How much more do they want you to sacrifice in the name of social fairness?

Barack is going to ask you to sacrifice. No, they weren’t talking about that kind of sacrifice. They were talking about you sacrificing more of your income. By the by, if you didn’t make a Tea Party rally yesterday, I think we should stop calling these things “protests.” They’re not protests. They are affirmations of our liberties. That’s what they are. They are affirmations, and they are demand letters, in verbal form, from me, from you, and from everyone that goes to these events, that attends a weekly Tea Party meeting. They are demands that our leaders lead, and they lead by example, by taking their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, take it seriously and literally till death do you part. They are demands that our liberties be respected. That’s what they are. They’re not protests. They are affirmations.

Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another.” Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the point where many of you, and you are right to do so, desire to dissolve the political bands that have connected us to another. Because I am not paying for zero liability voters, as Wilkow calls them, anymore. I am not yo’ daddy. I am not yo’ baby’s daddy. You go find yo’ baby daddy, and you make him pay. Hey, I got a better idea. Stop making babies. Stop bringing children into a world without fathers. How about that? Why don’t we try that one on for a little while? Hmm? Just for fun maybe.

By the by, the person that said that freedom and liberty sound really good to almost all humans, and many people claim to be for liberty and freedom, they love the sound of the word, but for the actual process and the actual work of living free with your liberty, most people don’t care for it. It’s hard work, liberty.

let’s see here, here we go. “Of the various Tea Party rallies today, there was at least one that portends good things for conservative constitutionalism.” Boy, you know, that Constitution was brandished all day long yesterday. Beautiful thing, people running around talking about the Constitution. Living it. Breathing it. Carrying it with them. Invoking it. Getting in people’s faces. “Hey, where do you find that in the Constitution?” Let’s see here. “That happening is in Kalamazoo [MI], where a man named Jack Hoogendyk” – hope I’m pronouncing that right – “is announcing his candidacy to challenge Congressman Fred Upton,” who is a Republican, “in this year’s Republican primary for a seat in the U.S. House” of Representin’ up in here.

“Upton has been a member of the House of Representin’ since 1987. A quick glance at his record of late makes him the walking embodiment of everything that is wrong with long-serving politicians regardless of party affiliation. Upton voted for the Obama [porkulus succubus] spending bill. He has supported legislation handing over more power to the federal government in healthcare, the automobile industry, and education. Upton often brags about his willingness to work with Democrats. What is useful about politely handing a match to [Nazi] Pelosi as she heads for the National Archives? This sort of Potomac Fever is cured only by permanent quarantine outside the District of Columbia.”

So another constitutionalist rears their beautiful head out there somewhere across the amber waves of fuel. Well, I am not a proponent or a fan of the elected class showing up at these events in a sort of de facto – or performing a de facto commandeering of the people that are there for their own elections and what have you. I can only speak for myself.
I just think it’s shameless when politicians show up for the purpose to promote themselves. The reason we’re here is ‘cause you guys suck. The reason this Tea Party is being held is because of you. You want the stage? Go get your own stage.

Again, these people are not our friends on the other side of the aisle. We don’t have a political disagreement. This is not an argument over 39 percent tax rate versus 36 percent. This is an argument over whether or not we’re going to have the freedom that is our birthright to take that money and keep it as our own. Because it is ours, Mr. President. And it’s not just about taxes. I wasn’t there just complaining about taxes. As a matter of fact, I only heard taxes discussed about 10 percent of the time last night. People were complaining and were protesting their government for a redress of grievances about your healthcare monstrosity, about your EPA, about the things you’re doing to the trucking industry, and all the other stuff that you’re doing. And the things that President Bush did, the suspension of the Fourth Amendment under the so-called Patriot Act and what have you.

Is that a miracle or what? No, It is the result of liberty.

I just stop sometimes, I just marvel, seriously marvel at what liberty has created on these shores. We have things that no civilization in the history of Earth, hell, in the known universe, going all the way back to the cantina bar on Tatooine, or Dantooine. No one has had access to the stuff that Americans take for granted. And all you have to do is go to a birthday party to see it on display. You have every manner of food that you could imagine. Every manner of it. You got chicken, you got fajitas, you got pulled pork, you got briskets, you got hot dogs, you got hamburgers. Not only do you have hotdogs and hamburgers, there are 35,000 different ways to get hotdogs and hamburgers. If you’re kosher, you can get a kosher frank. If you’re not, you can get an Oscar Mayer frank. You want hamburgers, you can make them yourself. You can buy Bubba burgers already pre-frozen. You could go to your local deli. They may be stamping them out, nice little cubed out round portions and what have you. It’s just amazing the things you can get.

