This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?
Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog
Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?
The Constitution of the United States is an undeniably powerful document. So powerful in fact, that it took establishment elitists with aspirations of globalized governance over a century to diminish the American people’s connection to it. It’s been a long time coming, but in the new millennium, there is now indeed a subsection of the masses that not only have no relationship to our founding roots, they actually despise those of us who do!
There are a number of reasons for this dangerous development in our culture: A public school system that rarely if ever teaches children about the revolution, the founders, constitutional liberty, or the virtues of individualism in general. A mainstream media apparatus that has regurgitated endless anti-constitutional shlock for decades, attacking any person or group that presents a freedom oriented view. And a governmental structure that has become so corrupt, so openly criminal, that they ignore all aspects of constitutional law without regard, rarely feeling the need to explain themselves. As a people, we are surrounded daily by the low droning wash-talk of denigration and disdain for our principled foundations. The wretched ghosts of collectivism and tyranny mumble in our ears from birth to death. It’s truly a miracle that every man and woman in this nation has not succumbed to the mind numbing hypnotism…
However, our propaganda soaked environment is not the ONLY cause of our self destructive society; many people are themselves to blame. Severe character flaws and psychological imbalances have left some open to suggestion, manipulation, and fraud. Their hatred, though fueled in part by the socialization of the establishment, is still theirs to own.
The brutal ignorance on display in mainstream circles against the liberty-minded needs to be addressed. In my view, the American public is being conditioned to see us as a convenient “enemy” which they can use to project all their internal grief and woe. Our country is on the verge of collapse, economically, politically, and philosophically. Corporatized elements of our government and the financial high priests of the international banking sector are behind this calamity, and of course, they don’t plan to take responsibility. Who better to demonize as the catalyst for all the pain that is coming than the only people who have the awareness and the means to stand against the catastrophe?
There is no doubt in my mind that a great conflict is near, between those of us who value liberty and constitutional protections, and those who would destroy them. This battle is unlikely to be solved with words. The anti-constitutionalist rhetoric is becoming so ruthless, so malicious, that it can only lead to a hardening of our own hearts, and an equally forceful response.
Most of us have seen all the mainstream magazines with front page headlines calling for the retirement of the Constitution. Most of us know about the suggestions by media entities and political opportunists (including Joe Biden) for Barack Obama to bypass congress and the Constitution, implementing possible gun restriction, registration, and confiscation through “executive order” like a common dictator. There is an obviously brash and violent effort amongst political players today to mold our government into a godlike entity. But, this is not what concerns me most. What concerns me is the subversive boiling poison that is leaking into our culture at the local level, creating freedom hating zombies. Take, for instance, the anti-constitutionalist crusade by a New Hampshire representative against the New Hampshire Free State Project:
What causes someone to hate freedom-loving people so much that they would destroy their own liberties just to drive us away? Is this not cutting off their own nose just to spite OUR face? Or, do they even see the loss of freedom for themselves as a bad thing?
And how about Marine Corporal Joshua Boston, who after sending a letter to Dianne Feinstein stating he would not comply with unconstitutional gun restrictions, is now receiving death threats because of his membership in the NRA:
What is the source of the hatred towards constitutionalists? Where does it originate? Here are just some of the personal triggers and methodologies within the mind of the anti-freedom advocate which I believe have sullied them beyond repair…
The Anti-Constitutionalist Suffers From An Inferiority Complex
I have found in my role as a Liberty Movement analyst and through literally tens of thousands of debates that anti-constitution advocates are, for the most part, of limited intelligence. These are the average useful idiots who know little of history, politics, economics, etc., but feel the desperate need to appear as though they are experts on everything. This usually results in constant attempts to show off for anyone who will pay attention, usually with sound-bites they heard on the nightly news coupled with remedial attacks against the character of those who dare to step outside the mainstream.
The problem is that deep down, they know they are not very bright. And so, they seek to always travel with the herd on every issue, for if they cannot be smart, they can at least be accepted. Ironically, if constitutionalism was being pushed by the mainstream, they would automatically change their tune.
It is probable that they have run into a Liberty Movement proponent (most of whom are well versed in history, politics, and economics) at least once in their lives, went in for an attack, and were utterly destroyed. Their inferiority exposed, they learn to detest anything associated with constitutionalism.
