"Can the real Constitution be restored? Probably not.
Too many Americans depend on government money under
programs the Constitution doesn't authorize, and
money talks with an eloquence Shakespeare could only envy.
Ignorant people don't understand The Federalist Papers,
but they understand government checks with their names on them."
by:
Joseph Sobran
(1946-2010) Columnist
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
He certainly captured the essence the problem. I might also add, it is so easy for politicians to buy their constituents votes with our money, and the only thing better is when they buy it with manipulations of our tax system which is so arcane yet accepted no one can find the effect of the changes, and everyone wants to keep it because they think it lines their pockets some how. fairtax.org
 -- helorat, Milton     
  • 3
  •  
    How do you get people to vote for their own personal responsibility? Most vote for the candidate that will put money in their pockets (or so they think). That is what politics has boiled down to -- voting for money we don't have to buy things we don't need and to pass that unpayable debt to the next generation... one day the youth are going to wake up and burn down the house. But if history be any guide, they will most likely replace the current corrupt system with an even more utopian (and corrupt) system. ;-)
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 3
  •  
    Sobran is a cynic after my own heart.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  • 1
  •  
    yep
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    Sobran better watch his mouth...the GOP is the perfect example of what he's talking about. Sobran has been its cheerleader but appears to be chiding the Bush administration lately.
     -- A.Jurgensen, Stuart, FL     
  • 2
  •  
    If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist. Another Sobran Quote. Go check him out. He is one of the best there is at it.
     -- Warren Giese, Olathe     
  • 3
  •  
    I think the consequences of the quote's essence is going to be played out in biblical proportions. Obamunist and friends are only speeding up the inevitable. I really hope all those that understand true freedom have enough food stock and otherwise on hand to weather this perfect storm.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
  •  
    I'm with Mike on this one. Obama is a train wreck waiting to happen.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 2
  •  
    No one has ever really wanted to restore the Constitution. It was flawed from the beginning and the framers knew it. That is why they allowed for the Amendment Process. It was a dark document from the beginning compared to The Declaration which gave it birth. Government or The State appointment of Senators is the prime example of where the framers screwed up. Restore the original constitution, nonsense, let us keep working on it until we get it right. We are just as smart and just as free as the framers.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 4
  •  
    The ranks of the empty-minded and open-handed will continue to grow until the productive fraction of our society can no longer support them; then you've got yourself a revolution.
     -- Justin Brown, Elkland, Missouri     
  • 3
  •  
    Let's see now, Waffler is just as smart as Thomas Jefferson. Waff, no one can be as stupid as you seem, so I must conclude that you are putting us all on. Which is it?
     -- jim k, austin     
  • 3
  •  
    Waffler, you are an imbecilic moron, supported only by your own prideful ignorance. It has been proven multiple ways here that the US Constitution was to protect We The People from a democracy. A democratic process does not necessarily make a democracy. It is more than obvious you don't have the gray matter to comprehend that or, maybe its just your immoral need that you can not give up your theocracy of power and control. Only from an abysmal venue of despotism and tyranny can you call the Constitution a dark document - from the beginning or any time. Your anti-American, freedom and liberty sentiments, in favor of a Borg mentality, will serve you well in the exponentially speeding up of the elimination of moral government, freedom and liberty. In the 222 years of the Constitution, nothing has been amended that corrected an error. There have been additions but most of those do not support the consequences they purport. Your reference to the 17th Amendment is idiotic. The 17th Amendment was a power grab to eliminate a check and balance on manipulation of an ignorant populous (I'm sure that's why you like it)
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 4
  •  
    What a pessimist!
     -- Al, DC     
  • 1
  •  
    Waff, its disgusting and despicable that you can be so openly communist and still have the gall to call yourself an American.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 4
  •  
    Jim Jefferson said we should rewrite the constitution or revolt every generation. I mean what are some of the guys on this site trying to do except revolt.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 4
  •  
    Carlton is America a free country or is it not. Is this site about liberty or is it not. Since you are apparently against freedom of speech and expression I think it is you who are f*** up!
