Comments on: Become a Paul Revere http://www.rickgreen.com/become-a-paul-revere-and-help-spread-the-word/ reigniting the torch of freedom Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:48:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: charlie http://www.rickgreen.com/become-a-paul-revere-and-help-spread-the-word/comment-page-1/#comment-46 charlie Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:54:48 +0000 http://www.rickgreen.com/?p=449#comment-46 i just saw rick green in lancaster, pa. it was great presentation. i thank the Lord for him and the work he and wallbuilders is doing. may the Lord bless them and we all need to be in the fight to preserve our Godly heritage anf freedom. we need to teach and encourage our childrem, families, nighbors and pastors to be involved i just saw rick green in lancaster, pa. it was great presentation. i thank the Lord for him and the work he and wallbuilders is doing. may the Lord bless them and we all need to be in the fight to preserve our Godly heritage anf freedom. we need to teach and encourage our childrem, families, nighbors and pastors to be involved

]]> By: Lori Granberg http://www.rickgreen.com/become-a-paul-revere-and-help-spread-the-word/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Lori Granberg Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:13:28 +0000 http://www.rickgreen.com/?p=449#comment-44 We are so excited to be offering your DVD series at our church! We want to heed your call and spread the message of freedom. In fact, we have been looking for a suitable class on the Constitution for almost 10 years, and this is it, praise the Lord!!! We are so excited to be offering your DVD series at our church! We want to heed your call and spread the message of freedom. In fact, we have been looking for a suitable class on the Constitution for almost 10 years, and this is it, praise the Lord!!!

]]> By: william sullivan http://www.rickgreen.com/become-a-paul-revere-and-help-spread-the-word/comment-page-1/#comment-38 william sullivan Sat, 23 Oct 2010 06:00:55 +0000 http://www.rickgreen.com/?p=449#comment-38 Hello mr. Green, I am so thankful that you were able to speak at FED in portland. I want to do some in depth research on our constitution and what our country shall stand for, I wanted to know if you could point me in the right direction for free enterprise and the power of the people in this great country of ours. Hope to hear from you soon, thank you and heaven bless. - william sullivan Hello mr. Green, I am so thankful that you were able to speak at FED in portland. I want to do some in depth research on our constitution and what our country shall stand for, I wanted to know if you could point me in the right direction for free enterprise and the power of the people in this great country of ours. Hope to hear from you soon, thank you and heaven bless. – william sullivan

