# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  What If the Government Followed Its Own Constitution?

## Ronin Truth

> *What If the Government Followed Its Own Constitution?*
> 
> By Laurence M. Vance
> 
> April 19, 2016
> 
> 
> Conservatives hold sacred the Constitution, or at least they maintain they do. Republicans profess to be the party of the Constitution. They claim to revere the Constitution, to love the Constitution, to honor the Constitution. They castigate activist judges for broadly reading the Constitution. They criticize those who advocate a living Constitution. They talk about the necessity of discovering the original intent or original meaning of the Constitution. Conservatives and Republicans even insist, with a straight face, that they believe in following the Constitution, when, of course, they do nothing of the kind.
> 
> ...




https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/laurence-m-vance/feds-followed-constitution/

----------


## phill4paul

+rep. Thanks Ronin. Haven't been keeping up with Vance lately and he has always been one of my favorites.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> +rep. Thanks Ronin. Haven't been keeping up with Vance lately and he has always been one of my favorites.


You're welcome and thanks for the Rep. 

I particlarly enjoyed and appreciated this Vance article.

----------


## Ender

Good post-  Vance is always on top of it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

What about Article One- Section One? 




> *All legislative Powers* herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


Aren't legislative powers the ability to write laws? Discuss. 



http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What about Article One- Section One? 
> 
> Aren't legislative powers the ability to write laws? Discuss. 
> 
> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html


*Agencies and Apparatchiks* 

by eric • April 28, 2016	

http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/04/2...-apparatchiks/

Why is the government even involved in dictating “safety” standards for new cars?

Did the EPA ever get put to a vote?

These are legitimate questions. But rarely asked – and forget about answered.

The Constitution lists – enumerates – the specific powers the government is supposed to have. 

The Constitution also clearly states that the specific powers not enumerated are “reserved” to the people and the states.

Well, where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government shall have the power to lay down bumper impact standards? 

Or require that cars be fitted with air bags and back-up cameras?

Just asking…

VW – and all the rest of them – have to bend knee to this “agency” (NHTSA) which no one that I am aware of ever elected. Isn’t the process supposed to be that we elect representatives who then write laws – which we have some degree of veto power over via removing from office representatives whom we decide no longer represent us?

*How do we get rid of apparatchiks within an “agency” who never submit to an election – who are effectively tenured for life – but who have assumed the power to write laws? How did they get this power? And – better question – why do we defer to it, accept it as legitimate?*

It’s palpably not.

We’re told as kids that we live in a country run by the consent of the governed. 

*Really?* 

Did any of you consent to any of this? 

Were you even asked?

Or did it just kind of happen – and now you’re required to accept it? 

Just because?

It is very odd. Or rather, at odds with what we’ve been told.

Remember the line about “no taxation without representation”? Well, uhm … what else is it when the government adds a cost to a new car that you’re forced to pay, but never asked you – never asked anyone – whether they thought it was a good idea, but rather simply decreed that it will be so?

If it walks like a duck…

*The “safety” stuff is particularly obnoxious because the “safety” of an adult human being is clearly no business of anyone’s except that adult human being and perhaps his immediate family, who may exert emotional pressure on him to do – or not do – this or that. But there is no issue of the commons. A man not wearing his seat belt may get hurt as a result of this choice, but he hurts no one else as a result of his choice. A man who drives a 1,600 pound pre-air bag/crumple zone Beetle may regret it if he drives it into a tree – but that is his business, is it not? His driving the old Beetle doesn’t hurt anyone else, at any rate. And is therefore his business – assuming we are free adults and not livestock owned by others who have an interest in safeguarding their property.*

Think about it.

Government decreeing that you must have air bags in your car is exactly the same as a nosey fishwife neighbor showing up on your doorstep with elbow pads and helmet and insisting that you wear them.

No one elected the neighbor, either.   

As a practical consequence of these illegal (because, hey, it is not in the Constitution and therefore proscribed by the Constitution) and ever-escalating _fatwas_ for “safer” and “safer”  cars, we have heavier and heavier cars… steel being the primary practical way to achieve this. These government-mandated overweight cars then have a tough time passing muster with another nowhere-authorized-in-the-Constitution federal _fatwa_ insisting that they deliver “x” miles-per-gallon.

Where did that come from?

