Kingdom courts

[Maddog]

You really need to stop commenting on our Constitution and the processes surrounding it if you do not understand them.

The US Constitution cannot be amended at will.

It is a deliberately complex and time consuming process to amend the US Constitution. 2/3 of both houses of Congress must approve the amendment, then it gets sent to the states where 2/3 of the state legislatures must also approve it. That can take a very long time.

The last Amendment to be ratified in this process was the 27th Amendment. It was proposed on September 25, 1789 and passed on May 5, 1992.

That's 202 years plus 223 days to amend the Constitution at will.

It was deliberately made difficult at that! Now we still have tens-of-thousands of laws here, many of which are indeed suspicious but that shows the need of the Supreme Court and the providence of electing 45 to fill vacancies. If that is his lasting legacy, then we are the better for it. The contrast of opinion on the court has never been as stark as it is now. Progressives are indeed nefarious and can't win any other way other than complete rejection of our founding documents, in modern parlance, a complete reboot of our system. Patriots stand in the way with 2A tools.

 

[FollowingHim]

You really need to stop commenting on our Constitution and the processes surrounding it if you do not understand them.

The US Constitution cannot be amended at will.

It is a deliberately complex and time consuming process to amend the US Constitution. 2/3 of both houses of Congress must approve the amendment, then it gets sent to the states where 2/3 of the state legislatures must also approve it. That can take a very long time.

The last Amendment to be ratified in this process was the 27th Amendment. It was proposed on September 25, 1789 and passed on May 5, 1992.

That's 202 years plus 223 days to amend the Constitution at will.

And how long did the other 26 amendments take? I just checked the 26th as a random example and the source I read said it took 4 months from proposal to ratification by the States. I'm sure there are other quick examples.

I know it's hard to do. It's designed to be as solid as a humanly-designed piece of legislation can be. This is a good thing, and it is as it should be.

But it's still just a law made by men, and it can be amended - and can even be amended quickly if the will is there. I'm not saying it is changed constantly, just that it can be. The process is difficult, but the process does exist, and is used. It has been amended 27 times, and most of those amendments will have taken far less than 202 years, you just picked the one that took the most insane amount of time as your sole example. It truly is just another law - a law with a lot of extra protections around it, but still just another law.

 

[Mark C]

The US Constitution cannot be amended at will.

Who needs to 'amend' the Constitution? They just ignore it.

 

[MeganC]

And how long did the other 26 amendments take? I just checked the 26th as a random example and the source I read said it took 4 months from proposal to ratification by the States. I'm sure there are other quick examples.

I know it's hard to do. It's designed to be as solid as a humanly-designed piece of legislation can be. This is a good thing, and it is as it should be.

But it's still just a law made by men, and it can be amended - and can even be amended quickly if the will is there. I'm not saying it is changed constantly, just that it can be. The process is difficult, but the process does exist, and is used. It has been amended 27 times, and most of those amendments will have taken far less than 202 years, you just picked the one that took the most insane amount of time as your sole example. It truly is just another law - a law with a lot of extra protections around it, but still just another law.

1. The US is the longest lasting republic in human history. This is in no small part due to the Godly wisdom employed in the drafting of the Constitution.
2. Yes, when there is overwhelming support the Constitution can be quickly amended.
3. But in no circumstance can it be amended at will.

When the Congress and the courts stray from the path set down in the Constitution it can sometimes take a long time for a correction to occur. Slavery took eighty years to be resolved. Abortion took fifty years. Gun control took fifty years. But the design of the Constitution inevitably leads back to protecting liberty. The court cases involving the COVID tyranny are all inevitably finding against the tyranny that fell on the USA in far too many places that are controlled by Democrats.

When we are blessed with wise judges appointed by an equally wise President like Donald Trump we can see the Constitution used to act quickly against injustice. This is a reminder that elections (fair or corrupt) have consequences and eternal vigilence is the true price of liberty.

 

[MeganC]

Who needs to 'amend' the Constitution? They just ignore it.

It can be ignored for a time but not forever.

 

[Mark C]

That's 202 years plus 223 days to amend the Constitution at will.

It took a lot less time to infringe the hell out of the Second Amendment...

And ask the folks in the DC Gulag about the First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of..." er, rigged elections.

At least they don' need no steenkin' warrants any more...

 

[Mark C]

PS> And how'd it happen? As Jefferson put it the last time Americans actually stood up against a tyrant:
"...subjecting us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and laws..."

People failed to withdraw consent.

"Don't you know that whom you submit yourselves slaves to obey, you are that ones' SLAVES whom your obey..."

You can't serve two masters...

and a lot of other things now ignored by those who think Romans 13 is actually a real translation, (See Exodus 1:15-21 for the real Truth, which hasn't been 'done away with,' either.)

It has a lot of names: Rebellion, 'law of the sea,' 'law of the city,' Babylonian law, Roman civil law -- just not 'constitutional,' and NOTHING to do with the 'common law' either. But it's really "private law" and it's not from Yahuah, but instead...yeah, some call it 'the prince of this world.'

"Choose this day Whom you will serve," still applies.

 

[Maddog]

Who needs to 'amend' the Constitution? They just ignore it.

true but that will not be tolerated for long. Dare we mention any "left handed Benjamites?"

 

[FollowingHim]

1. The US is the longest lasting republic in human history. This is in no small part due to the Godly wisdom employed in the drafting of the Constitution.

Incorrect. The Roman republic lasted for almost 500 years. Does that mean there was even greater Godly wisdom employed in drafting the structure of that republic?

