03-04-2018, 07:29 AM
Montana, great points and well said, we need you in Congress!!
It is not only true, but unfortunate that those who do not study history are doomed (and I stop the old phrase right there).
The bill of rights is for individual protection. A state does not really need to have a right of free speech if all citizens have it -- by default the state will in effect have it as well. A state does not practice a religion, and indeed the supremacy clause of the Constitution says that states are prohibited from restraining the free exercise thereof... And a state does not have a need to be secure in its person and effects, nor be compelled to testify against itself... this is my point, these are all individual rights, and the Constitution recognizes and enshrines them, so that no one would be able to set up a despotic, individual-trampling regime in this country, as had been set up and running in several European countries at that time, yes and was also running in the colonies under King George.
It was a novel concept embodied in the Constitution, that power did not emanate solely from the King and his government, but from the consent of the governed. Now proposing a federal government since the Articles of Federation were too weak and had failed, this new federal setup had to be stronger, yet had to have limitations placed upon it so it would not unilaterally take over and subjugate all the citizens... which is exactly what the socialists, lefties and libs seem to want to do today. Hmmmm, must be why they work so hard at eliminating individual rights. Remember Obummster said people should be willing to give up their rights to the Feds... let the Govt take care of you and define all the things that you get to "have" -- this "rights" thing was outmoded to him.
It is not only true, but unfortunate that those who do not study history are doomed (and I stop the old phrase right there).
The bill of rights is for individual protection. A state does not really need to have a right of free speech if all citizens have it -- by default the state will in effect have it as well. A state does not practice a religion, and indeed the supremacy clause of the Constitution says that states are prohibited from restraining the free exercise thereof... And a state does not have a need to be secure in its person and effects, nor be compelled to testify against itself... this is my point, these are all individual rights, and the Constitution recognizes and enshrines them, so that no one would be able to set up a despotic, individual-trampling regime in this country, as had been set up and running in several European countries at that time, yes and was also running in the colonies under King George.
It was a novel concept embodied in the Constitution, that power did not emanate solely from the King and his government, but from the consent of the governed. Now proposing a federal government since the Articles of Federation were too weak and had failed, this new federal setup had to be stronger, yet had to have limitations placed upon it so it would not unilaterally take over and subjugate all the citizens... which is exactly what the socialists, lefties and libs seem to want to do today. Hmmmm, must be why they work so hard at eliminating individual rights. Remember Obummster said people should be willing to give up their rights to the Feds... let the Govt take care of you and define all the things that you get to "have" -- this "rights" thing was outmoded to him.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"