The Anti-Constitutionalist Does Not Like The Idea Of A Law He Cannot Use To His Advantage
Not all anti-constitutionalists are dense. A limited few are very intelligent, but morally bankrupt. The Constitution is not just a legal document; it is also an emotional and spiritual document. If one does not have a relationship with his own conscience and the concept of natural law, then he will discover little in the founding ideals of America that he agrees with. Some people (usually corrupt politicians and judges) see the law as a weapon to be used against their ideological opponents, whereas constitutionalists see the law as a shield to protect us from such despots. The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are both designed to protect our Absolute Freedoms. That is, freedoms that are inborn and which no person or government is qualified to give as a gift, or take as if they are a privilege.
Nothing angers those who seek power more than a legal framework which they are not allowed to touch, or shift, or “tweak” to suit their private ambitions.
Constitutional protections are not meant to be subject to the “buts” and “what ifs” common in the lesser legal world. They are not open to debate. Our rights are not subject to the demands of the so-called “majority”. Our rights are eternal, and unchangeable. Anti-constitutionalists attempt to work around the absolutes of the document by implementing subversive law backed by flawed logic. But, a law which destroys previous constitutional rights is not a law which any individual American is required to follow. Even an amendment that undermines our civil liberties is not legally binding. The freedoms put forth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are SET IN STONE (and this includes the right to bear arms in common use of the military of our day). They cannot be undone without destroying the very fabric of the republic.
The Anti-Constitutionalist Hates Those Who Go Against The Tide, Even If The Tide Is Drowning Us All
Some people are predisposed to be followers. They do not want to take responsibility for their futures or even their own actions. They do not like questions. They do not like dilemmas. They want to be left to wallow in their own private prisons, where they are comfortably enslaved.
I remember participating in an End The Fed rally in Pittsburgh in early 2008 which was, like most activist rallies, meant to expose the uneducated public to ideas they may not have heard before. I found it interesting that around a quarter of the people who strolled by our picket line automatically sneered, as if by reflex, even though they had probably never heard our position, or even heard of the Fed. It dawned on me that they were not angered by our political or economic views. Instead they were angered by the mere fact that we were there. We were vocal, and defiant, and a disruption to their daily robot-like routine. They hated us because we were ruining their fantasy of disconnectedness.
Constitutionalists are predominantly individualists. We do not cater to collectivist fairy tales. We do not seek to roll with the tide just for the sake of finding our “place” within the machine. We do not care about “fitting in” with the mainstream. This is often confounding and infuriating to those who have labored their whole lives to please “the group”. They accuse us of being “isolationists” in response. What they do not comprehend is that illusion and delusion have isolated THEM, while the truth has brought constitutionalists together.
Constitutionalists Are Not Politically Correct
For the past few decades our society has become engrossed with the idea of “proper language and behavior”. Of course, their idea of “proper” usually involves ignoring the reality of a thing. For a Constitutionalist, a spade is a spade, and we tend to call it like we see it. We don’t bother ourselves with superficial niceties that get in the way of legitimate debate or legitimate change. We are not “pleasant” and tolerant with those who would kill our freedoms. We do not pull punches.
We are direct, and sometimes, brutal in our analysis.
In some parts of the Western world (especially the UK) language has become a game, a game of self censorship and deceit. This game has made its way to the United States in recent years, and Constitutionalists don’t play. We know that every overtly collectivist society begins with the fear of open expression. And so, our blunt honesty rattles those invested in the PC culture. Their ultimate and ideal revenge would be to see us painted as social malcontents; like people who smoke in public, or wear a mullet…
Constitutionalists Are Passionate In Their Beliefs
A large percentage of men and women in this world have never been truly passionate about anything. They simply eat, breath, and defecate their way through life, scrounging about the squalor of a broken system for whatever brief moments of comfort they can find. They have never explored their inner workings or suffered the hardship of individuation. They have never been forced to seek out an inner strength, a personal treasure, which guides them to a greater purpose. Everything they think they believe in has been conditioned into them. Their uniqueness is suppressed, and their characters shallow. They have never loved an idea, or a principle.