Why is that? Is that because the government created a system to deliver hamburgers to birthday parties? Is it? Or is that because people had the liberty to go out there and practice this? They had the liberty to go out and make a better hamburger, to make a better hotdog, to make a better way to deliver party supplies. And it doesn’t just stop with the meats. You have all manner and every conceivable assortment of vegetable, from onions or red onions to Vidalia onions, you name it. You got white onions, all grown all over the place, some in Mississippi, some in California, some in Oklahoma, doesn’t matter where you grow them at. Potatoes, look at the potatoes that we have in this country and in this republic here. You can get Maine potatoes. You can get Idaho potatoes. You can get the little red new potatoes, as they’re known. You can get the mini potatoes. And then look what they process them into. You have the Ore-Ida factory out there cranking out all sorts of different fried potato concoctions. You got hash browns.

I mean, just think about the variety and the plentiful supply. We have – liberty on these shores has provided such an assortment and such an unbelievable supply of things we take for granted, we, most of us, don’t even consider whether or not to take that half-eaten hamburger that Steve down the street didn’t finish and throw it away. Don’t even think about it, do you. Just chunk that joker in the garbage can; right? Don’t even think about whether or not, well, there’s half a dozen chicken wings from Hooters left over from this party. Well, they’ve been sitting out for an hour or so. I think I’m going to pitch them. You don’t even think about that because there’s so much supply.

How does this happen without Obama? How does this happen without Pelosi? How do all these products make it onto our tables? How do all these foodstuffs make it into our pots and our ovens and what have you? Because we have liberty. So next time you’re at one of these parties, next time you’re at a restaurant and you’re looking at a menu that has 70 items on it, and every and all manner of concoction to prepare those items, oh, you got this with salt, without salt. You got cumin on this one. You have all sorts of spices from the orient or wherever they come from to season this one. We have this sauce and that sauce. Just think about how did that get to my table? Is that a miracle or what? No. It is the result of liberty. Yet we are constantly told that our republic sucks. We are constantly told by our President and his cabinet and anyone else that has a microphone and that’s in power, that there’s something wrong with us, and that there’s something wrong with you, and that there’s something wrong with this, and that there’s something wrong with our car companies, and there’s something wrong with our power companies, and there’s something wrong with our cow companies, and there’s something wrong with our aspirin and vitamin manufacturers and what have you. We’re constantly told that only through government could any of these things possibly get better.

Yet they get better all the time. All the time. The supply of these things is not going down. It’s increasing. The number of these things are not going down, they’re increasing. Isn’t it miraculous? Stop and think about that for a moment, just for a second. All the cheeses and variety of cheese you can get in this republic. Milk. You think your forefather ever dreamed, you think your great-grandpa ever dreamed he could have a nervous breakdown in the milk department? I don’t know what to – [silly old man with no teeth voice] “I don’t know what to buy. They got this 2 percent, they got 3 percent, they got 1 percent, they got homogenized, they got skim, I’m losing my mind here, Sonny.” That is the result of liberty. Liberty produces these things, not tyranny. Not command and control. Freedom to make individual choices.

Now, I ask you, if liberty produces all these wonderful assortments of foods and food products that we consume without batting an eye, without even thinking about whether or not there will be any more left tomorrow, why won’t that same liberty provide medical products? Doctors to administer them? Hmm? Why? Why won’t it? Because the laws and the rules of economics are the same when applied to medicine as they are to hotdogs. It is a naked economic transaction, regardless of what it is that is being transacted. This is what the Austrians teach us. The Austrians came along, von Mises and Hayek and the rest of them, and Hazlett and Rothbard and all those guys, Friedman, they came along and they said, hey, we used to know this stuff here. Apparently we’ve forgotten it. But this is the way we used to do it here. And so next time you’re presented with some idiot at a party that’s insisting that, oh, the government ought to do something about this, or the government ought to do something about that, did the government do anything about Nathan’s hotdogs? Huh? Did the government tell Chef Boyardee to make that four-cheese ravioli, or did Chef Boyardee think he could sell it? Hmm?

