Obama Continues to Prove Anti-Federalists Right

In a short speech on Wednesday, Obama declared, “When I can act on my own without Congress, I’m going to do so.” He may have been referring specifically to unemployment benefits. But the fact remains that this characterizes his presidency (or should we say “reign”?). In the years preceding the ratification of the US Constitution, a group of wise and prescient men wrote some articles that unfortunately did not have the impact they should have. These men, known now as the Anti-Federalists, were wary (among other things) of the powers we were then investing in the executive branch. Check out this uncannily accurate warning, more relevant now than ever:

It is, therefore, obvious to the least intelligent mind [The Anti-Federalists may have “mis-over-estimated” our intelligence…] to account why great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected with considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic. The deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him in their exercise to create a numerous train of dependents. This tempts his ambition, which in a republican magistrate is also remarked, to be pernicious, and the duration of his office for any considerable time favors his views, gives him the means and time to perfect and execute his designs; he therefore fancies that he may be great and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and raising himself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of his country. . . . His power of nomination and influence on all appointments; the strong posts in each state comprised within his superintendence, and garrisoned by troops under his direction; his control over the army, militia, and navy; the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be used to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt; his duration in office for four years—these, and various other principles evidently prove the truth of the position, that if the president is possessed of ambition, he has power and time sufficient to ruin his country.

The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the executive branch was nothing more than a thinly-veiled monarchy. That seemed less accurate in 1787. People then believed that the legislative power would balance the executive. The President needed a Congressional declaration of war to deploy troops. The legislative held the purse strings. The President couldn’t just write laws.

Not so much. Congress hasn’t formally declared war since World War II, yet we have troops deployed all over the world. Congress is strong-armed into funding whatever the current administration deems fit. And the President can legislate through executive orders all he wants. If you were still wondering whether the Anti-Federalists were right, let me just repeat what Obama said yesterday: “When I can act on my own without Congress, I am going to do so.” If Obama needed a motto, I would recommend this: “Raising myself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of my country.” It has a certain ring to it, no?

73 responses

  1. Whether this was Jefferson, Madison, or Monroe who initially penned this warning, it is proving to be a prophesy of our current President and his administration.

  2. I am surprised that article does not mention Obamacare individual mandate as the most outrageous attack ever on individual freedoms. Does the ‘lastresistance’ have any connections to the medical industry?

  3. That beginning statement from Obama should be grounds for impeachment!!! He is throwing away his oath of office in exchange for a dictatorial role!!!

    • It is, in effect, a treasonous statement. Impeachment does nothing, the Senate won’t vote to convict, but treason is a military dealing.

  4. Michael, nice to see you quoting anti-federalists. However, in condemning the President (“The President couldn’t just write laws.”), you seem to be suggesting (correct me if I’m wrong) that this is the job of the Constitutional Republic’s legislative branch. If this is true, how does this mesh with Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 that declare there is only ONE lawgiver–Yahweh, God of the Bible? And isn’t it because the framers usurped this legislative power, giving it to fickle men (regardless whether to a president or senators and representatives) that has gotten America into the mess she finds herself in today?

    Everyone seems to be concerned with Obama’s usurpation of power from the Republic’s legislative branch when, it seems to me, that, as Christians, we should be much more concerned with the framers’ and consequently the legislative branch’s usurpation of Yahweh’s exclusive legislative authority.

    For more on this, see free online Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The
    Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 4.

    • As much as I want to agree with you, and that many laws should be fundamentally (and many are) Christian based, we are not a Theocracy. We can’t derive our laws straight out of the Bible, nor make God the ultimate decision maker for the country. Though that would be nice.

      • Buckman, thanks for your thoughts. Please consider the following:

        When one understands that the principal means by which we keep the First Commandment is by observing Yahweh’s other moral laws (of course, under the New Covenant, through Christ as Lord and Savior, motivated by love) and that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are
        theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

        Furthermore, all non-existent false gods (1Corinthians 8:4-6) always have been and always will represent we the people in one form or another.

