Why I Worry About the Continental Congress 2009
Their claims are answered quite astutely by a friend. I had this in my email as a response to the Give Me Liberty website I was sent to by another email acquaintance. The claims made on this site and in this email were so vast and large that I felt I wanted another opinion. I enjoyed his response and just left it on my server and would not have passed it on if I did not start to see several advertisements by and for this group. I just wanted to give another side to the story. The reader can decide for her/himself whether s/he wants to get involved.
Invasion of Iraq without a Declaration of War by Congress
I think the last declaration of war was the beginning of WWII. Since then we have had police actions, military operations in support of allied countries, defenses of US interests abroad, and coordinated UN actions. The Congress did pass a Joint Resolution in support of US military action against Iraq. Whether this constituted a Congressional Declaration of War is probably open to debate, though to what end I'm not sure.
The unconstitutional, privately-owned Federal Reserve
Unconstitutional use of a fiat, debt-based paper currency
The value of the Federal Reserve and the use of paper currency are well established and both are a fundamental and indispensable part of our economic system. Without them, Capitalism would not be able to function efficiently. Our economy is an intricate and complex organism, composed, as it is, of strictly private enterprise, government entities, and innumerable shadings of quasi-government and quasi-private institutions. Just as I would not (and do not) countenance government central planning of the economy, neither would I countenance a return to a strictly gold or silver-based currency. We do not live in an agrarian19th Century and our economy has to be able to respond to the needs of the 21st Century and the demands of globally linked economic systems.
Unconstitutional bailout of private financial institutions
I'm not sure what the argument is here, but I would not blindly support such a broad statement without careful consideration. On its surface, the statement seems too broad and too absolute, too black and white. Is EVERY "bailout" (term undefined) of every private institution "unconstitutional?" What about the protection of depositors by the FDIC? What about the Fed's ongoing and routine availability of very short-term credit to banks on an overnight basis for the purpose of allowing them to adjust their reserves to maintain required liquidity? There are millions of private transactions, which occur, in the banking system on a daily basis. Are all transactions between banks and government ipso facto unconstitutional? The statement appears overly simplistic and naive.
USA Patriot Act which violates the Bill of Rights
Again, I don't know what this means. It appears extraordinarily simplistic, and I believe the Patriot Act has produced some real value in intelligence gathering. Some of its early applications were called out by its detractors as, possibly, overreaching (e.g. viewing lists of library books checked out), but many of these criticisms were peripheral and occasionally unintended applications of the language of the Act. Overall, I think the Patriot Act has been positive, though it could probably use some discussion and tinkering.
Unconstitutional direct, un-apportioned (income) taxes on the labor of American workers
This is an old Libertarian argument that has been settled for some time. During the time of the Civil War, Congress passed a temporary income tax. Periodically after that there were various attempts to impose an income tax. All of these were ruled ineffectual by the 1895 case of Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co, which declared certain income taxes — taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally un-apportioned direct taxes. In 1913 the ratification of the 16th Amendment, first proposed in 1909, removed the apportionment requirement and established the basis for the government's imposition of taxes on income "from whatever source derived, without apportionment . . ." To me it seems inappropriate, quixotic, and naive to argue that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of an "un-apportioned" income tax. That issue would appear to have been settled almost 100 years ago.
Collusion to create an unconstitutional “North American Union”
I presume this refers to NAFTA? I am an unrepentant free trader. I have long believed that the free flow of goods and services between countries, unencumbered by tariffs and stifling regulations, benefits all countries. The best free-trade "laboratory" has been the US itself, where there has always been a free exchange of goods and services among the states from the beginning of the Republic. That principle of free commerce has played an important part in creating the most powerful economy the world has ever known, an economy that has proved resilient and adaptable to every sort of internal and external pressure. It is not conceivable that the same principle would not work on a regional or a global basis, in the long run. The statement in question appears to take such trade agreements and infuses them with an ulterior and sinister effort to create some multi-national government. That paranoia appears in other forms, from time to time, variously claiming that the UN or the Trilateral Commission (or who knows who) is plotting to assume power (the black Russian helicopters supposedly hidden in underground caverns all over the US, underground structures of enormous size that no one has ever seen being built despite the enormous manpower that would be required to build them). These kinds of irrational and paranoid arguments simply undermine the credibility of any organization, which claims to be sponsoring an otherwise rational discussion of serious Constitutional issues.
