a moment from facebook

Jj Solari

12 hrs · 

"The U.S. Constitution has 4,400 words. It is the oldest and shortest written Constitution of any major government in the world."

and for some reason it's still not fully understood by anyone in government and is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted and explained and re-explained in ways contrary to the original explanations and is "living" and changing and yet resolute and final and eternal and simple to understand and yet complex and needing of micro-examining and honing and deciding and re-deciding and declaring and molding and shaping and did i say interpreting? why it's almost mystical and chimerical, this amazing piece of rules and regulations written by a committee of British-loving homesick bureaucrats half drunk with sudden power and not-so-sudden bourbon. Hillsdale College makes millions "teaching" this Instruction Sheet For Bureaucrats all the while insisting its somehow actually talking to you. it isn't. it's talking to your owners. it's written for bureaucrats. it's not written for you. if you are mentioned at all its only by whimsical accident which is being constantly looked at for ways to remove them quietly and without incident.

Like

Like

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

Comment

Share

Comments

Jj Solari how is it the first people to compose a constitution "got it right and perfect the first time " and all the other countries have not. that's not a real question. that's actually a disguised effort to try wake up at least one of your brain cells if only for a microsecond.

it's not written for you

The customary religious doctrine regarding the constitution is that it was written for the populace. It was actually written for bureaucrats. Only government employees are ever referenced with the possible exception of people who are under arrest - which is the main thrust of the bill of rights - it is possible that some of these arrestees are non government personnel. "We the people" is the people who composed the constitution. As is made clear once you start trying to read it. You will never be mentioned. Government will be the sole topic under discussion. You are not there. Except when arrested. Then you appear in the constitution

A Legal Document

When you tell a Republican or a conservative that the Constitution is a legal document, the "tilt" light goes on inside his head. To a Republican or a Conservative the Constitution is a holy collection of Scriptural utterances and Truths that were spoken by Jesus to the, ya know, people who signed their names to it after they had the town hall meeting that the public was not invited to where they voted on it. A lot of people voted against it. you never hear about them. People think I am the first person in American history to have a problem with the Constitution.

Since it is a legal document that means it sets out a ream of conditions. Legal documents are always filled with commands and "how things will be." With most legal documents all the people affected by it have to sign it. The Constitution is allegedly a contract. A contract that involves you personally. However you did not sign it. You are not supposed to see that as an impediment to your being bound under it. But since it is a Holy legal document which has Jesus involved in it since the Constitution is Sacred...then you should not have a problem with it. And you probably don't. In fact you take it on faith, like any good parishioner should, that everything is A-ok with it. Which in reality is not true. In reality the constitution is a hoax that you have bought into. Do I care? Not really, I never particularly liked you in the first place.

the constitution created marx

the constitution was the inspiration for Karl Marx to create the the perfect form of t=what the constitution is merely the outline for: communism.  it's not an accident that communists are always talking about "the people." they got the idea from the constitution's preamble. the first three words hit Marx like three thunderbolts. He probably hung aruond long enough to read the rest of the constitution before it hit him that the constitution was a monumental stroke of genius that itemizes the particulars and spells out how to operate a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is actually just the opposite: a dictatorship of the jailers of the proletariat. Marxism deals in opposites as does, well, the democratic party in america, since they are both identical. this is not to say the republicans and the libertarians and the christian democrats and the nazis and all the other political parties are not marxist; they are. they just think they're something else. at least the democrats are smart enough to know they're marxists. which is of course the attraction; democrats are excited about no one having anything. the democrats are basically a primitive tribe like a mau mau or the apaches: everyone lives in the dirt, takes narcotics 24 hours a day and performs magical rituals to affect the weather. most primitive tribes have some version of the environmental protection agency which is the salient hallmark - other than universal poverty and warfare with other tribes - of primitive cultures. and modern cultures which are basically all primitive cultures. cultures are "group identities" that override individual identities. you'll notice that "business" focuses on individuals. cultures and governments focus on groups. this is why business is universally detested: it goes counter to tribal human history.

upholding the constitution

one of the most baffling things about the constitution is the injunction made by bureaucrats to other bureaucrats "to uphold" the constitution, "to defend" the constitution and to "be loyal to" the constitution. the baffling part is that these people always enthusiastically and even swear an oath to do these things. "Do you swear to uphold the Constitution....." etcetera? They all say "I sure do, bruvva" to that query. But how exactly do you uphold it? How does that action take place? For one thing the Supreme Court was created for the sole purpose of deciding what the constituton actually "says" and what it actually "means." I mean this has been going on since day one 200 + years ago. so should the question really be "do you swear to uphold the constitution no matter how it is interpreted long after you make this agreement"? well, that's kind of a funny thing to agree to, wouldn't you say? do you want someone that fucking wishywashy "representing" you in office? apparently you are not suppose to think these things through to that extent. in other words you are not supposed to think these things through to any sort of concrete reality. youre just supposed to keep it vague and mysterious and sanctified and religious.  which is all that government really is: a secular religion where magic happens as long as the people - whoever they are - will it into being: like scientologists postulating new realities and then they magically appear because "i said so." it's how an infant thinks, in other words.

your alleged right to bear arms

the right to bear arms is not the same thing as the right to own arms. your right to bear arms, constitutionally, means you have the right to be drafted. it does not mean you have the right of ownership of firearms. Now you might say "no one has ever said before that the right to bear arms means you have the right to be drafted. no one has ever said that." Well, i just said it and now that i have every anti-liberty, government-worshipping hebrew "constitutional lawyer" in america will be hot on the trail of making this clear.

your alleged right to bear arms - and lets assume it means you have a right to ownership of a firearm, which it does not actually say - your alledged right to bear arms means that a firearm is the only thing you have a right to own. not that a cop will hesitate to confiscate your guns, he wont, he'll take those along with everything else.

the more you put your faith in the constitution to "protect" you the more you put yourself into danger. your faith in a written list of edicts created by the ilk that is now running california is going to be a faith that is false. adam did the same thing: he put his faith in an impotent dragon anad became one himself. americans who expect the constitution - which has continually made things worse - to suddenly reverse course and make things better are putting their faith into a what is basically the mind of an idiot child.

islam and freedom of religion

the constitution never defines religion. it just says religion gets to slip out from under the weight of the restrictions inherent in constitution by being protected by the constitution. Only the constitution can have this kind of fantastic dexterity. because religion is never defined, islam, the only religion on earth that demands the death of all non members, is protected by the constitution. i would call this being an accessory or an ally or an enabler or a traitor. only the constitution could manage to get itself  into this kind of preposterous fix. to date no one seems to want to fix this because that would result in a constitutional pile of nonsense being fixed. and that has only happened once, with prohibition. prohibition was removed from the constitution and a problem in the constitution got fixed. imagine if everything in the constitution was removed. i know. you cant.