Constitutionalists LOVE liberty and the mechanics of freedom. We love the values of a sovereign republic and the opportunities that such a system provides when collectivists are removed from the picture. There is no question or doubt in our minds; we would fight and die to protect the pillars of the Constitution.
When confronted with this kind of passion, the average person is shocked and sometimes appalled. The idea of unshakable will is frightening to them. They are so used to compromising in every aspect of their lives that when they run into an uncompromising man, they reel in horror.
That which they see as “fanaticism” is instead an excitement, a boundless joy, a fervent desire to protect something universal and precious. What they see as “extreme”, we see as essential.
The Anti-Constitutionalist Thinks He Knows What’s Best For All Of Us
Most people who seek to deny and destroy constitutional liberties tend to lean towards a collectivist philosophy. They are usually socialist, or a variation (Marxist, Fascist), and can be professed members of either major political party. They believe that their vision of a perfect cultural system is the “correct” vision. They see the Constitution as “archaic” or “outdated”. They see it as nothing more than an obstacle to progress which must be toppled.
The “perfect world” that the collectivist strives for functions on centralization: the removal of options until there are no choices left for the common man except those which the collectivist wants him to have. This world usually suffers from limited free speech, limited civic participation, zero tolerance for dissent, near zero privacy from government eyes, a completely disarmed populous, unaccountable leadership, and the encouragement of informer networks and betrayal for profit. The goal is to intimidate the whole of a nation into dependence on the system, until every necessity from food to self defense is parceled out by the state.
Collectivists understand one thing very clearly; an America without the Constitution is destined to become a centralized country.
They will, of course, claim this is a gross exaggeration. They will claim that this time will be different. That the collectivist experiments of the past, which produced nothing but destruction and genocide of their own populations, are nothing similar to what they are espousing. They will pretend as if their vision is new, progressive, and far more practical than the vision of the Founding Fathers. In the end though, all they are promoting is a system as old as history; the feudal kingdom. The mercantile oligarchy. The militarized state.
At the height of their vicious sabotage of the republic, they will demonize our very heritage, claiming that it was a sham. That we were never able to “live up to our beliefs anyway”. That we are “hypocrites”, and this somehow negates the reverence we give to the Constitution. Unfortunately for them, we know better. We understand that the principles of the Constitution are not something we grasp at all times, but rather, something to which we aspire to, and grow into as our nation matures. They require patience, and wisdom. They force us to question our own “brilliance”, and our own egos. They anchor us, preventing us from being swept away in the storms of fear.
There has never been and there will never be a better method of law and governance than that method which defends the individualism and freedom of the people. The most fantastic of human accomplishments, in technology as well as in philosophy, spring from the nurturing waters of liberty. Free minds and hearts create. They refuse to be contained, and the Constitution gives us license to ensure that they will never be contained, even to the point of revolution.
To deny constitutionalism, is to endorse oppression. May we forever rebel against the agents of “progress”. May we forever give them something to hate.
- 28147 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


We do have the King of England rule us. All the presidents except 1 are descended from King John, from the House of Plantagenet, themselves descended from the Counts of Anjou, known as the 'Devil's Brood'.
The royal family in England now are not Windsors, but rather Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, from Germany. Somewhere along the line they pushed out the Stuarts, who somewhere pushed out the Plantagenet line. They changed the name to Windsor in 1917, because of WWI.
The people that run this country are all related to this royal line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1if6tJO2GA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=praStCVY8gA
Doesn't change the financial picture, but helps to know who the players are.
Damn fine article...like sleeping in milena velba's tits fine. Good call td.
“Lovers of liberty” should defend the Declaration of Independence; not the Constitution.
Lovers of Lady Liberty shall be one thing: be 'Americans' because promoting and securing freedom everywhere we go and are, that is what,we 'americans', we The People do and will keep doing.
Signed: an American.
Piggly, wiggly, birdbath, pie.
Cat hips, fish lips, poke you in the eye.
Is that what you're trying to say?
.
Made me laugh. Wordings of that nature exceeding by very much the intelligibility of Chinese citizenism talking mouth AnAnonymous when he is monolizing the speeching means.
okay now Intoxicologist, that was a genuine lol ^^
Alas, not one of my originals.