        “…There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE [a contemporary form of Baal or Moloch].

        “People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

        For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “BL vs. USC.”

        • In a Christian’s view of things, I do agree. There are all sorts of false idols in this world, countless. However, as the Bible says to follow the laws of the government and “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, applying your faith to your everyday decisions and who to vote for, what state to live in, what programs to support etc, these are important. I do agree.

          But unfortunately, until the laws of the U.S. state what is a religion by what we see as a religion/idol, we still have to deal with that reality.

          • Please consider a different interpretation for giving unto Caesar:

            “In Mark 12:17, we find Jesus’ oft-misused statement “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Many people interpret this to mean Yahweh and Caesar have separate
            jurisdictions, powers, and possessions. Is this true?

            “The term “Caesar” is used today to represent government in general. However, at the time Jesus made this
            statement, Caesar was a flesh and blood Roman dictator. What was it that Jesus was saying should be rendered to the Roman Emperor? Did the bodies, souls, and spirits of man belong to Caesar? Did reverence and obedience belong to Caesar? Did the people’s land and other possessions belong to Caesar? What about taxes? Romans 13:7 tells us to “render therefore to all their dues: tribute [tax, NASB] to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” In Verse 6, Paul indicated all these things are due to God’s ministers or servants. Did Caesar qualify as one of the ministers of God described by Paul in Verses 3 and 4?….

            “What belongs to Yahweh? And what belongs to Caesar? The answer to the first question answers the second question. Yahweh reigns over and owns everything:

            ‘The earth is YHWH’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.’ (Psalm 24:1)

            “What does this leave for Caesar? Even Caesar didn’t belong to Caesar.

            “Jesus’ answer was merely another example of His trapping the Pharisees with their own words – in this
            instance, forcing them to choose their god, Yahweh or Caesar. Christian Constitutionalists should take heed. Because no man can serve two masters….

            “When interpreted correctly, Romans 13:1-4 proves that, apart from the areas where his law agreed with
            Yahweh’s law, Caesar had no legitimate power or authority – except over those who, like the Pharisees and Herodians, had chosen him above Yahweh. Mark 12:17 was never meant to be general instruction to everyone, but only to those who forsake Yahweh’s authority….”

            For more, see Chapter 14 “Amendment 10: Counterfeit Powers” of “BL vs. USC.”

            If you will take our Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar, you’ll receive a complimentary copy of the 85-page “Primer” of the 565-page “BL vs. USC.” I’d love to send you a copy. I even pay the postage.

          • I do believe all belongs to God, unfortunately, the USA laws don’t recognize that. I understand what you are saying, but for now until you and I are in heaven, we obey these non-religious laws along with laws of the Bible.

          • Anything contrary to Yahweh’s perfect law (Psalm 19:7-11), which embodies His immutable morality, should be shunned by today’s Christian just like Jason and brethren did in Acts 17:6-7.

    • OMG!!! Will you just give it a freakin rest already??? The Constitution governs our Country. Congress is the legislative authority in our Country. If YOU want to obey the laws of the Bible – DO IT. Nobody else HAS TO. Neither your beliefs NOR the Bible has ANY authority in making our laws. STOP going AGAINST our Constitution by saying our Country should have to follow YOUR religious laws. Religion is for PEOPLE – it is NOT for government.

      • “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.”–Psalms 33: 12

        • Nice…and irrelevant because our Country does not base laws for EVERYONE on a religious text in which only SOME believe. You may WANT our government to do that, you may THINK they should do that, but that is just opinion. Our government is bound by the Constitution which prohibits it from making laws based on the religious beliefs of some.

      • I have to agree with you. Ted is basically saying he would support the flip side of Islam. Islam believes that Shira Law should be adhered to exclusively. I agree with Ted in some instances concerning the bible and God, but I definitely do not agree that the country can be run by a faith denomination.