Infringement on 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms
This often boils down to the examination of jots and tittles, the placement of commas, and the divining of Original Intent of the Founding Fathers. The 2nd amendment could have been a little more artfully drafted in the first place, but we are stuck with what we got. I personally believe that the Constitution provides me the right to own firearms for whatever purpose I wish and to carry them, subject to reasonable regulations and prohibitions (e.g. children should not be allowed to carry firearms into a school). I also think the Supreme Court has come down reasonably clearly on my side. This is one area, which bears constant vigilance, and we must guard against (to the extent we can influence it) the selection of Supreme Court justices who are antagonistic to a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment. But it has little to do with the imposition of Socialism or whether the Congressional Solons are or are not pro-economic-growth.
Legally and morally unjustifiable Foreign Policy
This statement is so broad as to be totally meaningless. No one ever seems to agree with our Foreign Policy, no matter which side of the aisle they're on. On the other hand, and on balance, we have probably done more good than bad in the world. After WWII we returned mortal enemies to strength and security, countries that then became strong allies. The Soviet Union and its regional and global hegemony were soundly defeated and many of its satellite states are on their way to greater democracy, capitalism, and economic growth. Iraq, while still fragile and only semi-stable, has a good chance of being the cornerstone of democracy in a region of the world more in tune with feudalism and despotism. There are many challenges as well: China, N Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Honduras, Mexico, to name a few, but we need to keep in mind that we not only must promote our national interests, but we are also (or should be -- but for the dim lights in the White House and Congress) the strong symbol and example of freedom and democracy in the world -- Reagan's "shining city on a hill." We are what other people strive to be. We should be promoting American exceptionalism; instead our president apologizes for us. However, I fail to see in what way our Foreign Policy is a Constitutional issue. This statement is another red herring, an unnecessary distraction from the stated purposes of this organization.
Secret computerized voting, depriving the Right to Count the Votes.
You want "secret computerized voting"? Move to Oregon where all voting is done by mail, an invitation to mischief if there was ever one. Beyond that, I am unclear on the Constitutional basis for this statement. Should everyone get to count every ballot? Should we circulate 40 million or 50 million ballots in a really big box around to each and every voter to be recounted by each voter and the really big box initialed and approved? Someone's got to count the votes and machines do it a lot faster than people do it -- and with a lot fewer mistakes. Now, there are always disputes. Take the recent Senate race in Minnesota for example (please!) or Florida in 2000. But these were not situations where it was not possible to "count the votes." The votes were there for all to see; the problem was one of interpretation of ballot impressions (in Florida) or of deciding which votes to count and which votes not to count (in Minnesota). Again, not a Constitutional issue.
National ID Cards/RFID tracking, restricting free travel and infringing privacy
I don't have a national ID card or anything with an RFID chip in it, including, until 2012, my passport. There was some complaining a couple of years ago that national standards for drivers' licenses were tantamount to a national ID card system. Be that as it may, there is some good argument for some uniformity in drivers' licenses to make the information accessible to law enforcement in states other than the state of issue. Some of these standards made drivers' licenses harder to forge and harder to pass off as legitimate, "official" identification. The "stick" used to move states to a uniform standard was not, per se, a national mandate. It was the threat that nonconforming licenses would not be acceptable to TSA screeners as proper identification to board an airplane. That works for me. If some state wants to cling to a drivers' license design easy to misuse, I don't want someone with murderous intent and with that ID being allowed to board any airplane I'm on. It is always a difficult balancing act, trying to harmonize individual freedom and national security. It will ever be debated, and the pendulum will swing to and fro. As a Constitutional issue, this one may come close. The Supreme Court has often strained to find Personal Privacy right within the four corners of the Constitution. Reasonable men (and women -- see Roe v Wade) may argue that there should be one clearly stated therein, but no one should assume that violations of privacy are somehow automatically prohibited today by the Constitution.
