The Editors’ Quote of the Day:

“Saying the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don’t have a Constitution.” – The Late Dr. Walter E. Williams


  1. “Saying the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don’t have a Constitution.” – The Late Dr. Walter E. Williams

    I don’t disagree with Walter Williams too often but I have to disagree with him on this one. The Constitutionalists can give us 20 reasons how the Constitution has been illegally corrupted but in most of those cases our “leaders” haven’t corrupted anything, they’ve worked within the loopholes of the Constitution which we were vehemently warned against by Freedom-loving men who knew a heckuva a lot more about it than we today know. Patrick Henry argued against ratifying the Constitution because there were too many ambiguities (to use his word) and it was based on the insane supposition that our “leaders” would be honest men. He further stated, that “its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men.” He then goes on to clarify the obvious: “Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, every such mad attempt.” Another reason he gave for not ratifying the Constitution was, “I have strong cause of apprehension. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered; in other parts, absolutely taken away.”

    So if the Constitutionalist can tell me why they support the Constitution, and can rattle off 20 ways it’s been corrupted when Patrick Henry warned exactly against those same 20 things because the Constitution was too “ambiguous” to protect against those 20 things? I was a Constitutionalist once upon a time and then I came to the logical rational truth and learned to say, “I was wrong once but now I’m better informed.”

    How can the Constitutionalists support the very document which Patrick Henry warned them against and still complain that the things he warned us against have all come to pass? That’s cognitive dissonance on steroids. The Constitutionalists don’t have a leg to stand on and don’t want to question their beliefs after they’ve gone to all the trouble to memorize it chapter and verse. IMO of course.

    1. The Constitution isn’t a perfect document. But it is better than most. It has been a benefit, in general, providing a framework for an experiment that has been unique in the history of mankind. The problem is all the people who are trying to expand the loopholes so they can fit the camel through the eye of the needle.

      The Bible isn’t a “perfect” document either, but it is certainly more perfect than the humans that pervert it. If I find something better, I’ll let you know. Meanwhile, don’t hold your breath.

      No nation can be better than the quality of the people who compose it.

      1. Unfortunately it’s gotten to the part where those people have ‘decomposed’ it.
        It’s very interesting how it took 250+ years before those anti-federalists were finally proven right.

  2. Matt Gaetz requests that the Pledge be said, but Jerry Nadler says there is no need to say it twice in one day… What would have been the harm in it? A strange objection, and one that is telling in my view.

    This report is also concerning…

    1. Telesilla of Argos; I have to agree with you on the military “pause” to ensure there are no “subversives within the ranks.
      It’s easily seen through and is merely a purge to eliminate conservatives and Constitutionally minded personnel from throughout the entire ranks of all branches.
      Without the purge they cannot with certainty depend upon the military to enforce their commie edicts. Once the purge is complete and nothing remains but those beholden to the frauds in charge, the commies that they are, it will be much easier to turn the force of the military towards the people to enforce their draconian rules.

      As it stands now, all military personnel are required to obey and enforce commands & orders of those appointed above or over them. UNLESS, and this is the key, they believe it to be an UNLAWFUL command or order, then the are OBLIGATED, by their oath to disobey those commands.
      So this is just another necessary step towards turning this country into another commie run hellhole of a state. welcome to Amerizuela part II…

      1. Background and security checks are routinely done on members of the military.

        On this blog postet people, calling themselves soldiers in the US Military calling for a military coup or saying they would support one, breaking their oath in the process.

        At the very last i would´ve removed them from duty, forbid them to wear uniform while i would´ve brought them to court

        1. Please specify which individuals, claiming to be serving US military, called for or expressed support for a coup. Because I don’t recall any.

          As to routine background and security checks, those are only conducted for initial clearances, upgrades, or periodic renewals, or if special access is required. Another trigger for a check might be a negative event, such as a UCMJ or criminal conviction, or investigation of criminal activity. Outside of those instances, it is by no means “routine” to run checks on military personnel.

      2. “As it stands now, all military personnel are required to obey and enforce commands & orders of those appointed above or over them.”

        Even when it includes MacArthur and Patton shooting at 17,000 American veterans and threatening them with tanks.

        Eisenhower was one of the good guys. According to Wikipedia, Eisenhower was serving as one of MacArthur’s junior aides and thought it was wrong for the Army’s highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans. He strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role and later said, “I told that dumb son-of-a-b!tch not to go down there. I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff.”

  3. I agree with Mark Levin that we are living in a “post constitutional” era.
    The problem is, the Constitution is merely a piece of paper if enough people prefer to ignore it. (Half the current congress thinks it’s racist and irrelevant, the other half could take it or leave it. Most voters have no idea what’s in it, since it isnt taught anymore)

    George Mason refused to sign on to the Constitution because he thought it didn’t go far enough. He insisted on a Bill of Rights which some said were either unnecessary or some said limited the protection of rights by enumerating a finite number of them (why the Bill of Rights includes the 9th Amendment:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    I agree with the position that they needed to be explicitly written down, and not merely inferred. You can see how we have the problem of interpretation 200 years later.

    I am grateful they had the forethought to explicitly enumerate things like the Right to Bear arms, Freedom of Speech, free exercise of Religion, etc.

    I strongly recommend reading Joseph Sobran’s “How Tyranny Came to America”… its a short essay that might take you 5 or 10 minutes to read. ( at sobran dot com). It was written in the 1990’s but is still relevant today.
    He wrote, “ As I sometimes put it, the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”
    He explained all of these issues very succinctly.

    Our strength is, that we have the Constitution on our side… we aren’t trying to bring about a new radical System. We are defending the original system.

Comments are closed.