Alter or Abolish and Control of the States-How The Masters Of The Congress And Courts Work

Are we ideally the masters of the congress and the courts?

  • es, the people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent making us the masters.

    Votes: 2 100.0%
  • No, politicians and judges know far better that Americans what the constitution intends.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
  • Poll closed .

Christophera

Evidence & Reason Rule
Aug 23, 2009
5,298
43
71
Santa Barbara CA
Bridging the gap in understanding HOW Article V, functionally is, or can be equal to "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence that came before.

Firstly, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" in the codified version of "alter or abolish" found in Article V because the people have defined constitutional intent and use that to control the states.

The people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.

If the states to not recognize the constitutional intent the people have defined and agree upon, then the people are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.

This is why a significant sized group of citizens can descend upon a state Capitol and rightfully demand state legislators agree and accept the constitutional intent they have defined. If said legislators refuse to recognize and accept the defined constitutional intent, then they have denied the people their right to alter or abolish because the state cannot assure its capability to know constitutional intent of proposed amendments at an Article V convention.

This is the logic that must be presented to state legislators and if they cannot agree and accept it, the people presenting can rightfully demand the impeachment of legislators OR a vote in the state upon the specific intents for the federal constitution they have defined.

Those prime intents of the constitution are to empower the right to alter or abolish and enable the unity required to do that with the ultimate purpose of free speech as a duty of government.

When the people of the state are presented the specific options for constitutional intent the activists for Article V define to effect the action of altering or abolishing through the state, and the people confirm by a general vote, then all legislators that do not agree and accept the defined constitutional intent, must step down or their peers have the duty to impeach them. This, in intent, extends back to the Magna Carta.

If this does not occur, the entire peoples of the state are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.

Accordingly, when proper, prime constitutional intent IS defined and presented to state legislators, the truly constitutional amongst them WILL know it and relent. They will agree and accept it and show this by demanding their peers do the same or face impeachment.

If this process is denied, the people are denied the lawful and peaceful revolution which is defined and guaranteed by the terms "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence and violent revolution is thereby justified to defend and enforce the constitution.

However, if the people faithfully execute the lawful process, the tyrants and despots that have infiltrated the governmental systems will then know that the people are right, for they too are people, human beings; wherein they will relent with their imposition of tyranny and allow the law of the land to prevail.

A safeguard from the possibility of a violent revolution, securing the elite obedience to natural law, is the fact that law enforcement and the military will be witnessing the peoples effort to create a lawful and peaceful revolution under law. Law enforcement and the military are very much "of the people" and their families or heirs depend on constitutional rights as much as anyone for long, fruitful and happy lives. They will stand with the people against tyranny IF the people properly agree and work faithfully to impose that agreement upon officials of government.

They will do this for the good of their souls and that of their heirs. This will be done as it was before, 800 years ago.

Excerpt of the Magna Carta:
Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our own soul, and of the souls of all our ancestors, and of our heirs, to the honour of God,
 
Last edited:
Bridging the gap in understanding HOW Article V, functionally is, or can be equal to "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence that came before.

Firstly, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" in the codified version of "alter or abolish" found in Article V because the people have defined constitutional intent and use that to control the states.

The people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.

If the states to not recognize the constitutional intent the people have defined and agree upon, then the people are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.

This is why a significant sized group of citizens can descend upon a state Capitol and rightfully demand state legislators agree and accept the constitutional intent they have defined. If said legislators refuse to recognize and accept the defined constitutional intent, then they have denied the people their right to alter or abolish because the state cannot assure its capability to know constitutional intent of proposed amendments at an Article V convention.

This is the logic that must be presented to state legislators and if they cannot agree and accept it, the people presenting can rightfully demand the impeachment of legislators OR a vote in the state upon the specific intents for the federal constitution they have defined.

Those prime intents of the constitution are to empower the right to alter or abolish and enable the unity required to do that with the ultimate purpose of free speech as a duty of government.

When the people of the state are presented the specific options for constitutional intent the activists for Article V define to effect the action of altering or abolishing through the state, and the people confirm by a general vote, then all legislators that do not agree and accept the defined constitutional intent, must step down or their peers have the duty to impeach them. This, in intent, extends back to the Magna Carta.

