There Are Four Boxes To Be Used In The Defense Of Liberty:

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. (I Posted this on Oklahoma Shooters and it might be fitting here as well.)


We see that the first three boxes are being destroyed, or at the very least, mocked, rotted, and sullied for political ends. The ammo box is under attack as well. The way things are going, we will end up having to empty many ammo boxes in order to replace those first three. Ammo boxes are the only construction material immune to the mocking and rotting; and the message they send cannot be ignored, diminished, or misconstrued when emptied in a righteous cause - the cause of freedom, liberty, and self governance.


Pray that we will not have to resort to the force those ammo boxes contain, but be ready and able to employ that power. We must remain that elephant in the room and not succumb to the nips and bites the left is trying to devour us with. Those nips and bites contain the diseases of tyranny, despotism, subjugation, greed, and socialism. We see them nibbling, they know we see them nibbling, yet they keep on nibbling because they see us doing nothing to stop them.


Those in positions of power must be reminded that those powers do not belong to them. The powers have been allotted to the Constitution by We the People to be used to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of the people. Those elected to exercise those powers must be reminded that they are no more, no greater than, any one of the rest of the people and are simply an employee of the Constitution. Anything those elected people do beyond the bounds or less than the requirements of the Constitution have attained grounds for dismissal. If the next election is not expedient enough, they need to be impeached, convicted, and dismissed forthwith as We the People require - AKA as the Constitution requires.


Remember that this country is a union of sovereign states. We are not a democracy. We the People approved the Constitution through a convention of delegates, that was ratified - accepted, if you will - to be the unifying and governing instrument of freedom, liberty, and security for We the People and our several sovereign states. That makes the United States of America a republic.


Now there is a force out there - actually within our midst - attempting to destroy the Union, the Constitution, all forms of the Republic, and the freedom and sovereignty of each and every one of us. Remember this on election day and vote accordingly. Keep yourself well regulated with your arms. Learn and remember history. Prepare yourself and loved ones in the art of self sufficiency. It is OK - it is recommended - that you be and remain enamored with all the tools needed to secure and preserve freedom, liberty, and your personal sovereignty.


There are three changes that need to be made to the Constitution as well to help restore the energy and true purpose of the Constitution. First, repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Second, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Third, amend Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment by removing the word “including” and replacing it with the word “for”.


Woody

[gunsmith]

if this was facebook i could click "like".

I agree for the most part but i am not familiar with the language of the amendments mentioned -so I'm merely pretty sure I agree with you.

Things really do seem to be heating up, don't they?
Hopefully, after the our benefactor and commander is relelected, things will calm down a bit.

can we just wall off L.A - deport all the liberals there - like a two state solution or something?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

if this was facebook i could click "like".

I agree for the most part but i am not familiar with the language of the amendments mentioned -so I'm merely pretty sure I agree with you.

Things really do seem to be heating up, don't they?
Hopefully, after the our benefactor and commander is relelected, things will calm down a bit.

can we just wall off L.A - deport all the liberals there - like a two state solution or something?

Here is some clarity.

The Sixteenth Amendment allows the income tax which is a way for the government to underhandedly control your behavior, keep you under the threat of imprisonment if you don't pay up, and inhibit your ability to become independently wealthy or self sufficient. The government could now tax the successful and hand out largess to buy votes to keep them in power.

The Seventeenth Amendment converted the Senate from a body with equal representation from each state to nothing more than another house of representatives of the people, albeit more still more powerful than the House of Representatives. The Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of the individual states through appointment of the senators by each state's legislature. For all intents and purposes, it froze out the several individual states say in the control of the power of the Union, stripping them of sovereignty and converted the federal government to a national government, subject to the unlimited will of the people. In other words, now the people could vote themselves goodies from the largess of the national coffers: Tax the rich to feed the poor, so to speak. Competition between the several states for attracting business, etc., has been reduced. No senator who has been appointed by the legislature of his state is going to vote for anything that would strip his state of its sovereign power, or overburden his state's people with unnecessary taxes to support any program that would not directly benefit them.

