Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | RSS
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Folks, once you understand this, the sun is going to be brighter than you’ve ever seen it before. Of course, you can then tweet me and use hashtag #liferuined because your life will be ruined [politically speaking]. You’ll look around and go: Man, nothing is the way it’s supposed to be! Bingo. I cannot tell you how many thousands of emails, Facebook messages, tweets, text messages to me that people have tried to insist to me, [mocking] “I’ve got my constitutional rights. You’re looking the wrong way at the Constitution. It’s supposed to be a charter rights there. I’ve got my constitutional rights. You’ve got it all backwards.” No, you have it backwards, sir.
Check out today’s transcript AND Clip of The Day for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7, here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike
HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CHURCH DOCTRINE – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW
[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]
Mike: From the introduction to Bradford’s book, Forrest McDonald — he, by the bye, is the historian who wrote the essay “Was the 14th Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? The answer is no. You can find that in your downloads section if you’re a Founders Pass member of MikeChurch.com. Go read it today. It’s fascinating stuff.
“[The idea behind nomocratic constitutionalism] is that the Constitution was designed to bring government under the rule of law, as opposed to achieving any specific purpose. . . . [T]he Constitution is primarily a structural and procedural document, specifying who is to exercise what powers and how.”
Mike: Folks, once you understand this, the sun is going to be brighter than you’ve ever seen it before. Of course, you can then tweet me and use #liferuined because your life will be ruined. You’ll look around and go: Man, nothing is the way it’s supposed to be! Bingo. Forrest McDonald is writing about the Constitution:
“[T]he Constitution is primarily a structural and procedural document, specifying who is to exercise what powers and how. It is a body of law, designed to govern, not the people, but government itself; and it is written in language intelligible to all, that all might know whether it is being obeyed. The alternative, teleocratic view, is one that has come into fashion the last few decades and has all but destroyed the original Constitution. This is the notion that the design of the Constitution was to achieve a certain kind of society, one based upon abstract principles of natural rights or justice or equality or democracy or all of the above.”
Mike: Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot tell you how many thousands of emails, Facebook messages, tweets, text messages to me that people have tried to insist to me, [mocking] “I’ve got my constitutional rights. You’re looking the wrong way at the Constitution. It’s supposed to be a charter rights there. I’ve got my constitutional rights. You’ve got it all backwards.” No, you have it backwards, sir. It was not ratified to establish a society. How do we know this? This is why Bradford’s book is important. You don’t need Bradford. Just go find the archives online and read the debates in the ratifying convention yourself. You could spend the next month and a half of your life reading the daily transcripts from Virginia’s ratifying convention, and I suggest that you do so if you really want to understand this. Or you can read Bradford’s book, Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution.
Before you send me an email and demand I send you the title, it’s at the bottom of any post at MikeChurch.com. I know it pains you to go there but just give it a try. There is an Amazon widget. If you scroll through it, you’ll see all of Bradford’s books. Back to Forrest McDonald:
“This is the notion that the design of the Constitution was to achieve a certain kind of society, one based upon abstract principles of natural rights or justice or equality or democracy or all of the above. [Mike: I’m just going to reiterate, most of you people believe this, and you believe it because you have been propagandized. You have been lied to. You have been brainwashed. We have to un-train you before we can train you.] It holds that the specific provisions of the document are of secondary importance or none at all; what counts are the “principles” it supposedly embodies, usually principles based upon the Declaration of Independence or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, neither of which has any standing in the law.”
Marshall DeRosa, working out of McDonald’s paradigm, offers additional clarification regarding the difference between nomocratic and teleocratic constitutional schemes:
“If the Constitution is essentially nomocratic, then the federal courts would be restricted to the enforcement of constitutionally established procedures through which participants in the political process compete against one another in the attempt to have their respective interest prevail in the public policy-making process, whether those interests are economic, social, cultural, religious, regional, and/or political. Judicial review would be invoked when the procedures are allegedly breached, with the courts being responsible for upholding the constitutional integrity of the political process. Under this model political questions are nonjusticiable. This does not mean that the Constitution fails to place limits on nomocratic procedures for making public policy. It certain does (see Art. I, sections nine and ten and the Bill of Rights), but these limits were nomocratically produced through the drafting and ratifying of constitutional provisions. . . . Nevertheless, if the U.S. Constitution is construed to be a teleocratic a priori embodiment of truth, justice, and righteousness, with U.S. Supreme Court justices serving as its privileged interpreters, then popular control over important areas of public policy becomes precarious and subject to the domination of exclusive interests—usually ideological in nature—which at any particular period of constitutional development may exercise control over the policy-making process through the institutional Supreme Court.” [/private]
Mike: That’s all I’m going to do here with Mendenhall because it’s 13 pages long if you print it out at 12-point type. I suggest you read it. It’s posted in today’s Pile of Prep. I believe he wrote this back in 2012. It’s essential stuff to understand the difference. This will help also with your understanding of the Incorporation Doctrine. Only a teleocratic fool is embracive and receptive to the idea of incorporating the Bill of Rights for use against the states, making the First and Second Amendment, for example, universal from the ice world of Hoth, all the way over to Romulus, through the Stargate and back, and then back down to Uganda. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work and it’s not the way you should want it to work.
Let’s start our year and get the little things correct. We are nomocrats. If I can convince you to be a nomocrat, the rest will follow easily. It won’t be such a stretch. You won’t have to go through these mighty gesticulations of intellectual rigor, [mocking] “Mike, I don’t understand it. I’ve got my rights from the Declaration of Independence.” Stop tying the Declaration to the Constitution. The two are unrelated. Sever the cord. Take a saw out and cut it for Heaven’s sake!
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Great post, Mike. I have long said the founders could have stopped after the Declaration, and let the States figure out defense and commerce issues. There was no need to create a royal overseer.
Thank for your confirmation.