My pal Mike was watching the Food Network last night. They had a throwdown. Bobby Flay had a throwdown with the other Iron Chef, Chef Morimoto, Chef Cat Cora, and some other guy with a bald head. And they were having a big Thanksgiving turkey cook-off, or Thanksgiving cook-off. He said,"Did you see all the food that they were – all the stuff that they were concocting together here? did the White House order that competition? Did they? Is there a Iron Chef czar out there that I don’t know about? Is there?" My response to mike was, "of course not!"

Well, then why aren’t there all manner of automobiles for me to choose from? Now, think about the things that are hard to get and aren’t as readily available as they once may have been. And can’t be gotten and customized and what have you. What are they? They probably are automobiles, things that are large, and things that kind of lend themselves to the disastrous, despicable designs of designing men – politicians, they’re called. And they seize upon these opportunities to regulate. They seize upon these opportunities to seize power. They seize upon these opportunities to control. And then they will sell you or whoever will purchase it access to the control.

The American Socialist Party goals have been accomplished!

A new convention to amend the Constitution is needed. As Dr. Kevin Gutzman and Mike Church has said, the time has come to take the power our Founders left to us, seize the momentum of sentiment against Leviathan and repair the transgressions visited upon our Republics founding charter: The Constitution.

There are many folks who fear the Con Con because they irrationally believe it will be taken over by Pelosi and Obama and we will live under their Socialist redesign of the Constitution. Oooh shudder the though. There’s one problem with this fear, it has already happened.

Here’s the proof. The American Socialist Party wrote its goals down in the Party Platform of 1928. Every one of these goals has been accomplished including:

Nationalization of our Natural Resources - see the EPA and Interior Department.

A publicly owned power system- See the TVA and more recently the SMART Grid. (who knew the GE Scarecrow was a Socialist!?)

National Ownership of Railroads - See Amtrak

A system of unemployment insurance benefits - Hmmm, 7 million Socialists use that one as I speak

Securing to every worker a rest period of not less than 2 days per week

Increased taxation of high income levels - need I say more

A system of old age pension systems - See Social Insecurity.

A system of health insurance - see Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP

All of these things have been passed by our Congress and been made a de facto part of our Constitution so let me ask the question: Exactly what part of our beloved Constitution is still in effect and stands as a bulwark against “Socialism”? The fact of the matter Ladies and Gentlemen si that we are currently living under Socialsim and yet Republicans still raise millions of dollars to protect their “conservative” constituents from “Socialized Medicine”.

If you want to follow our Founders, defend Liberty and the original Constitution then follow me America to the 2010 Constitutional Convention

Everything You Wanted To Know About Constitutional Conventions But Were Afraid To Ask...

This is a special treat today folks, a conversation between Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman about how to implement a Constitutional Convention to stop our runaway government.



Dr. Kevin Gutzman: We want to have a convention at which we would discuss revision of the Constitution.

Mike: And is this limited to any particular articles? Is it open-ended? How is it convened? How is it conducted? There are a lot of questions that people have out there.

Kevin: Right. Well, what Article 5 says is the states, if 38 of them call it, the Congress will have to convene a convention. And the short answer is, no, the matters that the convention could take up cannot be limited. However, the proposals the convention makes would not be law. That is, they would be only proposals. So just as in 1787 in Philadelphia there was a convention that proposed what supposedly was a federal constitution, so – and then that had to be sent to the states for their separate ratification. So in case a Constitutional Convention made proposed amendments, those would have to be referred to the states for their ratification.

Now, people commonly say, well, you know, they’re just going to – Pelosi will dominate it, and Das Kapital will become the Constitution of America. I think this is really absurd. It’s the kind of scare tactic that people have taken against the idea of constitutional amendment ever since the beginning of the 19th Century. It’s extremely unlikely to the point of a vanishing amount of likelihood that having called for a convention because you were worried that the federal government was grabbing unlimited power for itself, the state legislatures would then turn around and ratify some horrible, centralizing measure that had been proposed by the convention. So myself, I am sanguine about that. And of course what this worry also ignores is, what people who make this argument ignore is that we are going to have Pelosi’s Constitution anyway. We have it right now. [Audio glitch] will do to us whatever it wants and will legislate [glitch] they like. So the idea that there’s going to be some horrible eventuality that Pelosi and Company will get what they want as the result of a process in which we try to amend the Constitution to limit their power, that assumes that they don’t get what they want anyway. Right now they get exactly what they like.

Mike: True.