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 4
  •  
    Al,D.C., My sentiments exactly. Since the real Constitution is grounded in rock solid REAL self evident natural laws, the restoration of it should always be an optimistic endeavor. Pessimism implies that nature can fail in its operation and that my friend is an impossibility. It can be restored alright if the blinders placed on the populace by corrupt use of media and educational institutions are removed by the constant exposure to the truth that has been hidden from them. Once the truth is again generally known by Americans along with the effects the corruption of it has and will continue to have on their lives they will naturally be forced to see their error and man's human nature to survive will bring action. This is not to say the Constitution might not be removed, replaced, or altered (as it is now) for a time but natural law is eternal and any "framing" of those laws in a future Constitution has to have the same basic structure it has now. In afterthought, I believe there are two reasons our Constitution or its likeness may never be seen again. The first is if men who desire world control, in the battle to secure it stupidly blow the world to pieces and second, if mankind reaches a level of enlightment (which I believe they have the ability and capability) where our Constitution or any likeness is not needed and the respect of every individual's rights becomes as natural for the population of the world as breathing is. This I believe is the ultimate reason we are here, to learn why that goal is important and how it can be acheived. We definitely have a lot to learn and as evidenced by the current state of mankind a long way to go, but because the goal is a possibility in the imagination of man and man can create what he imagines, a reasonable case can be argued in favor of the idea's fruition in the reality of man's future. Thumbs down for the negativity expressed and the blow to optimism it delivers to those who work tirelessly for a free republic again.
     -- Anon     
  • 2 1
  •  
    Thanks, Anon, I do share your optimism -- liberation is a continuous process as per Natural Law. However, Waffler's comments take the cake!! Wow, such disdain and ignorance so pridefully spoken. He throws in the towel and readily admits that the founders and the Constitution did not form a democracy -- he calls it an error, but admits that our nation was not founded as a democracy. The amendments to the Constitution which altered the republican nature of the federal government were passed by Congressional vote ONLY because the representatives for the Southern states were APPOINTED by the NORTH! Waffler goes on to say, "We are just as smart and just as free as the framers." I suppose when he says 'we are' he means 'I am' since I find no other agreement to his views by any others on this page. And, my friend, the founders were highly educated men who read and studied the histories of Rome and Greece and hundreds of others. I suppose you read Latin and Greek and are fluent in both, Waffler? I suppose you are familiar with the Greek democracy in Tyre that failed miserably -- from which we get the word 'tyrrany', the first word for democracy? Waffler is an ignorant fool, who has made it his cause to further the Democractic Socialist Party and call it freedom. Yes, all men were created equal AND endowed with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property. What part of Liberty do you not understand? Waffler is a thief and a coward and part of the corruption within this nation that seems hell bent on its destruction.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    E Archer, you'll get no argument from me on that post. Where the line is drawn Waffler has more than made it clear what side of it he's on and he knows what he's doing. He's a traitor convicted by his own words. I wonder though. I suspect he might jump to any side that has the upper hand and he could benefit from it.
     -- Anon     
  • 2
  •  
    Anon does rock solid Natural Law say that property (rather than people) have representation in Congress. That is what the original framers of the Constitution put into the thing. Slaves which were property were also counted as people for the purpose of determining the number of reprsentatives in Congress. Does State power trump the power of the individual, most people abhor state power but that is what the framers put into the Constitution allowing the State(s) to appoint Senators to the Senate. These abhorrent things have been changed of course after a Civil War and Constitutional amendments. What exactly do you mean when you say "return to the original constitution". The framers may have done the best they could with the cards they were dealt. It takes time to get things right. Faith in people and fatih in democracy is the answer to our problems. Not reliance on what someone may call "natural law". If what the framers did in the original document is Natural Law then I am against Natural Law. As you know some states acted no better than Nazis in denying individual freedoms, human rights etcetera. Is it any wonder that Native Americans, African Americans and others relied upon the Federal Government to secure to them basic human rights and decency. Again what exactly do you mean by Natural Law.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 3
  •  
    I state Archer that The Declaration was a democratic document declaring that "all men are created equal", I further state that the Constitution departed from this standare. I further state that the Civil War , the end of slavery, the election of Senators (rather than their appointment by The State) restored us toward the ideal as expressed in The Declaration. I further say let us continue our advance towards human freedom and decency and not go backwards to the dark ages that existed in the early part of our history.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 3
  •  
