A friend has started an organization called the 1776 Project, which he’s kicking off today “hoping to inform and educate voters by promoting the values and principles of a Constitutional government.” Here’s press release explaining the motivation:
The 1776 Project stresses that our Constitution is the single most important civic document in governing our nation. Its provisions, protections and prescriptions are all that is necessary and sufficient to the operation of a good, just and efficient government.
Organizers of the 1776 Project reject the notion that rights are given by government, instead believing the Bill of Rights protects the basic, individual liberties that are derived from natural rights that promote the pursuit of happiness.
Further rejecting the idea that the Constitution can be interpreted and changed however any political party wants to suit their needs, the organizers of the 1776 Project believe the document that created this Republic can only be changed by the process specifically laid out in Article V of the Constitution.
“Government cannot provide happiness, that is not its purpose,” says Jorge Gonzalez, founder of the organization. “It is up to each one of us, as individuals, to pursue our own desires and versions of happiness. This is the only way that we can really be a country united in one purpose.”
The 1776 Project will be announcing more events and providing information, resources and offering solutions on how Americans can take back their government through peaceful revolution and community outreach. Organizers welcome anyone who agrees with these values, regardless of political party, to join the 1776 Project to bring back a Constitutional government.
Check out the organization’s website and get involved on Facebook and Twitter.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 38 comments }
Just wondering if he knows the Constitution was written in 1787 and not 1776.
Yes, I know. Thank you! Most of what I’ll say here you probably know but I just want to clarify.
The name is derived, obviously, from the year of the Declaration of Independence’ signing. The Constitution, though written and ratified in 1787, was written in such a way so that the US government would not commit the same types of tyranny and oppression that king George committed. In other words, the grievances in the Dec of Ind gives cause to some of the provisions in the Constitution. Make sense?
Plus, calling it the 1787 Project would make people who aren’t even familiar with our Constitution wonder what the hell happened in 1787 that there should be a Project named after it…but that’s the pragmatic side of the reasoning for the name.
The general time of the founding, and the principles that are supposed to guide our government. It’s all relative.
The information that you’ve given about the project sounds promising. I can wholeheartedly agree with everything that the association stands for based upon the information given, but I suspect there is some “catch” that I don’t comprehend quite yet.
Good luck with the initiative.
No catch. We just need to take action. More info is available at the site. If you find a catch, let me know…cause it sure isn’t intentional. Happy 4th
How does this project differ from the Campaign for Liberty?
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php#statement
Hopefully the difference is that THIS group isn’t run by kooks and !@#$%^&*.
However, I kinda agree with the point behind the question. Libertarian groups are like open-source software projects. Every software developer wants to have their own project, and there’s too much ego and bickering to work together. So instead of having one really good Media Player app, we get 200 open-source Media Player apps… all of which are half-baked and suck. There are likewise a million libertarian groups, all with tiny memberships, which seem to exist only for purposes of sending me a fundraising request once per week.
(Make Note: S. Perkins should receive 3 fundraising requests per week. Increase frequency until further instructed.)
Steve,
What you say is very true. What do you think it would take to have one rellay good “media player app”? What does one do to put aside ego and work together? I can tell you that at the 1776 Project this a huge concern for us. We want to work with others, kooky, crazy, sane, conservative, libertarian…it doesn’t matter. We risk more by working apart than by allowing our ego’s to take a backseat. So, I’m curious, how do you think we could bring people together under one banner…how we narrow our focus? I think people are ready for this, so, how do we harness that energy?
If our philosophies and goals are similar, if we occupy the same or similar cognitive real estate, then the differences may only be on who are disparate projects attempts to reach. As it says on our site “We must not let the opposition continue to corner the market on helping the poor, reaching out to the laboring class, and appealing to youth. We must actively pursue these people. We must be a cause that enriches their lives through our service, our ideas and our efforts..” The difference may be in whom we engage.
Can you explain why there is a need for this? After looking at your website, I do not see one instance where any of the grievances that you have listed have taken place.
Really? You are certain that all those who vote on 1000 page pieces of legislation only a day after the bill is written have actually read what they are voting on? You think that the State did its due diligence in preparing and equipping our soldiers before sending them into harms way (I was there. The answer is no). You believe that our borders are secure? You think that they don’t fund abortion with taxpayer dollars?
