The Articles of Confederation Was A Wonderful Instrument – Part 1

It’s a good one. You don’t understand why the Constitution is broke, okay? So the Constitution is extremely thin. You know, you can read the thing in like an hour and understand it. But to make it any more complicated would make it what the legal system is today. It’s a swamp of unimaginable complexity that’s designed to be so complex that the average person doesn’t even want to bother to read it. The Constitution is straightforward. You know, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I mean, there’s not any simpler way in which anyone could put that together.

And yet they’ve been able to attack it as though there was something left in the middle there that, you know, gave them permission to do that. I don’t see a con con as anything more than a way to destroy the United States Constitution. I think our existing Constitution has too many amendments and probably from, you know, somewhere around the original ten up you cut it off and maybe start again with amendments. But most people want to tinker with details. They want to put a pet project in this thing somewhere or whatever. I mean, that would be total destruction.

The idea was you would discover how to deal with each one of these things with your own law, with jurisprudence. But you wouldn’t expect the Constitution to answer every question only to give you broad, you know, setting in which you can’t go out of this area. You can’t go out of that area. You certainly can’t take away somebody’s right to free speech. You can’t remove their guns and weapons. You can’t, you know, not to invade their personal privacy in their papers with the Fourth Amendment. So these are rules that then then govern anything else you do with law.

And if we had good men in a position to do the job of the Supreme Court, you know, but, you know, many people, including me, understand the Supreme Court engineered the destruction of the United States Constitution. But the problem is, how do you come up with a better system than that, except that you reinforce the original ideas that were in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers about how the other branches would police and monitor the other, you know, branches. Well, and I think you make a great, that’s a great question. And I think going back, as you look at John Adams and what he says is that the Constitution was only made for a moral and religious people.

And I think that’s the point, is the morality. And it kind of ties in, you know, to answer the question there is that we were just saying, hey, if we can’t have a con con, and the pendulum has shifted so much far to the tyrannical form of government. And in reality, we pick our representatives, most likely, that mirror the people. So the majority, which I’m going to say just like 51%, but the majority of people, I think, are more tyrannical in their approach. And I think we’ve been programmed to do that. [tr:trw].