    Waffler, from your perspective, that being corporeal man is god, his priesthood being the socialistic theocracy (government), is wrong again. Everything you stated is a lie, based on falsehoods, supported by a re-invention of history. The original Constitution was/is a limit on government, not individuals. The Constitution was based on all men are created equal' <-natural law. None of the Amendments have done anything to change the nobility, truth, freedom or liberty defined by the original Constitution or its intent. The codes and statutes in place during the here subject time, (as per your professional omnipotent ones' Dred Scott legislation against natural law.) were contrary to the Constitution and natural law. The dichotomy of your example.helps to explain the unlawful statutes of the majority and their Supreme Court. At the time of the Constitution's creation, slavery was to be timely done away with by statute. By majority vote (the tyranny of an imposed democracy) , and contrary to Constitutionally recognized natural law, slavery stayed intact. The war of aggression by the North had nothing to do with eliminating slavery. It was the vindictive despots' punishing of the South that got rid of slavery. Some times even an ill will can accomplish the nobility of natural law. State power / federal power only trumps the authority of the sovereign individual in a democracy or other form of collectivist or governmental inherent right sovereign, not in our Constitutional Republics (where do you come up with such stupid questions? do you belong to some leftist think tank?). If you would read the history of this nation (from its source, not from latter day leftist diatribes) you would know why the Senate was to be the representative of the State. For just a couple of reasons (out of many): The smaller States were afraid of the power of a democracy as their minority status (fewer individuals), local needs and rights would be over shadowed by the larger populated states with differing situations than their own. (by way of example, California, with its extreme socialist agenda, getting bailed out by federal funds becomes taxation without representation, because, to the many smaller States and those of a frugal fiscal policy, they don't have sufficient say as they would have pre-17th Amendment. Senators now only look to their own preservation from a dummied down populous - they don't have to answer to a knowledgeable State. Second, because there is no federal common law, the larger states could (and do) virtually eliminate the individual's most local and private well being and rights (current economic status for example). The States, with there full time politicos, in the business of paying attention to federal goings on, were in a better position to represent their sovereign constituents in a more knowledgeable and intimate manner. With checks, balances, and a greater oversight, the State representatives could more jealously guard the individual sovereigns of his / each State's well being and rights, at common law and otherwise After the 17th Amendment, the Washington aristocracy, along with their PR branch - the media, were more able to dummy down the distant individuals so as to do anything they wanted, constitutional or not. Faith in democracy is what gave us an unending slave policy, legislating judiciaries, power mongering executives, corrupt legislatures, compelled compliance, victimless crimes, license, governmentally immune larceny, and all the ills of a socialistic theocracy. Waffler, you couldn't be more wrong in your assertions but, what you've said is an excellent picture on what is wrong with Amerika today. I am glad you're here though. It gives a greater opportunity to give a little deeper explanation to what's wrong with Amerika. Your definition of freedom and liberty is an advance towards the dark ages. In fact, because such dark despotism and tyranny are being imposed on the many, many more States than just the South are seriously talking once again about secession.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 3
  •  
    Waffler, don't be silly, property of the individual begins with his rights and ends with the physical property he owns. As to slaves as property I disagree with it but understand the reasons it was written in to the Constitution. Very emotional debates at the time to say the least and though I agree slavery of any man was contradictory to the intent of freedom of the individual, there still was no need for the 13th and the 14th. Once the slaves were released by proclamation they were free men and as free men they should have done a Rosa Parks and went to court and stood their ground like any American has to do if he wants to keep them after they've been violated. To be free, if he wants to be free, is the responsibility of EVERY INDIVIDUAL and it would be irresponsible of me to expect somebody else to stand up for my rights when I'm not willing to do it myself. Our administration was never intended nor given the power to stand up for anybody's rights but only to protect the document that protected the natural law that expresses rights through self evident truth. It was and is the duty of every individual to stand up for them and the place to stand up was provided by the judiciary clauses of our Constitution. We did NOT put a nanny form of government into power with the adoption of the Constitution. The only amendment after the proclamation that NEEDED to be written is one that struck any language regarding slavery from the Constitution and, as free men, the slaves were in the same boat as any other American who has or had to defend his rights to get justice. You said it yourself, all men are created equal and it is nature and/or God's nature (how one looks at this is immaterial to anybody but the individual and has nothing to do with the fact that natural rights exist) that gave us all the same rights and it is there where that equality under the law ends and the fight to defend those rights begin. Should I wait for God to fight for my rights? Should I wait for my neighbor to fight for my rights? Should I wait for or expect my administration to fight for them? Maybe you will Waff? The 14th put the administration in the position of rights granters (civil at that) and this was a power they were never given and so the 14th is unconstitutional in that respect. They usurped the power of the amendment process and created a new citizen with government granted rights and privileges with the excuse the slaves were never considered sovereign freemen which is what "rock solid" natural laws proclaim and that is what our original Constitution protected as law of the land. They were born free just as you or anybody else in the world is. Your suggestion to not rely on what someone may call natural law is immaterial as well as correct. Natural law defines itself, all we have to do is look at it. You said no man has the right to own another man. What led you to this conclusion? Did another man tell you this therefore it's truth? What led him to the conclusion. Why do I agree with that statement without you presenting one scrap of evidence to back it up? It's because we have a common sense that tells us all that the statement is true. It's not the natural state of man to be a slave to anybody and it is natural law in our spirit that tells us that with our innate ability to think with reason and logic after identifying that law in spirit.