We have done our job in gathering and verifying these grievances. I ask that you do the same.
Why is there a need for this? I suppose that once you research our grievances and verify their truth value, that the reason for why this is needed will become self-evident.
“You are certain that all those who vote on 1000 page pieces of legislation only a day after the bill is written have actually read what they are voting on?”
I think this has legs:
http://www.downsizedc.org/page/read_the_laws
How could the administration honestly oppose it given their campaign rhetoric?
I think the bill could garner a lot more attention if it was renamed RTFBA: Read The “Eff”ing Bill As@holes!
So, you agree with at least that grievance. Good!
I do find it rather incredible that the admin ran partially on complete transparency and openness and has yet to deliver on that promise. I suppose once the flames of political urgency subside in DC that THEN they’ll start reading these bills and pretend they have done so all along.
“You think that the State did its due diligence in preparing and equipping our soldiers before sending them into harms way (I was there. The answer is no).”
There never has been a 100% equipped and prepared soldier. Those that have been recently sent into harms way, are much better prepared than our founding fathers’ armies were. Yes, the State did its due diligence in that area.
The Fuounding Fathers’ armies were also fighting for their land, their freedom, their very way of life.
The US hasn’t fought that kind of war since the 1860s – and yes, the Union army was pretty well prepared and equipped then.
I nor those who I served with expected 100%. There’s a saying in the military regarding you’re equipment etc “Ask for everything and get nothing.” I am well aware that you don’t go into war with the army you want but the army you have. That fact however is no excuse for sending in soldiers who are either under-equipped, under-prepared or their use is mishandled.
I often hear complaints about how if the State controls healthcare or controls a car company it would be a disaster based on the State’s track record. A track record that most know is fraught with utter mismanagement. And so we, or some of us anyway, argue that the State shouldn’t manage these things. And somehow, curiously, we hold the State to exacting standards on those issues but not on military issues? As they say, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we expect the State to do due diligence in one area of concern, then it is true we should expect it in all areas lest we be inconsistent. I’m not suggesting that the private sector fight wars – typically when arguing in the fashion stated above the conclusion is that the PS does it better – rather I’m suggesting that it is true that they do not do their due diligence with regard to most things – fighting wars is included.
Moreover, though I didn’t mention this above, due diligence also has to do with the strategy one employs when sending us into harms way. It is apparent now both from popular observation and from admissions from the previous administration that due diligence was not done in assessing the post invasion strategy and that we did, in fact, have too few (under-equipped) men on the ground. As a soldier, this was an observation that even E4’s found relatively obvious.
“It is apparent now both from popular observation and from admissions from the previous administration…”
It is not apparent, and your statement is NOT supported. It has been true in many armies that privates complain about everything. While an E4 is no longer a private, he is no where near being the General Officer that actually makes tactical decisions. What is the proper use of a soldier during what you call the “post invasion” stage? The United States Army is not an occupying force, nor does it have the structure to easily become one. If there was a lack of due diligence, it was in the lack of understanding that an army designed to break things and kill people cannot transition to a police force over night.
By the way, I like your site.
You’ve made my case for me…
“While an E4 is no longer a private, he is no where near being the General Officer that actually makes tactical decisions. What is the proper use of a soldier during what you call the “post invasion” stage? The United States Army is not an occupying force, nor does it have the structure to easily become one.”
We knew this would be an occupation and we have occupied in the past. Due diligence includes planning for an occupation. The non-commissioned do complain, vociferously at that, often. But writing it off as complaint does not negate the truth value about that which they are complaining. We are not arguing whether the action in Iraq was justified or moral or needed. We only say these things in regard to what could be done minimize the loss of our countrymen, some of whom I knew and served with, and to hold politicians (dem and rep.) accountable for mismanaging a large segment of our action for the first 2.5 years. We could argue all day whether this mismanagement is apparent. It is obvious that the general population agrees with this point and admin officials and Generals have commented on attendant mismanagement.
