See? Liberals hate the constitution, especially the unlimited Bill of Rights parts

Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthews c. 1891 after an original by Thomas Sully (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: The Bill of Rights (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There actually exists a professor who says the US Constitution is “imbecilic” and for proof he talks about how so many people have not followed it. So he wants to change it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyle-denniston/constitution-check-has-am_b_1559121.html

So says this “constitutional professor” who pretends to know more about such things than the giant scholars who participated in the writing of our Constitution, and the Christians who extorted the Bill of Rights out of reluctant federalists, including Mr. Central Bank Alexander Hamilton.

Here comes this guy going way beyond Hamilton’s wildest hopes for dissolving local and state jurisdiction over anything in even his book title. Better the approach by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

This seems like a “trend” now, with this guy, and then one of the Supreme Court telling the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to forget about the American Constitution that set up a balance of powers between three branches of government, and between the states and the federal government, and of course, the B-word she really didn’t want to talk about, the Bill of Rights which is really part of the original Constitution because without that agreement there would have been no such Constitution.

They have the same problem with the Constitution that they have with the Bible. It’s not that either of them contradicts itself, it contradicts them.

Related articles

• It’s Unfit To Exist (lewrockwell.com)
• “Constitution 101”: Final Thoughts (viewsfromthebigsky.typepad.com)
• The Bill of Rights – (apoliticalpundit.wordpress.com)
• Lawmaker’s ‘how to slap Washington’ strategy (wnd.com)
• FBI free to ambush Bill of Rights (wnd.com)
• Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Is there a constitutional right to contraception? (upi.com)

Advertisement

More Federal Government Orwellian Privacy Invasion

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Legal team tells Census Bureau to back off:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/legal-team-tells-census-bureau-to-back-off/

Accusing the U.S. Census Bureau of “stalking” and “harassment” against dozens of Americans, officials with the Rutherford Institute have asked the federal agency to explain how its “American Community Survey” questions related to information the government is authorized to request.

Or perhaps it should just stop sending out the forms with dozens of questions that demand information about fertility, martial history, utility costs, vehicles available and health insurance coverage, a letter to the federal agency says.

“The right to be left alone has been characterized as ‘the right most valued by civilized men.’ By compelling responses to invasive, personal questions that go far beyond the type of census mandated by the United States Constitution, the federal government is intruding significantly into the ‘zone of privacy’ the United States Supreme Court has recognized as being protected by the Bill of Rights,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

This is another demonstration that citizens need to demand Congressmen that respect the United States Constitution, and they need to demand of its judges, most of all the Supreme Court judges, that they also respect the Constitution.

Related articles

• Supreme Court Justice Breyer warns of ‘Orwellian’ government (zionistoutrage.com)
• Justice Breyer warns of Orwellian government (thehill.com)
• Ron Paul’s Voting Record (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• GPS tracking: Supreme Court must protect Americans from Orwellian control (csmonitor.com)
• GPS Tracking: An Invasion of Privacy? (bizsecurity.about.com)
• Man Sues Supreme Court Marshal For Right to Hold Sign on Court Grounds (legaltimes.typepad.com)
• The Balance of the Federation (worthwhile.typepad.com)
• 5 Important Things You Should Know About Privacy and the Supreme Court Ruling on GPS Tracking (alternet.org)
• GPS Tracking is Illegal Without a Warrant Rules the U.S. Supreme Court (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)

Who Is C. Wilfred Jenks? | Jlue’s Weblog

From this link:

Who Is C. Wilfred Jenks? | Jlue’s Weblog:
https://jlue.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/who-is-c-wilfred-jenks/

jlue says:

The US is a nation whose rights are derived by the consent of the governed from the Constitution, which is the law of the land.

She seems well-intentioned, and as a matter of fact there is some truth to it, as a written Constitution is the only way to provide a standard for a nation to govern itself. Besides which, a return to actually obeying the Constitution and applying it as the true “Supreme Law of the Land” as it says it is, would be a great gigantic leap forward in favor of the natural human rights mentioned therein. But…

Actually the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were rightly regarded by the Framers as rights held by men “endowed by their Creator”, some of which were articulated specifically therein. This is seen in not only the “endowed” phrasing in the Declaration, but also in the language of the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting “the free exercise of religion”, or “abridging…”, the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”, etcetera. The list refers to natural rights held by virtue of natural law, the laws of nature and of nature’s God, that exist independent of any Constitution or law anywhere in the world at anytime.

Common law is different. It grew “organically”, and what was known as common law during the times of the American Revolution was a body of understandings that had grown over centuries of jurisprudence in Britain, and that were generally based in Christian understandings of such concepts, such as fair and equal treatment.

In other words, the attempt to take  the “common law” concept we have inherited from our forefathers and from the Framers, and trying to hide it behind confusion with the idea of homogeneity with the way laws were applied elsewhere is ludicrous, and it should have been laughed to scorn by colleagues when some international socialist (just like national socialist) in the Justice Department proposed it.

“Common law” elsewhere did not embody such concepts of individual rights as in the West, and the move to bend our minds into thinking collectively (“graduated” income tax, central bank, fiat money, nationalization of the boom-bust cycle, taxes on groups) is a trick to subjugate our minds to orders from collective “leaders”– self-appointed of course.

But such is now the sign of the times, when the country’s leadership want to make the Bill of Rights and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness into a distant memory of the past. Well it won’t be because “We can do nothing against the truth but for the truth”, and nobody can stop the rain of the refreshing waters of liberty, for “Whom the Son of Man sets free, is free indeed”.