Unconstitutional Executive Orders & “Signing Statements”
Do some Executive Orders (and even some Signing Statement) stretch the limits of Executive Branch authority? Probably, especially if we disagree with them. Maybe not so much when they are to our liking. This seems more an issue for judicial interpretation than a candidate for a vaguely worded article of the Constitution.
Denial of the Right of Jury Nullification and informed juries
Ask any lawyer who argues cases before juries. They (juries) nullify laws, judges' instructions and the evidence all the time. What we really need in this country are many more people who are willing to serve on juries and who don't pursue every possible avenue of escape when called for service. One of the most basic tenets of our judicial system is the general right to have the facts of a case decided by a jury of one's peers. But, when the only jurors available are the halt, the lame, the retired, the unemployed, and those too slow moving or slow witted to escape the grasp of the summoner, the judicial system loses the best and the brightest citizens, the ones who should be sitting in judgment. We don't need a Constitutional amendment giving jurors some kind of extra-judicial powers to make the jury system stronger; we just need a whole lot more people taking their responsibilities of citizenship a whole lot more seriously. Better jurors, uncowed by the majesty of the surroundings and the language and customs of the law, will make the better decisions (better, even, than wise Latina women). I'm a believer in using some kind of plain space, something like a schoolroom, in which to hold trials, rather than majestic, mahogany paneled courtrooms. Just as cathedrals of the church make people feel small and humble, so cathedrals of the law have the same effect. To the church, that effect is for the good; it reminds churchgoers of the might and majesty of God and their insignificance before Him. The law, on the other hand, would do well to intimidate jurors less (all the other players are used to all the trappings of the courthouse) and encourage their thoughtful cooperation more. The bigger the pool of available, willing jurors becomes, the better the system works.
Unconstitutional seizures of private property for private uses
Here's an area that is currently undergoing scrutiny in a number of jurisdictions. The right of the state (the King) to condemn and seize property for public use is about as old as the Common Law itself, subject only to disputes over the appropriate value of the property. Today, there have been (as in St Charles) a number of disputes over what constitutes "public use," for this is the kernel of the issue. No one argues that the law allows seizures of land for private use. That is not now the case, nor has it ever been. It is when "public use" seizures benefit private interests over public ones that disputes arise. This is, again, probably not an area for Constitutional amendment. I shudder to think what such a Constitutional provision might look like. Simply reiterating the grievance and prohibiting seizures for "private use" would add nothing to existing law. Tautologically, "public use" already excludes "private use." Such an amendment would only invite endless litigation. Attempting to define "private use" in the generalities of Constitutional language would enjoy little success, as the necessity to cover every possibility, no matter how remote, would result in either excessive generalities or excessive detail. Either outcome would also add little to settled law and, instead, invite endless litigation and interpretation. The solution is to rely on the judicial application of about 500 years of existing law, on a case-by-case basis. Only in that way are we able to rationally apply the law to every conceivable case.
Unfortunately, this organization, makes the same mistake the Democratic Congress made in the "stimulus bill” The Continental Congress 2009 people apparently see their movement as an opportunity to stuff into whatever proposal they make all of the…grievances that have collected, unrequited, for many years. As the stimulus bill was a hodgepodge of disconnected wishes, so this list is also. They would do to simplify and target their efforts to better focus their discussion. They also need to not appear irrational, for at some point they presumably contemplate asking mainstream Americans to embrace their ideas. So long as they, and their ideas, appear extreme, they will fail in that regard. Americans do not like extremes -- on either end of the political spectrum. Those who demand rationality of their opponents must, themselves, display at least an equal measure of reason. As I would not be a Socialist, so I would not be an Anarchist.