If this does not occur, the entire peoples of the state are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.

Accordingly, when proper, prime constitutional intent IS defined and presented to state legislators, the truly constitutional amongst them WILL know it and relent. They will agree and accept it and show this by demanding their peers do the same or face impeachment.

If this process is denied, the people are denied the lawful and peaceful revolution which is defined and guaranteed by the terms "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence and violent revolution is thereby justified to defend and enforce the constitution.

However, if the people faithfully execute the lawful process, the tyrants and despots that have infiltrated the governmental systems will then know that the people are right, for they too are people, human beings; wherein they will relent with their imposition of tyranny and allow the law of the land to prevail.

A safeguard from the possibility of a violent revolution, securing the elite obedience to natural law, is the fact that law enforcement and the military will be witnessing the peoples effort to create a lawful and peaceful revolution under law. Law enforcement and the military are very much "of the people" and their families or heirs depend on constitutional rights as much as anyone for long, fruitful and happy lives. They will stand with the people against tyranny IF the people properly agree and work faithfully to impose that agreement upon officials of government.

They will do this for the good of their souls and that of their heirs. This will be done as it was before, 800 years ago.

Excerpt of the Magna Carta:
Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our own soul, and of the souls of all our ancestors, and of our heirs, to the honour of God,
The Magna Carta gave more protection (but not power) to nobles (Barons) from King John, but this did not apply to the common man. The common man did not gain rights until around the 19th century. The Magna Carta influenced our due process--fair trial, speedy trial, etc.
Featured Document The Magna Carta
Article V
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Look at Article V.
"on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments," means that 2/3 of 50 states can call a convention to PROPOSE amendments. This does not meant hat they can change the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution still have to go through the norm of 2/3 of the two chambers and ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pertains to amending the Constitution, not making laws.
Your quote, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" is from a speech Lincoln gave about slavery. It is not in Article V.
"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the constitution demands it —
But we must, by a national policy, prevent the spread of slavery into new territories, or free states, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does demand such prevention — We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does require the prevention — We must prevent these things being done, by either congresses or courts — The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —"
History - Abraham Lincoln Papers - Collection Connections Teacher Resources - Library of Congress
Lincoln said to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution--elections not impeachments. One cannot impeach a legislator for not agreeing with the majority. One can only not reelect him or her. Impeachment means a criminal offence has taken place and that person must be impeached by legislators.
The right to alter or abolish, from the Declaration of Independence, was a list of grievances against George III (or the crown) and that the people of the, forming, united States was not going to tolerate it any more and declared their freedom from Britain. It is a proclamation, a demand letter, it is not a ratified law or constitution.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Declaration is often quoted by justices and lawyers as what was intended,but it is not law. The Constitution is the law of the land. Anyone who tries to forcefully alter or abolish the government is a traitor and guilty of treason. The president is the commander in chief and the military will do their job as commanded. Law enforcement... that's a coin toss, but most would follow the law not vigilantes.
 
Bridging the gap in understanding HOW Article V, functionally is, or can be equal to "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence that came before.

Firstly, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" in the codified version of "alter or abolish" found in Article V because the people have defined constitutional intent and use that to control the states.

The people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.

If the states to not recognize the constitutional intent the people have defined and agree upon, then the people are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.

This is why a significant sized group of citizens can descend upon a state Capitol and rightfully demand state legislators agree and accept the constitutional intent they have defined. If said legislators refuse to recognize and accept the defined constitutional intent, then they have denied the people their right to alter or abolish because the state cannot assure its capability to know constitutional intent of proposed amendments at an Article V convention.

This is the logic that must be presented to state legislators and if they cannot agree and accept it, the people presenting can rightfully demand the impeachment of legislators OR a vote in the state upon the specific intents for the federal constitution they have defined.

Those prime intents of the constitution are to empower the right to alter or abolish and enable the unity required to do that with the ultimate purpose of free speech as a duty of government.

