Quote of the day—Predator Posted on August 10, 2017 by Joe I’ve long thought that we’d get a lot more bang for our buck by building that thick, high wall around D.C. rather than along the Rio Grande. Predator August 8, 2017 [I have nothing to add.—Joe] Like this:Like Loading... Related Share
Great idea. And it should be done when Congress is in session.
Then fill it with water.
No ..NO..No remember that scum floats to the top. They will then be able to escape!
Yes. Remember, in a septic tank the big chunks float to the top.
Make it 1000′ high and fill it 3/4 of the way. That should work.
The constitution was supposed to be that very wall.
We failed to uphold and enforce it.
Likewise; you build a physical wall and it won’t fare any better unless it is guarded and receives constant maintenance. But if you’re going to guard something, and maintain it properly every day and night, then you may as well do all that for the constitution, and its underlying principles as outlined in the Declaration.
There must always be a Declaration, clear and concise, so that everyone, everywhere, understands what the fight is about. How many today can even say, exactly and unambiguously, without referring to people or parties or naming movements, what they oppose and what they’re FOR? And of those scant few, how many would actually stick with their stated “principles” when things get really costly for them (remember “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor”)? There’s our problem, right there.
I’ve long wondered if the Constitution was designed as a bill of goods.
Neil Smith made that argument in his first novel, essentially. And you can certainly see signs of it in the record.
Consider that much of the Federalist Papers — which are propaganda pieces promoting the ratification of the Constitution — was written by Hamilton. To see what sort of guy he was, read his proposal for a constitution to the convention. It appears early in Madison’s “Debates in the Federal Convention”, his notes of what happened in 1787. What’s so striking about Hamilton’s proposal is that he describes, pretty nearly, what we actually ended up with. Not the words, but the reality. Unlimited government, a Congress that has the power to legislate on any matter whatsoever, a Senate whose members serve for life, etc.
Another item that raises suspicions is Madison’s argument, in Federalist #41, that the power to tax granted in the Constitution is a limited power. His argument is linguistic nonsense, and I really can’t imagine he was stupid enough not to understand that, which leaves as the only other possible explanation that he was deliberately misleading.