The genius of the original Constitutional Convention was not that there were no strong and competing interests, no passions, and no intense feelings. All these there were in abundance: big states versus small, rural versus urban, agriculture versus commerce, monarchy versus democracy, black versus white, strong central government versus strong state sovereignty, bicameral versus unicameral, a separate judiciary versus a subordinate judiciary, and on and on. Each of these issues provoked intense, impassioned debate. But the genius of the Founding Fathers was their ability to frame the arguments so that each side (and there were often more than two) had a fair opportunity to be heard and to advance their position, along with their ability to eventually and patiently find a compromise on which everyone could (sometimes reluctantly) agree. Their debates were passionate, sometimes disagreeable, usually rational, but seldom personal. They were strong willed, mostly well educated (even if sometimes self-educated), articulate, and well read. What they were striving for was a governmental structure that would persist and prosper, that would appeal to the educated, rational man, who could understand and appreciate the balance of competing interests they tried to achieve. They did not usually start their discussions of any issue with positions at the extreme. My sense is that The Continental Congress 2009 organization does not share that same genius. Rather than being driven to reach compromise and balance, they appear more to be driven to sell predetermined organizational positions. That is a disservice to the original Constitutional Convention and demonstrates a measure of disrespect for their achievements, all the while trying to usurp their reputation.
Invasion of Iraq without a Declaration of War by Congress
I think the last declaration of war was the beginning of WWII. Since then we have had police actions, military operations in support of allied countries, defenses of US interests abroad, and coordinated UN actions. The Congress did pass a Joint Resolution in support of US military action against Iraq. Whether this constituted a Congressional Declaration of War is probably open to debate, though to what end I'm not sure.
The unconstitutional, privately-owned Federal Reserve
Unconstitutional use of a fiat, debt-based paper currency
The value of the Federal Reserve and the use of paper currency are well established and both are a fundamental and indispensable part of our economic system. Without them, Capitalism would not be able to function efficiently. Our economy is an intricate and complex organism, composed, as it is, of strictly private enterprise, government entities, and innumerable shadings of quasi-government and quasi-private institutions. Just as I would not (and do not) countenance government central planning of the economy, neither would I countenance a return to a strictly gold or silver-based currency. We do not live in an agrarian19th Century and our economy has to be able to respond to the needs of the 21st Century and the demands of globally linked economic systems.
Unconstitutional bailout of private financial institutions
I'm not sure what the argument is here, but I would not blindly support such a broad statement without careful consideration. On its surface, the statement seems too broad and too absolute, too black and white. Is EVERY "bailout" (term undefined) of every private institution "unconstitutional?" What about the protection of depositors by the FDIC? What about the Fed's ongoing and routine availability of very short-term credit to banks on an overnight basis for the purpose of allowing them to adjust their reserves to maintain required liquidity? There are millions of private transactions, which occur, in the banking system on a daily basis. Are all transactions between banks and government ipso facto unconstitutional? The statement appears overly simplistic and naive.
USA Patriot Act which violates the Bill of Rights
Again, I don't know what this means. It appears extraordinarily simplistic, and I believe the Patriot Act has produced some real value in intelligence gathering. Some of its early applications were called out by its detractors as, possibly, overreaching (e.g. viewing lists of library books checked out), but many of these criticisms were peripheral and occasionally unintended applications of the language of the Act. Overall, I think the Patriot Act has been positive, though it could probably use some discussion and tinkering.
