19 Comments

The Constitution is the law not just some fungible guidelines. All of these politicians working outside the of the Constitution are breaking the laws of our country and getting away with it so far. There is a definition for this and a remedy. Time for a massive reawakening in America before it is too late.

Expand full comment

Outstanding research thoroughly explained. Well done.

Expand full comment

What a lot of people don't realize is that the united States Constitution IS the government. It was laid down so that those that the people elect are to swear to uphold it as part of their duties. They are to ADMINISTER the government as written. Any laws made must be made in pursuance there of.

What happened in my mind is that the people went to sleep back around the time of Lincoln to such a degree that they let the office of president become one of a dictator. In his case he violated the Constitution so much that he should have been arrested, indicted and tried for treason. We have had the insane psychopathic control freaks running the country too long! For that matter, the WORLD.

Expand full comment

Can you explain how you believe that Lincoln violated the Constitution? It is my understanding that he used his power given to him by the Militia Act of 1792 to defend against invasion by slave owning warmongers.

Expand full comment

The many ways that Lincoln violated the Constitution are well documented by Thomas DiLorezo in his book "The Real Lincoln". There are so many violations that I cannot even begin to list them. Starting with the unlawful suspension of Habeas Corpus and the unlawful detention of newspaper reporters and editors that were against his war. The south NEVER had the intention to "invade" and those who were fighting on the side of the south were hardly slave owning warmongers. I have a hard time carrying on a intelligent conversation with anyone who believes the lie about slavery being the issue for the war.

Expand full comment

Brother Jonathan posted this comment. The CSA was about keeping and expanding slavery.

Article IV of the Confederate Constitution makes it clear to me who is lying.

DiLorenzo is the liar.

https://sovren.media/video/top-5-threats-to-liberty-2179.html

Constitution of the Confederate States of America — a permanent government. No right to secede.

Ratified March 11, 1861

Slave owner’s liberty … a direct threat to individual liberty … and should have been at the top of your list.

— “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God” — for The Curse of Canaan

If the tyrants had won the Civil War and you were deemed a slave, you would have had no where to go to ever win your freedom… ever.

Article 4

; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.

In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government;

Expand full comment
Dec 9, 2022Liked by Frederick R Smith

True.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Anything else is untrue. Aristaeus.Club

Expand full comment
Dec 9, 2022Liked by Frederick R Smith

John Adams said our Constitution was suited only for a moral and religious people and that it was wholly unsuited to any other. Are we to conclude, then, that the Founders intended America to be a "Christian Nation"? A theocracy? I think not. They created a federal government that could act decisively within a limited scope. A government that protected us from foreign enemies and restrained us from killing or defrauding each other but beyond that left us free to govern our own behavior. That works only if we do, in fact, govern our own behavior. Otherwise freedom degenerates into chaos and anarchy. We need an internal restraint. Morality and religion, which Adams might have considered interchangeable, provide that restraint. Morality and religion, rather than being features of our Constitution, are prerequisites to its survival. Alexis de Tocqueville deals with this extensively in his "Democracy in America". Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world". The genius of our Founders was that they erected a wall of separation between church and state that granted sovereignty to pastors, priests and rabbis in spiritual matters. Politicians, while refraining from regulating or prescribing religion, are wise to recognize and respect the critical role it plays in the survival of our republic. Before you reply to this post please check out what de Tocqueville had to say about this topic. His comments really clarified the issue for me.

Expand full comment
author

Indeed, time to find an audio version to listen to Democracy in America while driving

Expand full comment

Thanks, Frederick. I too am a senior citizen with too much time on my hands. I'd be interested in knowing what you think of de Tocqueville. He predicted that as the people become more corrupt and degenerate the government will become more repressive. It's happening! In the words of Edmund Burke, another genius, "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites...Society cannot exist unless a controlling power on will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without". Cheers! Happy Holidays!!

Expand full comment
Dec 9, 2022·edited Dec 10, 2022Liked by Frederick R Smith

Realize that the majority of the founding Fathers based their understanding in Deism rather than Christianity. A deist is basically someone who believes in the non aggression principle as laid out in basic understanding of morality. Deists base their belief in a creator that has revealed himself/herself/whatever through nature. That is what is meant by nature and natures God.

You can do whatever you want as long as you do no damage to someone while doing it. If we base our morality on that it works quite well. That is why there should be no law on the books that will harm someone if they never harmed anyone themselves.

And I'm sorry if I commented without reading Alexis de Tocqueville book(s) because reading a four volume set on the subject seemed a little bit too much.

Expand full comment

I don't think you will be bored or disappointed. I read a condensed version when I was in college. Maybe you could start with that. When I retired I decided to do the whole enchilada, which is 900 pages. It was written in the mid 1800's and addresses the entire scope of American government, not just the religious issue. He issued a series of warnings, most of which are now playing out on the evening news.

Expand full comment
author
Dec 9, 2022·edited Dec 10, 2022Author

Spot on the good side of the deist. Anti-religious like to tout (smear) the Diest background and also fail to mention the Christians who fought in the war like the living relative of Col. Steve Moylan my close friend Steve Moylan. https://frederickrsmith.substack.com/p/first-flight-1793-and-the-finest-397

Expand full comment

You are 100% right with the line... "Likewise, we will lose our Constitution forever if we ever totally lose our ethical foundations." The further this country strays form the thing of God, the farther it will fall.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the cross post! Wonderful comments!

Expand full comment

Our ethical foundations should be simple to follow if you adhere to DO NO HARM. Of course self defense is allowed to stop an aggressor. I don't feel people should try to control what someone does in the privacy of their own home with another human being. Some people base their beliefs on MISS INTERPRETATIONS in the Bible. And then again, I look at a crime as having a victim involved. Since "God" can't come into a courtroom and claim to be damaged, what do you do about the first four commandments? WHO is going to administer punishment for violating those and to what degree? How is GOD damaged by using his name in vain? How is he damaged if you put other "gods" before him? We don't even KNOW if "god" is a he/she/or simply a FORCE

Expand full comment
author

Thanks Jim!

Expand full comment