(3)

...morals and foundations have the strong underpinnings of Judeo Christian values.

I would say the Judeo aspect can be argued. Judaism has many moral codes of law but we also have Judaism denominations who believe the Zohar, Kabbalah, and Babylonian Talmud are the holiest of holy texts. There are many oral laws and traditions in these texts which are backwards and immoral. Jesus made this clear in the New Testament. Now, we have Chabad-Lubavitchers who would like to impose noahide laws, which would essentially ban Christians from worshiping Christ as their lord and savior. Why? Because they claim it is idolatry, and in the noahide laws, according to many of these denominations idolaters would be executed by a procurator under a Sanhedrin.

If you have no ultimate higher authority, then the state is extremely likely to fill that role, which is exactly what's happening in our society.

My higher ultimate authority is God and Christ above all. I do agree with you, that if the state were to bar the simple morale codes of Christianity, not as the Catholic church or a priesthood purports, but as Jesus intended it to be, we would fall into the antiquity of Enoch’s time. Rampant occultism, without any sense of God or moral code.

There is a growing majority of the population that look to the government, to the president, as the entities providing their rights. they'd rather have the government tell them what is and isn't allowed.

Which is why the country of the United States is incorporated. Essentially, the constitution does not apply to those who vote or rely on the state under the incorporated states jurisdiction. Common law is allegedly held in the Untied States of America, not the trade marked Untied States which was created after the civil war. You are correct in saying there is a growing majority of the population that look to the government as entities to provide their rights.

They'd rather have the government tell them what is and isn't allowed.

Yes, but so doesn’t the amalgamation of corporations with government ; corporate laws set in place by our sold out government who has allowed tacit agreement contracts. The laws set in place by the cronyist state have favored corporatists at the expense of an individuals liberty, privacy, and freedom. Should we ask the state to enforce more laws, in favor of we the people? Should we demand the revocation of a galore of treasonous laws that benefit the corporations (now classified as a person) and private contractors at the expense of unfairly regulating we the people? We, supposedly have a constitutional republic, or a representative democracy. Clearly these forms of government do not apply to the state anymore. Bush claimed that the constitution was just a piece of paper.

We are an oligarchy run on corporatism and croyism. We have been for quite sometime and the 30 years Princeton study proves this. That doesn’t mean there are not elements of a capitalist system. Clearly, on a local scale the capitalist economy exists.

They'd rather government provide a safety net for those who need one, or at the minimum ensure that those who fall through the cracks are taken care of. Years ago, a majority of the people looked to each other as the ones to be the solutions, not the government.

I agree with you here. And even scarier is that the people demand the state and law enforcement who for the most part are in bed with the state take away our guns.

...it's up to the people to declare what the government should be, and what it should do, and it should reflect the people it represents.

And it should be, but it would take a revolution to keep government interference in social life at a minimum whist it provides for the people only one purpose. To uphold freedom, independence, and autonomy. When government amalgamates with multinational corporations to regulate the common person, clearly we have a very big problem. If we were to revolt and repeal this amalgamation the predatory corporations would still prey on the common person, erasing his or her freedom.

I'm not sure if the constitution were written today, it would pass. In fact, I don't think it would, not even by close margin. The first five amendments seem to be under aggressive attack generally by any state Hilrod win in 2016, and she won by popular vote.

Hillary Clinton is an authoritarian, Trump is much of the same. They despise the constitution. Have you not seen Trump’s proposal of swift execution before due process for hate crimes, or his promotion of Baker Act laws, Red Flag laws as well as the TAPS Act? Trump is anything but a constitutionalist or patriot. Though, his rhetoric doesn’t surprise me, considering his friends in the 90’s, were the ones directly involved in the 9/11 cover-up.

The constitution would not be passed today. Most of the people in power today despise the constitution and Gods law. They are the antithesis of freedom, and liberty. They only want power and control, which is why they coalesce with predatory corporations and were advocates of treasonous bills. They despise the 2nd amendment, attack the 1st amendment, have nearly obliterated the 4th amendment with the signing of the Patriot Act and NDAA 2012…

(calling patriots and constitutionalsits belligerents)

...under the ruse of national security. This has for the most part been orchestrated by Zionists, neomarxists and Neoconservatives (neotrotskyites) who have hijacked Republicanism and the Church for their own warped, authoritarian interests.