Unconstitutional direct, un-apportioned (income) taxes on the labor of American workers
This is an old Libertarian argument that has been settled for some time. During the time of the Civil War, Congress passed a temporary income tax. Periodically after that there were various attempts to impose an income tax. All of these were ruled ineffectual by the 1895 case of Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co, which declared certain income taxes — taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally un-apportioned direct taxes. In 1913 the ratification of the 16th Amendment, first proposed in 1909, removed the apportionment requirement and established the basis for the government's imposition of taxes on income "from whatever source derived, without apportionment . . ." To me it seems inappropriate, quixotic, and naive to argue that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of an "un-apportioned" income tax. That issue would appear to have been settled almost 100 years ago.
Collusion to create an unconstitutional “North American Union”
I presume this refers to NAFTA? I am an unrepentant free trader. I have long believed that the free flow of goods and services between countries, unencumbered by tariffs and stifling regulations, benefits all countries. The best free-trade "laboratory" has been the US itself, where there has always been a free exchange of goods and services among the states from the beginning of the Republic. That principle of free commerce has played an important part in creating the most powerful economy the world has ever known, an economy that has proved resilient and adaptable to every sort of internal and external pressure. It is not conceivable that the same principle would not work on a regional or a global basis, in the long run. The statement in question appears to take such trade agreements and infuses them with an ulterior and sinister effort to create some multi-national government. That paranoia appears in other forms, from time to time, variously claiming that the UN or the Trilateral Commission (or who knows who) is plotting to assume power (the black Russian helicopters supposedly hidden in underground caverns all over the US, underground structures of enormous size that no one has ever seen being built despite the enormous manpower that would be required to build them). These kinds of irrational and paranoid arguments simply undermine the credibility of any organization, which claims to be sponsoring an otherwise rational discussion of serious Constitutional issues.
Infringement on 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms
This often boils down to the examination of jots and tittles, the placement of commas, and the divining of Original Intent of the Founding Fathers. The 2nd amendment could have been a little more artfully drafted in the first place, but we are stuck with what we got. I personally believe that the Constitution provides me the right to own firearms for whatever purpose I wish and to carry them, subject to reasonable regulations and prohibitions (e.g. children should not be allowed to carry firearms into a school). I also think the Supreme Court has come down reasonably clearly on my side. This is one area, which bears constant vigilance, and we must guard against (to the extent we can influence it) the selection of Supreme Court justices who are antagonistic to a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment. But it has little to do with the imposition of Socialism or whether the Congressional Solons are or are not pro-economic-growth.
Legally and morally unjustifiable Foreign Policy
This statement is so broad as to be totally meaningless. No one ever seems to agree with our Foreign Policy, no matter which side of the aisle they're on. On the other hand, and on balance, we have probably done more good than bad in the world. After WWII we returned mortal enemies to strength and security, countries that then became strong allies. The Soviet Union and its regional and global hegemony were soundly defeated and many of its satellite states are on their way to greater democracy, capitalism, and economic growth. Iraq, while still fragile and only semi-stable, has a good chance of being the cornerstone of democracy in a region of the world more in tune with feudalism and despotism. There are many challenges as well: China, N Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Honduras, Mexico, to name a few, but we need to keep in mind that we not only must promote our national interests, but we are also (or should be -- but for the dim lights in the White House and Congress) the strong symbol and example of freedom and democracy in the world -- Reagan's "shining city on a hill." We are what other people strive to be. We should be promoting American exceptionalism; instead our president apologizes for us. However, I fail to see in what way our Foreign Policy is a Constitutional issue. This statement is another red herring, an unnecessary distraction from the stated purposes of this organization.
Secret computerized voting, depriving the Right to Count the Votes.
You want "secret computerized voting"? Move to Oregon where all voting is done by mail, an invitation to mischief if there was ever one. Beyond that, I am unclear on the Constitutional basis for this statement. Should everyone get to count every ballot? Should we circulate 40 million or 50 million ballots in a really big box around to each and every voter to be recounted by each voter and the really big box initialed and approved? Someone's got to count the votes and machines do it a lot faster than people do it -- and with a lot fewer mistakes. Now, there are always disputes. Take the recent Senate race in Minnesota for example (please!) or Florida in 2000. But these were not situations where it was not possible to "count the votes." The votes were there for all to see; the problem was one of interpretation of ballot impressions (in Florida) or of deciding which votes to count and which votes not to count (in Minnesota). Again, not a Constitutional issue.