When the people of the state are presented the specific options for constitutional intent the activists for Article V define to effect the action of altering or abolishing through the state, and the people confirm by a general vote, then all legislators that do not agree and accept the defined constitutional intent, must step down or their peers have the duty to impeach them. This, in intent, extends back to the Magna Carta.

If this does not occur, the entire peoples of the state are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.

Accordingly, when proper, prime constitutional intent IS defined and presented to state legislators, the truly constitutional amongst them WILL know it and relent. They will agree and accept it and show this by demanding their peers do the same or face impeachment.

If this process is denied, the people are denied the lawful and peaceful revolution which is defined and guaranteed by the terms "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence and violent revolution is thereby justified to defend and enforce the constitution.

However, if the people faithfully execute the lawful process, the tyrants and despots that have infiltrated the governmental systems will then know that the people are right, for they too are people, human beings; wherein they will relent with their imposition of tyranny and allow the law of the land to prevail.

A safeguard from the possibility of a violent revolution, securing the elite obedience to natural law, is the fact that law enforcement and the military will be witnessing the peoples effort to create a lawful and peaceful revolution under law. Law enforcement and the military are very much "of the people" and their families or heirs depend on constitutional rights as much as anyone for long, fruitful and happy lives. They will stand with the people against tyranny IF the people properly agree and work faithfully to impose that agreement upon officials of government.

They will do this for the good of their souls and that of their heirs. This will be done as it was before, 800 years ago.

Excerpt of the Magna Carta:
Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our own soul, and of the souls of all our ancestors, and of our heirs, to the honour of God,
The Magna Carta gave more protection (but not power) to nobles (Barons) from King John, but this did not apply to the common man. The common man did not gain rights until around the 19th century. The Magna Carta influenced our due process--fair trial, speedy trial, etc.
Featured Document The Magna Carta
Article V
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Look at Article V.
"on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments," means that 2/3 of 50 states can call a convention to PROPOSE amendments. This does not meant hat they can change the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution still have to go through the norm of 2/3 of the two chambers and ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pertains to amending the Constitution, not making laws.
Your quote, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" is from a speech Lincoln gave about slavery. It is not in Article V.
"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the constitution demands it —
But we must, by a national policy, prevent the spread of slavery into new territories, or free states, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does demand such prevention — We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does require the prevention — We must prevent these things being done, by either congresses or courts — The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —"
History - Abraham Lincoln Papers - Collection Connections Teacher Resources - Library of Congress
Lincoln said to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution--elections not impeachments. One cannot impeach a legislator for not agreeing with the majority. One can only not reelect him or her. Impeachment means a criminal offence has taken place and that person must be impeached by legislators.
The right to alter or abolish, from the Declaration of Independence, was a list of grievances against George III (or the crown) and that the people of the, forming, united States was not going to tolerate it any more and declared their freedom from Britain. It is a proclamation, a demand letter, it is not a ratified law or constitution.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Declaration is often quoted by justices and lawyers as what was intended,but it is not law. The Constitution is the law of the land. Anyone who tries to forcefully alter or abolish the government is a traitor and guilty of treason. The president is the commander in chief and the military will do their job as commanded. Law enforcement... that's a coin toss, but most would follow the law not vigilantes.
Good stuff, true and Ive been aware of it for years.

Let me clarify Lincoln's statement of the Illinois speech. He could oy be referring to Artie V, which means he was trying to stop the war with a convention. He meant that only the people can rightfully define constitutional intent, which Article V states all amendments must have.

The papers would not publish Lincolns speeches in the day. They were owned or controlled by the forces that financed the union army. From England.

Illinois was his home state so that key phrase was published. I hear a book was published around 1900 that had all of them.

It's true the Declaration of Independence is not law but the constitution is. However, the people can derive the constitutions intent from any of the framing documents. And, if they agree, then impose their agreement upon states effectively, the states can lawfully amend,
 
Last edited:
Bridging the gap in understanding HOW Article V, functionally is, or can be equal to "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence that came before.

Firstly, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" in the codified version of "alter or abolish" found in Article V because the people have defined constitutional intent and use that to control the states.

The people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.