2. Yes, when there is overwhelming support the Constitution can be quickly amended.
3. But in no circumstance can it be amended at will.

Agree with 2. Your dispute seems to be solely with the two words "at will", and I'm not going to argue about words. I'm happy to agree with you that that was a misleading phrase to use, if that's all the debate is about.

 

[MeganC]

Incorrect. The Roman republic lasted for almost 500 years. Does that mean there was even greater Godly wisdom employed in drafting the structure of that republic?

Nope. During the 509-27 BC time of the 'Republic' there were several periods of dictatorship in which the republic was formally suspended. The republic was then restored after whatever crisis had passed.

The US has never had such an interruption to the republican form of government.

 

[Mark C]

The US has never had such an interruption to the republican form of government.

Ouch. Tell that to the BidenFuhrer, for obvious reasons. And who read his teleprompter to say, 'with Democracy, all things are possible!'

Including, obviously the gang rape of the Bill of Rights and mass murder by poison poke and now dioxin.

 

[MemeFan]

Incorrect. The Roman republic lasted for almost 500 years. Does that mean there was even greater Godly wisdom employed in drafting the structure of that republic?

Agree with 2. Your dispute seems to be solely with the two words "at will", and I'm not going to argue about words. I'm happy to agree with you that that was a misleading phrase to use, if that's all the debate is about.

Incorrect.

Most Serene Republic of Venice is winner with 1100 years.

Republic of Venice - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Check their Doge elections. May more tampering proof. I have heard that they had law where after Doge death, his family finances were checked. If they have found evidence of corruption his family would lose everything.

 

[Mark C]

...Venice is winner with 1100 years.

Thanks - I was gonna point that out. It/They were a topic of discussion among the Founders.

(As were 'demonocracies', which "were as short in their lives as they were violent in their deaths," being, "the Devil's own government.")

 

[FollowingHim]

Nope. During the 509-27 BC time of the 'Republic' there were several periods of dictatorship in which the republic was formally suspended. The republic was then restored after whatever crisis had passed.

The US has never had such an interruption to the republican form of government.

I was wrong as @MemeFan has pointed out, so I am no longer arguing that the Roman Republic was the longest republic in history. But the office of "dictator" was an official office of the Roman republic. In times of crisis (mostly war) they would elect a "dictator" to lead the republic through that crisis. They were supposed to give up their power after 6 months, the early ones did, some kept it for longer, which was a bending of the law. But the existence of a dictatorship was not a suspension of the republic, it was the very mechanism the republic had intentionally established to deal with emergencies.

 

[MeganC]

I was wrong as @MemeFan has pointed out, so I am no longer arguing that the Roman Republic was the longest republic in history. But the office of "dictator" was an official office of the Roman republic. In times of crisis (mostly war) they would elect a "dictator" to lead the republic through that crisis. They were supposed to give up their power after 6 months, the early ones did, some kept it for longer, which was a bending of the law. But the existence of a dictatorship was not a suspension of the republic, it was the very mechanism the republic had intentionally established to deal with emergencies.

True, the dictators were installed by design but during their reign the Senate was often suspended, the rights of Romans were often suspended, and their actions set the stage for the eventual end of the Republic and the start of the Imperial period.

It is a horrible slog to read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but I recommend it as it serves as a warning for countries like ours whose freedoms turned out to be very fragile and transitory these past few years.

On the upside of reading Gibbons he definitely improved my vocabulary!

 

[FollowingHim]

It's on my list to read! Just started "the history of Rome" podcast.

 

[MemeFan]

True, the dictators were installed by design but during their reign the Senate was often suspended, the rights of Romans were often suspended, and their actions set the stage for the eventual end of the Republic and the start of the Imperial period.

It is a horrible slog to read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but I recommend it as it serves as a warning for countries like ours whose freedoms turned out to be very fragile and transitory these past few years.

On the upside of reading Gibbons he definitely improved my vocabulary!

You are confusing two different institutions with same name.

Dictator in early republic was sort of "military firefighter". He couldn't seize any political power since people who had political power were with him (as soldiers). Why would soldiers give up their voting rights? They had no reason.

Dictator in late republic was what we today would some dictator and/or tyrant. They could seize all political power since soldiers were paid by them.

Just because some position had same name in two different periods doesn't mean they are same institution.

 

[Mark C]

Just because some position had same name in two different periods doesn't mean they are same institution

Much like 'president'...

 

[Hisdaughter]

Well... You have yourselves a site here with quite a few of the old-timers who are well versed in Bible Law. Just point at the best and call those people judges now. Used to be that just a bunch of old guys sitting in the city gate got their kicks in retirement by judging cases. Several of you here are already bored and want the job because you already jump on here to help arbitrate the questions posed. Some of you actually are qualified for such a position.

And yes, a good judiciary supports healthy 'dating' just like in Ruth when Boaz brought the near of kin before the elders. They were witnesses to the legal proceedings of acquiring Naomi as a wife and her estate. Oh, and the complication of the Moabitess tag-along.

Sorry the old timers comment got me.

 

[rockfox]

Biblical judiciaries have committed too many atrocities and injustices and that is why they fell out of favor.

The Pharisees who persecuted Christians, the Spanish Inquisition, and the persecution of witches, Jews, Baptists, Methodists, and etc. all come to mind here.

None of whom killed more (individually or in sum) than the Athiestic communists legally murdered in the 20th century.

Human's aren't perfect, there were always be abuses. At least I can pick my church (judiciary). Not so with the state.

The US has never had such an interruption to the republican form of government.

Yep it lived a short troubled life before being put unmercifully to death by old Abe.