What is Digg?100 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42I have asked (in person) many elected US Reps and candidates to tell me what is in Article 1, Section 8 (what the fed govt is limited to do) . They flop around like fish on a deck and move on quickly.......They don't have a clue, even though they have sworn an oath to protect and defend it .
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40Please forward this link to your representatives in the House and Senate. Nine out of ten know nothing about it or simply don't give a *****.
- Revadarth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39That guy ran for president in 2004 as a Libertarian. Maybe if he would've won America wouldn't be as ***** up as it is now.
- Rintrah23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik is his 7 hour class on the Constitution. This should be mandatory viewing for all Americans.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Good presentation, but be aware: This is a candidate despite the apparent academic environment. Also good, if you want to hear what a Libertarian sounds like.
- Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I sent this to every email list I have, including my church. Please do the same before election day.
- JHawk24821, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I for one don't mind a bit - personally, the truth always sounded good to me.
- ntnwwnet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Why would we want to learn about it anymore? Bush and his goons will have removed/changed/destroyed over 50% of it by the time he's out of term. The Bill of Rights has already been shot and killed, the US Constitution is next.
This is a sad time for the United States. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16If a chimp, a goldfish, and three fratboys had won in 2000 this country would not be so ***** up right now.
2004 was probably too late. If non-Bush had won in 2004, Karl Rove would be blaming the current troubles on the change of admin and getting ready to put Jeb Bush into the driver seat in 08. The sad part is that it would have worked. - LavaHot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13He's saying that people can't just allow the government to do whatever it wants willy nilly, and if you want to protect your rights, you have to fight for them. a piece of paper wont defend your rights. All the constitution is is a social agreement, nothing else. When people "break" the agreement, "the people" have to take matters into their own hands and fight to uphold the agreement.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Hopefully this is just a refresher for most people in the US, and it is only a review of a much longer study period of the constitution from school or otherwise.
I doubt what I just said is true unfortunately.
"Nine out of ten know nothing about it or simply don't give a *****"
They clearly know all about it, but realize that most people don't care, so they believe they aren't bound by its writings. - LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It's like a lesson in history. "These are some of the rights people ACTUALLY used to have, here in America."
- mlwhitt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I am proud to have voted for Michael Badnarik back in '04.
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"There's nothing in the constitution that says that ***** can marry."
There's nothing that prevents them from doing so, and nothing that takes away that right. Therefore the prevention of their inalienable right to do whatever the hell they want IS unconstitutional.
"you think humans can warm the earth, only god can do that."
Provide counter-evidence.
I know about team B, they were a propaganda generating team full of unexperienced politicians, created during the soviet era to undermine serious intelligence reports and create lies in order to induce a congressional increase of military spending. Once their claims were looked into, they never provided a shred of evidence. They were unmitigated liars, the entire intelligence community rejected their claims as outrageous. They made claims of developments that were fundamentally impossible. Richard Pipes is still trying to make a name for himself as a historian of the Russian Revolution, but he's widely dismissed as a liar and a falsifier of evidence by almost all revolutionary historians. If you believe them, I suggest you read some Nazi propaganda, or the propaganda from the Russian revolution that originally vilianised judaism.
Also, I suggest you look into the life and times of this philosopher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill - bikini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11wow. Michael Badnarik himself is teaching this class and look at those *****.
there's only a handful of students in that room and they all look bored, meanwhile I'd LOVE to be in a room with that guy.
"do i have freedom of speech because somebody wrote the first amendment back in 1791? no, I have freedom of speech because the governments not big enough to shut me up."
i love this guy. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@grendel
The Constitution grants you ZERO rights.
The Constitution list ALL legitimate powers of the government, plus, in the Bill of Rights, some specific limits on government powers.
Everything else belongs to you. - adam.skinner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"You only have the rights that you are willing to fight for."
The single most salient point in this presentation. It's important because through the unconstitutional power-grab the Federal government has duped the American citizen into accepting, they now have lots of guns and manpower, and lots and lots of money. They've got jails for you if you don't want to give them their due, to help feed the unconstitutional behemoth they've created for their own benefit, to oppress "We the people".
Re-allocate the troops in federal control over to the states. Kill all unconstitutional governmental programs. Destroy the Federal Reserve. Return America to it's roots!
We are not living as our forefathers intended. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Collectively dont pay tax
- asa400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@ snowwrestler: Why would you think that you have to be a lawyer to understand the most basic laws that our country is founded on? The idea that you have to have a law degree to comment on the government is a relatively new concept...and our Harvard educated Senator Ted "Tubes" Stevens is a fine example of where that concept has taken us.