Kevin: So I don’t know how it could possibly be that having this kind of a convention could make things worse. And just to give you an indication of the extent to which the current constitutional culture in the United States has given centralizers like Pelosi and Obama, that is, people who want the federal government to have authority over everything you do, every minute of your life, how they have gotten what they want through a “we’ll never amend the Constitution to correct what the Congress is doing” attitude among conservatives, let me read for you a little bit of the appendix to Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.”

Mike: Okay.

Kevin: Milton Friedman was the leading advocate of liberty in American economics in the 20th Century. Now, I myself am not at root a Monitorist. I mean, people who are expert in economics know that he was also the leader of what was called the Monitorist school of economics. And I think he was mistaken at root about that. But the bottom line is Milton Friedman was a very prominent libertarian in the 20th Century, somebody who stood for freedom.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: And he had a bestselling book, coauthored with his wife Rose in I think 1978, called “Free to Choose.” It was a number one bestseller for months and months. And in the appendix to that book, Friedman reprinted the Socialist Party platform of 1928. And the reason why he reprinted the Socialist Party platform of 1928 was to show us that by 1978 we were living with the Socialist Party platform of 1928. That is, every single element of it has been adopted. So plank one in the Socialist Party platform of 1928, “Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly of Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals.” And then in parentheses he says “Boulder Dam, renamed Hoover Dam, and Muscle Shoals are now both federal projects.”

Number two, “A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost.” And in parentheses he says, “We’ve made a regional start on this with the Tennessee Valley Authority.” There’s actually more to it now than there was in 1978.

But anyway, number three, “National ownership in democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication.” Parentheses, “Railroad passenger service is completely nationalized through Amtrak. Some freight service is nationalized through Conrail. The FCC controls communications by telephone, telegraph, radio, and television.” And of course what Friedman didn’t know in 1978 was that now the federal government feels free to wiretap millions, literally millions of Americans, without ever identifying them, without ever getting a warrant from any kind of a judge. It’s even more problematic than it was when Friedman wrote this.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: Number four, Socialist Party platform of 1928, “An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation.” Well, Friedman in parentheses says, “Government expenditures for these purposes are currently in the many billions of dollars.” And of course they’re far greater now than they were when he wrote that. I mean, I could go through the rest of this platform from the Socialist Party of 1928. But my point is, for those of you who think the Constitutional Convention idea is dangerous because we’ll lose the republic that the founding fathers bequeathed us, wake up. We already...

Mike: We lost it.

Kevin: We don’t have the constitutional republic the founding fathers bequeathed us. We are living with 20th-century socialists’ idea of what a central government ought to look like.

Mike: Well, and Dr. Kevin Gutzman with us. It’s our first crack at this. It’s called “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About a Constitutional Convention but Were Afraid to Ask.” I might add a coda to number four, Doc. And that is, that since I live in a flood zone here in Southeast Louisiana, the only place I can buy flood insurance from is from NFIP, National Flood Insurance Program.

Kevin: Right.

Mike: Which has been taken over by the – it’s administered by the federal government. Now, your agent can broker it, but it is backed up by the full faith and credit of Uncle Sucker. Just so you know. So you can count number four in the Socialist Party Platform of 1928 as having been completed, absolutely completely. And just ask anyone in Florida how they get homeowners insurance if they live in Jupiter, Florida or below, and they’re probably going to give you a similar answer.

Kevin: Well, my point, and as I said, I could go on with the...

Mike: Right, I know you could.

Kevin: ...rest of the planks of this. But I omitted the planks about what became Social Security and Medicare and all this kind of stuff. So the bottom line is people commonly object to the idea of a Constitutional Convention by saying, oh, lord, the socialists will get control of the government. Well, you know, have you looked at the Democratic and Republican parties lately? And how do you think they behave? The idea that the federal Constitution is doing what it’s supposed to do, that it’s performing its only function, which is to limit the power of people in federal office, is absurd. You’d have to have been asleep. That you’re going to lose that by having an attempt to rein in the federal government – now, I think that if there were a federal Constitutional Convention, what they should take up should be the way the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause has been interpreted, the way the Commerce Clause has been interpreted, and the notion that the powers of Congress listed in Article I, Section 8 are exhaustive.

