Myk JL

Return the US Government to The US Constitution

24 posts in this topic

Moving Ron Paul, Libertarians, etc aside the US that we live in today is an insult to George Washington & the rest of our forefathers. Most people just acknowledge The US Constitution that we have a country, instead of all the rights to this country.

And to Flag Burners I'd advise you to stop that & instead raise The US Constitution. Flag Burning only divides this country and creates blind followers. We should all be united by the Country that was started. Not the country crooked politicians have turned it into.

The US Constitution should dictate the politicians, the judges, etc. And not the other way around.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


(I moved the thread here as it is not affiliated with a legitimate campaign. Please read the sticky thread in Take Action :))

I think its time to give for the people by the people back to the people!

citizens should dictate politics!


                                               gallery_3_22_21209.jpg

                                               Look at the flowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(I moved the thread here as it is not affiliated with a legitimate campaign. Please read the sticky thread in Take Action :))

I think its time to give for the people by the people back to the people!

citizens should dictate politics!

I've reread it...
I created this forum because I am asked a lot "What can I do to help?" "How do I participate?" and "What can I do?"

I am on a lot of mailing lists and participate in several e campaigns each month.

This forum is not strictly about the environment; it incorporates environmental, business and government concerns on a global scale. It is a forum where people can stop saying "I wish I could do something about..." and participate in real change.

Your opinion matters and your voice deserves to be heard. We have to share this planet and should do our best to leave it in better shape then we were born into.

Spam and flaming will not be tolerated and will be dealt with harshly. Only legitimate campaigns may be posted.

And it's right... I would have made it about Ron Paul. But at this point in time, no matter how many donations, rallies, or support he gets his candidacy for a Constitutional Government is over.

The only problem with saying "citizens should dictate politics" is that politician state they're citizens and then they work for their agendas instead of the rest of the citizens.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you see as a return to const govt? I'm very curious because of the oodles of amendments we have and that the original draft itself is kinda antiquated ne? >.<

still a good thread for discussion wherever it gets put :)


                                               gallery_3_22_21209.jpg

                                               Look at the flowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you see as a return to const govt? I'm very curious because of the oodles of amendments we have and that the original draft itself is kinda antiquated ne? >.<

still a good thread for discussion wherever it gets put :)

In The US Constitution we have the Gold Standard, but we no longer use it. The people that take us off the Gold Standard tend to be warmongerers or just crooked. The current US Dollar the last time I looked at a chart is worth $0.04.

Not promoting the use of the Liberty Dollar, but they have info on this part of the subject.

http://www.libertydollar.org/

Another reason to why be for The US Constitution is that it has a non intervention policy on foreign affairs (i.e. Wars & Occupation). And the Iraq War is unconstitutional.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the public (separate from the media) doesn't pay attention to Ron Paul is because he wants to privatize a lot of government programs which would be detrimental to many people's well-being. His level of trust in corporate America and free market are higher than most voter's. I can't speak for the rest of the country on this but Ron Paul would have been better off if he had not been so far to the right. I say this because, close to where I live, 4 polling stations ran out (completely out) of democratic ballots just in one county. Those polls had to stay open until 10pm because there were still many people in line when they ran out of ballots. Also, other counties were dangerously close to running out of democratic ballots. This is attributed to the fact that independents and decline-to-state voters (like myself) came out to vote in record-breaking numbers, much much higher than expected. Since Ron Paul was not eligible to get votes from Indies and DTS voters, he should have tried to reach out to moderate or conservative democrats (I swear they exist!). If Ron Paul was not so far to the right, I believe some registered Democrats would have voted for him. He already has a few people to the left (foreign policy) and to the right (abortion, free market, small government). I think Ron Paul's fate was decided, fairly, by the people. By and large, they don't want the type of change he's offering. It's too extreme.

Whether or not the media treated him fairly is a whole other debate.