        • The Constitution protects our Right to freely express our religion anywhere we want. It also forbids the government from making laws that endorse a specific religion, religious belief, or religious practice. JUST THE GOVERNMENT can’t do this. The 1st Amendment does NOT mean that someone being exposed to religion, being around religion, seeing a cross or something else in the public, is prohibited. Students have the Right to pray in school if they want. Religious groups – any religion – have the Right to erect a memorial to their religion on public property. The government ALLOWING the People to do this is NOT the government MAKING A LAW RESPECTING an establishment of religion. It is the government PROTECTING our Right of free exercise. The caveat is, and MANY don’t like this, ALL religions MUST be allowed. The 1st says NOTHING about government REMOVING religious expression from society because SOME don’t want to see it. So freakin what if you don’t want to see a cross or the Ten Commandments. DON’T LOOK. PEOPLE can’t MAKE the government erase all religion from society because THEY DON’T LIKE IT. There is NO Right to not be exposed to religious expression. The government remains neutral – neither supporting a specific religion or religious activity nor prohibiting religious expression in society.

          For criminey’s sake, People….SCOTUS rulings are NOT LAWS! The judicial branch, the executive branch, have NO, ZIP, NADA, ZERO, NEGATORY, NEIN authority to make laws. This is ONLY going to stop when WE make them stop.

          • Let me see if I have this right? If someone steals an ox from me, and I would like to have the privilege of choosing to either forgive him or have him be forced to pay me back five oxen, this is because I am a religious kook, trying to force my religious beliefs on others. But if I am forced to not only lose one ox, but to have to sell all of my oxen so that we can collectively build a big home for many ox rustlers, and pay even more costly, and more useless people to keep the rustlers inside a fence, perpetuating a society where all men are created to be punished equally, regardless of the behavior of each, this is because I believe in freedom, right? “The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness…”–Deuteronomy 28: 28

          • Your comment has nothing to do with anything I have said. I am not speaking to the specifics of any religion. What I have always said is that it is a BELIEF, your belief only applies to YOU, your belief in a religion doesn’t make those teachings truth, not everyone has the same belief, our Constitution prohibits laws being made based on religious teachings, practice your religion as you want and let others do the same.

          • Your comment has everything to do with what I said. You, of course, declined to answer my question. I am indeed speaking of the specifics of religions. Your religion, worshipping the commandments of WeThePeople, usurps the authority of the true and living God. The specifics indicate this. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”–Isaiah 5: 20

          • YOU may be speaking of the specifics of a religion, but I am not. You can’t comprehend that the laws the People have made for our society do NOT usurp the laws of God or Christ. You THINK they do, but that is JUST YOUR OPINION. We DON’T have a theocracy and because we don’t, our laws for SOCIETY are NOT a religion. YOUR opinion that they ARE don’t apply to anyone BUT you. Your idea that people ‘worship the commandments of We the People’ is nothing more than your opinion. Think that all you want – you have the freedom to do that – to CHOOSE to believe that. You DON’T have the authority to say others have to believe the same thing.

            We have freedom of religion in our Country. The laws of our Country apply to the religious and the non-religious. Since they apply to everyone, they must be neutral on religion because religion is a PERSONAL choice, not everyone follows the same religion. Our Country’s laws govern our behavior in SOCIETY, they have no religious impact on anyone. Society’s laws don’t prevent anyone from following the religious laws they want. Everyone is permitted to follow the religious laws THEY CHOOSE. Religious laws govern a person’s PERSONAL behavior. Our Country’s laws govern people’s behavior in society. Two DIFFERENT areas.

          • . Wrong; the constitution gives lawmaking power to the Legislative Branch. It does not say they can’t base those laws on religion, only that they cannot establish a state religion. If you were right we couldn’t have any laws against murder, stealing, adultery, or most of the other felonies.

