Your constitution is all sail and no anchor. As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilisation or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth Century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth;—with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions.
--- Thomas Babington Macaulay, letter to Henry Stephens Randall, May 23, 1857.—The Letters of Thomas Babington Macaulay, ed. Thomas Pinney, vol. 6, p. 96 (1981).

Your constitution is all sail and no anchor. As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilisation or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth Century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth;—with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions.
--- Thomas Babington Macaulay, letter to Henry Stephens Randall, May 23, 1857.—The Letters of Thomas Babington Macaulay, ed. Thomas Pinney, vol. 6, p. 96 (1981).

Mark Levin's "Liberty Amendments" give states power to control the Feds. Now it doesn't meet the Mayberry Demands of being fast, easy, fix all in a single swipe, but it does put the states back in charge of their destiny.

Levin's Amending Conventions of the States doesn't require cooperation of the Congress.

The Sultan Knish penned related thoughts this weekend about Supercessionists of the Liberal Confederacy.

tree, roots, liberty, blood, 2nd amendment. From time to time.

"Mark Levin's "Liberty Amendments" give states power to control the Feds. "

And just how many divisions do the states control?

Please read Mr Henry's commentary in its entirety for an understanding of the issue at hand

The entire American system relies on the honor and virtue of the ones in power, and that can only happen if the people are virtuous and just. If the people lose this, then they will produce and elect those who reflect their character.

Richard Nixon, for all his faults, proved Henry's fear wrong: he stepped down out of honor and love of his country. He could have easily done as Clinton did and refused to bow down or play along, and congress would have blinked first.

And yet again for all his many faults, Bill Clinton stepped down when his term was up, and his abuses were not those of a tyrant seeking greater power. So far we've had men who'll not seek the crown. So far.

Mind you, the brainwreck is upon us. That is, the disregard too many voters had of Obama's own words and deeds BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER his first election is the measure of our inability to focus, consider, critically think of likely consequences, and to care about those consequences. The Poltroon-as-President, before his rise to power, told us that the Constitution was inadequate, told us that the country needed major transformation, told us that the wealth of the workers had to spread around, demonstrated his humanity by promoting the murder of infants surviving abortion attempts, condoned premature withdrawal of our troops back in 2007 despite known likelihood of a genocidal war between Sunni and Shia Iraqis -- the innocent men, women, children just grist for the grisly mill of indifference on his part.

And we, poor saps, bullcrap endlessly, as I do here, waiting to be further mashed into the trash.

Please read Mr Henry's commentary in its entirety for an understanding of the issue at hand

Right. Henry was an "Anti-Federalist," and was not keen on a stronger central government. I'm fine with genuine federalism as the Founders intended, but Henry's arguments are gaining more relevance in modern times thanks to the pack of scoundrels who are making the Constitution irrelevant these days.

The Bill of Rights was introduced in 1789 to counter Patrick Henry's concerns.

But that is not enough — when an evil individual totally controls the military.

Nine (9) top generals have been cashiered by Obama this year alone. What do you think King Obama has in mind?

"What do you think King Obama has in mind?"

Umm...getting his ass whooped by nine top generals at the head of nine million pissed-off Americans?

The brilliant mathematician Kurt Godel became a U.S. citizen in 1947. Preparing for the citizenship test, he studied the Constitution. He found a "loophole", one that would let the country become a dictatorship.

He even mentioned the fact to the examiner - but didn't go through the details, and the matter was dropped. He was made a citizen.

His friends, Einstein among them, convinced him never to disclose his reasoning, and he didn't. There have been many attempts to recover the reasoning, but nothing substantial has turned up.

(Web search: Gödel’s loophole)

But about constitutions: Great Britain has no written constitution, and they got along quite well until recently. China has a wonderful written constitution, one that guarantees freedom of religion, of assembly, &c.

The bottom line is, a constitution is only as good as the government that follows it.

The loophole un-mentioned is a supine and willingly cooperative congress that allows unfettered executive orders & action. A congress that puts party loyalty, power, and graft above their sworn duty to uphold and defend the constitution leads to concentration of power in the executive.
The Reid Senate will go down in history as the most venal of all, post Civil War chicanery will seem like tiddly winks in comparison. Loyalty to the D party was a higher calling than serving their constituents. I don't think the loophole was so hidden at all.

The constitution fails with it's very first word, "We....".

Nobody gets to speak for me.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

In the quote and speech above, Henry begs the question: Why do we even need "rulers" over us? How could any "government" be anything other than the domination of a minority over the majority, held in place by the threat and use of Force? Force is immoral as well as the polar opposite of Freedom. Only enemies of Freedom support "government" and its use of aggressive force against natural rights.

@Don Rodrigo:

Henry's point is that the system itself is flawed and will allow corrupt and evil persons to manipulate it to their advantage. It is not that we have an especially rascally bunch of politicians right now, it is that the system encourages and rewards corruption and abuse.

Whether or not the Federalists intended this result, we've got it. There is no doubt that the Constitution is flawed. THere is equally no doubt that the Constitution still retains incredible power in the minds of many intelligent people in these united States.

The patriot must always be prepared to defend his country from his government.~ Ed Abbey

The Constitution serves as a pretty good rule book. I'd also add a bible.

"... Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? ... the domination of a minority over the majority, held in place by the threat and use of Force?"

Therein lies the rub. Opposition must be physical, not verbal and sophistic.

Whatever validity Henry's fears had, and I think quite a bit, he offers no alternative. No checks, no balances. No solution.

Some words from Jeff Cooper:

"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons.
The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys."
"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user.
It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny.
In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, because a citizenry armed with rifles cannot be tyrannized."

"Monarch of all I survey, resisting tyranny."
Yeah, I kinda like that.
Now I'm heading out to the range, work on my social skills.

"Whatever validity Henry's fears had, and I think quite a bit, he offers no alternative. No checks, no balances. No solution."

Not sure why an explicit solution need be formulated prior to stating a problem.

It seems that the implicit solution was denial of ratification. You know, carry on with the Articles of Confederation.

The 17th Amendment made things so much worse for American citizens that it cannot be overemphasized.

It took away the power of the States. Before the 17th, we were the United States. No more, although it took some time.

Now, Senators are beholden only to their respective Parties rather than their state (before the 17th, Senators were elected by their state legislature).

Now a Senator like Dianne Feinstein, for example, answeras only to Democrats in Washington DC. Even when, as is often the case, her votes cause grief and added taxation to California citizens, she will vote the way her Party wants.

More or less, all state Senators are the same. Their Party will withhold financial and organizing support if they don't toe the line. So they conform to their Party, whether Dem or Repub.

Citizens used to be citizens of their State first. The federal government's duties were only to provide for the national defense, administer justice at the federal level, administer customs, and settle disputes between states. A few other minor duties. That's about all.

Now look at us. At about the time the 17th was ratified, the Income Tax amendment was also passed. They promised that the tax rate would be capped at 1%, and that only those earning more than $4,000 a year (about the top 3%) would have to pay it. Yes, they promised. What's your marginal tax bracket?

Repeal of the 17th Amendment would go a very long way toward righting the ship of state. But I think it's too late. There are too many scoundrels, the bureaucracy has grown too big and powerful, and half the population now lives off the other half. It will only get worse, because we have passed the point of no return with that last item. One man, one vote, remember?

That's my opinion, and I hope and pray to God I am wrong.