National ID Cards/RFID tracking, restricting free travel and infringing privacy
I don't have a national ID card or anything with an RFID chip in it, including, until 2012, my passport. There was some complaining a couple of years ago that national standards for drivers' licenses were tantamount to a national ID card system. Be that as it may, there is some good argument for some uniformity in drivers' licenses to make the information accessible to law enforcement in states other than the state of issue. Some of these standards made drivers' licenses harder to forge and harder to pass off as legitimate, "official" identification. The "stick" used to move states to a uniform standard was not, per se, a national mandate. It was the threat that nonconforming licenses would not be acceptable to TSA screeners as proper identification to board an airplane. That works for me. If some state wants to cling to a drivers' license design easy to misuse, I don't want someone with murderous intent and with that ID being allowed to board any airplane I'm on. It is always a difficult balancing act, trying to harmonize individual freedom and national security. It will ever be debated, and the pendulum will swing to and fro. As a Constitutional issue, this one may come close. The Supreme Court has often strained to find Personal Privacy right within the four corners of the Constitution. Reasonable men (and women -- see Roe v Wade) may argue that there should be one clearly stated therein, but no one should assume that violations of privacy are somehow automatically prohibited today by the Constitution.
Unconstitutional Executive Orders & “Signing Statements”
Do some Executive Orders (and even some Signing Statement) stretch the limits of Executive Branch authority? Probably, especially if we disagree with them. Maybe not so much when they are to our liking. This seems more an issue for judicial interpretation than a candidate for a vaguely worded article of the Constitution.
Denial of the Right of Jury Nullification and informed juries
Ask any lawyer who argues cases before juries. They (juries) nullify laws, judges' instructions and the evidence all the time. What we really need in this country are many more people who are willing to serve on juries and who don't pursue every possible avenue of escape when called for service. One of the most basic tenets of our judicial system is the general right to have the facts of a case decided by a jury of one's peers. But, when the only jurors available are the halt, the lame, the retired, the unemployed, and those too slow moving or slow witted to escape the grasp of the summoner, the judicial system loses the best and the brightest citizens, the ones who should be sitting in judgment. We don't need a Constitutional amendment giving jurors some kind of extra-judicial powers to make the jury system stronger; we just need a whole lot more people taking their responsibilities of citizenship a whole lot more seriously. Better jurors, uncowed by the majesty of the surroundings and the language and customs of the law, will make the better decisions (better, even, than wise Latina women). I'm a believer in using some kind of plain space, something like a schoolroom, in which to hold trials, rather than majestic, mahogany paneled courtrooms. Just as cathedrals of the church make people feel small and humble, so cathedrals of the law have the same effect. To the church, that effect is for the good; it reminds churchgoers of the might and majesty of God and their insignificance before Him. The law, on the other hand, would do well to intimidate jurors less (all the other players are used to all the trappings of the courthouse) and encourage their thoughtful cooperation more. The bigger the pool of available, willing jurors becomes, the better the system works.
Unconstitutional seizures of private property for private uses
Here's an area that is currently undergoing scrutiny in a number of jurisdictions. The right of the state (the King) to condemn and seize property for public use is about as old as the Common Law itself, subject only to disputes over the appropriate value of the property. Today, there have been (as in St Charles) a number of disputes over what constitutes "public use," for this is the kernel of the issue. No one argues that the law allows seizures of land for private use. That is not now the case, nor has it ever been. It is when "public use" seizures benefit private interests over public ones that disputes arise. This is, again, probably not an area for Constitutional amendment. I shudder to think what such a Constitutional provision might look like. Simply reiterating the grievance and prohibiting seizures for "private use" would add nothing to existing law. Tautologically, "public use" already excludes "private use." Such an amendment would only invite endless litigation. Attempting to define "private use" in the generalities of Constitutional language would enjoy little success, as the necessity to cover every possibility, no matter how remote, would result in either excessive generalities or excessive detail. Either outcome would also add little to settled law and, instead, invite endless litigation and interpretation. The solution is to rely on the judicial application of about 500 years of existing law, on a case-by-case basis. Only in that way are we able to rationally apply the law to every conceivable case.