Straight out of "Whack Your Porcupine" by B. Kliban. (RIP)
It just seemed fitting.
feelings of inadequacy.
Where does the hate come from for the Constitution? Maybe it has something to do with this.
Will Smith playing Chris Gardner kept saying throughout the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" that life, liberty and the pursiut of happiness was never guaranteed. Indeed, the appeal of our once constitutional republic offered the opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People were different back then, I guess, many embraced this opportunity and within a relatively short period of time, historically speaking, America went from a bunch of pioneers to the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen. However, enter a small band of political upstarts who offered another deal - the guarantee of life, liberty and happiness. Never mind the proven success of the first model, it’s hard to ignore such an offer that is guaranteed? No risk in the latter, no pain, sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears either. Hence people bought it. Too bad that many, if not most, are unable to see that they may still be living but as far as "liberty" goes they gave that up for "security". So what about happiness? The number 1 medical problem right now in the US is...mental health. The US alone consumes 2/3rds of all the psychotropic drugs in the entire world. No one is happy.
You know what else happened, purely coincidentally - I'm sure? Coal and oil use, and manufacturing, exploded.
Plus we had a whole continent of mostly useful land we could take for pretty much free instead of having to pay 3 years salary for a tiny lot. And you could build your own house out of logs instead of going into debt for 30 years.
aye, never mind that there were already established families with history already living on that "land" that was so "useful" and taken for "free". . .
karma baby. what goes around, comes around, & might bite yer ass in the end.
Off topic, but found it by going to Tom Woods website after watching the above video. From the book Economics in One Lesson:
"Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore."
Fucking brilliant!
Link to booK:
http://c457332.r32.cf2.rackcdn.com/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lessonOCR.pdf
Oh barf!
America is the land of conformity, TV and mass-consumption. Nobody wants to be an individual in America, some Facebook Friend might not like him (or her) any more ... or a boss might find out about it.
This article is a misrepresentation. It is about a largely unregulated category of consumer products that has been puffed up into some sort of 'Constitutional Issue'. There is no difference from regulating firearms and regulating motor vehicles.
Firearms owners should be accountable at all times. They should be able to demonstrate competence at a firing range before an instructor before they can possess any firearm. The instructor should be held accountable for the persons he- or she signs off on. This is something police academies do, the process should be expanded and include local police.
The seller of a firearm must be willing to be held accountable for the actions of the buyer: to put himself 'on the hook' for any subsequent mis-behavior before a sale is made. Manufacturers must also be held legally accountable for use of their products, the same as with food. Right now, milk is more regulated than firearms ... which is nonsense.
The foregoing has nothing to do with 'freedom' which has been subverted to mean unrestricted access to one- or another mass-marketed industrial products. 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' have become the 21st century's smelly underarm. When you see these words on the Internet you better run, there is a big-business pimp coming to get you!
BTW: neo-Nazi paramilitary- and 'militia' groups -- many with 'freedom' and 'liberty' in their names -- should be investigated by the FBI with the intent to break them up and prosecute ring-leaders under criminal racketeering statutes. Long prison terms would serve to warn others.
Law and Order, Bitchez!
oh barf? aside from the fact the right to own and operate a vehicle (or horse, locomotive, whatever) is not constitutionally protected I guess your sophistry is good. but then i'm not a hater of the constitution.
"There is no difference from regulating firearms and regulating motor vehicles."
Right, none for both.
You are no MDB.
What is an 'MBD'? Is that like a Seahawks' fan?
How do the Belichick fans fit into that regime? New England 'Patriots'. How 'bout those Redskins?
"Steve, never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person," ... Steve's mom.
First of all, owning property in the US is indeed constitutionally protected. Saying otherwise is a) simply wrong, b) foolish. Ownership does not confer unlimited rights: instead it does the opposite, ownership assigns responsibilites (that is why there are corporations). Right now, many interested parties exercise their own (selfish) rights while passing on the responsibilities -- and the costs -- onto others.