If an appellate attorney took the time to learn software engineering he just might be good enough at teaching it that I would listen to him. Might not...there's plenty of skilled people that make lousy teachers. But as a college dropout, I'd like to point out that schools aren't the only place that you can get an education. - gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@monticello
The inhumanity of inequality is far less harsh than the inhumanity of forced equality.
Read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut if you disagree. - rancemo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wow, this new algorerhythm is tough. 79 diggs and still no front page!
- DirtyBrowncoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I watched the whole thing. I proudly voted for him in 2004. If he gets elected along with the great Sen. Ron Paul, I'll just have to move to Texas, where I can guarantee these two will fight for our property and inalienable rights!
- carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9But, wait, wait... our illustrious leader and lord George W. Bush has declared:
"The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper."
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml - blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I wish he went into HOW we the people can "enforce" the constitution. Writing a letter to our senator?
The checks and balances our government is supposed to have, is a gigantic failure under our current two party system, in my opinion. Considering that the people who matter in all three branches of government are affiliated with the same parties and in some cases appointed by each other it seems like there's no way to police the government when they do something unconstitutional. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ilyag
The Constitution EXPLICITLY limits the term of funds for an army to two year - which, at the time, clearly meant "no standing army." In contrast, it explicitly allows Congress to fund and MAINTAIN a navy, with no time limit on funding. The BoR famously supports the need to raise a militia by banning federal government interference in the right to keep and bear arms.
Of course, if the federal government is actually being run on a dubiously legal state of emergency that enabls circumvention of these clauses... tthen it really is "just a piece of paper." - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Don't waste your time with this video. Just do whatever Cheney says or you'll be sorry.
/sarcasm - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I bought meth but never used it, I threw it away.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@ilyag
The U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits a standing army. Your choices are:
a) The government ignores in the Constitution blatantly.
b) Words don't mean what they say.
That is just one example of how the government ignores the Constitution. The legitimacy of the federal income tax is a minor point by comparison. - gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among the first of these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That means that the rights exist regardless of government. The Founders were saying that God gave these rights to man, so other men cannot take them away rightfully. Having just come from England and a tyrannical dictator, they determined that government has no right to supplant their God-given rights.
Badnarik is 100% right in his assumption that the Constitution is just a piece of paper. It describes the government of the U.S. which, if we hope to understand the reasons for it, we have the Declaration of Independence to look to. The rights exist prior to government and outside control of man.
WRONG! The first amendment outlines a PROTECTION for the right to free speech, it is one of the rights man is endowed with, whether by God or sheer causality of having a voice. This was the ultimate debate over even putting the Bill of Rights in....the Federalists said that it was redundant, as the Constitution already holds in Article I that all privileges not given to Congress are given to the State or to the people; the anti-Federalists said that if they weren't described, they would most certainly be violated. The unfortunate outcome is that now, people believe that the Constitution itself endows people with those rights, rather than them being endowed by God and unalienable. - asa400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ monticello: Libertarian propaganda is harmless compared to the juggernaut that is our national media today. The third parties aren't allowed to participate in major debates and have a small fraction of the funding available to the dems and republicans. You want to see propaganda...go watch NBC, ABC, CNN, and of course the obligatory Fox News.
As an example: When he ran for President, Michael Badnarik, along with the Green Party candidate, was arrested while trying to join a debate in St. Louis. The major news outlets all ignored 2 presidential candidates getting arrested. Meanwhile they ran article after article about which candidate's scripted, canned replies were a better pack of lies. Makes me sick. - asa400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ gandhi2 - nicely put.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I missed the part about the Christian values, you know, the ones I keep hearing that this nation was founded on? Is that in a different video? What part is that, exactly? Could some 'vangie please post a cite or something?
Hint: please don't start with the pledge of allegiance or the slogan on the money. That happened later. Pledge was modded as a knee jerk against communism in the 1950s, the money as result of a letter writing campaign by some 'vangies in the 1870s. It's not in the Constitution. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Rhiannon1214
Why do politicians hate America? - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499
The nation wasn't founded on Christian values at all. WTF? - avolant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6who benefits from an educated populace? on the other hand, who benefits from an uneducated populace?
civics is not discussed honestly in public school, and it would not be to the benefit of any individual in any seat of relative power to have it any other way. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The only problem with what he says is that "we, the people" are stupid (not each and every of us, but enough of us to screw the Constitution)
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7He has sacred Amendment 1 because he's also got sacred Amendment 2 to enforce his right to practice sacred Amendment 1, backing that ***** up. =)
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You don't have the right of free speech, dude. The Federal government can't make a law abridging your right of free speech. That's not the same. It's not that subtle. It's a big difference.
