Learning and teaching the Constitution By Larry Mayo

Guest Post

Back in a campaign some years ago, a young man handed me a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution and a pamphlet with a well known (to some) story about his quest for re-election. In the story the constituent told Mr. Crocket that he either was incapable of understanding or hadn’t read that document that he swore an Oath to uphold and defend, so he could not cast a vote to re-elect him. The story may or may not be accurately told in the pamphlet, but it sparked something in me. It made me realize that this man, a farmer in the early 1800’s had a better understanding of that document than I did. I quickly realized that even though I had graduated from one of the highest rated schools in my state, with a B+ average, I hadn’t ever read that document in it’s entirety. So , I read it, in fact I read it several times. I realized that it was pretty easy to understand, since it was written in English, even if there were a few obscure words and phrases in it. I began to question, why it didn’t seem to be being followed too well and figured I just didn’t really understand it.

Several years ago I heard about a free course from Hillsdale College and enrolled in it. The course was great and gave me a much better understanding of the document and many of the phrases that I had issues with prior, leading to me reading many of the writings of the men who had a hand in the creation of our Constitution. In addition I took several other courses on the history of our founding and the Constitution, however none of this had as much of an impact on my comprehension of it than the course I wish to introduce to you here.

Three years ago I enrolled in a course called “The American View of Law , Liberty and government, The U.S. Constitution” provided by the Institute on the Constitution, an organization from Pasadena, Maryland IOTC for short. As I sat through the first of twelve one hour lectures, I quickly realized that there was more to this one than the others I had taken. The conclusions I had reached over a period of years of study and the fundamental principles that had taken hundreds of hours of reading had been summed up in just the introduction to this course. I must confess, that in the next 11 weeks, due to life getting in the way, I was late to some of the classes and negligent in doing the homework, since I didn’t think I really needed all of that and was also a little leery of investing the extra money, which I really didn’t have into the books and DVD’s for the homework. Even so, by the end of the twelve weeks I had been blown away by the amount of information I had absorbed, and thought to myself “ how much more did I miss?”. I took this course two more times and lead a class that was taught by a live video stream in six two hour lectures. Each time, during each lecture, I found myself having one of those ah-ha moments.

Several of us who have taken this course have recently formed a non- profit organization, with the Blessings of the IOTC called First State IOTC and are organizing classes to allow those who may have an interest in this course to get it. To get more information or sign up, send an email to FSIOTC@gmail.com . We are currently offering the course for free, I recommend you get the workbook which we sell at cost, which is $35.00 (including shipping), but it is not a requirement to buy anything. If you prefer to take the course at home, you will find it available on this website; www.theamericanview.com in DVD form and additional books and DVDs available.

As a side note. Because this course came to us through a candidate that was in a controversial election, there are some people who think there is a conspiracy to brainwash you into something, I’m not sure exactly what, and have been saying some pretty ugly things about some of the people involved, in an attempt to discredit the organizations mentioned above. All I can say is take a look for yourselves. We have nothing to hide and the only thing we have to gain, is a more informed electorate, as Thomas Jefferson said “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

For more information It is for all ages.

23 thoughts on “Learning and teaching the Constitution By Larry Mayo”

  1. Frank
    You are an uneducated dolt. You are the main person spreading ugly lies about the people Larry speaks of. You’ve got your nerve coming over on our site with your ugliness.

    I am saying you are a liar and an uneducated idiot. You were doing drugs and making rounds in the bars, fighting and brawling, while guys like Larry, myself and many others were serving their country. What right do you have to attack a good man like Larry Mayo?

    I say Kudos to Larry Mayo for taking up the good fight and defending our Constitution, and teaching a class on the Constitution.

    Frank Knotts, you have denigrated and harassed nearly every conservative Christian who defends the Constitution in your many rants on Delaware Right (Left), and you say you expect respect. Don’t go away mad, just go away crybaby.

  2. {redacted as unwanted personal attack} DonAyotte, all I did was post links to allow others to see who Larry is endorsing and encouraging that they learn from. Not sure how that relates to any of the nice things you had to say about me.
    Yes in my youth I drank, almost never in bars, too expensive, I did drugs, and yes I punched a few dumb asses in the mouth on occasion.
    Now tell these people something I haven’t freely admitted myself a long time ago.
    I notice that like Larry you fail to deny or defend against the links I posted, you simply attack me personally while accusing me of attacking others.
    http://www.delawareright.com

  3. Uh, Don, the co-founder of the IOTC is Michael Peroutka, who is on the board of League of the South.

    That is a fact, not a smear. The League of the South has a very educational website:

    http://leagueofthesouth.com/honoring-john-wilkes-booth569/

    “This 14th of April will mark the 150th anniversary of John Wilkes Booth’s execution of the tyrant Abraham Lincoln. The League will, in some form or fashion, celebrate this event.”

