir.); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, 965 F.2d at 730-31 (9th Cir.).Both courts are talking about the right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court said that this right exists even if the 2nd amendment does not.
Bach v. Pataki408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005)
The system is corrupt. The legislature is corrupt. The courts are corrupt. The legitimacy of the federal government is exactly the legitimacy that the Mafia holds, brute force.
This is the excerpt from my novel “Foreign Enemies And Traitors” where a character discusses the Con-Con that resulted in the Economic Justice and Democracy Amendment, and the Freedom from Gun Violence Amendment.
Anybody who thinks a Con-Con would make our situation better is very naive, IMHO.
if the government can ignore it, the people can, too.
they cant demand we respect their power, esp their unconstitutional powers they’ve taken that they don’t have, and they take away our guaranteed rights.
that will be the beginning of the revolution. we’re not living under a libtard socialist constitution.
Just a PING, FRiend.
Ah, you’re already here.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
2016? All will be well with President Moochelle. Not to worry.
A three part article I just came across is one of the most significant I have ever seen concerning the state of our destruction. The link to part three is: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_endgame_for_the_destruction_of_the_united_states.html
The first paragraph of the article contains links to parts one and two. This is a must read.
I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I, unlike so many political “leaders,” take my oaths seriously. If they abandon the Constitution I will use every means at my disposal to restore it. Every means.
“All will be well with President Moochelle. “
She’ll be VP. Biden as President for 4 years. THEN Michelle as President, and Chelsea C as VP.
Voting does not matter any more.
“Professor Reynolds suggests a constitutional convention will be the best way out, and indeed, it may be.”
A second Constitutional Convention might become the only way to ensure a peaceful transition from the old DC government, to a new one.
There are those here on FR who say “no, no, NO!” when this subject comes up. Short of an uprising 1861-style, what other alternatives would be preferable?