You are a revolutionary Mike. I only read your first two sentences. I am not interested in someone who is not part of this Constitutional law system. We have nothing to talk about.

A true revolutionary, battling the existing legal regime. Today we can work within the Constitution which is our legal regime or work outside of it and be a revolutionary like these guys were. Because we admire them for what they accomplished in overthrowing the ancien regime we should also admire them for giving us a new and imporved one and amendable one. We need not however be revolutionaries in the former sense. Ah peace and domestic tranquility now and forevermore.

I believe the saliant or decisive point for Adams was when he realized who his country was. Some colonialists thought it was Great Britain. In 1860 some thought their country was South Carolina etcetera. So today as the 4th is soon upon us lets think about who is our country.

PS: I bet if 49 states were making a hue and cry to expel one of the others. The way facing expulsion would be pissed.

Mike your arguments I find generally are not part of the legal regime (constitutional regime) under which this Union was founded. I mean if a state wishes to secede and take up arms, I guess they have a "God given" right to try but under the Constitutional system they do not. The Constitution describes the ways in which a state joins it states no provisions on how it can leave. The door swings only one way. The Supreme Court handled the question in 1868 in Texas Vs. White. Not only is their no right to secede unilaterally, their is no provision for the Union to expel a state, and no provision for a state and the Union to part via mutual agreement. Check out this site for a good discussion: writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

It is sad that Roxy and probably many others think only in generalities. She does not even no mean and she says "people like Waffler". "And don't play my games" would make someone believe that she is actually afraid of FREE SPEECH, intelligent exchange and FREEDOM itself. I ask again can the people via the Constitutional Amendment Process remove the Bill of Rights, deny freedom of speech, religion etcetera. I understand COMPELLED COMPLIANCE completely and utterly It is simply LAW: rules and customs passed by a community as binding upon its members. I have told this to Mike before; he never learns or stops using the phrase. He is still crazy after all of these years.

Well Mike it is a little bit like marriage. Have you ever heard of a marriage ceremony in which the parties say "I take you until death do us part or until I don't want you anymore". No state ever joined the Union under the idea that "well let us try it for awhile to see if we like it". Such a fainted hearted step is no true Union at all. If the founders, the Adames and the Hancocks had been so fainted hearted we never would have had indedpendence. I will give you more about legalith later. Most of the states of course had the option to join the union or not but those in the West whether or not they joined the land belonged to the Union.

J Carlton have you any evidence about Obama going after guns and ammunition. Those of you who prefer a republic to a democracy must be very happy with what is going on in Iran.

Yes except subject to definition. For example what are arms. Do arms include ballistic missiles. Also not absolute because it is subject to Amendment. Can we thus amend the Constitution to remove the Bill of Rights. I think we can. So it and they are not Absolute. Only the People are Absolute.

Quote is either wrong or simply outdated by 276 years. By this definition the USA is not a federal government because the individual states are not soverign. They maybe soverign concerning internal affairs to some extent but they cannot abuse their citizens in contravention of the constitution nor can the leave the Union. It would appear that the USA is a mix of a federal government and a national government at least according to Black's.

I love free speech but I hate liars. Like Rush and Ahmadinejad!

Living reasonable lives can be a bore. Most of us do not do what is reasonable but we surrond our lives with what is fun, interesting, ego fulfilling etc. I have six handguns, seldom if ever use them. Five are now in a trailer in Texas and one here in my home. I agree that most handguns are not needed and are seldom used. I have no problem with registration but taking them away from folk who are not criminals is a problem for me.

This quote raises many feelings in me about issues, views and opinions I hear recently. Time does not permit me to expound so I just pick one. Many conservative commentators and "thinkers" are apalled at the recent bailouts and yell "socialism". I submit they read this article at wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto-is-lags-auto/. The jest of the article is that "the US Lags in Auto Industry Support" especially in the area of government sponsored Health Care. All governments are supporting their auto industries especially the Japanese and their auto makers have the luxury of not having to pay for employee health care expense. Americans thus get cheaper cars from abroad, and we stiff our own people and short change our own nation. I submit that yelling socialism when our government and people try to do something and then buying our products form socialist or communist (China) countries is TREASON or at least very treacherous.

But women and slaves and those who could not afford poll taxes were kept in a second class for generations until The Constitution was amended. While it did not provide for a second class it did also did not provide for equality.

I never thought about it but could the Constitution be amended to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments or Bill of Rights!

