I think i'm onto something here

We have this already, it's called local government.

 

The constitution also declares the president of the United States as commander and chief of the armed forces of the United States, so why don't they take an oath to him. If the president does something unconstitutional that's for the legislative and judicial branch to determine, as required by the constitution.

 

Because this isn't a dictatorship.. One of the primary points of our constitution was to eliminate the possibility of just such a thing...

Our country does not exist as a product of this congress.. It exists as a product of the Decoration of Independence and the original Constitution of the United States of America. (many Congresses ago)

Our current situation is a product of the perversion of these freedoms by career politicians and special interest groups. (this is what our current congress is comprised of)

Loyalty shouldn't be in the misguidance but in the original concept.. in an attempt to get back to the ideal

 

You realize the founding fathers were just the elite of 1789 right? There was nothing sacred about the original government, and bringing up the word dictatorship is just inflammatory speech to prop up a dying point of not liking the current administration.

 

If the Constitution was clear we wouldn't be having this debate. You think an 18 year old kid, barely out of high school has the intellectual ability and education to interpret the Constitution and make a decision to disobey an order? Do you realize that in war time that kid could be executed for treason or imprisoned for the rest of his life?

At least you don't agree with the Oath Keepers about gay marriage, they believe it's unconstitutional. Do you agree with them that they have the right to attack the White House, or state capital, and take the government by force because they don't like the president's, or governor's, policies? That would be overturning an election.

If you want to go back to our original way of conducting government business, I would be voting, but those of you who don't own land wouldn't; neither would women and blacks. And, of course, there was no limit on how many people could move here, so we'd have to open our borders to everyone who wanted to come.

This whole thing about going back to our original papers is not very well thought out. We are the way we are today because of where we were yesterday. We cannot go back, but we can find solutions to the problems we presently have and move forward.

.

 

But local governments, like those that have chosen to decriminalize marijuana are still powerless against federal interference and the prosecution of their locally law abiding citizens....

 

Yes, but at the same time how many of these governments will stand up for their principles and say turn down federal and/or state money to prove their point. It's a give and take system.

That and the fact if you have the FBI, DEA, or whatever other federal police agency on your ass you've done more then walk down the street smoking a joint. Local ordinances is still what affects the daily lives of the extreme majority.

 

I have not looked that deeply into these "Oath Takers" yet Just their website and skimming through the links you provided..

I see no value in the physical attack of any government institution.. Unless to disarm a police or military force that is using violence and terror to strip Americans of their rights..

I am male and a land owner as well.. I feel that i don't just live in this country but own a piece of it too.
But I don't believe the constitution has provisions that expressly limits the right to vote exclusively to male landowners...

Mind you I am not looking to travel back in time, only get closer to the ideals that existed when this country was formed.. Obviously there are some complicated issues with foreign trade and policy that could didn't exist back in the beginning amongst other things..

My argument is that the money and authority has become unconstitutionally centralized. Not to mention out rights and freedoms are constantly being whittled away. Obvious things like gay rights and free religion, and less obvious like the repercussions of the patriot act..

We gotta fix this before it gets beyond repair.. The constitution is a great model to start from...

 

I agree to some extent.. Many states rely heavily on federal tax money.. Decentralization would fix that.. The majority of tax money would then go to the local government as they are taking care of all the local needs..

Marijuana dependencies that are state licensed and regulated and only cater to people that have valid prescription and state issued cards get busted by the feds..

I'm not trying to say its all bad here... just that its not getting better and we are already a ways off of the original ideal.. We should try to get back on track before it goes to far and ends in a wreck..

 

This is exactly the point of the Tea Party and these militia groups, all of this talk about constitution is a cover for their hatred of this Administration. If President Obama was actually not governing by the Constitution he would be charged and impeached by Congress, they've done it before. Remember Clinton, all they could find to try to put him out was a blow job. They didn't storm the White House with armed mobs.

These people talk about Founding Fathers they know little to nothing about and a constitution many of them can barely read, let alone apply it to today's culture. They ignore many of the amendments and established law over the course of 234 years and think they are as astute as Harvard Law graduates. If our Constitution was so easy to interpret and apply we wouldn't need a Supreme Court, all we'd have to do is call Joe the Plumber and ask his him.

There is nothing sane about this Tea Party movement. These are people who are dissatisfied with life as it presently is, and most of them have a right to be. The Republicans and the TeaBaggers are taking advantage of this to create anger and frustration and direct it at President Obama for their own political power, while big business fuels it with cash and more propaganda. They stoked up the fire and now it's getting out of hand and they may not be able to control it, which could easily translate into acts of terrorism.

This has gone too far and needs to stop. They might not like our president, but he is The President and he was elected by a very clear majority. Any attempt to change that by any group other than Congress is a very clear violation of the Constitution they swear to protect and defend.

.

 

I don't take issue with any president specifically (as a general rule they are just figure heads anyway)..
Congress are the law makers and the final decision in all out war...

My statement dealing with dictatorships was exclusively in response to the (your) question "why don't you swear an oath or allegiance to the president".. Is there any more decisive answer/argument to that question?
(I hope you aren't lashing out at me because i didn't invest more time legitimizing your asinine question with a lengthy response. I'm sure you are a great guy when you are on the wining side of an intelligent argument)

I like that we have finally voted in a president of African decent, its one of the few things recently that made me feel that we do occasionally come through and deliver on the promise of equality..

My argument is simply that reading the original constitution leaves an impression of great freedoms and from that point they have only been confined and pared down to where we are today....

 

It is not inclusive either, and only male land owners were allowed to vote in the beginning. Others had to fight for that right, like the 19 amendment. As recently as when I was a child people in southern states were charged a poll tax and some had to take a poll test in order to keep blacks from voting, they called it "States Rights." That would not have changed without the Federal Government's intervention, as with Civil Rights.