That one word in Section 4 of the Fourteenth amendment is the difference between not questioning the validity of the government's power to pay for the debts it owed to those who aided in a civil war or insurrection, and not questioning any debt the government decided to incur. "Including" says all debts incurred, not to exclude the debt incurred for a civil war or insurrection, whereas if it was the word "for", then only the debt incurred for a civil war or insurrection shall not be questioned. No one could challenge a debt incurred for anything else as it stands now. It was obviously a power grab. Well, maybe not so obvious at the time to enough people but it was a power grab nonetheless. I, for one, would like for We the People to be able to challenge the tons of money given to other countries called 'foreign aid', or grants to foreign companies to study things like the Covid virus (resulting in the virus released on us), or monies spent on the many dastardly agencies, bureaucracies, and departments that the feral government uses to interfere with our private lives, how we use our lands, hold their thumbs on business, support the murder of our unborn to name a few.

As individual sovereign states without the feral government in the way, yes, we might be able to ship all the liberals to California.   Actually, with restored competition between the states with no 'refereeing' by the feral government, the several states would come to a relatively balanced condition naturally. States with liberal welfare programs would attract welfare dependent people while at the same time repulse the wealthy who would be taxed to support the welfare programs. Welfare programs would be pared down to only support he truly needy, which would in turn entice businesses to come to that state for the tolerable taxation.

Woody

Edited to correct spelling, 07/06/2020  1:27 PM CDT

[HeroHog]

Woody, may I/We share this, and if so, do you wish to be noted as "Woody", "A Forum Friend" or "John Hancock"?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Woody, may I/We share this, and if so, do you wish to be noted as "Woody", "A Forum Friend" or "John Hancock"?

"Woody" will do.

[HeroHog]

Thank you so much, sir!

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"Woody" will do.

The more people that see this, the more people will look into this. I believe these amendments are alterations that weaken the energy of the system - changes that George Washington warned us about in his farewell address:

"One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown."Excerpted from near the middle of George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796.

George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796

Woody

[kgbsquirrel]

Here is some clarity.

The Sixteenth Amendment allows the income tax which is a way for the government to underhandedly control your behavior, keep you under the threat of imprisonment if you don't pay up, and inhibit your ability to become independently wealthy or self sufficient. The government could now tax the successful and hand out largess to buy votes to keep them in power.

The Seventeenth Amendment converted the Senate from a body with equal representation from each state to nothing more than another house of representatives of the people, albeit more still more powerful than the House of Representatives. The Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of the individual states through appointment of the senators by each state's legislature. For all intents and purposes, it froze out the several individual states say in the control of the power of the Union, stripping them of sovereignty and converted the federal government to a national government, subject to the unlimited will of the people. In other words, now the people could vote themselves goodies from the largess of the national coffers: Tax the rich to feed the poor, so to speak. Competition between the several states for attracting business, etc., has been reduced. No senator who has been appointed by the legislature of his state is going to vote for anything that would strip his state of its sovereign power, or overburden his state's people with unnecessary taxes to support any program that would not directly benefit them.

That one word in Section 4 of the Fourteenth amendment is the difference between not questioning the validity of the government's power to pay for the debts it owed to those who aided in a civil war or insurrection, and not questioning any debt the government decided to incur. "Including" says all debts incurred, not to exclude the debt incurred for a civil war or insurrection, whereas if it was the word "for", then only the debt incurred for a civil war or insurrection shall not be questioned. No one could challenge a debt incurred for anything else as it stands now. It was obviously a power grab. Well, maybe not so obvious at the time to enough people but it was a power grab nonetheless. I, for one, would like for We the People to be able to challenge the tons of money given to other countries called 'foreign aid', or grants to foreign companies to study things like the Covid virus (resulting in the virus released on us), or monies spent on the many dastardly agencies, bureaucracies, and departments that the feral government uses to interfere with our private lives, how we use our lands, hold their thumbs on business, support the murder of our unborn to name a few.

As individual sovereign states without the feral government in the way, yes, we might be able to ship all the liberals to California.   Actually, with restored competition between the states with no 'refereeing' by the feral government, the several states would come to a relatively balanced condition naturally. States with liberal welfare programs would attract welfare dependent people while at the same time repulse the wealthy who would be taxed to support the welfare programs. Welfare programs would be pared down to only support he truly needy, which would in turn entice businesses to come to that state for the tolerable taxation.