Mike you obviously are trying to state a difference between tools (lawn mower) and what the Constitution did (law). The tools of governance are laws, regulation etc. and backed up by courts, jails etcetera. I don't pretend to be an authority but it seems to me that the framers (mostly aristocrats) felt like the fabric of society was being torn by these debtor and servitude rebellions. Many observers saw the Constitution as a very conservative document giving power to establish or reestablish law and order into a disintergrating situation. Now thank goodness over time we have via democracy improved upon their highly respected and admired effort, but improve it we did. The tools of governance are laws, authorities.

Mike it is not clear at all, sorry for you and your lack of logical abilities. Mike you erred in that you gave no accreditation from where or from whom you took your definition. It would appear that it is just Mikes ideas. My Webster's says this, "Law: a binding custom or practice of a community". For you Mike you may read "binding" as "compelled compliance". Now I assume you have never heard of such things as the Code (law) of Hanarobbi(sic) etcetera. Now Mike you or anyone may or may not like a binding custom or practice of the community (as most individuals do or don't on occasion) and you can argue or resist it and together with your allies change it (as often happens) but to be against "the binding customs and practices" of your community as a badge of honor or as a way of life is a bit sick. Again you should start documneting your sources rather then just "thus sayeth Mike".

Iran should as a nation read this quote today. A national injustice today maybe the health care system, one issue pointed out yesterday is that people on Medicare must be treated the same way or with the same benefits throughout the country but and I repeat but the bills now being considered in Congress do not require that children will receive the same benefits throughout the country. Now whether one is for against public interest or p-ublic laws concerning health care I believe in fairness this stance toward children would be a national injustice.

Are their any laws about lying Bryan, fraud is only prosecuted when the hurt is very real and financially measurable, here I am talking about the soft lies of deceitful people that undermine our entire social fabric. Your lack of intelligent repartee is shown by your inane name calling. It is sad very sad that men can reach "maturity" and still be such holes. Sadly this site seems to attract them.

It is simple to compel someone not to jump in your lake, just put up a sign that says no treaspassing or no swimming. Carlton do you actually have some laws of justice versus laws of control you are interested in or would like to discuss or do you prefer to simply babble like Bryan.

The quote is also about the writers love of freedom even though he believes sexism is bad, worong or evil or at least against his value system. We have decided in this country that the market is not free to lie for example about the benefits of tobacco etcetera. Of all the laws on the books about killing and stealing etcetera one I would like to see is one about lying. Again the writer states he believe in a sociological doctrine but also believes in the right of free speech. I agree wholeheartedly except maybe in the case of holocaust deniers and liars about facts like tobacco.

And the risk of assumption I believe Mason was talking about the universal right of men to defend their free states, wherever existing from attacks upon it.

Like I said Mike has encryptofile friends. I know not what Bryan is blabbing about. One needs no key to understanding clear and honest men. Law is compelled compliance. We are compelled to obey law, that is what the word means. So why does not Mike use the simple word that he is against law and then we will know where he stands. First of all he should not exist in a world, community, or neighborhood of men if he is against law. A definition of society, neighgorhood, community probably encompasses the concept of behaviour, actions, rules permeating and incumbet upon the individuals within it. Some of the rules are soft rules in which you may be looked down upon or ostracised for their breach such as rules of etiquette, dress code etcetera. important nonetheless. Others are more compelling upon the individual like traffic laws, harm to others, and the ever popular kill, steal, etcetera. So anyway can Mike speak for himself and tell us what he means by "compelled compliance" and stop hiding behind some veil of encryption like some beared Talibani or woman dressed in a chador.

Mike on this site practices cryptography all of the time. He uses words like "compelled compliance" when he rally means "law". And "victimless crimes" when he really means "helmet laws" and "seat belt laws". I guess cryptography is sometimes necessary but to me I like a person who knows what he is saying and says it with clarity. Using encryption is like the Taliban and their ladies who walk around with their heads, faces and bodies fully covered.

We change our ways of thinking all of the time. When the airlines were getting rid of Stewardesses and instead hiring Flight Attendants, they took the sexy part out of flying. At the same time Hooters was putting sex into eating a hamburger. That society and culture swings between behaviors and attitudes is a fact.Tthe way that we do it in The States is the way that it should be done, not via some Ayatollah or moral dictator. That government does these things I believe is a lie. Government only comes in after the fact and is benign. In a free society such as ours changes are made freely and over time.