So there’s no reason why, if we had a Constitutional Convention, we couldn’t have three amendments saying the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is only procedural. It includes no grants of substantive rights. That the Commerce Clause is only about trade between the states. It has nothing to do with matters that are entirely internal to the states. And of course that’s the way it was intended in the first place, but federal judges and the Congress have completely remade it so that the other day, when Pelosi was asked where do you get authority to tell people who their doctor will be, she laughed because it assumed, you know, the question had underlining it the idea that there was something illegitimate about the way federal officials have been behaving since 1937. Well, of course, as you and I know, there is something illegitimate about the way that federal officials have been behaving since 1937. And the only way to slap some sense into them is to have a Constitutional Convention. That’s it. There’s no other mechanism.

Dr. Kevin Gutzman: When you want to become an attorney, you get a law degree from an accredited law school. And then you take a bar exam. Before you take the bar exam, you take a bar review class, several weeks of cramming to learn everything about being a lawyer that you didn’t learn in law school.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: And when I took the bar review class, getting ready to take the Texas bar exam, I took it from one of the popular national companies that give this kind of a class in states all over the country. When we got to the part of the bar review course in which the instructor was preparing us for the multistate multiple choice section, that is, for the section of the Texas bar exam that was multiple choice and that is given, not only in Texas, but in various other states in the country. She told us, if one of the options you’re given is the Tenth Amendment, you know that that is always wrong. You never choose the option Tenth Amendment on the bar exam because that is always incorrect. In other words, by the time I was taking the bar review class in 1990, everybody knew that Tenth Amendment is never enforced. It is never respected. The principle that the Congress has only the powers that are enumerated in the Constitution is completely absent from, quote/unquote, “constitutional law” these days. So, you know, there’s that.

Mike: This is how we...

Kevin: And then the other possibility, besides calling on the Tenth Amendment to limit the powers of Congress, is nullification. And there are people now who are talking about nullification, which is the idea that the state governments would stand up to the federal government and prevent them from doing something. We’ve seen that tried in American history. You know, the federal government has the weapons, has the army. It’s absurd. There’s no way that nullification is going to work

Mike: So nullification is not going to work. You can’t have...

Kevin: No.

Mike: ...a citizen-led – what Kevin’s question was, could the citizens call the Convention, and you answered no. It has to be called by the legislature.

Kevin: That’s right.

Mike: So then to clarify here – and “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Constitutional Convention but Were Afraid to Ask” with our special guest Dr. Kevin Gutzman here. What is needed is – and I believe there’s only two states left that need to call; right?

Kevin: I don’t know what the current number is.

Mike: There’s 34.

Kevin: I’ve read varying accounts of that.

Mike: Okay. Well, we can get an inventory on that, is to get to 38 states, three quarters of them necessary or needed to call the convention. And then the next question is, before I get back to your phone calls at 1-866-95-PATRIOT, my question, here’s the one that I have. So the state legislatures will then, I would assume, much as Madison and Hamilton were able to convince the various state legislatures and assemblies in 1787 to send delegations, they would then appoint delegations to go meet in a central place, say it’s Kansas City or wherever, and they would hold this convention. Is that how – that’s how you would envision the pragmatic, actual workings of it would take place; correct?

Kevin: Yes. It’s just a carbon copy of the process that yielded the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution in the first place.

Mike: Okay. So we may need to have a failure, then. We may need to go to Mount Vernon and lose. We may have to go meet in Annapolis in a bar and not accomplish anything other than commit that, okay, we’ve got to go back and redouble our efforts because they tried twice. Well, Maryland and Virginia tried to meet. And then Madison and Hamilton tried to conspire to get it together in Annapolis, and of course they were successful. But unlike Madison and Hamilton, though, let’s set the record straight, too. We learned this in “The Fame of Our Fathers” and learned this in Dr. Guzman’s books and in my movie, “The Spirit of ’76.” The advertised purpose for that convention, Dr. Gutzman, was amending the Articles of Confederation; right?
Kevin: Right.

Mike: And we wound up with an entirely new plan of government. Which we’re not seeking here.

Kevin: Again, the bottom line is, well, of course, in a sense we are seeking an entirely new plan of government. It depends how you want to look at it. If you want to say we like the original frame of the federal government, and we’d like to see it actually implemented, or if you want to say we’d like to have a different government from the one we actually live under, we’d like one that looks more like the one the founders gave us. So I guess you could say it’s new, or you could say it isn’t, whichever way you want to look at it. But, yes, it’s true that in the first place, people like Madison and Hamilton wanted to strengthen the central government. And we’ve had three major episodes in American history when the central government was drastically strengthened. One was when they ratified the federal Constitution. One was at the time of the Civil War and immediately after. And then the third one was the so-called Revolution of 1937, which was really the culmination of things that had been going on for 15 years before that.