I’m sure that many in England in 1776 probably didn’t find much true in the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence (nor did many here in the States) or agree with their veracity, so, disagreement with us on our grievances is expected. I ask only that you find those areas under which we share philosophical and political real estate and work with us to find a way back to Constitutional government. Whether Iraq’s post invasion action was mismanaged is not a point that our movement rests upon but rather one in a string of points whose verisimilitude rests upon what you are willing to lend to that point ideologically. It is a point that we can discuss aside from the overall goal of restoring, reforming, and replacing our current system.
Glad you like the site…now join up!!!
Can’t let this pass without noting that the Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791. The founders making it very clear.
Sounds like a worthy project.
1776, 1787, 1791…all worthy years. To bad calling it the 1776, 87 and 91 Project is too much of a mouthful and a hellaciously long url.
The union army was eventually well equipped. Not really in 1860…more like 1863. The union spent years with poorly trained men losing to a worse equipped rebel enemy. The US begins almost every war unprepared for what is ahead…1860, 1917, 1941. Iraq was no exception.
Yeah, yeah.
Sure, sure.
Let’s start an organization dedicated to the truth because so many people are poorly informed.
And, all the truth we ever needed was in the Constitution.
And, let’s name the organization after the year the Declaration of Independence was founded because it’s too hard to educate people.
So, since people don’t know what happened in 1787, let’s call our organization the 1776 Project.
It’s just being pragmatic.
Just wondering what was your first compromise if that wasn’t it.
Interesting you left out the rest of the explanation given and only harped on the segment that was facetious. Maybe we should start with educating you on what is sarcasm and what isn’t. No, nevermind, after all that would be compromising our principles on educating people first. Instead, we’ll resort to insults and pejorative chest beating about our intellectual superiority. Or were you being sarcastic? Maybe I’ve read you wrong. Apparently, that’s what happened above when you dismissed nearly all the reasoning behind the name…but I’ve said that already, haven’t I? If you want to reform things then get involved (or maybe you could care less), otherwise go on complaining about insignificant jokes about pragmatism. Good day, sir.
Looks good 17(something)P. And very nice handling of the ever present nay sayers here on the the Peach. Good luck to you.
Something’s gotta give at some point….
Good Day, Sir? LOL! How archaic. But, that is your point, isn’t it?
When you can’t handle the world as it is, retreat into the past, even if you don’t understand the past.
But, perhaps you can correct me without withdrawing from your pragmatic statements.
Are there any flaws in the Constitution that you’d care to share with me? Or, do you truly find it a flawless refuge?
MD, how about a “Have a nice day and go eff yourself, kind sir?” Will that work for your personality?
Bill,
I don’t know if that works for me. Can I get back to you? Maybe in 1775? 1776? 1787? 1793? OPS! I think those numbers are taken with the magic number being 1776 …
How about you light a torch, run inside a cave, and scream, “I have made light! Mad Dog, bite me! I’m better than you!”
I only have a candle.
So what’s really wrong with trying to restore our society to the values and principles of a “Constitutional government?”
Let me start with language. The meanings of words aren’t in dictionaries; they are in people. People use a dictionary for spelling checks, pronunciation clues, and for a list of possible meanings to any one word. The word blue is a simple example. Blue is a color but I can see several different blues. Blue could be a mood. Blue could be an unlawful behavior as in ‘blue laws.’ Any one word could have more than one meaning and that meaning could be revealed by the context. Context being dictionary defined as the “words, phrases, or passages that come before and after a particular word or passage in a speech or piece of writing and help to explain its full meaning.” But, using that dictionary definition, context only helps to explain the full meaning of a word by how it was used by a person.
But, that doesn’t yet capture language.
Everyone had a first language. As a Zen Master might ask a student, what was the language that you spoke before you learned to talk? Before we learned to speak, we had some sort of internal language that included labels for things like “warm” and “cold.” Those labels didn’t include any concepts of Fahrenheit or Celsius. Words like Celsius and Fahrenheit do not form naturally in the human mind. The human mind naturally discriminates. Salty tastes different than sweet. Warm feels different than cold. Light is different from dark. And, from the moment of our birth, we began a catalogue of judgments. Those judgments could have been simply, I like this and I don’t like that. So we had to have an internal language with ‘words’ for this and that. Plus various commands to do things like move the hands and feet. And, simple questions like, “What is that and why can’t I reach it with my hand?”