          • The Constitution says what objects Congress may legislate. The Constitution delegates no authority to the federal government to make laws about murder, stealing, adultery (that’s not against the law). Do you think that basic concepts of right and wrong are exclusive to religion? No. These are UNIVERSAL concepts of right and wrong found in many religions and societies.

            It is a common misconception that the establishment clause ONLY prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. The Founders were pretty precise in their wording. IF they ONLY meant no national religion they could have said ‘respecting an ESTABLISHED religion’ ‘respecting an establishment of A religion’ ‘respecting THE establishment of religion/ a religion.’ They didn’t do that. They used ‘an establishment of religion’ which means ANYTHING that is an established part of religion – any religion.

            1. a. The act of establishing.
            b. The condition or fact of being established.

            2. something established: as
            a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws
            b : established church
            c : a permanent civil or military organization
            d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff
            e : a public or private institution

            So, let’s substitute ‘establishment’ with its different definitions.
            Congress shall make no law respecting a(n):

            ‘settled arrangement’ of religion.
            ‘code of laws’ of religion.
            ‘established church’ of religion.

            They did this because STATES ALREADY HAD THIS POWER. They did this so the FEDERAL government wouldn’t infringe on what each STATE wanted to do regarding religion. They did this because the federal government wasn’t to make any laws which “…concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Madison, Federalist 45

        • I replied under your comment to me, but I didn’t really reply to what you said. My apologies, mentally exhausting week I’ve had. 🙂

          Many think my comments are me expressing my PERSONAL feelings. Seldom do I refer to my personal feelings, I speak from a Constitutional view. I advocate for EVERYONE’S Right to freely express their religious beliefs. I ALSO advocate for SPECIFIC religious teachings and beliefs to be kept out of our government and laws. It is what the CONSTITUTION says.

          I get ‘it’ from BOTH sides, lol. Neither side seems to be willing to just FOLLOW the Constitution.

          • Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that the polytheistic, anti christian Constitution is wonderful, huh, LakeofFireside? Your blood is not on my hands. I’ll leave you with the question Jesus asked your ancestors: How can you escape the sentence of hell?

          • Really? Lol, not at all. It’s the Supreme Law for our country, people can choose whatever religion they want to follow. The Constitution doesn’t replace religion – it protects everyone’s Right to choose for themselves.

            It’s NOT a hard concept to understand. It’s not an ‘either or’ situation. They co-exist. The Country’s laws govern society and religious beliefs govern people’s personal lives.

    • You can not apply Old Testament to current day. The death and resurrection erased the O.T. laws. Although, as a Christian, yes, God is the Father and even Yahweh turns to Him for guidance.
      In today’s world one must work within the government of the country in which they reside. The Founding Fathers wanted a nation that could not create a religion to govern and a nation that allowed free worship. They came from a nation where the church was created in order for the king to rule. They wanted the people to rule themselves. Our government is in sad shape as the people have been lazy and allowed and voted in those who are taking our freedoms.

      • Newsnose, thank you for responding.

        I find your statement that “You can not apply the Old Testament to current day. The death and resurrection erased the O.T. laws.” intriguing, to say the least, in light of the following New Testament passages:

        “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Mathew 5:18)

        “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)

        “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomian – lawlessness].” (Matthew 7:21-23)

        “…truth [is] in the law.” (Romans 2:20)

        “…by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

        “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

        “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12)

        “For we know that the law is spiritual….” (Romans 7:14)

        “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:4)

        “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)

        “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

        “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” (1 Timothy 1:8)

        “For this is the [New] covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts….” (Hebrews 8:10)

        “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)

        “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4)

        “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.” (1 John

        “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3)

        “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:17)

        “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12)

        “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” (Revelation 22:14)

        For more, on how Yahweh’s immutable morality as reflected in His commandments, statutes, and judgments applies today, see our free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, and scroll down to the title.