]]> By: Peter S. Chamberlain http://www.rickgreen.com/become-a-paul-revere-and-help-spread-the-word/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Peter S. Chamberlain Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:13:18 +0000 http://www.rickgreen.com/?p=449#comment-37 As a retired Texas lawyer and a conservative, I am troubled by the above comment tracing all the ills of modern law and life to the Supreme Court’s findings and holding against racial segregation in Brown v. Board in 1954 and citing the will of the southern states on that issue. If Mr. Green is perceived as agreeing with or not opposing that view, he will lose the election for Supreme Court. Harlan the Elder’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, noting, as all of us living in the south knew by 1954, that separate was not and was never going to be equal, was prescient. When I was in law school in the early sixties, the Alabama Democratic Party’s letterhead still stated prominently that they supported not just segregation but “White supremacy segregation.” You could never honestly square either official or private business “Jim Crow” with due process, equal protection of the law, free competitive enterprise and economic conservatism, or Judeo-Christian values conservatism. The problem with Brown v. Board was not and is not its findings of fact and conclusion of Constitutional law, which were amply supported by the evidence and eminently correct, but that the arguments offered about Constitutional interpretation, in order to get around earlier case law, were pitched to that overwhelmingly liberal group of Justices, and the opinion was written, in overwhelming liberal terms, which did indeed form part, but only part, of the modern liberal so-called “living Constitution” theory under which the Court, though notably unqualified, not to mention clearly unauthorized, is to function as a “continuing Constitutional convention.” Since the same result could have been reached using Harlan the Elder’s rationale in his earlier dissent, among other rationales, including conservative or libertarian rationales, much of this language was obiter dicta. Contrary to the preceding poster’s unsupported assertion, the Constitutional problem of which he complains did not originate with Brown v. Board, but with the “switch in time that saved nine” in 1937 when the majority of Justices reversed 150 years of Constitutional jurisprudence and, citing practically nothing, and no prior precedent or legal argument, in order to uphold the Social Security Act and other New Deal legislation, rewrote the Constitution and converted the federal government from one of defined and limited functions and powers to one of virtually limitless powers. All hope that this would ever be pruned back toward the Framers’ original intent, raised in a couple of cases, was dashed when conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist and other conservative justices reaffirmed Wicker v. Kilburn, holding the Interstate Commerce Clause broad enough to reach wheat grown and eaten on a family farm, etc, and the federal law covering marijuana grown in California. I dislike a lot of the new AACA, the “Obamacare” law, but, given that line of precedents, anyone telling you that they believe there is a snowball’s chance of the current Supreme Court holding the core of it unconstitutional, especially in the process of seeking your vote or your money, is either legally incompetent, dishonest, or delusional. Of course, there is nothing whatsoever that the state courts can do about this. Since the Supreme Court of Texas and the Justices thereof are bound to abide by the U. S. Constitution, and more specifically by the Constitution, and relevant federal law, as last interpreted, rightly or wrongly, by the Supreme Court of the U. S., the U. S. Court of Appeals for this the Fifth Circuit, and their opinions on federal Constitutional questions, when unavoidable, are not binding upon the federal courts, it would appear extremely likely that their primary influence will turn upon how they interpret, enforce, and apply the Texas Constitution and Texas law. Unfortunately, often, the Supreme Court of Texas has taken the position that, even though phrased differently and often more broadly, instead of affording Texans broader protection, as permitted, and as the choice of different and broader language indicates the framers of the Texas Constitution originally intended to guarantee Texans broader rights, in addition to those guaranteed by the federal Constitution, the Texas Constitution’s language is ignored and cases decided as though only the federal Constitution existed. As a retired Texas lawyer and a conservative, I am troubled by the above comment tracing all the ills of modern law and life to the Supreme Court’s findings and holding against racial segregation in Brown v. Board in 1954 and citing the will of the southern states on that issue. If Mr. Green is perceived as agreeing with or not opposing that view, he will lose the election for Supreme Court.
Harlan the Elder’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, noting, as all of us living in the south knew by 1954, that separate was not and was never going to be equal, was prescient. When I was in law school in the early sixties, the Alabama Democratic Party’s letterhead still stated prominently that they supported not just segregation but “White supremacy segregation.” You could never honestly square either official or private business “Jim Crow” with due process, equal protection of the law, free competitive enterprise and economic conservatism, or Judeo-Christian values conservatism.
The problem with Brown v. Board was not and is not its findings of fact and conclusion of Constitutional law, which were amply supported by the evidence and eminently correct, but that the arguments offered about Constitutional interpretation, in order to get around earlier case law, were pitched to that overwhelmingly liberal group of Justices, and the opinion was written, in overwhelming liberal terms, which did indeed form part, but only part, of the modern liberal so-called “living Constitution” theory under which the Court, though notably unqualified, not to mention clearly unauthorized, is to function as a “continuing Constitutional convention.” Since the same result could have been reached using Harlan the Elder’s rationale in his earlier dissent, among other rationales, including conservative or libertarian rationales, much of this language was obiter dicta.
Contrary to the preceding poster’s unsupported assertion, the Constitutional problem of which he complains did not originate with Brown v. Board, but with the “switch in time that saved nine” in 1937 when the majority of Justices reversed 150 years of Constitutional jurisprudence and, citing practically nothing, and no prior precedent or legal argument, in order to uphold the Social Security Act and other New Deal legislation, rewrote the Constitution and converted the federal government from one of defined and limited functions and powers to one of virtually limitless powers. All hope that this would ever be pruned back toward the Framers’ original intent, raised in a couple of cases, was dashed when conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist and other conservative justices reaffirmed Wicker v. Kilburn, holding the Interstate Commerce Clause broad enough to reach wheat grown and eaten on a family farm, etc, and the federal law covering marijuana grown in California. I dislike a lot of the new AACA, the “Obamacare” law, but, given that line of precedents, anyone telling you that they believe there is a snowball’s chance of the current Supreme Court holding the core of it unconstitutional, especially in the process of seeking your vote or your money, is either legally incompetent, dishonest, or delusional. Of course, there is nothing whatsoever that the state courts can do about this.
Since the Supreme Court of Texas and the Justices thereof are bound to abide by the U. S. Constitution, and more specifically by the Constitution, and relevant federal law, as last interpreted, rightly or wrongly, by the Supreme Court of the U. S., the U. S. Court of Appeals for this the Fifth Circuit, and their opinions on federal Constitutional questions, when unavoidable, are not binding upon the federal courts, it would appear extremely likely that their primary influence will turn upon how they interpret, enforce, and apply the Texas Constitution and Texas law. Unfortunately, often, the Supreme Court of Texas has taken the position that, even though phrased differently and often more broadly, instead of affording Texans broader protection, as permitted, and as the choice of different and broader language indicates the framers of the Texas Constitution originally intended to guarantee Texans broader rights, in addition to those guaranteed by the federal Constitution, the Texas Constitution’s language is ignored and cases decided as though only the federal Constitution existed.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.rickgreen.com/become-a-paul-revere-and-help-spread-the-word/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Jonathan Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:15:56 +0000 http://www.rickgreen.com/?p=449#comment-15 Way to go, Rick. We truly need more men like you speaking out for America, with faith in Jesus and the constitution. Someone needs to stand up to these unelected activist judges who keep forcing their liberal agenda on the country. This disturbing trend all started with Brown v. Board of Education, in clear opposition to what the people of the South wanted, and knew was right, and continues right up to his day with the homosexual agenda being imposed by a minority on this Christian nation. I hope you're able to win a spot on the Texas Supreme Court so we can finally get some judges who won't legislate from the bench, giving special rights to some and overriding the clear will of the majority of Americans. Good luck, Rick, and you can count on my support! Way to go, Rick. We truly need more men like you speaking out for America, with faith in Jesus and the constitution.