Each of us developed an internal language during our change from fetus to baby to infant right up to and including learning our first vocal and foreign word. We still have our non-verbal and native language. We use it every day. We do things that require no unspoken use of our verbal languages similar to those first natural discriminations, like picking a color for a wedding theme or a setting for the thermostat. We experience an internal clue that starts us down a path to language. My internal temperature should be an ideal 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. When I feel ‘cold,’ it doesn’t mean my body temperature has dropped. My body temperature might still be 98.6 degrees but the effort of keeping that ideal temperature exceeds my ability to ‘warm’ myself. So I could feel ‘cold.’
One cold fact of our language, we kept our first, internally created catalogue of words and meanings. We use them everyday prior to translating our needs, desires, and feelings into our adopted, social language. Our social languages merely give us one set of clues for communicating with others within our personal and human society.
To plead the case of language, the men who wrote and signed the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution are dead. Their society is gone from our planet along with the environment that created and supported it. The circumstances of those men and their society contain clues that are missing from any modern resurrection.
If we could resurrect each of those men, they could not understand our modern questions or fit themselves into our times. Each had a unique interpretation of the documents. Of the 74 men appointed to the Convention in Pennsylvania, only 55 would ever attend. No one from Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, now known as Rhode Island, ever attended. Only 11 states ever voted on the creation of the Constitution, as the New Hampshire delegates were too late to the convention. When the document was completed, only 39 of the 55 signed. One signature, John Dickinson’s, was added by George Read.
So, in addition to language and its meanings, which men would we resurrect? All 74 or only the ones that personally signed the final draft? How do we account for the mob actions on September 29, 1987? In Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania assembly lacked a quorum. Without a quorum, meaning enough members to conduct legal business, the assembly could not vote on calling for a state ratifying convention. A mob formed and dragged two assembly members from their homes to the State House. The two members were forced to remain while their opposition voted for a state ratifying convention. Certainly, a strange way to bring principles like equality into government. Do we resurrect that mob or the two members opposed to the Constitution?
If we resurrected only Jefferson, author of the Declaration and a supporter of a bill of rights, he would have to answer this question, “If slaves did not have equality under the U.S. Constitution, why did they have any value in proportioning seats in the House of Representatives?” Simply repeating. “All men are created equal ” explains nothing about a slave having less value for the purpose of a decennial census. Jefferson doesn’t have to explain that slaves had less value, less rights, and less freedom than others during his lifetime. That is the circumstance of his time and his society. But he must explain why such slaves had any value in allocating power among the 13 states as determined by a federal census.
He could answer, “It was a necessary compromise to get Southern ratification.”
And, it was a compromise. It was a compromise between King George and King Cotton. Any compromise answer eliminates Jefferson and the U.S. Constitution as the ultimate foundation of all government principles. If compromise is a principle of government, then the U.S. Constitution is a starting point for negotiations and citizenship becomes a yard sale.
The potential members of the Constitutional Taliban might want to read the 1689 Bill of Rights at this link:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
It would be quite easy to label Jefferson et al Plagiarists.
We also have the issue of blaming King George, demonizing him, instead of laying the blame at the door of Parliament.
Just hoping we could have some honest agreement on common facts. If not, I’ll just stick to calling you’all Constitutional Taliban seeking linquistic tyranny through the use of patriotic fatwas.
Fine with us, Frenchy.
Thanks for reminding me that we needed support from the French in our rebellion to defeat England.
If you like your freedom, thank a Frenchman… Or, would you deny Lafayette his place in our history?
Enjoy your ignorance of history, Dash. No one else can.
That was, I say that was a joke, son. You’re s’posed to laugh.
LOL! Okay, Foghorn Leghorn.
But, the dog never laughs in those cartoons.
I’m going to get me a chicken …
“Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;”
What the heck are ‘divers evil counsellors’ ? We all know that lawyers are the spawn of the devil, but is that what this reference means?
Divers evil counsellors?
There’s a curse in that I’m sure. Must be as bad as, “Dayum their eyes!”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03freedman.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=adam%20freedman&st=cse
Comments on this entry are closed.