If the states to not recognize the constitutional intent the people have defined and agree upon, then the people are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.

This is why a significant sized group of citizens can descend upon a state Capitol and rightfully demand state legislators agree and accept the constitutional intent they have defined. If said legislators refuse to recognize and accept the defined constitutional intent, then they have denied the people their right to alter or abolish because the state cannot assure its capability to know constitutional intent of proposed amendments at an Article V convention.

This is the logic that must be presented to state legislators and if they cannot agree and accept it, the people presenting can rightfully demand the impeachment of legislators OR a vote in the state upon the specific intents for the federal constitution they have defined.

Those prime intents of the constitution are to empower the right to alter or abolish and enable the unity required to do that with the ultimate purpose of free speech as a duty of government.

When the people of the state are presented the specific options for constitutional intent the activists for Article V define to effect the action of altering or abolishing through the state, and the people confirm by a general vote, then all legislators that do not agree and accept the defined constitutional intent, must step down or their peers have the duty to impeach them. This, in intent, extends back to the Magna Carta.

If this does not occur, the entire peoples of the state are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.

Accordingly, when proper, prime constitutional intent IS defined and presented to state legislators, the truly constitutional amongst them WILL know it and relent. They will agree and accept it and show this by demanding their peers do the same or face impeachment.

If this process is denied, the people are denied the lawful and peaceful revolution which is defined and guaranteed by the terms "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence and violent revolution is thereby justified to defend and enforce the constitution.

However, if the people faithfully execute the lawful process, the tyrants and despots that have infiltrated the governmental systems will then know that the people are right, for they too are people, human beings; wherein they will relent with their imposition of tyranny and allow the law of the land to prevail.

A safeguard from the possibility of a violent revolution, securing the elite obedience to natural law, is the fact that law enforcement and the military will be witnessing the peoples effort to create a lawful and peaceful revolution under law. Law enforcement and the military are very much "of the people" and their families or heirs depend on constitutional rights as much as anyone for long, fruitful and happy lives. They will stand with the people against tyranny IF the people properly agree and work faithfully to impose that agreement upon officials of government.

They will do this for the good of their souls and that of their heirs. This will be done as it was before, 800 years ago.

Excerpt of the Magna Carta:
Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our own soul, and of the souls of all our ancestors, and of our heirs, to the honour of God,
The Magna Carta gave more protection (but not power) to nobles (Barons) from King John, but this did not apply to the common man. The common man did not gain rights until around the 19th century. The Magna Carta influenced our due process--fair trial, speedy trial, etc.
Featured Document The Magna Carta
Article V
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Look at Article V.
"on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments," means that 2/3 of 50 states can call a convention to PROPOSE amendments. This does not meant hat they can change the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution still have to go through the norm of 2/3 of the two chambers and ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pertains to amending the Constitution, not making laws.
Your quote, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" is from a speech Lincoln gave about slavery. It is not in Article V.
"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the constitution demands it —
But we must, by a national policy, prevent the spread of slavery into new territories, or free states, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does demand such prevention — We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does require the prevention — We must prevent these things being done, by either congresses or courts — The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —"
History - Abraham Lincoln Papers - Collection Connections Teacher Resources - Library of Congress
Lincoln said to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution--elections not impeachments. One cannot impeach a legislator for not agreeing with the majority. One can only not reelect him or her. Impeachment means a criminal offence has taken place and that person must be impeached by legislators.
The right to alter or abolish, from the Declaration of Independence, was a list of grievances against George III (or the crown) and that the people of the, forming, united States was not going to tolerate it any more and declared their freedom from Britain. It is a proclamation, a demand letter, it is not a ratified law or constitution.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Declaration is often quoted by justices and lawyers as what was intended,but it is not law. The Constitution is the law of the land. Anyone who tries to forcefully alter or abolish the government is a traitor and guilty of treason. The president is the commander in chief and the military will do their job as commanded. Law enforcement... that's a coin toss, but most would follow the law not vigilantes.
Good stuff, true and Ive been aware of it for years.

Let me clarify Lincoln's statement of the Illinois speech. He could oy be referring to Artie V, which means he was trying to stop the war with a convention. He meant that only the people can rightfully define constitutional intent, which Article V states all amendments must have.