Mayor Quimby: I'll admit I used the city treasury to fund the murder of my enemies, but as Gabbo would say, I'm a bad wittle boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ron Paul only sounds extreme when you realize the bad changes that have happened kind of slowly. While he wants to correct all of that, that would be pretty rapid. Correcting say 80 or more years of problems in 4 or 8 years is an extreme change.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Ron Paul only sounds extreme when you realize the bad changes that have happened kind of slowly. While he wants to correct all of that, that would be pretty rapid. Correcting say 80 or more years of problems in 4 or 8 years is an extreme change.

It's more than extreme. It's impossible.

Ron Paul represents a return to isolationism as outlined in the constitution, which, realistically, will never happen because we get off on being "the world's only superpower" and would rather see the value of a dollar fall through the floor than relinquish our crown.


what is the what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more than extreme. It's impossible.

Ron Paul represents a return to isolationism as outlined in the constitution, which, realistically, will never happen because we get off on being "the world's only superpower" and would rather see the value of a dollar fall through the floor than relinquish our crown.

I'd like to know how it's isolationism if Ron Paul wants to remove the regulations that prevent companies from trading freely with us.

Aren't we already partly isolated from technology in Japan, India, etc if our government says no to that technology? Wheres the free trade their? To say we can't get foreign goods or vice versa, that is true isolationism.

And if you're talking about foreign US Military Bases that's why we were attacked on 9/11. All Empires end in disaster.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to know how it's isolationism if Ron Paul wants to remove the regulations that prevent companies from trading freely with us.

Right, the idea is to remove these regulations by taking us out of international organizations that have outside control over American interests. The idea of a free market is centered around each nation being able to define its own policies regarding international trade. Currently, the WTO is responsible for governing trade rules and agreements between all prominent trading nations.


what is the what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, the idea is to remove these regulations by taking us out of international organizations that have outside control over American interests. The idea of a free market is centered around each nation being able to define its own policies regarding international trade. Currently, the WTO is responsible for governing trade rules and agreements between all prominent trading nations.
Although we have no say in how other Nations regulate their trade the US should not follow their example. Leave trade to the free market.

Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A beef I have with Ron Paul is that he wants the US to leave the UN. I do not support that idea because I believe that in order for the organizations like the UN to work, it needs support and to be taken seriously. The US does not take the UN seriously or head their warnings just because we do not like what they have to say. I believe that to contribute to the cause of peace, means to seriously engage in an equal partnership with other nations in the UN.

This isn't an issue with Paul, but it's another thing that irks me: I think that the winners of WW2 shouldn't have special vetoing privileges that the other members are not alloted. (Russia, China, U.S., U.K., France)


Mayor Quimby: I'll admit I used the city treasury to fund the murder of my enemies, but as Gabbo would say, I'm a bad wittle boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I make my post id just like to say that I like almost everything Ron Paul Stands for. I think allot of people do to, but like what was already pointed out, the changes are to drastic for everyone to simply agree on.

People aren't ready for that much of a drastic change yet. From the looks of it though, the next election or the election after will be a huge change considering the Internet is so crazy over Ron Paul and the vast majority of the Internet is made up of young people not old enough to vote yet. That explains why all the online polls show Ron Paul in the lead (theres no simple way to tell if online voters are giving their real age or not). So give it time, at some point America will change.

PS. thats the first time I've heard someone say Ron Paul wants out of the UN. Are you sure you herd him actually say it?


sig.php

All hail piggy, king of bacon ^)^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A beef I have with Ron Paul is that he wants the US to leave the UN. I do not support that idea because I believe that in order for the organizations like the UN to work, it needs support and to be taken seriously. The US does not take the UN seriously or head their warnings just because we do not like what they have to say. I believe that to contribute to the cause of peace, means to seriously engage in an equal partnership with other nations in the UN.