Unfortunately, this organization, makes the same mistake the Democratic Congress made in the "stimulus bill” The Continental Congress 2009 people apparently see their movement as an opportunity to stuff into whatever proposal they make all of the…grievances that have collected, unrequited, for many years. As the stimulus bill was a hodgepodge of disconnected wishes, so this list is also. They would do to simplify and target their efforts to better focus their discussion. They also need to not appear irrational, for at some point they presumably contemplate asking mainstream Americans to embrace their ideas. So long as they, and their ideas, appear extreme, they will fail in that regard. Americans do not like extremes -- on either end of the political spectrum. Those who demand rationality of their opponents must, themselves, display at least an equal measure of reason. As I would not be a Socialist, so I would not be an Anarchist.
The genius of the original Constitutional Convention was not that there were no strong and competing interests, no passions, and no intense feelings. All these there were in abundance: big states versus small, rural versus urban, agriculture versus commerce, monarchy versus democracy, black versus white, strong central government versus strong state sovereignty, bicameral versus unicameral, a separate judiciary versus a subordinate judiciary, and on and on. Each of these issues provoked intense, impassioned debate. But the genius of the Founding Fathers was their ability to frame the arguments so that each side (and there were often more than two) had a fair opportunity to be heard and to advance their position, along with their ability to eventually and patiently find a compromise on which everyone could (sometimes reluctantly) agree. Their debates were passionate, sometimes disagreeable, usually rational, but seldom personal. They were strong willed, mostly well educated (even if sometimes self-educated), articulate, and well read. What they were striving for was a governmental structure that would persist and prosper, that would appeal to the educated, rational man, who could understand and appreciate the balance of competing interests they tried to achieve. They did not usually start their discussions of any issue with positions at the extreme. My sense is that The Continental Congress 2009 organization does not share that same genius. Rather than being driven to reach compromise and balance, they appear more to be driven to sell predetermined organizational positions. That is a disservice to the original Constitutional Convention and demonstrates a measure of disrespect for their achievements, all the while trying to usurp their reputation.
Tags: congress2009, constitution, continental
Add a Comment
-
Comment by chicagobluesgirl on November 15, 2009 at 10:35pm
- A spectacular idea. Let's hope and pray AND work our butts off to get someone in power who will re-educate our congress in what they should have walked in with their representative job.
-
Comment by Evelio Perez on November 15, 2009 at 6:45pm -
What we need to do is have mandatory U.S. Government classes for each member of congress, and the first Government class should start with what the Forefathers of this country meant when the wrote that great document.
This should not be open for any kind of interpertation, interpret the law and follow it.................
-
Comment by Jim Rock on November 15, 2009 at 3:02pm - like your first example, illegal war-how could congress declare a war on a group of people. War could not be declared against Iraq because we liberated Iraq-we are thier allies. You have to declare war against a soverign and not a group of people that are in ALL nations
-
Comment by Jim Rock on November 15, 2009 at 2:59pm
- I really enjoyed the read, so much is taken out of context by the loud few causing the quiet majority to catagorize them as goofballs
-
- My sentiments exactly...
-
Comment by Whitehorse (Robin Ray) on November 14, 2009 at 12:34am - We need no constitutional convention. What is written does well if followed. It does not need to be re-written - the dangers inherent in this are frightening. I don't think that the minds we have right now would do a better job than the founders did, & much likely it would be a much worse job.
About
Events
© 2009 Created by Rebuild the Party on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Rebuild the Party to add comments!
Join this Ning Network