The government has the responsibility to regulate property: this is not a right that the oppressive government has taken upon itself but a duty, an obligation a 'state' or sovereign has to its own people. Regulation prevents mercury smelters from setting up shop next to schools or food processers making hamburger out of cadavers.. Regulation enforces contracts. It's a crowded world with multiple claims against it ... there must be a referee, the alternatives are a) poverty as in Asian/African shanty-towns or b) unregulated conflict. Both are too costly.
Claims of big business are crowding out other claims which is a reason for our current economic crisis. It's also a symptom so the dynamic is self-amplifying.
Unregulated firearms use is imposing costs that do not exist in other countries, rich or poor. It is reasonable to address the costs and for the government to assign responsibilities. It's dumb to pretend costs don't exist or to make threats when the referees do their jobs.
There is no difference between demanding officials regulate bankers and demanding officials regulate firearms.
To those interested in overthrowing the government for whatever reason, there is no need for a constitutional amendment sanctioning it. In fact, the concept is illogical. What the so-called 'Constitutionalists' -- including the Supreme Court -- suggest ('as a stay against the hand of the tyrant') -- is self contradictory. An exercise of the 2d amendment would be the undoing of the constitution itself.
If a tyrant should appear, there would be no constitution as it would be suspended ... as a matter of fact. If the same tyrant was dislodged by time or effort the 2d Amendment would not justify anything for there would be nothing to justify.
Folks have to make up their minds what it is they want, a constitution or a vacuum.
I personally would like to see the 2d Amendment repealed and all industrial products fall under stringent regulation. I would severely restrict private auto- and fuel use. All of these things -- autos and fuel waste -- are in the process of bankrupting the country/world. To grasp this 'bankruptcy' concept is to see the contradiction at the center of the 2d Amendment. We either turn loose of our consumer 'toys' or they strangle us with their costs.
Part of the ZH commentariat would qualify as hate-group: blatant Jew hatred, negro hatred, Mexican hatred, etc. Part of the so-called 'prepper underground' considers massacring hungry people ('zombies') who might come to the door looking for something to eat. America is a violent country, it has been more or less continually at war since 1941, it is a fools' paradise of (false) prosperity that is hollow and unrewarding. The country has been transformed: made ugly and mean, we all live a gigantic parking structure populated with whizzing metal boxes going from nowhere to nowhere. There is nothing in the physical America to care about any more ... and nobody cares about any other person. To be mentally ill is reasonable, we have created the conditions for it.
Instead of figuring out ways to murder our (black/Jewish/moslem/Mexican) neighbors more efficiently ... and how to rationalize it afterward ... we need to maake positive changes.
Step back from the machines and the TV. Get out of debt, get rid of the car, start running your life instead of having Walmart and Bank of America doing so. Put these companies out of business, they are your enemies, they exist right under your nose, here and now.
I have a Flite-Control 12 gage buckshot shell designated for the head of the first motherfucker that pokes his head in my door to inventory what I own like they do in Australia, etc.
And from there the party continues.
Out with a bang, not a whimper.
So what happened with the property tax assessor?
You don't have the balls to tell them to get off of your property? I do. You must be from a Blue State. But you probably like being rolled in powder so they can probe where it looks wet.
Brandon , I saw a similar, must-see video earlier and perhaps no Second Amendment statement has ever been made that is more profound than Joshua Boston’s when he declared that “Unconstitutional law is not law.”
From the video: Ret. Marine Absolutely Owns CNN Anchor On 2nd Amendment - "Unconstitutional Law…"
CNN anchor Randi Kaye: But the law is the law if it becomes law and you’re just willing to break it?
Boston to Kaye: Unconstitutional law is not law.
Marine to Senator Diane Feinstein: No ma’am, I won’t register my guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOjI6laKGYU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The Constitution of the United States is a dead document to those that lead our society and the centers of econometric power that sustain them. Get used to it folks.
An overriding principle of the establishment is that war is stimulative. As the severity of the crisis' of their design and implementation are realized the primary card left to play is fomenting a huge war as that is the tried and true vehicle for the crowd in power. The never let a crisis go to waste and the bigger the stimulus the better crowd realizes simply relying on the weather isn't nearly enough to do what needs to get done. The natural evolution of such a process is seizing control via the employment of Executive Order (diktat) rendering this experiment in self government moot as the power that remains is the very essence of a dictatorship, not a constitutionally premised tri-centers of power republic.