*Well, they will say they have authority via various evasions, euphemisms and legerdemain. But in plain English the fact is that Congress – which has the legal authority under the Constitution to write and pass laws – illegally transferred its legislative authority to these created-by-fiat “agencies” (Nixon simply decreed the EPA into existence) and the unelected apparatchiks within them. A general authority to (effectively) legislate as they please.*

*This is what EPA and NHTSA do every year – several times a year. They issue regulatory fatwas that have the same force and effect as any law passed by Congress. And yet, they are not legislators, never required to submit to a popular vote of yea or nay regarding what they do in our name but never once with even the slimmest pretext of our consent. *  

This is the argument car companies ought to present to the people. Not whether air bags and back-up cameras and so on are cost-effective or “work.” That is neither here nor there as regards the fundamental constitutional legitimacy of “agencies” arrogating unto themselves a legislative power nowhere authorized by the Constitution.

We’d almost certainly have fewer in the way of *fatwas* if Congress were tasked with doing its job – the job specified by the Constitution – the writing and passing of laws. Proposed laws might be debated, for one thing. 

And – ye gods – they’d be put to a vote.

Imagine that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What about Article One- Section One? 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't legislative powers the ability to write laws? Discuss. 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html


 Certainly.

But laws *about what?*

Only those laws exercising the Constitutionally-granted powers of the federal government are valid.  Any law attempting to exercise a power not explicityly granted in the Constitution is unconstitutional, illegal, and invalid.

The specific powers about which laws may be written, are found mostly in article 1 sections 8 and 10.  There are a few ancillary powers to be found, such as in Article 4, and a few clauses in Article 6, and in the several Amendments.

If the authority for a given law is not found explicitly in the text, then the federal government has no power to do it, and therefore any laws it may make to that effect are null and void.

----------


## Ronin Truth

How will the government ever know when/that they have finally made enough laws?

----------


## phill4paul

The Constitution really should have outlined penalties for representatives that failed to abide by the original intent. Like public hanging. Drawing and quartering. Burning at the stake.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Constitution really should have outlined penalties for representatives that failed to abide by the original intent. Like public hanging. Drawing and quartering. Burning at the stake.


I agree that this is it's biggest weakness.  I say that the Constitution should have proscribed some kind of harsh penalty for the violation of the oath of office.  The oath swears or affirms to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I would that a mechanism were provided for the people to prosecute an official for a violation of their oath.

Say a really high bar like 25% of a district signatures sets a public referendum of "should this person be tried?"  A majority "Yes" opens up a trial by grand jury.  Twelve juries of 12 persons, each 12 person jury sequestered unto itself apart from the other 12 person juries.  Individual 12-person juries must be unanimous to render a guilty verdict, but only a majority of the 12 juries finding guilty are necessary to render a guilty verdict.  In the event of a 6 jury to 6 jury tie, then the question of guilt yes or no goes again to public referendum.  If a finding of guilt is returned, then a series of types of crimes against the Constitution is defined, and a spectrum of punishment is laid out for each.  They can range from high treason to middlin graft to incidental misuse of office.  Array the fines and severity of imprisonment on a spectrum and let the people vote on the punishment.  Center the average and the mean and then impose that punishment on the faithless elected.

If a Congressman could potentially get 25 to life, or even the death penalty for failing to obey the Constitution, then it might change his perspective a little bit.

----------


## phill4paul

> I agree that this is it's biggest weakness.  I say that the Constitution should have proscribed some kind of harsh penalty for the violation of the oath of office.  The oath swears or affirms to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I would that a mechanism were provided for the people to prosecute an official for a violation of their oath.
> 
> Say a really high bar like 25% of a district signatures sets a public referendum of "should this person be tried?"  A majority "Yes" opens up a trial by grand jury.  Twelve juries of 12 persons, each 12 person jury sequestered unto itself apart from the other 12 person juries.  Individual 12-person juries must be unanimous to render a guilty verdict, but only a majority of the 12 juries finding guilty are necessary to render a guilty verdict.  In the event of a 6 jury to 6 jury tie, then the question of guilt yes or no goes again to public referendum.  If a finding of guilt is returned, then a series of types of crimes against the Constitution is defined, and a spectrum of punishment is laid out for each.  They can range from high treason to middlin graft to incidental misuse of office.  Array the fines and severity of imprisonment on a spectrum and let the people vote on the punishment.  Center the average and the mean and then impose that punishment on the faithless elected.
> 
> If a Congressman could potentially get 25 to life, or even the death penalty for failing to obey the Constitution, then it might change his perspective a little bit.



