My favorite quote. Those who don't like this quote don't truly love liberty. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but it seems that our government always falls down on the side of restricting liberty. That's usually the easy way to address a problem. Could we not be more creative, think a little harder, and solve problems without destroying liberty? Is the only solution to terrorists hijacking or blowing up planes to stop honest, law abiding citizens from bringing pocket knives, scissors, and fingernail clippers on airplanes? It seems like every response to criminal acts is to take away liberty from everybody ... punish the law-abiding citizen along with the criminal, and if you don't like it, you are supporting the criminals. Is there no way to maintain a safe, ordered society without taking away the liberties of all?

" ... for the children"

David, the Constitution provides for amendments, but it is rightly a rigorous process. I don't think that's what this quote is getting at. I think it is saying not to make major changes as a knee-jerk reaction to "emergencies". If that were the case, the DCeivers would be constantly creating emergencies to change the law to suit their needs ... wait, they do that now. Oh well, the Constitution was a good idea at the time. " 'Necessity' is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."--William Pitt (1759-1806) British Prime Minister (1783-1801, 1804-06) during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Source: Speech, House of Commons, 18 November 1783

Also if he had seen the power that the federal government would attain as a result of the Union victory.

If property is "public" property and owned by the public, why should the "public" have to pay to use it? Also, you talk about finding a school that teaches what you believe and pay to go there. I do that. My school is at home taught by my wife and I, but I still have to pay for government education. How is that right? And even though I pay for their schools and their teachers, I can't use their facilities or classes, and my children can't participate in any of their activities.

Good point David.

Great points E Archer and Mike in Norwalk. Imagine if we had a federal government full of Jeffersons.

David is right. the THEORY of Evolution (which is taught in government schools as fact to the exclusion of any other possibility) is not science. It is full of holes. It actually takes more faith to believe in Evolution than in Intelligent Design. Reston, just how has the "radical religous right" stolen our very language from us? That's a very dramatic statement.

WOW. For once, I agree (mostly) with Reston.

I don't know the details of this Military Commissions Act, but I have seen statements from some very conservative, Constitutional organizations which claim this act marks the death of habeus corpus in America. This is the third piece of major legislation the Bush administration and this "conservative" Congress have passed which have very serious constitutional concerns. If we continue on this path of trading freedom for security, ???

The problem is not "government". We need government to provide order, to provide for the common defense, to enforce just laws and meet out justice in society. Without government, it would be survival of the fittest. The only rights we would have are those we could take for ourselves by force. The problem is that government is run by man and what man brings to government. As Jesus said, "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man."

EXCELLENT points Logan and Mike. I agree 100%.

"children of the State" ... this is so sad. I don't see how ANYBODY could agree with this.

Dick, no, I don't really see how licencing of drivers has made the public safer. I, as a parent will require far more driving skill of my children (because I love them) than the state does or ever would. The purpose of licencing by the State is a matter of control, not public safety.

Yeah Reston, I hate that my kids aren't in an outside system "which actually show some semblance of rigorous thought processes". I guess that's why they consistently score in the 95th percentile on the standardized tests (Iowa test) they take every year. Wonder why colleges say they prefer homeschoolers because they demonstrate the capacity for independent thought and independent study much more than children from public schools? If you are referring to public schools as demonstrating "rigorous thought processes", that is laughable. Public schools are bastions of liberalism and political correctness. It doesn't surprise me that you sing their praises.

Move to communist China, and your wish will come true. I guess since the State owns us, they have the right to licence everything we do. Unbelievable.

What ARROGANCE.

Well said Logan. I am one of those evil parents who home school my children. These anti-liberty, nanny-state, big-government types just HATE the idea of children being outside of their control and influence. They want to make our children into THEIR mold. Independent thinking is baaaaad. Non-conformity is baaaaad. They have made the State their god, but the State is made up of people. What makes them more able to determine my or my children's welfare better than me.

Wow dude ... that is profound.

One side note - the above won't keep the tyrants from throwing you in jail.

From the Citizen's Rule Book (http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/1/CRB.htm). "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows: 'All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.' Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) 'When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.' Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. 'An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.' Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442 'The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.' 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Based on this quote, we have an awful lot of "tyrant's will" going on in government. Examples abound.

Very true, but what if my neighbor doesn't care about his rights? I believe strongly in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The people who would take that right from me don't want it for themselves either.

Yeah, and the prisons are full of non-conformists too.

"people like David or Mike"?? Jack, you don't know me or my mindset or my beliefs, and I didn't see any facts presented to change my mind either. I guess you have an open mind which you would be willing to change to begin supporting Bush if you were presented with the "right" facts. I voted for Bush both times, but I don't particularly like what he has done in his Presidency (but for much different reasons than you I suspect). He was simply the lesser of two evils. BTW, Jesus said to the theif on the cross after he professed faith in Him "today you will be with Me in paradise". I doubt He had "floating around with a harp" for eternity or a sex-fest with 70 virgins in mind when he said that. That wouldn't be my idea of paradise either (besides which I have no clue how to play a harp).