This isn't an issue with Paul, but it's another thing that irks me: I think that the winners of WW2 shouldn't have special vetoing privileges that the other members are not allowed. (Russia, China, U.S., U.K., France)

We don't don't need the UN in order to be peaceful. The US Constitution is all we need for that. The problem being that The US Constitution is being undermined & we see unconstitutional wars. Iraq Wars, Vietnam, USs involvement in WW1 all unconstitutional.

The US basically started the UN so the problem comes from that.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the UN but it would be worse if we left. They really need to grow a pair -_-;


                                               gallery_3_22_21209.jpg

                                               Look at the flowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN in reality is pure garbage. While it does some things. The only reason it exists is to serve as a tangible representative of some kind of global understanding between the Superpowers. This is why they have veto. The UN would have never existed, and will not exist without the veto power.

If one or any of the big 5 left the UN, it would cause serious tensions that could lead to disaster, similar to 1933 when Germany left its ill fated predecessor, the League of Nations. Its a symbolic necessity.


dvabanner.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UN in reality is pure garbage. While it does some things. The only reason it exists is to serve as a tangible representative of some kind of global understanding between the Superpowers. This is why they have veto. The UN would have never existed, and will not exist without the veto power.

If one or any of the big 5 left the UN, it would cause serious tensions that could lead to disaster, similar to 1933 when Germany left its ill fated predecessor, the League of Nations. Its a symbolic necessity.

My sentiments exactly. It's sad that the power of the "super-veto" is the glue that holds the UN together.

I think the UN needs a complete overhaul, but to leave it would be disastrous.

We don't don't need the UN in order to be peaceful. The US Constitution is all we need for that. The problem being that The US Constitution is being undermined & we see unconstitutional wars. Iraq Wars, Vietnam, USs involvement in WW1 all unconstitutional.

The US basically started the UN so the problem comes from that.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/22/paul-time-for-us-to-leave-un/

We don't need the UN but if used and participated in properly, it would be extremely helpful to keep nations peaceful. Especially third world and developing nations. Unfortunately, nothing is perfect and corruption is everywhere, not to sound like a conspiracy nut. In an ideal world, the UN would actually be as effective as it is supposed to be.

The US needs to stop treating the UN like a bastard stepchild every time they make a decision that we don't like. But why would we stop treating them in such a way when we hold so much power? The whole system is disillusioning.

The Constitution will never stop being undermined because people figure that a document which is 219 (?) years old is no longer applicable to recent policies and politics. It's not a good attitude to have, but that's how the law makers of today think (in general). In the beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush tried to say that the Espionage Act still applies in times of war. The government of today picks and chooses which old laws still apply so long as it benefits them.

I want to be a history major. I have been reading about the subject since I could pick up a book, but I find that the more I read (over the years), the more disgusted I get. -_-;


Mayor Quimby: I'll admit I used the city treasury to fund the murder of my enemies, but as Gabbo would say, I'm a bad wittle boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution will never stop being undermined because people figure that a document which is 219 (?) years old is no longer applicable to recent policies and politics. It's not a good attitude to have, but that's how the law makers of today think (in general). In the beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush tried to say that the Espionage Act still applies in times of war. The government of today picks and chooses which old laws still apply so long as it benefits them.

I want to be a history major. I have been reading about the subject since I could pick up a book, but I find that the more I read (over the years), the more disgusted I get. -_-;

I think part of that problem comes from most voters not wanting to be educated on politics.

As for history I'm mainly interested in US, Renaissance, and pre Dark Ages. Last bit of history I read was about James Jerome Hill & his fight with Congress.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS. thats the first time I've heard someone say Ron Paul wants out of the UN. Are you sure you herd him actually say it?

It's true. Check his website.

It doesn't end there, though. He wants to remove us from all similar international unions and agreements as well. This includes the UN, GATT, CAFTA, NATO, NAFTA, WTO and the International Criminal Court. He also wants to eliminate federal income tax by repealing the 16th amendment and abolish the Federal Reserve.

Basically, Ron Paul has the most outrageously massive balls of any human being to ever live.


what is the what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's true. Check his website.