Someone needs to stand up to these unelected activist judges who keep forcing their liberal agenda on the country. This disturbing trend all started with Brown v. Board of Education, in clear opposition to what the people of the South wanted, and knew was right, and continues right up to his day with the homosexual agenda being imposed by a minority on this Christian nation.

I hope you’re able to win a spot on the Texas Supreme Court so we can finally get some judges who won’t legislate from the bench, giving special rights to some and overriding the clear will of the majority of Americans.

Good luck, Rick, and you can count on my support!

]]> By: advantagesanddisadvantagesofstudentloanconsolidation » Become a Paul Revere and Help Spread the Word http://www.rickgreen.com/become-a-paul-revere-and-help-spread-the-word/comment-page-1/#comment-14 advantagesanddisadvantagesofstudentloanconsolidation » Become a Paul Revere and Help Spread the Word Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:37:33 +0000 http://www.rickgreen.com/?p=449#comment-14 [...] Use WallBuilders materials in your Sunday School class or start The Truth Project at your church (www.thetruthproject.org). There is so much you can do to add to the discussion and influence the people around you. …Page 2 [...] [...] Use WallBuilders materials in your Sunday School class or start The Truth Project at your church (www.thetruthproject.org). There is so much you can do to add to the discussion and influence the people around you. …Page 2 [...]

]]>