Posted by Anthony Martin
Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:22:00 GMT
We had a bit of difficulty last week. We recorded late, and the recording went really long. Then the audio software kept messing up when I’d try to edit it. So here’s a compromise. I started an “A La Carte” version that contains only a single topic of discussion. This time, it’s roughly centered around The Constitution.
Taking this approach might allow me to edit the episode too. There was a lot of good stuff, and we didn’t want to lose any of it. But the episode would have been two hours, and that’s just too long for Garage Band, apparently. Actually, I’m still trying to figure out what went wrong there.
So here, Aaron and I discuss the relevance of The Constitution as it relates to practical problems in the globalized society.
Posted by Anthony Martin
Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:07:00 GMT
This is all one speech in three parts. It’s as though Reagan was speaking into a time warp describing 2007 in 1964 terminology. Only the scale has changed. Scary.
”...the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan…” – Ronald Reagan, October 27th, 1964
”...welfare spending is ten times the amount spent in the deep dark depression…” – Ronald Reagan, October 27th, 1964
”...somewhere a perversion has taken place…our natural inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government…and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment…” – Ronald Reagan, October 27th, 1964
Posted by Anthony Martin
Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:04:00 GMT
“Does it make sense that our American government has the authority to violate The Constitution? No, it’s a contradiction in terms. How do we define what our government is? We define it by The Constitution. Article I tells you everything there is to know about congress. Article II tells you everything there is to know about the president and vice president. Article III tells you everything there is to know about the supreme court. Articles I, II, and III create and define the legislative, executive, and judicial branches respectively. Do they have the authority to just add power?” – Michael Badnarik
Posted by Anthony Martin
Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:16:00 GMT
How can we put any single issue above The Constitution? Even if the issue is as huge as the War Waged in Iraq II, how can that overshadow how we approach The Constitution?
We don’t recognize US government officials who swear on a stack Bibles to uphold UN resolutions. Only The Constitution gets that distinction. That’s because it’s the only binding document between US Citizens and the government. The UN has no jurisdiction.
Yet, we have a Congress that has no problem ignoring The Constitution by going to war without a declaration. So what makes us think that same Congress won’t ignore the first and second amendments? If Congress thinks nothing of ignoring one part of The Constitution, why not others? We have words for people who do that to the Bible (they’re called hypocrites).
So we cannot look at this election myopically through one issue like the War Waged in Iraq II. If you disagree with The Constitution, if you think The Constitution is anachronistic to require Congress to declare war, then you should advocate change to The Constitution. First things first. We have a mechanism for that. It’s called an amendment. After the amendment, you can have your fancy no-declare-war. Until then, it’s unconstitutional.
Are we trying to build The American Empire? Is that our goal? Can we be so blind not to see that every war since WWII has been part of The American Empire? If we are trying to build The American Empire, we have some dire problems. The money supply for one. The IRS can only collect about one third of the money we spend. I don’t want The American Empire, ever. It’s unconstitutional.
We depend on this unconstitutional government far too much. It was this unconstitutional government that opened holes in our airline industry that contributed to 9/11. If we had more respect for the 2nd amendment, planes would not have flown into buildings.
By that, I mean if the airlines were able to secure themselves rather than rely upon an unconstitutional federal ban on firearms, the airlines would have had the means to protect their customers. The airlines could still legally require customers to relinquish their firearms before boarding their aircraft. Then, it would be incumbent on the airlines to protect the planes, not the customers, nor the government. That’s constitutional.
For more information, get off your high one-issue horse, set aside an hour, go get a cup of coffee, sit back, relax, and watch:
Download
