Source: https://www.democratichub.com/posts/9737/what-did-ben-franklin-have-to-say-about-the-constituion
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 07:14:09+00:00

Document:
What did Ben Franklin have to say about the Constituion ?
The Constitution of the United States was signed on this date in 1787. Despite what you might have seen on the internet, there is NO 28TH amendment - at least not yet.
"I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
"I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best."
"On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility -- and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument."
Ben Franklin is a good example as to why it is ALWAYS BETTER to have an "older guy" in attendance, when any important decisions are to be made. He had a wise outlook, a sense of humor, a lot of experience, & a lifetime of judging human character. He was the wise old OWL of the group, who could influence others opinions, & motivate them to get things done.
Sometimes I am just in awe of these men who lived & died 237 years ago, & who were SO WISE and so well-educated, & who bravely took on this grande scheme to bring liberty to the colonies, -- under the most primitive conditions, -- and frankly, with little hope of success.
The same guy who had heard the rumor that Barack Obama was seeking a third term of office, was also quick to point out that "he was a strong defender of the Constitution". That opinion, of course, is one of the core beliefs of the Tea Party. By no small coincidence, that is also a core belief of the Constitution Party (I had never heard of it either) , who reference the Tea Party on their website.
Yes, the Obama regime is the greatest threat to the 1st Amendment — and the entire Constitution — in a generation, at least. But the undocumented usurper currently occupying the people’s house is probably even more dangerous to liberty than was Franklin Delano Roosevelt and maybe even as dangerous as was Abraham Lincoln. He’s certainly created a divide almost as wide as Lincoln created.
If you're a halfway intelligent person, you'll also recognize that all those voter ID laws that have been passed in recent years are a violation of the 15th amendment, which ALEC and a lot of state legislators have conveniently overlooked.
In January of 2013, one of the legislators in the Arizona legislature (he's the head of the Tea Party in the town where I live) introduced a bill to require high school seniors to take an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution before they could graduate.
Fortunately, the bill died, but is DOES raise a question. What the heck does it mean to "support and defend" the constitution?
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government. Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.
Although both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirmed the right of individuals to defend themselves in their homes, both also specifically stated that reaonable controls on firearms were still permissible.
While reading the responses from Arizona, it is extremely clear that it is so important to vote your candidate remembering whoever gets elected has an impact on who will serve the Supreme Court, which establishes judicially the legislative law. The interpretation and the judicial action of the law is approved/disapproved by 9 Justices. These nine Justices are appointed by a President who get his/her advise and guidance from politicians pushing their agendas. In reading Arizona's examples of SCOTUS opinion and decisions, just think if America was denied and the decision went the other way.
Please vote knowing who could be placed in the Supreme Court. This is a powerful Right in improving America.
I urge you to click here and sign Tea Party Patriots' National Petition to Repeal the 16th Amendment right away!
My name is Jenny Beth Martin, and I am the Co-Founder and National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots.
I am proud to announce that Tea Party Patriots has thrown its full support behind Congressman Jim Bridentsine's (R-OK) HJ Res 104, a bill to permanently repeal the 16th Amendment and dismantle the IRS.
But we need your help to get it passed!
You see, the 16th Amendment grants the federal government the power to directly tax the hard-earned income of each and every American.
And that means that this important bill repealing the 16th Amendment could instantly save us from the oppression of our unconstitutional federal tax code!
Please, click here to sign your petition right now.
• Last year, Americans spent a record 6.4 billion hours complying with the labyrinth of regulations in the federal tax code.
• The budget of the Internal Revenue Service has increased by 58 percent since the year 2000.
• The federal tax code nearly tripled in length between 2001 and 2010.
• And investigations have revealed that high-ranking officials within the Obama Administration have used the IRS as a political weapon, violating the First Amendment rights of peaceful Americans like you and me!
But by passing this critical bill, we can end this nightmare once and for all!
Please, sign the National Petition to Repeal the 16th Amendment right away.
It's going to take each and every one of us to win this uphill battle, my friend.
You see, the Washington "ruling class" is addicted to the federal income tax. It's the fuel for their out-of-control spending and reckless big government debacles.
They're determined to keep this bill from ever even coming to the floor for a vote. They're absolutely terrified of having to stand before the American people and actually defend the income tax and the IRS!
And that's exactly why we MUST pressure Congress to bring this bill to the floor. If we can pressure them to bring it up for a vote, there's no way these politicians will be able to defend this corrupt system.
They'll have no choice but to repeal the 16th Amendment!
Please, sign this important petition right away.
Congressman Bridenstine has taken a very bold step by proposing HJ Res 104. He did so only because he believes the American people will take up the mantle and join the charge against our fundamentally corrupt tax code.
He is counting on us - everyday grassroots Americans - to join him in this do-or-die effort.
Tea Party Patriots is ready to do just that. Are you?
Are you ready to take this critical step toward eliminating the IRS, throwing out our oppressive federal tax code, reining in big government, and reclaiming our liberty?
If your answer is "YES!" then I urge you to sign our urgent National Petition to Repeal the 16th Amendment right away.
Thank you so much for your support. May God bless America!
I've also heard some Tea Party members advocate for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would take away the right of the voting public to vote from their Senators and Congresspersons, and give it back to the legislature. In view of the nonsensical bills a lot of the legislatures across the country have passed in recent years, repealing the 17th amendment would be a REALLY BAD IDEA.
This three quotes got me.
Tax code is Constitutional. 16th Amendment makes it Constitutional. Only by repealing the 16th Amendment could you make the claim the tax code is Unconstitutional. This seems a bit petty, but if this guy doesn't know even the most basic definitions of terms, it makes me very suspicious that he is just throwing around trigger words to grab more attention.
What investigations is he referring to?
Gotta throw in that word liberty, even if it makes zero sense. How have we lost any liberty? Also, he hasn't shown in any way that the federal tax code is "oppressive." How is it oppressive? Yea! for more trigger words.
All in all. I'm not convinced. But I don't think this announcement would be targeted at someone like myself. It's not trying to be persuasive, its just trying to draw attention from people who already agree with your point, or just blindly follow a party flag.
I'm amazed that people spent time on all of this total nonsense; in no other country they will make such a fuss about base laws.
Especially slogans like "God bless America" makes it total laughable; the poor guy up there has no clue of what we dictate on what "he"(?) should do for us. May be we should ask "his"(?) advise per e-mail.
Yes it may be nonsense, but what makes people spend time on it is that they hate and distrust our federal government so much, and for many good reasons.
Our government is so corrupt, so wasteful, so intent on doing nothing except keeping their phoney baloney jobs, that many people will happily support this total nonsense.
When the president himself tells lies again and again and again, so much that he wins the "Lie of the Year" award, and our Congress has an approval rating of about 10%, then it should not be surprising that people will support anything which opposes them.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.