  4. Frank, you are not a decent guy and you are more than guilty of everything I’ve stated. I’d ask that you stay off our site in the future. You never have anything positive to add.
    BTW, You state that you’ve punched a few dumb asses in the mouth on occasion. That’s what I mean about you, “most everybody but you is a dumbass?

  5. Nitpicker
    The comments I have addressed to Frank Knotts, are not about the site that he posted on his comment.
    They are about him and his disposition. He has a long record in attacking certain people and I don’t want him to feel as though he can continue that practice.
    The reason I make those comments public, is that he has unjustly attacked many good people, using those tactics.

  6. Well Don Ayotte, not, that you would understand, but when I challenge people I do it from behind my own name, I don’t make anonymous comments.
    I notice that you make no attempt to address what I or Nitpicker has stated about Mr. P or LOTS. Not surprised.

  7. Who cares who is a member of what? Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and was a slaveowner. Does that make the document irrelevant or fraudulent?

    The point of the post is the study of the Constitution, not who teaches what and where.

  8. “There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality…

    There must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race…”

    A. Lincoln, 1858 in debate with S. Douglas

    Lincoln wanted to implement a plan whereby freed slaves would return to Africa or to be deported to Central America.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    It has been said that secession may be the only salvation of the Anglophile and his traditions. Perhaps so. In any event, in this era of politically-correct nonsense, even mentioning secession is the equivalent of tossing a noose in front of a Baptist church. Which only demonstrates the need to discuss secession.

  9. “Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and was a slaveowner. Does that make the document irrelevant or fraudulent? ”

    It doesn’t make it the Constitution, for one thing.

  10. No, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. And that means…what?

    Jefferson was a slaveowner, yet the efficacy of the “Declaration” was not in the least way diminished by that fact. Similarly, simply because Mayo belongs to an organization the offends the sensibilities of the politically-correct Puritans of today does not at all affect his ability to convey information pertaining to the intent of and powers granted by the U.S. Constitution.

    The Modern Puritans

  11. Rick February 24, 2015 at 14:12 “A. Lincoln, 1858 in debate with S. Douglas. Lincoln wanted to implement a plan whereby freed slaves would return to Africa or to be deported to Central America.”

    Or maybe Lincoln was just trying to get elected and didn’t think enough people would vote for him if he came straight out for equality of the Black and White races.

  12. Frank Knotts February 24, 2015 at 05:51 “Larry, could you tell everyone who the founder of the IOTC is? ”

    Well, if founders are so important to you, maybe we could remember who the founder of Planned Parenthood is?

  13. Or maybe Lincoln was just trying to get elected and didn’t think enough people would vote for him if he came straight out for equality of the Black and White races.

    Or maybe “Honest Abe” was expressing his beliefs…which he was.

    If you believe that Lincoln went to war to “preserve the union” or to “end slavery,” than you are the most naive man on the planet. It was about the consolidation of power.

  14. Rick February 24, 2015 at 22:05 “Or maybe “Honest Abe” was expressing his beliefs…which he was.”

    Well, then his beliefs changed, because Lincoln put Blacks in military uniform and sent them to war the same as White soldiers. So whatever it was that Abraham Lincoln believed when debating Douglass before being elected, that was not what Lincoln believed as President in the Civil War.

    Lincoln ended up advocating for racial equality.

    The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments t the US Constitution were part f Lincoln’s agenda.

    The 14th Amendment explicitly makes all races equal.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Rick February 24, 2015 at 22:05 “If you believe that Lincoln went to war to “preserve the union” or to “end slavery,” than you are the most naive man on the planet. It was about the consolidation of power.”

    Okay, first, you are saying that Honest Abe was lying?

    So wouldn’t it be a lot simpler and make a lot more sense if CANDIDATE Abe when trying to get votes was… embellishing n the campaign trail?

    If you think Abraham Lincoln was lying, it would make a lot more sense that he was conscious of what people wanted to hear on the campaign trail.

    Second, of course, the Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumter, South Carolina.

    Third, yes, Lincoln fought to preserve the union and free the slaves.

    The Republicans could have compromised with the Democrats and admitted more Slave States in the union….

    … and the Civil War wouldn’t have happened.

