We need about 160 people to be able to charter a plane.If you are interested in this we would need to know by the August 10th this gives us enough time let the travel agency know that we have enough and to reserve the plane.

For more information or to sign up please use our websites Contact page to let me know.

As I read the original constitution I find none. And later some amendments were added that give vague reference to a scant few.

So what would our Founding Father say if they heard the phrase “constitutional rights”?

I have always said that “what the constitution doesn’t say is more important that what it does”. And while it doesn’t directly say you have those rights one could conclude that the constitution at least has some bearing on those rights, to our benefit.

Let’s run you through an exercise, and let start at the beginning. The Constitution starts with “We the People”. In Article 1 sec 1 is starts with “All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…” The question is who granted that power? We the People. Also note the word vested, like invested, so who is the investor? We the People. You can go through many articles and sections asking the same questions, to the point that you can see how all the that was setup was from, We the People.

Now, how does that effect the “Constitutional Rights”. If all the Constitution does is grant or vest powers from We the People, can We the People grant themselves rights? I would content, No. And our Founding Fathers in a one powerful stroke concluded likewise.

In the Declaration of Independence we read, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. So if, We the People, are endowed with rights why is there a need to grant them in the Constitution.

Further read the entire constitution. Each and every section has only to do with granting authority to government bodies. If rights were explicitly written into the Constitution it would mean that a government body (fallible men) has the power to regulate those rights, ie. take them away at their whim.

The Constitution is a Contract. And like a contract We the People have spelled out the exact terms and authority that they (government) have. All authority and rights are ours without the Constitution. And with, the Constitution, they are all ours, just the government is now charged with protecting them. This is what you are seeing in the constitution not the actual granting of rights.

In conclusion I think the phrase “Constitutional Rights” is an oxymoron as how can I (We the People) grant myself rights that I didn’t already have.

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution” Thomas Jefferson

The constitution is a restriction upon certain men, how then can it then also be the grantor of freedom and liberty.

1) Build a quality web presents.
2) Promote their website and upcoming events
3) Use social networking to grow there members and influence

As one of the original organizers for the Eau Claire Tea Party I was tasked with building us a website. With that came the obvious task of promoting it (if no one know it exists, it doesn’t). In that process I have ran into an odd situation. As one of just a handful of well promoted Tea Party events, in Wisconsin, I get a fair number of emails from people trying to find their local tea party organizers. Hence I have setup the Wisconsin Tea Party web site.

This site will server two purposes, first is to promote all Tea Party events and Conservative groups in Wisconsin, and second to help them with the 3 points I listed above.

So if you are a group that has a tea party event or is looking to setup a tea party event in Wisconsin or you are conservative group, in Wisconsin, trying to figure out how to promote yourself on the web, we invite you to join Wisconsin Tea Party.

In March of 1775, attorney Patrick Henry, rode into the small town of Culpepper, Virginia. As he rode into the town square, he was completely shocked by what he witnessed. There, in the middle of the square, was a man tied to a whipping post, his back laid bare, with bones exposed. He had been scourged mercilessly, with whips laced w

“In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.”

One of the points he stresses here is the adherence to truth. He clearly states his positions and unlike a politician he does not try to find out what the latest poll says.

“I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded”

He follows that with a profession that he wishes his actions to be open for judgment

“My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all.”

He then closes that paragraph with a desire to not disgrace truth.

“They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.”

This entire paragraph is unlike anything you would find from a politician. He intends to make his stance known, he wishes to be open in his expression of his determinations and asks to be judged on that. And expresses a desire to not disgrace truth.

Were as most politicians today will never take a firm stand on anything, they are waiting to see what the next poll says  and if the next poll is different they will change there stance. And then to find a politician that tries to be open or forthright in his explaining of a stance would be miracle. And forget a politician ever trying not to disgrace truth, all they do is try to twist truth to their advantage.

He follows that up with;

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

• THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY
• THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION
• TO PRESERVE THAT UNION
• THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT
• THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
• ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION
• THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY

A couple points of interest, look at point 2. What many do not know about out government it was the second attempt to form a government the first had failed. One of the main causes of that failure was the use of paper money. As well some states had more or less, post victory against England, setup there own countries as such goods leaving or enter a state were taxed (with the debts some states had it was heavy taxes) and any kind of joint military action required a bureaucratic nightmare to get accomplished.

Then there is point 5 and its use of the term “Republic”. Use Republic in an open debate and you could loose your head. Many adamantly insist we are a democracy and while true, it is a defacto democracy and our founders would have opposed such a government.

In the next exposition I hope to move into the more substantive articles they wrote.

Federalist Papers

“Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.”

That is from the 3rd paragraph of the first of the federalist papers. One thing I thought I should note is that paragraph may take you a few readings to get he grasp of.  I am of the opinion that our Founding Father grammar skills far exceed most of ours. And so understanding them will require a bit more effort that just reading.

In this paragraph I found is interesting what Alexander Hamilton’s considered to be the main threat to the Constitution.

“the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments”

“A certain class”, better know as  politicians and lawyers, who didn’t wish to risk losing power, or the losing advantage or monetary gain, or facing the consequence of their actions for the abuse of that office.

“and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country”

That is quite phrase. Hamilton felt some men would try to use confusion to promote themselves to a greater position. Does that sound familiar. He called them perverted for doing such, I would dare anyone to stand up in either body of congress and call some of our politicians perverted. Hamilton obviously would have.

In one paragraph in the first Federalist paper Hamilton define some of the largest threats to the Constitution as being men with subversive purposes attempting to undermine it. His words while applied to their present circumstances were prophetic. I think we today now understand what he meant much more clearly. And if he were alive today I would fear what he would do if I was a politician.