Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 02/24/2013 View Sat 02/23/2013 View Fri 02/22/2013 View Thu 02/21/2013 View Wed 02/20/2013 View Tue 02/19/2013 View Mon 02/18/2013
1
2013-02-24 Home Front: Culture Wars
The Bill of Rights for dummies, with emphasis on the 3rd Amendment
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-02-24 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [277 views ]  Top

#1 NOT A HYPOTHESIS.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2013-02-24 01:32||   2013-02-24 01:32|| Front Page Top

#2 An even more radical interpretation is from Gary North, who described the creation of the U.S. Constitution as an illegal coup, with the following points:
The Convention was assembled under false pretenses.
All attendees took a vow of lifetime silence.
They held their meetings on the second floor: no eavesdroppers
The press was barred from attending.
The legislaturesĀ' (Congress as stipulated by the Articles of Confederation) instructions were deliberately violated.
The Confederation Congress refused to challenge the Constitutional ConventionĀ's deliberate
overturning of the Confederation CongressĀ' own authority and also the rules governing
the amending process that were specified in the Articles of Confederation.
Instead, on September 28, 1787, the Confederation Congress passed along
copies of the proposed Constitution to the state legislatures, which in
turn authorized the calling of state ratification conventions that would
be completely independent of the legislatures, thereby transferring sovereignty to state conventions.
An interesting, although long, read.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2013-02-24 02:32||   2013-02-24 02:32|| Front Page Top

#3 ..problem with the argument is that it was ratified and recognized as legitimate by all the states involved. North was imposing modern judicial and social standards to something that happened over 200 years ago. Does he throw in that there was no 'universal franchise' and 'slavery' in his argument as well, because where is there 'consent of the governed' in that combination?
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-02-24 08:53||   2013-02-24 08:53|| Front Page Top

23:21 trailing wife
22:58 tipper
22:53 trailing wife
22:53 newc
22:33 newc
22:00 KBK
21:59 KBK
21:53 KBK
21:46 Procopius2k
21:05 JosephMendiola
20:58 JosephMendiola
20:37 KBK
20:31 Lone Ranger
20:29 Raider
20:23 Richard Aubrey
20:23 Raider
20:05 trailing wife
19:53 M. Murcek
19:50 bigjim-CA
19:45 bigjim-CA
19:45 Barbara
19:41 Barbara
19:38 Barbara
19:35 trailing wife

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
107.21.152.198


Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com