No wonder politicians, the corporate executives that own them and the water boy economists, lawyers, lobbyists and the rest of the lap dance parasites that live by sucking off some flow all subscribe to the notion the US needs a huge shot of not just war as that may not be enough, but of civil war stimulus as that is appreciated to be the most destructive form of warfare to get the charts back on the glide path to the Birinyi Equilibrium Theorem. What better way to move the ball than by co-opting those that abhor the violence this dictatorship fuels by selling them on the idea that if the government has all the guns they'll have nothing to be concerned with. Sheesh!
Besides, these efforts also have the added effect of imposing scarcity in the firearms markets so that all the guns sold to drug and terrorist gangs by this and previous administrations under Fast & Furious NAFTA economic stimulus programs, and many others, will instantly double in repatriated value for the gangs .. while paying a handsome dividend to HSBC just as that bank gets to provide a 1.9B toll for doing precisely this.
No wonder econometrics and its accompanying managers of mayhem are so disdained by those that still aspire to a society ruled by responsible self government while being loved and adored by the mass of morons who would believe there is such a thing as a free lunch rather than appreciating that by doing so they become the free lunch.
i don't know where the hatred of the constitution comes from, all i know is that it was not written for any of you. LOL
Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?
A cursory study of its history.
As Obama would say you didn't write that.
dude loves freedom so much he signed his life away to the marines....logical...
Most successful countries rewrite their constiution pretty often. Nothing sacred about a 200 year old document that was written when the world was pretty much completely different.
Yes and we have a procedure to do so that is spelled out in the Constitution.....
The document has nothing to do with the technological "world" per se. It is a document developed and written in order that men of moral character may govern themselves. Whether it be 200 years ago or 200 years from now.
It's rather silly that today's liberals worship at the altar of millions of years of Darwinian evolution and then turn around and claim that mankind has somehow magically changed in only the last 200 years.
What nonsense; what sheer intellectual fraud.
Not so different really. Populated then as now with the same people. The same poeple that populated Rome, and Egypt, Greece, and medeival Europe. Only back then they were braver, beter educated, more literate, and likely healthier and more intelligent than today's expression of humanity. Also more moral and virtuous. Perhaps we might benefit from understanding them.
"The Anti-Constitutionalist Suffers From An Inferiority Complex" said by almost everyone about their political opponent on every significant issue
"
The Anti-Constitutionalist Does Not Like The Idea Of A Law He Cannot Use To His Advantage" - No one does of any law
"
Constitutionalists Are Passionate In Their Beliefs" - North Korea? Communists? Wobblies?
"" -
The Anti-Constitutionalist Thinks He Knows What’s Best For All Of Us - almost everyone does about everything
Seriously, get a clue. There is no law and no Constitution when the President, who is the executor of the laws, is ineligible for the office. Obama was born, and likely still is, a British subject, born to a British subject father. Therefore he is not a natural born Citizen, i.e one born in the US to US Citizen parents (See Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874)). See also Frderalist 68, that Obama Sr. is an improper "ascendant" (ancestor), and thus Obama 2 is not a "creature of their own" (natural born Citizen).
Obama has shown that he is exactly whom the founders were preventing from the office by the natural born Citizen requirement. The NWO has placed him there specifically because he lacks the allegiance or attachment necessary to lead the US, and to take away the sovereignty of US Citizens. Foreign influence was to be prevented at all costs (see Federalists 2-6, and G. Washington's Farewelll address. ("Let there be no change by Usurpation").
If there is no Cinstitution, and no law then there is no liberty/
The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny. Hatred of the Constitution comes from tyrants and tyrant wannabes and the terminally stupid who believe that the government knows best.
Next time I go to the NASCAR Race in NH I'm going to dump my RV'S shit right down the highway.
An excellent article.
It comes from the Constitutionalists' incorrect interpretation of a document that badly needs to be updated.
The document is maleable you know... Seems everyone who doesn't like what is written on it's pages misses this key point. It has had 17 amendments added to it since 1791 including one of those which was later removed concerning a similiar theme of prohibiting things. Please tell how should we interpert it then? By telling us you are exercising the first amendment rights of speech and public assembly here and indirectly petition of the government. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.