bpnjensen wrote:
[...]

After we have a bloody revolution where the legally elected leaders by
a majority of the people are ousted or killed, and where the US
Constitution has been trampled upon and murdered by a minority of
whiners and complainers (who were POed that someone else besides
themselves had a voice in government) who did not have the patience to
do things the legal way...

What would you propose to replace it? You don't want a King or
dictator, because he'd be a bad guy and look after his own interests
only. You don't want elected officials, because they answer to more
people than just those who *you* favor. A Constitution is obviously
no good, because it allows things that *you* don't want to happen.
What else is left? Fiefdoms? Tribes? Anarchy and lawlessness?
What's your preference? You have a choice - midievel or stone age -
because that's about what you'll have left to choose from.
[...]


How about restoring the constitution?

If we to have constitutional, legal government again, restoration is
necessary, because the constitution has already been trampled upon
-- by having its most important provisions simply ignored or
"interpreted" out of existence by politically-motivated judges
appointed for that express purpose.

The main defense the Founders set up to protect Americans from the
tyranny of kings — and the tyranny of the majority — was the Tenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It says, in effect, that the central government possesses only those
powers expressly granted by the Constitution and no other powers
whatever. And that is how it was understood and applied until the
second Roosevelt demanded and received Lenin-like economic power
(“for our own good,” of course) and supine judges allowed it despite
its obvious illegality.

(Of course, Abraham Lincoln’s arrest of the legislature of Maryland
to prevent them from “voting wrongly,” and the imposition of several
pretended Amendments to the Constitution while states were under
military dictatorships — so-called “Reconstruction” — and their
citizens disenfranchised, were also completely illegal, among many
other things.)

Washington meddling in and controlling local public education?
Absolutely prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.

Washington telling employers who they must hire? Absolutely
prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.

Washington controlling your ability to sell your home or land to
whomever you choose? Absolutely prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.

Washington telling you what substances you can or cannot consume?
Absolutely prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.

Washington authorizing a consortium of private banks (like the
Federal Reserve) to control all money and credit? Absolutely
prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.

All the other sections of the Bill of Rights prohibit the federal
government from doing one thing or another, respectively. But the
Tenth is like all the other Amendments on steroids. It prohibits
Washington from doing anything, except those things specifically
called for in the rest of the document.

However, by torturing and twisting the words of the preamble
(‘…yeah, we can do just about anything that “promotes the general
welfare,” right?’) and by other means, the Tenth Amendment has been
rendered null and void for all practical purposes. Those who did
this said they needed the extra powers to do us all a lot of good.

But, in the process of trying to do good (if indeed that was ever
their intention), they also blatantly lied, outrageously broke the
supreme law of the land, rendered almost all of their Acts and Bills
totally illegal, and caused the regime in Washington, whatever party
is in power, to be quite illegitimate and utterly unlawful.


With all good wishes,

Kevin.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/