The papers would not publish Lincolns speeches in the day. They were owned or controlled by the forces that financed the union army. From England.

Illinois was his home state so that key phrase was published. I hear a book was published around 1900 that had all of them.

It's true the Declaration of Independence is not law but the constitution is. However, the people can derive the constitutions intent from any of the framing documents. And, if they agree, then impose their agreement upon states effectively, the states can lawfully amend,
Lincoln was not president when he made that statement and he was talking about elections and slavery. Since Lincoln was not president, the war had not started. I posted Article V and it has nothing to do with inciting the people to alter or abolish or amend the government. Article V is about how Congress can amend the Constitution, nothing more.
You can try to twist things to suit your argument all day long but you will still be wrong. You say you've been aware of it for years... obviously not! The papers were not owned by England... Boston Tea Party... Stamp Tax... 1773. The papers protested against English censorship and tax on paper, which helped spark the American Revolution. England had no governmental or legal rights in the US in 1859. Many newspapers carried his speeches--
New York Semi-Weekly Tribune A New York Newspaper Prints Lincoln s Cooper Union Speech on the Front Page
"Most of the newspapers that printed Lincoln’s speech utilized The Associated Press, who immediately sent out the speech from Gettysburg by telegraph" http://www.yorkblog.com/yorkspast/2...-with-applause-during-his-gettysburg-address/
Patriot and Union, Philadelphia Press, the Atlantic... good God man, Google!
The states cannot amend the Constitution. At all. Never. Ever. A state or states can propose a motion, but it still has to be ratified by 38 other states. Why do you think the Constitution has been amended so few times? The framers deliberately made it hard so not just anyone with an attitude could change liberties and laws.
 
Lincoln was not president when he made that statement and he was talking about elections and slavery. Since Lincoln was not president, the war had not started. I posted Article V and it has nothing to do with inciting the people to alter or abolish or amend the government. Article V is about how Congress can amend the Constitution, nothing more.

I did not say Lincoln was president when he made the speech. I did not say the war had started.

He was talking about slavery generally as a part of his campaign because he was trying to prevent the war and using Article V for enabling the states to deal with slavery and the conflict rather than war. That quote was not specifically about slavery, it was about how to stop it with Article V. The rest of the quote tells us that the quote was not about slavery.

Did the framers intend for Americans to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?
 
Last edited:
Lincoln was not president when he made that statement and he was talking about elections and slavery. Since Lincoln was not president, the war had not started. I posted Article V and it has nothing to do with inciting the people to alter or abolish or amend the government. Article V is about how Congress can amend the Constitution, nothing more.

I did not say Lincoln was president when he made the speech. I did not say the war had started.

He was talking about slavery generally as a part of his campaign because he was trying to prevent the war and using Article V for enabling the states to deal with slavery and the conflict rather than war. That quote was not specifically about slavery, it was about how to stop it with Article V. The rest of the quote tells us that the quote was not about slavery.

Did the framers intend for Americans to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?
ccountable
Lincoln was not president when he made that statement and he was talking about elections and slavery. Since Lincoln was not president, the war had not started. I posted Article V and it has nothing to do with inciting the people to alter or abolish or amend the government. Article V is about how Congress can amend the Constitution, nothing more.

I did not say Lincoln was president when he made the speech. I did not say the war had started.

He was talking about slavery generally as a part of his campaign because he was trying to prevent the war and using Article V for enabling the states to deal with slavery and the conflict rather than war. That quote was not specifically about slavery, it was about how to stop it with Article V. The rest of the quote tells us that the quote was not about slavery.

Did the framers intend for Americans to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

Why can't/won't IDADUNNO be accountable to a simple aspect of the framers intent??????????????????????????????????????????

Got brain?

Can brain do critical thinking?

How many others here have failed/refused to make simple agreements about the framers intents?

How many who have not are covert infiltrators and how many are sheep?

Can the sheep do critical thinking and take logical action, or, is there something deeper preventing them from doing something that WILL cause change?
 

Forum List

Back
Top