The ideals are the same, just interpreted differently to give the same rights to everyone and to apply them to today's culture, we don't ride in horse-drawn carriages any more.

I gotta disagree with you here. I'm 62 years old and I have always lived where and how I wanted, I've done what I wanted in the way I've wanted to do it and have had a great life. I've watched the blacks get their equal rights and women get their equal pay and a number of other civil and legal advances for freedom.

These people who are whining about their Constitutional Rights have no problems either, other than in their own minds. The only major problem we have is uncontrolled Capitalism that is strangling our economy and buying our politicians. The government is not our enemy, Wall Street is.

That's where we started, it's alive and working like a top.

 

See i think that's the beginning of the problem, people assume that because something is not specific in every minuscule detail that implied exclusion exists (blacks, woman, gays, and Muslims should have never been discriminated against in the first place. We haven't made advancements, only eventually started to get it right) ... My impression of the Bill of Rights (the original Constitution) is that it was meant to be all inclusive that's why it is vague.. Its only those that are looking to strip people of their rights that stop and say "well it isn't specific to you so we can exclude you"

The problem is that we aren't where we should be, and moving further from it.. The idea is to get back on track before its too late to save it this time around.. (I don't want to see a disruptive, militant, bloody thing)

I'm not gay, but the fact that gays cant get married goes against the ideals of the Constitution.

I'm not Muslim, but the fact that NY can create new ordinances to prohibit the building of new mosques goes against the ideals of the Constitution.

I think the Patriot act gos against the ideals of the Constitution too..

You could go on for a while and still not touch on everything..

Ignoring the rights of gays or Muslims simply because I'm not one would parallel (to some extent) looking the other way when slavery was going on just because I'm not black..

I'm not arguing any kind self serving agenda here. I have it pretty good, and I am grateful for it (more than you will ever know). I want my kids and grand kids to have it good too but if things continue at the rate they have been, its just not going to happen... That's why we need to work on it..

 

How would decentralization fix this, it would just make the south and mid-west shine in their rusty glory since they take in more federal money than they send out.

Well raids on marijuana dispensaries are decreasing, so things are getting slightly better. What is the original ideal? Slavery and only about 1/8 of the white male population being able to vote? No police forces? No amtrak? What? If you recall the constitution as it stands was the United State's second constitution in an effort to centralize federal power more after the failure of the articles of confederation.

 

Except that the Bill of Rights is not part of the original Constitution and wasn't ratified until 1791. If we roll back to the original Constitution, those 10 amendments are gone.

Admit it..... You haven't read these documents to any degree of understanding have you? Have you read any of the letters between the founders of this nation? Have you studied any of our history of that period? Have you looked at the history of each amendment to see why it was necessary? Do you even know that many of our founders were not Christians and were likely atheists? Did you know that Thomas Jefferson rewrote the New Testament to portray Jesus as just a "really good dude?" These men were not gods.

If you like the ideas of the founders so much you should join me in a movement to restrict voting to university graduates only.

What things? What is happening that is degrading our freedoms? You keep leaving this part out.

.

 

I really wish you wouldn't have brought that one up. The dip-shits will now be wanting to go back to that, especially down here where the word confederacy, or any form of it, is Divine.

.

 

Decentralization of power would imply the decentralization of money as well, the idea here is that the community would wave the greatest control of its population and tax revenue, the county less, state even less, and federal government only what it needs to support what could not be supported on local levels.

I have made it clear on several occasions that I am apposed to Slavery and/or discrimination of any sort.. The constant revisiting of this it placing me under the impression that is the go-to crutch when arguing your position..

The constitution of the united states of the first federal congress (The Bill of rights) is the document I have been arguing the merits of... It was the foundation of the our country and embodies the ideals this country was founded on.. (by way of its lack exclusion/predigests and promos of freedoms and rights)

 

You can't really "decentralize" wealth, wealth is where it is, it already is decentralized. The government collects taxes then uses the money to fund programs where they're needed, otherwise there would be huge differences in infrastructure not just around the country, but locally, as you can already see in school systems as they're funded by local property taxes.

 

The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. An agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself.

These are the 10 amendments of the original constitution, the Constitution of the first Federal Congress of the United states..

I have scrutinized the bill of rights more in the last couple days than i have in years (probably since i was in debate club in high school) looking up the definitions of any word i feel i could be misinterpreting and ever researching "common interpolations" to insure that I am accurately relaying my perspective and not misrepresenting the Constitution itself..

I don't claim to be a scholar of historian, However I have a better education than the average "American" at the time of its inception.. Where the constitution was designed to represent these individuals, I am confident that it was carefully crafted to be clearly interpreted and understood by those it represented.

Why would the invasion of the founding fathers privacy be necessary to intemperate the first 10 (and only that existed at that time) Amendments to the Construction?
You keep looking for excuses to limit the scope of the interpretation of the Bill of Rights... Why?

Its politicians and lawyers that attempt to cloud/muddy things to cater to their agendas.. Adding things only to create an aire of exclusion/limitation in the first place... Latter amendments that add new rights are absurd because those rights always existed (nothing said they didn't)
As far as the Constitution was concerned all people were created equal because no language within it that made any distinction otherwise, its just taken us a while to start getting some of that (problem is in the time it has taken we come to accept all the that has been created as well)

Are you familiar with and understand the scope of the Patriot act?

 

Actually the constitution wasn't written to be a common man's document, it's a legal document, written by people who both then and now were often lawyers. It took the federalist papers to convince a lot of people of the worthiness of the document. The constitution of any nation is the highest law of the land, you don't write law in farmer dialect. It's the role of politicians to create law and for lawyers who have become judges to decide if said law is legal.