     -- Anon     
  • 3
  •  
    Waffler, you said; "Faith in people and fatih in democracy is the answer to our problems. Not reliance on what someone may call "natural law". If what the framers did in the original document is Natural Law then I am against Natural Law."----LoL, yes, faith in people to recognize the truth of this statement as the lie it is would be on the right track. What the framers did is not natural law, what they did was establish natural law as law on earth. I'm sure this won't change your position about natural law because you've been against it for as long as I've been on this forum and I'm sure the other's, Archer, Mike, Logan etc, who have been here longer than I will vouch for your hatred of it since they've been on here.----Then you said; "Is it any wonder that Native Americans, African Americans and others relied upon the Federal Government to secure to them basic human rights and decency. Again what exactly do you mean by Natural Law."----No, it is no wonder Waff, The federal administration was counting on it. What do I mean by natural law? That law which nature provides so that we may understand the inalienable rights of the individual. They are, which you refuse to admit, the foundation of individual freedom our Constitution protects as the law of the land. No adherence to them is our problem and adherence to them constitutionally is the solution.
     -- Anon     
  • 3
  •  
    Read, read, read Waffler's first statement on this quote. Keep reading it till it makes you sick. That is what the deranged left is all about. They hate the constitution and see it as a road block to their socialist heaven. You can see the hatred for all things American in his diatribe if you look at it critically.
     -- warren, olathe     
  • 3
  •  
    Waffler, you have such a contempt for truth -- it is whatever you say it is, I suppose. Besides such blatant devil's advocacy, you twist whatever words others have spoken to further an illogical and contrived argument for servitude. You say, "Jefferson said we should rewrite the constitution or revolt every generation. I mean what are some of the guys on this site trying to do except revolt." Perhaps you are referring to this statement by Jefferson: "What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." The Constitution does not grant 'liberties' -- it is the rule book for the government. And if the government will not observe it, then it is our duty to take up arms and run the crooks out, not dispense with the Constitution.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 3
  •  
    As per Sobran's comment, my guess is that Waffler has received a LOT of government checks with his name on them. A perfect IRS stooge.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    Excellent comments here today from fellow patriots, I think the problem that Waff is having is that he's reading too much Howard Zinn and not enough of the founding fathers writings as well as the books in their personal libraries so he understands where they got their ideas of liberty and natural law. I would be surprised if the folks here have not tried to point Waff in the direction of some good literature to educate himself with the writings from John Locke, Cicero the history of the Peloponnesian war (for understanding human nature) or The Complete Works of Plutarch, people may think that the problems we face now are new but they are anything but in fact they are very old some thousands of years and we can learn from that history, even Waffler if he takes the time to it and puts away his left-wing socialist screed papers that have convinced him that heaven (Utopia) could be made on earth if only the right people were in charge.
    Here's a particular favorite quote of mine that I think explains the situation we find ourselves in now.

    "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." -- John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power (1763)
     -- Mike, Pleasant Hill     
  • 1
  •  
    Waffler is pathetically and all too consistently a sad Mental Amoeba who in his obvious delusions and his darkened fantasy world believes that he could be actually as intelligent as the framers.
    Thank you to all the constitutional patriots who took the time to cut to ribbons Waffler's laughable and insanely ridiculous opinions of himself.
     -- Mary - MI     
  • 1
  •  
     -- jim k, Austin      
    WoW!!Semper Fi
     -- Warrdoc, Elk Grove,     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2020 Liberty-Tree.ca