  15. Third, yes, Lincoln fought to preserve the union and free the slaves.

    Lincoln represented the New England money men and power brokers who needed to break the South in order to impose their world-view on the half of the country that didn’t agree with their notion of a leviathan, centralized government.

    This isn’t to say that slavery was desirable- it wasn’t. But the fact is that the North and South were, essentially, two separate cultures, one agrarian with loyalties primarily to the state, the other industrial with an inclination toward a powerful centralized government.

    We face a similar situation today, and a cursory glance at a red/blue map of congressional districts will make this obvious; the heartland (from ID to TX to GA) believes in states’ rights, the Northeast, Pacific Coast and Rust Belt Puritans prefer big government, with the associated high taxes and dispensation of largesse. And some day, perhaps in my lifetime, there will be a second secession; what is in reality a cultural chasm cannot be settled politically.

  16. The Lincoln Legacy

    To comprehend the emergence of our contemporary predicament, characterized by relentless, totalizing, state expansion, the proliferation of spurious positive ‘human rights’ (claims on the resources of others backed by coercive bureaucracies), politicized money, reckless evangelical ‘wars for democracy’, and comprehensive thought control arrayed in defense of universalistic dogma (accompanied by the degradation of science into a government public relations function), it is necessary to ask how Massachusetts came to conquer the world, as Moldbug does. With every year that passes, the international ideal of sound governance finds itself approximating more closely and rigidly to the standards set by the Grievance Studies departments of New England universities. This is the divine providence of the ranters and levelers, elevated to a planetary teleology, and consolidated as the reign of the Cathedral.

    ……………..Nick Land

  17. It is important to recognize how to analyze these theories:

    Once again, The Confederacy started the war.

    So that ends this line of thinking right there.

    The Confederacy seceded. Nobody did nothing. Then the Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter.

    The South seceded. The North DID NOT REACT, until the South attacked Federal troops.

    And the reason was over FREE STATES being added to the Union so they would outlaw SLAVE STATES.

    So of course it was about slavery.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Rick February 25, 2015 at 08:42 “Lincoln represented the New England money men and power brokers”

    CONJECTURE. Also untrue. The Democrat Party had been in power nationwide for a long, long time A new upstart political party and a country lawyer from Illinois did not represent New England money or power brokers.

    “who needed to break the South in order to impose their world-view on the half of the country that didn’t agree with their notion of a leviathan, centralized government.”

    CONJECTURE STACKED UPON CONJECTURE. And obviously false. Again, the Democrat Party controlled Washington. No need or reason to go to a new upstart Party. The Democrats were not against centralized power.

    the other industrial with an inclination toward a powerful centralized government.

    CONJECTURE STACKED UPON CONJECTURE. And also untrue. The industrialized North and other States were NOT more inclined to centralized government.

    Indeed, the political philosophy of freedom and liberty with decentralized government is and was at odds with slavery. How do you argue for more freedom for all — free of government interference — but only for some people, not others?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    In fact, the “Lochner Era” FOLLOWING after the Civil War was the greatest period of upholding economic freedoms.

    The Federal courts AFTER the Civil War struck down government regulation and intrusion upon people’s liberties with great abandon.

    The Slaughterhouse cases and Lochner Era for decades from the Civil War until FDR are despised by today’s elite because they were so thoroughly contrary to their big-government schemes.

    It wasn’t the Civil War, but the Great Depression that allowed avowed socialists to exploit people’s fears and expand government power.

    It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, controlling both houses of Congress and the White House who implemented FDR’s “COURT PACKING SCHEME”

    America died when President Roosevelt put a gun to the head of the US Supreme Court and told them, in effect, “Either your signature or your brains will be on this court order.”

    The US Supreme Court abruptly reversed course and started to uphold government regulation and expansion against economic liberties and States rights and individual people.

    FDR threatened to expand the US Supreme Court to 15 Justices, with 6 of them appointed by him, and confirmed by a US Senate slavishly loyal to FDR.

    Seeing that they were going to lose either way, the US Supreme Court decided to lose quietly with some semblance of dignity intact (cowardly).

  18. Once again, The Confederacy started the war.

    Wrong. The U.S. Congress started the war.

    A new upstart political party and a country lawyer from Illinois did not represent New England money or power brokers.

    Who do you think got him elected ?

    The industrialized North and other States were NOT more inclined to centralized government.

    Huh? What did they do after the war? An expansion of government powers (including an income tax) that hasn’t slowed to this day.

Comments are closed.