  I agree wholeheartedly.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I agree wholeheartedly.


It is for this reason that _while I 100% vehemently oppose_ a Convention of the States in the current climate, *if there unfortunately is one,* then I want to go and present my "make violating the Oath a felony" Amendment.

----------


## phill4paul

> It is for this reason that _while I 100% vehemently oppose_ a Convention of the States in the current climate, *if there unfortunately is one,* then I want to go and present my "make violating the Oath a felony" Amendment.


   I'd go with you but, as you say "in the current climate", if there was a Convention I'd be stocking up on...things.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'd go with you but, as you say "in the current climate", if there was a Convention I'd be stocking up on...things.


Yeah.  You and me both.  I just figure if the idiots are going to give us an unmitigated disaster, there ought to be at least someone pointing out the correct path if only for the historic record.

----------


## Danke

> Certainly.
> 
> But laws *about what?*
> 
> Only those laws exercising the Constitutionally-granted powers of the federal government are valid.  Any law attempting to exercise a power not explicityly granted in the Constitution is unconstitutional, illegal, and invalid.
> 
> The specific powers about which laws may be written, are found mostly in article 1 sections 8 and 10.  There are a few ancillary powers to be found, such as in Article 4, and a few clauses in Article 6, and in the several Amendments.
> 
> If the authority for a given law is not found explicitly in the text, then the federal government has no power to do it, and therefore any laws it may make to that effect are null and void.


 You'd think he just joined the forums today. Well maybe this version of Zippy is new here.

----------


## Danke

> I agree that this is it's biggest weakness.  I say that the Constitution should have proscribed some kind of harsh penalty for the violation of the oath of office.  The oath swears or affirms to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I would that a mechanism were provided for the people to prosecute an official for a violation of their oath.
> 
> Say a really high bar like 25% of a district signatures sets a public referendum of "should this person be tried?"  A majority "Yes" opens up a trial by grand jury.  Twelve juries of 12 persons, each 12 person jury sequestered unto itself apart from the other 12 person juries.  Individual 12-person juries must be unanimous to render a guilty verdict, but only a majority of the 12 juries finding guilty are necessary to render a guilty verdict.  In the event of a 6 jury to 6 jury tie, then the question of guilt yes or no goes again to public referendum.  If a finding of guilt is returned, then a series of types of crimes against the Constitution is defined, and a spectrum of punishment is laid out for each.  They can range from high treason to middlin graft to incidental misuse of office.  Array the fines and severity of imprisonment on a spectrum and let the people vote on the punishment.  Center the average and the mean and then impose that punishment on the faithless elected.
> 
> If a Congressman could potentially get 25 to life, or even the death penalty for failing to obey the Constitution, then it might change his perspective a little bit.


At least we could do a recall election.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> At least we could do a recall election.


I'd like to work on making recall elections possible in NC.  However, if the idiots are going to muck about with the Constitution, then I'm going to go for the gold.  I'd like to see the corrupt bastards swinging on a pike.  No retroactive prosecution of course however, we aren't savages.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If a Congressman could potentially get 25 to life, or even the death penalty for failing to obey the Constitution, then it might change his perspective a little bit.


It's probably what you want, but no one in his right mind would ever run for office if he knew he could be second-guessed on his votes by a bunch of people many of whom may never have read the Constitution.

----------


## fisharmor

I can appreciate how some people like to trace back and look at the US Constitution and figure out where it went wrong.

Unfortunately, that approach will never work.

I have had to revise programs in excess of 10,000 lines of code before.  This is well in excess of the length of the constitution.  In a few cases, I had to perform some pretty deep surgery to a) get to the root of the problem, b) fix the problem, and c) make sure it still runs correctly.  I would end up reading through and understanding the whole thing prior to trying to make a change.  So I have a bit of experience in taking a huge, complex document that does something, and changing it, sometimes fundamentally.  Here are some things to consider.

1) When modifying a program, there are a ton of other rules and other structure involved.  You have to know the byte size of an integer on the platform you're working on.  You have to know how to terminate lines of code.  You have to know what documentation scraper you're using and how to format for it (and this is completely irrelevant to its actual function).
It's the same way in the US Constitution.  It's a short program, sure.  Written in 18th century code.  If you change the byte size of an int in a program, pretty soon all sorts of unpredictable things start happening.  Same as if you redefine the words "among" and "invasion".
One tiny change in one of the non-explicit rules has big effects and they are never beneficial.

