Thursday, October 8, 2009

Continental Congress 2009

I thought readers would probably find this interesting, particularly if you're supportive of the TEA Party movement, the Tenth Amendment movement and so forth and so on. Per the usual with such videos posted on YouTube, there are related videos that you might also want to check out. Additionally here is the Continental Congress 2009 website where you may read more about this idea, the procedures for voting for delegates from your state, and etc. I leave it to you to find your way around the site.

I'm sure I'll be discussing this in a future entry soon. So stay tuned. In the meantime feel free to share anything you have to offer on the matter in the comment section of this entry.


Anonymous said...

I think that when you feel the need to put a disclaimer as to what your organization is not in your site heading, you might have chosen your organization's name unwisely. Just my opinion.

More pertinently, while I applaud the effort, I cannot legitimately participate in any effort which attempts to comply with the law as it now exists in trying to reverse the destruction of Constitutional government. Seeing that I have long since rejected entirely the legitimacy of the existing government, it would be hypocritical for me to appeal to its laws.

Terry Morris said...

Years ago (ten or twelve years ago) I hand-wrote my own modern version of the Declaration of Independence using THE Declaration as my guide. My version included as well a modernized list of grievances. I still have that around here somewhere ... I think.

Interesting that you mention the 'what we're not' disclaimer in the site's promotional banner. I guess they figure "Continental Congress" reads too much like "Constitutional Congress" at first glance or something. What would be your suggestion for a more wisely chosen name? Just curious.

P.S. So far I like a lot of what I've seen and read at the site. But I need to investigate it further by firing off a few email queries.

Jd said...


Do you have any idea what happened to Vanishing American? She seems to have simply "vanished".

Sorry to have used the comment section for the unrelated question but I couldn't find an email contact for you.


Terry Morris said...


I wish I could help you on that one, but the fact is that I'm as much in the dark as you are. I sent her an email concerning her disappearance a couple of weeks back, but I've yet to receive a reply. I'm glad you asked, though, because I continue to monitor activity (or the lack thereof) at her blog and forum on a semi-regular basis as a matter of concern for her well being.

Please let me know if you learn anything.


Anonymous said...

Well, that's because the historic "Continental Congress" became the Constitutional Convention. The issue at the time was creating a unified government representative of the free inhabitants of America, so "Continental Congress" actually made quite a bit of sense as a designation. Continental as opposed to either territorial/colonial, and a Congress.

The term is not as felicitous to the current situation. America today has a Congress, and the problems with that Congress have nothing to do with not being from this continent (with an isolated exception or two). Indeed, the largest part of America's illegal immigration and internationalization problems are still confined to the North American continent.

So the name "Continental Congress" really doesn't naturally refer to anything except the historic predecessor which ended up drafting the Constitution to replace the failed Articles of Confederation. That being given, the first natural assumption is going to be that the modern group wants to re-draft the Constitution, and thus they end up with "we're not what you're thinking" as their introductory tagline.

When you have to say "not what you're thinking" as part of your introduction, you might have an image problem. In this case, it's the fact that probably the most natural association of "Continental Congress" is "drafting the Constitution".

I would have picked a less ambiguous term, probably derived from a brief mission statement. For example, "We seek to restore the Constitution to government in America." Well, 'Constitution' pretty much speaks for America, and then you have 'restore'. The Constitutional Restoration project/committee/whatever. Or something.

It's water under the bridge by now, and it's not like I would suddenly be qualified to join if they changed the name. They are committed to working through peaceful, legal methods (and this commitment is apparently quite sincere). I renounce utterly the authority of human law, and...the future I envision is not peaceful (at least not in the near term, twenty years from now life will be a heartwarming collage of everyday events that illustrate quietly profound truths about being happy...for those still alive).

Still, I'm not opposed to what they're trying to do, as futile as I may believe it to be.

Anonymous said...

Reading over their resolutions for redress...they're pretty weak on the whole. The only one that really passes muster on its merits as written is the Second Amendment one. The Patriot Act one could probably make a strong case, but it doesn't. The Illegal Immigration one makes a strong case for the duty of the President and Congress to uphold and administer the law, but restricts the focus to just one issue whereas it is the real heart of most of the other complaints.

Well, I guess an exercise in futility is an exercise in futility, once all is said and done. The commemorative coins look nice, and should be a more than worthwhile keepsake for anyone who wants to be on the right side of history without getting on the wrong side of the law. I actually think silver is classier than gold, as far as using it to make coins and medals and jewelry and such. Gold is clearly superior as a currency base, but I like silver even though I have no physical affinities for it.

Terry Morris said...

'Constitutional Restoration Congress 2009,' or some such. Yeah, I got ya.

You never know fer xacly what will ultimately happen with such movements. Some of the delegates might insist on their taking a stronger position in those areas which you designate them as being weak on. Or not. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, changes following Nov. 22.

It's a pretty interesting concept in any event; something that could not have happened twenty years ago for example. I'm not at all convinced that the various factions can all come together and resolve to devise a plan to save the union from a devastating civil war. Not to beat a dead horse over the head, but I think our recent discussion on how to resolve the abortion issue is a pretty good case in point. ...

Anonymous said...

Well, the petition for redress on use of the War Powers Act is another good example. The argument that Congress cannot delegate their authority to do any of the things that the Constitution gives them power to do is directly contrary to the express wording of the Constitution (though it would be awesome if Congress were really going around doing those things personally....). I think that a better argument is that the Constitution is intended to prohibit a standing army (no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years).

As you can see, even that is still a bit weak, since all they need to do is renew the defense appropriation periodically. In fact, it ends up being a massive porker, because they need to do a new one every single Congress and nobody except nut-wingers from nut-winger left states can afford to actually vote against them.

The thing is, most of the really offensive stuff is like that, not exactly unconstitutional in the strictest sense, but totally unethical and cause for dismissal or at least rejection by the electorate. Thomas Jefferson was right. Liberty can only be preserved by violence. Those who would trade liberty for security...will always dominate societies where security is commonplace.