It doesn't end there, though. He wants to remove us from all similar international unions and agreements as well. This includes the UN, GATT, CAFTA, NATO, NAFTA, WTO and the International Criminal Court. He also wants to eliminate federal income tax by repealing the 16th amendment and abolish the Federal Reserve.

Basically, Ron Paul has the most outrageously massive balls of any human being to ever live.

We don't need the Federal Reserve. It does nothing but weaken the dollar through inflation.

I'd say Ron Paul might be in the top 100 (in the US), but he's no where near to being #1 most outrageous. Andrew Jackson is way more outrageous than Ron Paul. But only because Andrew Jackson was an actual racist & caused The Trail Of Tears.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't need the Federal Reserve. It does nothing but weaken the dollar through inflation.

I agree, but there isn't much that can be done about it at this point. The Fed took control of the government the day it started printing greenbacks. You couldn't get rid of it if you tried.

Actually, Andrew Jackson was responsible for eliminating the previous central bank, but doing so nearly bankrupted the country and caused one of the worst recessions in American history. I'm rather certain it was also illegal.


what is the what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, but there isn't much that can be done about it at this point. The Fed took control of the government the day it started printing greenbacks. You couldn't get rid of it if you tried.

Actually, Andrew Jackson was responsible for eliminating the previous central bank, but doing so nearly bankrupted the country and caused one of the worst recessions in American history. I'm rather certain it was also illegal.

A real downer there.

That's why I was comparing Ron Paul to Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson boasted about returning The US to The US Constitution. The Central Bank from what I heard was trying to prevent the Gold Standard from coming back. There was even an attempt to assassinate Andrew Jackson. The Gold Standard eventually got The US out of debt. This time in history has been best known as The Jacksonian Era.


Protect Title II Net Neutrality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution will never stop being undermined because people figure that a document which is 219 (?) years old is no longer applicable to recent policies and politics. It's not a good attitude to have, but that's how the law makers of today think (in general). In the beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush tried to say that the Espionage Act still applies in times of war. The government of today picks and chooses which old laws still apply so long as it benefits them.[/QUOTE]

Wow. First of all, I have to say that this is an interesting read! People are doing their homework for once, and I must say I'm quite glad to see it! :)

Now, I must admit to knowing little of Ron Paul, but the topics discussed are one's I have a bit of an opinion on. The fact of the entire matter is poignant, considering the topic at hand: the US Constitution. What changes have been made effects over the years from these changes, governmental issues, the works. Good topic.

The Gold Standard. When the GS was stepped away from, it created two things: inflation (bad) and the appearence of superiority by the USD (worse). Consider this, though: the primary reason for the loss of the GS was due to the appearence of several gold veins in non-US controlled vistas, cutting a foothold for the strength of the standard. When the gov't saw the possible loss of power, the GS was removed.

The bigger problem, though, is interpretation. If 100 people read the Constitution, you'd get about 85-95 different responses on what it ment: both as a whole, and as a guiding principal in a time of war. The remaning few would be similar, if not wholly identical. Interpretation is the biggest problem when War is knocking, and those that support it are running rampant; especially when you consider the document is nearly 250 years old.

One old joke states, "If we are a country dedicated to free speech, why do we have phone bills?". The originator of the joke made it sound like speech was ment as everything said, when it is supposed to mean, those things said in a public forum(news, etc) whould be taken in context and not used against someone.

Then there is all the gun laws. "Right to bear arms"? Yeah, that ment a right to have a way to defend your home from invaders, not a right to carry a .357 and blast away in a local mall.

Interpretation is everything.


"There's no such thing as can't. You always have a choice."--Ken Gor, Ying hung boon sik II

[sIGPIC]Dattebayo!!![/sIGPIC]

Thank you to everyone who has ever made me sigs, you are all wonderful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretation is the killer, just look at religion -_-;


                                               gallery_3_22_21209.jpg

                                               Look at the flowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now