So we live today under not the Constitution of 1788, but the Constitution of 1937. And we’ve seen where that’s taken us. We have an absolutely unbridgeable gap between the federal government’s revenue and its obligations. And the gap is growing as people in federal office see that every incentive for them leads to more spending, more borrowing, permanent enserfment of our descendents. I think that’s why this is the first time we need a formal effort drastically to reduce the power of the central government.

Mike: I concur. Curt is in Ohio with a great question, next up here on “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Calling a Constitutional Convention but Were Afraid to Ask.” The time has come, my friends. Curt, how are you?

Curt: Good, sir. How are you?

Mike: Fantastic. What’s your question?

Curt: My question, I think we already answered. Originally my question was, once the convention is convened, I’ve heard rumors that the entire document is at risk at that point, where anything could be amended by the convention. Is that correct?
Kevin: No, the convention can’t amend anything. This is a very important point.

Mike: Okay.

Kevin: The convention would be called to make proposals. But if there were going to be any actual amendment adopted, it would have to be adopted through ratification by the states. So it would take 38 states then to amend. That’s why this idea, this scare idea that people are floating out there, that there’d be a coup d’état, and we’d end up all singing the Marseilles, or May 1st would be our new national holiday because we’d all be wearing red all the time, this is just inaccurate. A convention cannot actually change the Constitution. It can make proposals. So if they came out of the convention with a proposal, you know, let’s get rid of the Congress and have a military government, bang, you’re stuck, that’s not what could happen. All it could do would be make recommendations to the states for their ratification. And again, I think that a Constitutional Convention that grew out of a movement to reassert state governments’ Tenth Amendment rights is highly unlikely then to say we want, you know, Nancy Pelosi to be our queen. That’s just not going to happen.

Mike: Right. And I get this question a lot, too. “You don’t know what you’re – this is dangerous.” But as you pointed out, and I think this needs to be part of the recap that we’re going to post online on our website, you can hopefully help us get it linked up on some other popular sites, that – and this is something that I’d never heard before. But that document that you cited that was in Friedman’s, the appendix to Friedman’s book, how much more evidence or how much more destruction, ignorance, and outright – what’s the word when you violate your oath? I mean, I get calls all the time, Kevin, from “Are they committing treason when they violate their oath, and they do this to the Constitution, and they do that?” And I always say, well, no, they’re not really conspiring with the enemy. They’re not making war with the enemy against us here. But yes, they are violating their oath. And apparently there is no penalty, and Bill Clinton can attest to this, for perjury anymore.

Kevin: Well, he paid a $90,000 fine and was disbarred for five years. So I guess that was some kind of penalty, although of course it was not nearly so stiff a penalty as you or I might have paid if we had been found to have done exactly the same thing as he did. Let me read you a little bit more of this Socialist Party platform of 1928 from the back of Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.” Plank nine, “A system of health and accident insurance and old-age pensions, as well as unemployment insurance.” So people who say, wow, we’re going to have socialism if we have a Constitutional Convention, plank nine is what they’re voting on in Congress right now. This is what they think they’re empowered to do by the current federal Constitution. In other words, they completely ignore the limitation on the powers of the central government that were supposed to have been created by the Constitution. And they are writing into law the Socialist Party platform of 1928.

Mike: Amazing.

Kevin: The whole thing is going to be what we live with. So people who say, oh, no, we can’t have a Constitutional Convention because it’ll mean the death of our beloved Constitution, signed by Washington and Franklin and Adams and, I mean, and Hamilton and Madison, you’re wrong. That frame of government is long gone. And what we’re talking about here is the question, is there any way to bring it back? Is there any way actually to have a limited decentralized government in which most decision making is done by elected state legislators? And I’m saying the only mechanism that the Constitution provides is the Constitutional Convention. There’s no other way effectively to limit the powers of Congress.


Want to learn more about Dr Kevin R.C. Gutzman(He received his BA, MPAff, and JD from the University of Texas and my MA and PhD in American History from the University of Virginia) and the real facts of the constitution from a real Constitutional Scholar?

I would suggest you read a couple of his books in the matter:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution...
Who Killed the Constitution?: The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama...
Virginia's American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840...

Its always refreshing to have a debate and actually have facts to back up your arguement....

I have to thank my good friends Mike and Kevin for this keen insight to the constitution