Woody

Edited to correct spelling, 07/06/2020  1:27 PM CDT

Never understood how the 17th amendment doesn't violate the final clause of Article V: "... that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Some states never ratified it and yet popular election of senators has been forced upon them.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Never understood how the 17th amendment doesn't violate the final clause of Article V: "... that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Some states never ratified it and yet popular election of senators has been forced upon them.

Interesting. I'll have to give this some thought. There is no mention of this conundrum in the Seventeenth.

Woody

[kgbsquirrel]

Interesting. I'll have to give this some thought. There is no mention of this conundrum in the Seventeenth.

Woody

It is literally the only amendment banned from being added to the constitution, but there it is.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It is literally the only amendment banned from being added to the constitution, but there it is.

Having studied Article V in regard to the Seventeenth Amendment, where Article V clearly states that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, and no other amendment dismissing or altering Article V changing the verbiage from the suffrage of the several states to suffrage of the people of a state in the Senate, the Seventeenth Amendment is unenforceable against any state that did not ratify said Seventeenth Amendment.

Please note that the Constitution is unalterable and unambiguous  in its use of words. A state is a state, the people are the people. To say a state and the people of a state are one and the same is a misconstrued use of the language in the Constitution. One such instance of the complete distinction between specifying people(the people) and a state(the several states) is in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, to wit: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immensities of the Citizens in the several States." People or the people are always addresses specifically. States or the several states are always addressed specifically.

Codos to kgbsquirrel. I appreciate the enlightenment!

Woody

[kgbsquirrel]

Having studied Article V in regard to the Seventeenth Amendment, where Article V clearly states that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, and no other amendment dismissing or altering Article V changing the verbiage from the suffrage of the several states to suffrage of the people of a state in the Senate, the Seventeenth Amendment is unenforceable against any state that did not ratify said Seventeenth Amendment.

Please note that the Constitution is unalterable and unambiguous  in its use of words. A state is a state, the people are the people. To say a state and the people of a state are one and the same is a misconstrued use of the language in the Constitution. One such instance of the complete distinction between specifying people(the people) and a state(the several states) is in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, to wit: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immensities of the Citizens in the several States." People or the people are always addresses specifically. States or the several states are always addressed specifically.

Codos to kgbsquirrel. I appreciate the enlightenment!

Woody

Also my conclusion.  I wonder if States could withdraw their consent, basically unratifying the 17th from themselves.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Also my conclusion.  I wonder if States could withdraw their consent, basically unratifying the 17th from themselves.

The way I see it, since the language of Article V has not been addressed(amended), I see no reason on Earth or in the Constitution why a state could not withdraw its ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. All it would take is an act of the legislature and signature of the governor.

If enough states withdrew their ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment on the grounds of reclaiming their legislative power as guaranteed in Article V, the Seventeenth Amendment could become null and void as long as there are not enough states remaining signatory to it. It would have to be repealed off the books though, lest enough left-leaning states signed back on to it. Case in point, a proposed amendment back in 1789 became the Twenty-seventh Amendment when it was finally ratified May 7, 1992. It was "on the books" for over 200 years before it was ratified. (See new thread on Congress's automatic pay raises.)

Woody

[kgbsquirrel]

The way I see it, since the language of Article V has not been addressed(amended), I see no reason on Earth or in the Constitution why a state could not withdraw its ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. All it would take is an act of the legislature and signature of the governor.

If enough states withdrew their ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment on the grounds of reclaiming their legislative power as guaranteed in Article V, the Seventeenth Amendment could become null and void as long as there are not enough states remaining signatory to it. It would have to be repealed off the books though, lest enough left-leaning states signed back on to it. Case in point, a proposed amendment back in 1789 became the Twenty-seventh Amendment when it was finally ratified May 7, 1992. It was "on the books" for over 200 years before it was ratified. (See new thread on Congress's automatic pay raises.)

Woody

13 is the number of states you need.