Now think about all the other things that we take for granted in the constitution, which one little change can modify.


2) More importantly, the first step in solving any problem is..... _to accurately define the problem._ 
Anyone who has been in IT for any length of time should have warning sensors that go off the minute someone goes out of scope.  Say, for instance, that someone new took over Facebook and decided to make it start doing personal accounting for users.  IT professionals would go ape$#@! at the idea.  Facebook does what it does and it does it well enough to be squarely on top of its market.  If you go screwing around with it in order to try to fill another market niche, it has to be done in a way that accommodates the original system running as intended and incorporates the new functionality as an add-on, or it has to be done as a completely separate project.  Trying to simply repurpose FB as an accounting package in one big rollout is doomed to failure.

So what was the problem that the US Constitution was solving, to begin with?  Everything I've read on it boils down to a power grab.  They even say that outright in public school, like it's something to be proud of: the Articles didn't allow for the federal government to do much, so they scrapped it for a more powerful government.

That is its original purpose: a power grab.  It was put in place as a power grab.  If you want to repurpose the US constitution as an anti-power-grab document, you are changing the fundamental nature of the constitution in a way which is more radical than trying to turn FB into an accounting software... because you're not just making a severe left turn, you're expecting it to start having the exact opposite effect of what it was ratified to do.

But it's still a project, and just like with a large IT project, you're not going to succeed unless you can roll it out the same way.  But the nature of the US government is that it is a monopoly.  No other federal state can exist at the same time.  You can't roll out your anti-constitution in tandem and leave the original system running - it's all or nothing.  The odds of a project that large succeeding on its first go are not favorable.

3) So what is success, anyway?  How do we determine if the project was a success?
Here you're going to run into classic state economics.  In the market, if you succeed you get more money, and if you fail you go bankrupt.
In the state, if you succeed you get your budget slashed, and if you fail you get more money.
There is a built-in incentive for the state to fail at the everyday things it does.  There is no fundamental difference between Kelly Thomas' face, and the F-35 program.  Both are complete failures that have been baked into this from the get-go.

No matter what you do with an anti-constitution, no matter how carefully you lay your plans, no matter how successful the rollout is, you're still going to have that reverse incentive.  The only way to use market incentives in the state is to use the market.  And the moment you do that we are nowhere within miles of the US Constitution.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I can appreciate how some people like to trace back and look at the US Constitution and figure out where it went wrong.
> 
> Unfortunately, that approach will never work.
> 
> I have had to revise programs in excess of 10,000 lines of code before. This is well in excess of the length of the constitution. In a few cases, I had to perform some pretty deep surgery to a) get to the root of the problem, b) fix the problem, and c) make sure it still runs correctly. I would end up reading through and understanding the whole thing prior to trying to make a change. So I have a bit of experience in taking a huge, complex document that does something, and changing it, sometimes fundamentally. Here are some things to consider.
> 
> 1) When modifying a program, there are a ton of other rules and other structure involved. You have to know the byte size of an integer on the platform you're working on. You have to know how to terminate lines of code. You have to know what documentation scraper you're using and how to format for it (and this is completely irrelevant to its actual function).
> It's the same way in the US Constitution. It's a short program, sure. Written in 18th century code. If you change the byte size of an int in a program, pretty soon all sorts of unpredictable things start happening. Same as if you redefine the words "among" and "invasion".
> One tiny change in one of the non-explicit rules has big effects and they are never beneficial.
> ...


So after a 200+ year test run, does it work, or does it fail?

----------


## fisharmor

> So after a 200+ year test run, does it work, or does it fail?


It's my contention that what we all come here to bitch about is exactly that: the US Constitution doing what it's supposed to do.
It was a power grab.  That was the original requirement.  
It did that well.
We ought not be too upset to find out that it's been continuing to do the thing it was supposed to do.

In short, it's a wildly successful experiment.  But almost nobody recognizes it, because they think it's supposed to do something else.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's my contention that what we all come here to bitch about is exactly that: the US Constitution doing what it's supposed to do.
> It was a power grab. That was the original requirement. 
> It did that well.
> We ought not be too upset to find out that it's been continuing to do the thing it was supposed to do.
> 
> In short, it's a wildly successful experiment. But almost nobody recognizes it, because they think it's supposed to do something else.


The anti-Feds were both prescient and correct.