        • I’m not disputing the words of God, but you are intermingling politics here with them. One can base their judgement or decisions here politically based on their beliefs however, not all people have the same religion which is not a pure relationship with God.
          If one is a believer in Christianity they will most likely base their opinions on the moral teachings of Jesus. If not they won’t.
          I think your discussion belongs in a bible study group rather than a political discussion. You are not swaying people here. If anything you are probably turning them away.

          • You did dispute those passages in your original post.

            I’m not sure what makes you think you can speak for others on this site. Why don’t we let them speak for themselves.

            I wonder how God views your wanting to limit where He has a say?

          • I was just expressing my thoughts. What others think is their own decision and they are speaking out here. The response from Lakeside seems to support my last statement.
            I think Buckman21 has a pretty level sense of what government is.

          • God is not speaking here. Or are YOU presuming to speak FOR Him? Is that what you are saying? YOU are ‘speaking’ for God?

          • You’re all nuts if you’re gonna in-fight, here, over the Invisible Man. We need to pull it together and fight the Libs.

      • “Although, as a Christian, yes, God is the Father and even Yahweh turns to Him for guidance.”

        Since Yahweh IS the Father, to whom is it exactly that He turns for guidance. You seem to be advocating laws based upon man’s judgment of what is evil, and what is good. Only Yahweh (God the Father) can determine wrong from right,and evil from good. The framers DID establish a government based upon religion. They ABANDONED the Christianity of their Colonial forefathers, in favor of the Enlightenment era Humanism that led to the French Revolution. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a government completely devoid of religion. The only question is, which religion? Since Yahweh’s laws remain valid in the New Testament era, only His laws are suitable for the governing of a peaceful, civil, moral society.

        • Our Founding Fathers DID create a religion neutral FEDERAL government. This was because the STATES already existed, had their own constitutions, and some HAD state religions. However, AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified, state governments moved AWAY from state religions. They CHOSE to do this. You can THINK they made a mistake, but it is what they CHOSE to do.

          It IS possible to have a government that is religion NEUTRAL. You just can’t seem to grasp the fact that GOVERNMENT is an ENTITY – it CAN’T have a ‘religion.’ The people SERVING as our elected officials can have whatever religion they want. However, when they are ACTING in the capacity of our representatives, they must set aside their personal beliefs so that they uphold the Constitution and protect ALL the religious beliefs of their constituents.

          It is only your belief that His laws are suitable, your opinion. Not everyone shares that opinion – because we don’t, ONE opinion – yours – CANNOT rule. Follow His laws in your PERSONAL life, and for gosh’s sake, let others have the same freedom YOU had in making your choice.

          • “You just can’t seem to grasp the fact that GOVERNMENT is an ENTITY – it CAN’T have a ‘religion.'”

            Your desire to make this so is irrelevant, and wrong. To make such a definitive statement discredits you. History is replete with the juxtaposition of governments with religion, including many American Colonial constitutions PRIOR to the U.S Constitution. It is NOT my grasp of fact that is in question.

            “Follow His laws in your PERSONAL life, and for gosh’s sake, let others have the same freedom YOU had in making your choice.”

            If only this were true. You AGAIN show your inability to comprehend reality. It is precisely BECAUSE the Constitutional framers crafted a religiousdocument antagonistic to Christianity, that I am hindered, and at times even prohibited from freely practicing my faith. When our Humanistic government hampers farmers and consumers from conducting business transactions, protecting us from such evils as raw milk and raw dairy products, front yard organic gardens, natural and alternative health products and therapies, and unlicensed home Bible studies, by force of militaristic SWAT teams,/b>, it’s obvious the government’s religion has no tolerance for <i.MYreligion. Whether you care to believe it or not, the most equitable, fair, and just law-order, is that which is based upon Biblical law. Argue against it to your secularist heart’s content. The truth is, there is NO SUCH THING as neutrality in government, just as there is no moral vacuum. Some collective ALWAYS determines the thread of moral and ethical conduct prevalent in a government’s system of governance. Even secularism</i. is a system of belief. Continue to follow your own heart, and I will continue to follow Yahweh’s heart.