Saying I have the right to smoke, and saying the government doesn't have the right to keep me from smoking are really very different. In practice, the end result can be but is not necessarily similar. In theory, you see it serves as limitations of the government's power, despite the moniker Bill Of Rights. Personal rights are untouchable. That was the intent of the framers of the document. - gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Constitution can't amend the God given rights that are permanent and unchanging. Government cannot do this, which is why there was the rebellion to the crown in the first place. The Constitution is not a living document. It was written once...to attempt to limit powers of government and describe it's operation. Obviously, many people nowadays falsely believe that the Constitution IS their rights, rather than simply stating that government should seek to PROTECT their rights.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And after watching this video, read this explanation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and see how many rights they've taken away: http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Problems_Concerning_the_Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
- FearNoEvil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is the most important video that has ever been posted on digg. If you can watch this video and still not get it, there is no help for you. Our Government is slowly trying to dismantle our Constitution and it's about time Americans said enough is enough!
- javip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6well it's true that people are stupid
- asa400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't know that I would use the term Social Darwinism to apply to libertarians...care to expound on your viewpoint?
FWIW, I'm an independent, not a Libertarian. I've voted for plenty of Libertarians, but will just as easily vote American Independent or whatever if I like the candidate. - Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4First of all, I hope you people realize that the bill of rights GRANTS AMERICANS NO RIGHTS as well as doesn't grant government ANY POWER! The second amendment refers to the right of protecting yourself(through carrying a gun).
Badnarik is right that the constition is "only a piece of paper." The people themselves must make sure the government doesn't go beyond its boundary.
"I have freedom of speech because the government isn't big enough to shut me up."
Ha ha ha ha, I love that comment! Amazing. His speech though is nothing more than asking the people to stand up against their government. he sounds similar to V.
There are a LOT of disputed clauses...and we must come to understand what they mean. There are 4 big ones...and right now, I can only think of 3. The general welfare clause, the commerce clause....and most recently, the commander-in-chief clause.
I would also like to say the anti-federalist objections to the constitution have all come true. The "general welfare" clause has led to the government doing whatever it wants. Supreme court...having the FINAL SAY in the interpretation, have interpeted it to benefit government. The 3 branches aren't checking each other...and have united. - earthgecko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Do you think that elected officials in governments actually know what rights their consituents have? http://humanopinion.org/node/155
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@lava
Did any of the Framers think the federal government could make a law prohibiting you from yelling "Fire" in a theatre? Nope.
That idea is a relatively recent novelty, and has nothing to do with our Constitution. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@blaze
You fertilize the tree of Liberty is how you do it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7He means grab your gun and kill a cop. He means popular uprising, blood in the fields, burning cities, and firing squads by the wall. When the central government gets despotic, "we, the people" are supposed to forcibly overthrow them. He's just a bit coy about saying things like that openly - it's not exactly a popular idea any more.
Thing is, while a popular uprising and revolution was a *very* real alternative in 1792, calling for armed rebellion today is futile; the technological development of the military has meant that "we, the people" have lost that ability to act as a check on government.
Ironically, the problems most see with US democracy stems from the founding fathers attempts at avoiding mob rule. They had a very low opinion of the collective intelligence and responsibility of the unwashed masses, considering them to be fickle and easily led, and so they rigged the political system to avoid that fickleness and promote stability. They did this partly through the electoral college, partly through designing the system to favor exactly two alternatives, no more, no less.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, though. The democrats will regain power eventually, and when they do they'll exact their pound of flesh from the republicans, and reverse those restrictions to individual liberties which they don't find useful. Then impose new restrictions of their own. And they will not try to reform the voting system.
Business as usual. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4/gasp
errr, um, have you thought this one through? You cannot elect the chief exec based on raw popular vote. There has to be a firewall. Framers thought the people were sheep. Nice sheep that need some help with complicated matters. Many of the sheep had little education, couldn't read, no access to news, etc. So a group of presumably benevolent elitist snobs would have the final say in the matter, just to make sure the sheep weren't doing something stupid. Rail at this if you want, but it is a fine idea.
Back then serving in government was today's equivalent of being a designated driver. You take the hit for the team, hopefully it's just for tonight, and next time somebody else gets to do it and you can party. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Azur
If revolution is obsolete, how are a bunch of illiterate yahoos who can't even read the instructions on an RPG flummoxing the whole U.S. military with light weapons and improvised mines? -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is