----------


## AZJoe

"*Our forefathers, in contrast, risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to give birth to a nation whose glory was liberty and whose march was the march of the mind. The ultimate goal of the United States would not be power, domination or conquest; it would be a fair opportunity for citizens to develop their faculties and pursue their ambitions free from domestic or foreign predation. President Thomas Jefferson elaborated in his First Inaugural Address: [P]eace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. ...

**But for the last 70 years, we have crucified the Constitution on a cross of multi-trillion dollar gratuitous presidential wars that have crippled liberty; empowered the President to assassinate citizens at will based on secret evidence; impoverished the people; turned genius from production to destruction; and, awakened enemies who would otherwise self-destruct in internecine warfare. At present, we are engaged in nine (9) presidential wars in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and against ISIS and Al-Qaeda everywhere on the planet. Their collateral damage has included making children orphans, wives widows and fathers dig graves for their sons. President Dwight D. Eisenhowers worst nightmare of a multi-trillion dollar military-industrial-counterterrorism complex bestriding the corridors of power has come true.*"
--- Bruce Fein, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...us-war-powers/

----------


## Pericles

The writewrs of the Constitution expected impeachment to be commonplace and the remedy for out of scope politicians. 

Where did it go bad?

Ploitical parties, which supplanted duty to the country as the operating principle. When these guys have more loyalty to the party than the country (as washington predicted would happen) the people would be ruined.

And so it has come to pass.

----------


## TommyJeff

> What about Article One- Section One? 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't legislative powers the ability to write laws? Discuss. 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html



of course.  Legislators write laws. Those laws are bound by the powers afforded to them.  See article  1 section 8.

----------


## TommyJeff

> So after a 200+ year test run, does it work, or does it fail?


It works.  We the people fail.  We as a group of citizens stopped caring and turned over our government to politicians

----------


## TommyJeff

> So what was the problem that the US Constitution was solving, to begin with?  Everything I've read on it boils down to a power grab.  They even say that outright in public school, like it's something to be proud of: the Articles didn't allow for the federal government to do much, so they scrapped it for a more powerful government.
> 
> That is its original purpose: a power grab.  It was put in place as a power grab.  If you want to repurpose the US constitution as an anti-power-grab document,



A big problem with the articles is that it didn't account for funding a federal war.  So to pretend it's all and only about power is misdleading. 
And I don't agree it was a power grab at all.  It's written clearly that the powers the federal government has are Few and Defined.  It's designed to be a uniting force in war so each state doesn't have to fight along as in Europe.  It's involved in negotiating treaties with the collective (aka united) states.  It has the ability to tax states to fund its very limited and defined powers (articles didn't offer this which is a main failure of the articles).  And it leaves all other powers Not listed, to the states.   

So unless you're suggesting that the states were the ones using the constitution as a power grab, I can't understand this point.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *The writewrs of the Constitution expected impeachment to be commonplace and the remedy for out of scope politicians.* 
> 
> Where did it go bad?
> 
> Ploitical parties, which supplanted duty to the country as the operating principle. When these guys have more loyalty to the party than the country (as washington predicted would happen) the people would be ruined.
> 
> And so it has come to pass.


Source?

----------


## Pericles

> Source?


  Read the federalist papers - you can start with 65  A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

----------


## fisharmor

> A big problem with the articles is that it didn't account for funding a federal war.  So to pretend it's all and only about power is misdleading. 
> And I don't agree it was a power grab at all.  It's written clearly that the powers the federal government has are Few and Defined.  It's designed to be a uniting force in war so each state doesn't have to fight along as in Europe.  It's involved in negotiating treaties with the collective (aka united) states.  It has the ability to tax states to fund its very limited and defined powers (articles didn't offer this which is a main failure of the articles).  And it leaves all other powers Not listed, to the states.   
> 
> So unless you're suggesting that the states were the ones using the constitution as a power grab, I can't understand this point.


....You just validated what I said.  The Articles didn't let the federal government fund wars.  The new government gave itself that POWER.
If you stop right there, and don't examine anything else, then it was a power grab.
But you know as well as I that it does not stop with war funding.

They may have tried to keep things contained to just the power they were grabbing in 1789, but that doesn't make what they did not a power grab.

----------


## TommyJeff

> ....You just validated what I said.  The Articles didn't let the federal government fund wars.  The new government gave itself that POWER.
> If you stop right there, and don't examine anything else, then it was a power grab.
> But you know as well as I that it does not stop with war funding.
> 
> They may have tried to keep things contained to just the power they were grabbing in 1789, but that doesn't make what they did not a power grab.