          • “History is replete with the juxtaposition of governments with religion, including many American Colonial constitutionsPRIOR to the U.S Constitution.”

            You have made my point and don’t even know it. Yes, yes, yes they did PRIOR to the Constitution. BUT THEY CHANGED IT, didn’t they? They moved away from that type of ‘government’ of their OWN FREE WILL. You are refusing to acknowledge that they stopped what you want to ‘bring back.’ They changed it for a reason. If what YOU want is so perfect, why don’t we STILL have that government? We DON’T have it because the people who LIVED it DIDN’T WANT IT ANY MORE.

            The Framers PURPOSELY didn’t craft a ‘religious’ document. PURPOSELY. It is NOT the Constitution preventing you from practicing your religion as you want to practice it. It is corrupt politicians and judges who REFUSED to FOLLOW the Constitution; refused to obey the LIMITS the Constitution imposes on the federal government. It is the People who abdicated their responsibility of being the guardians of the Constitution who allowed politicians to violate the Constitution. The People did this NOT because they stopped following your ‘perfect law.’ They did this because of OUTSIDE influences who didn’t like the freedoms, equality, and Rights we have in our Country and VOWED to change our way of life.

            You can believe that Biblical law is the most equitable, fair, just, and orderly. It is YOUR OPINION, it applies ONLY to you. Other people don’t feel that way and YOUR belief does NOT trump theirs. Your BELIEF that it is best does NOT make it a FACT that it is best. Follow the religious laws you want and let the rest of the people do the same.

          • You feign reason when your argument lacks substance.. Your denial of the religious nature of ALL governments speaks to your inability to comprehend the nature of man, AND religion. That you think I proved your point is quite remarkable, since you clearly stated that it is IMPOSSIBLE for government to have a religion, and then AGREE with me, that prior governments DID have a religion. Your statement was definitive in nature, with no qualifying conditions. Either you misspoke, or your argument is schizophrenic. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

            Your belief that the tyranny that besieges us, is due to the abandonment of the Constitution, reveals your inability to understand that Patrick Henry was correct, when he stated “I smell a Rat! We are in this state of decay precisely BECAUSE of the Constitution. When arguing before the Virginia House of Burgesses AGAINST the ratification of the newly proposed U.S. Constitution, Patrick Henry argued that the document being considered, even if followed to the letter, would, within just a few subsequent generations, result in a Judicial TYRANNY that would deprive us of even the most essential liberties. It seems Mr. Henry was rather prescient. No, the decay of our American society is NOT due to merely a lack of Constitutional restraint. It is a result of the conspiracy of Theistic Rationalists who illegally and unlawfully violated the charge they were given by the States, to improve upon the Articles of Confederation, and instead, crafted a new document riddled with the bones and spirit of the religion of Enlightenment era Humanism. Your continued renouncement of this irrefutable, unassailable circumstance only serves to further expose your animosity to an uncomfortable truth. By all means, continue to practice your secular faith with passion and exuberance. But quit trying to ram your religion down the throat of others.

          • Oh no, no, you did NOT just say I was trying to ‘ram my religion down the throats of others.’

            THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!! I am telling you to stop doing that. To allow everyone the Right to choose.

            I did NOT say that prior governments had religion. I said some states had STATE religions. Even in those states, the government DID NOT HAVE A RELIGION.

            I have heard this ‘conspiracy theory’ before. What you DON’T see, is that the states agreed with the Constitution AND ratified it. They WENT ALONG. People CHOSE to remove the religious aspects from their Constitutions. What you ALSO don’t see is that a religion neutral government DOES NOT hurt YOU. You and others continue to practice your religion, others practice theirs, and non-religious people are not FORCED to follow the beliefs of a religion they didn’t choose. NOT having laws based on your religious beliefs DOESN’T prevent YOU from following those beliefs for yourself. Not everyone shares your beliefs. They have the very same Right to choose that you do. They have the Right to not be FORCED to follow the laws of YOUR religion.

            You thinking that ALL governments have a religious nature is JUST AN OPINION. It is NOT fact. Others DON’T think that. Others understand that it is the People who are/can be religious. Our religion neutral government protects EVERYONE’S Right to be religious if they choose.

          • Maybe someone else could
            say something different from what the two of you saying over and over? I don’t think
            we have time to wait until you run out of synonyms

          • Why comment if you don’t want me to know to what you are referring? Saying WHAT over and over? Synonym to WHAT?

  5. Patriots STILL have the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We are at the point where the Declaration of Independence makes it LEGAL to REMOVE the Obama Administration!! Patriots, Be Watchful, Be Faithful, Be Armed, be Prepared!!

  6. Photo above reminds me of lines from classic comedy movies…”Work, work, work!” and…”It’s good to be the King”. Too bad nobody’s laughing at this!

    I would also point out the fear that the founders had of the new republic being hijacked by “factions” [their term] of majorities from ANY source whether social, economic or political. We certainly have reached the point of concern in that regard also!

  7. Yet he remains in office. We were suppose to have safety nets I’m place to avoid this it’s called the congress and senate both have failed the people and it’s time we the people removed them from office. It says so in the constitution

  8. All spending bills are required to start in the House, per the Constitution.
    Anything else, should be thrown in the trash and condemned as usurping of powers.
    It’s just that the republicans have given up their powers, in order to concentrate on just holding their seats!
    I was once a long time Republican.
    No more.
    TEA Party. Take back our Country. Restore fiscal responsibility. Rule of law. Be damned what the news media says, they will never be your friend.

  9. Oh but it was ok for the Bush Dy-nasty to “reign” over the rape of the people by Wall St., the bombing of the WTC and two unfunded wars over lies as well the anointing of the yes Men on the not-so-supreme court a-holes!

    • I grow tired of hearing about Bush. That is done and over with and we can’t fix what is going on today stuck in the past. “He did this- He did that” is just whining.
      Focus, if you can on NOW, and we can get something done! Or stay in the past and just be in the way.

  10. “These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar[Constitutional presidency], saying that there is another king, Jesus.” Acts 17

  11. Logic tells us that no two things can exist in the same space at the same time yet many still believe that America is governed by the U.S. Constitution. Though nowhere in this document is a president given explicit authority to unilaterally make laws, i.e. executive orders. Given that such unilateral law making has been going on for a long, long time and vetoed only twice in American history by Congress, what gives? From the very beginning, the U.S. Constitution has been but a costume worn by politicians when it would suit their goals of ever-increasing centralization and authority OVER the American people.

    The roll-out of this plan is now all around us.

    In addition, most do not realize that this was the 2nd constitution, not the first, which was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.America had 10 full years of independence under this first constitution. The word “government” was not used, only federal legislature and the Congress of the Confederation. It is a well-kept secret that the decentralized America was working just fine under state autonomy despite historians who bought into the “failure of the confederacy” party line promoted by the Federalists in their Federalist Papers, especially. The Framers had a whole lot to gain by such propaganda since the first constitution had not given them the control to compel performance from the people under a voluntary, state system.

    English Common Law ruled early America before the 2nd constitution and was based on conscience, the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would be done by. Common law evolved from Natural law which was God’s law.

    The second constitution wiped out English Common Law and instituted statutory law that was part and parcel of the Framers’ goals of concentrating power via centralization, central banking, separation of powers and a legal system that allowed them enforcement/coercion by law.

    But there is good news. Deep research has unearthed the root of this cascading downward spiral and how to turn it around if enough people are willing to step outside their comfort zones. http://www.nationalmyth.org

  12. Not really apropos to the content of the article directly, but THANK YOU for not being among the people who get “Federalism” and “Federalist” mixed up.

Leave a Reply