In my book, a Power grab and the ability to fund a war for the collective states, aren't the same thing. The term _Power grab_ makes it sound like much more than funding a war for the collective.   

But if that's all you meant - I guess we agree.

----------


## Pericles

> ....You just validated what I said.  The Articles didn't let the federal government fund wars.  The new government gave itself that POWER.
> If you stop right there, and don't examine anything else, then it was a power grab.
> But you know as well as I that it does not stop with war funding.
> 
> They may have tried to keep things contained to just the power they were grabbing in 1789, but that doesn't make what they did not a power grab.


The 1780s were a period of economic depression. US shipping was being pillaged by the Barbary pirates and insurance rates were 30% of the value of the cargo per shipment, and even at that rate insurers were going bankrupt. Efforts by cities and states to fund warships for protection of shipping failed. The problem to be solved by the Constitution was the ability to build a military that could protect American economic trade.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The 1780s were a period of economic depression. US shipping was being pillaged by the Barbary pirates and insurance rates were 30% of the value of the cargo per shipment, and even at that rate insurers were going bankrupt. Efforts by cities and states to fund warships for protection of shipping failed. The problem to be solved by the Constitution was the ability to build a military that could protect American economic trade.


Thing is, they didn't even need to scrap the AoC to do that. In fact, the authors of the CONstitution were believed by regular folks to be amending the AoC. The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.

----------


## TommyJeff

> The 1780s were a period of economic depression. US shipping was being pillaged by the Barbary pirates and insurance rates were 30% of the value of the cargo per shipment, and even at that rate insurers were going bankrupt. Efforts by cities and states to fund warships for protection of shipping failed. The problem to be solved by the Constitution was the ability to build a military that could protect American economic trade.



Great educational point

----------


## TommyJeff

> Thing is, they didn't even need to scrap the AoC to do that. In fact, the authors of the CONstitution were believed by regular folks to be amending the AoC. The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.


What power?  The 9th and 10th amendment sure doesn't sound like a federal government power grab.  The list of enumerated powers sounds as though the constitution limits federal authority and jurisdiction.  

You make a good point that some/many believed the AoC was being amended, but didn't they first talk about this and scrap it because it was easier to start fresh rather than Amend?  They didn't lie about initially trying to amend the AoC, isn't that true?

----------


## Pericles

> Thing is, they didn't even need to scrap the AoC to do that. In fact, the authors of the CONstitution were believed by regular folks to be amending the AoC. The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.


Source?

----------


## presence

> The 1780s were a period of economic depression. US shipping was being pillaged by the Barbary pirates and insurance rates were 30% of the value of the cargo per shipment, and even at that rate insurers were going bankrupt. Efforts by cities and states to fund warships for protection of shipping failed. The problem to be solved by the Constitution was the ability to build a military that could protect American economic trade.



so what you're saying  was overseas imex was economically unreasonable way for goods to be traded because security expenses were absurd, so big government subsidized its security by charging locals; raising the cost of everything beyond what catallaxy considered affordable until imex goods were at par with the local economy.  net result: the cost of everything rises for tax payers and big business shipping gains new entitlement to state funded security, marking the dawn of the American banana republic, and the beginning of imposition of big business entitlements over free market local trade.

----------


## Pericles

> so what you're saying  was overseas imex was economically unreasonable way for goods to be traded because security expenses were absurd, so big government subsidized its security by charging locals; raising the cost of everything beyond what catallaxy considered affordable until imex goods were at par with the local economy.  net result: the cost of everything rises for tax payers and big business shipping gains new entitlement to state funded security, marking the dawn of the American banana republic, and the beginning of imposition of big business entitlements over free market local trade.



It was a real disaster. Crop growers got paid for selling their crops. Ship owners retained their property. More ships got built to sell more goods outside of the United States. People were employed doing all of those things. And the national government stopped spending 20% of its budget on ransom payments. What fools our ancestors were to fall for that.

Or, to put it in terms even an anarchist can understand, private security companies weren't up to the job.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Source?


My college US history text and prof for a few. It's also pretty common knowledge what the Convention was *supposed to be* for (at least it is for people my age and older).

ETA https://history.state.gov/milestones...d-ratification :
*Constitutional Convention and Ratification, 1787–1789*                                                     The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between                     May and September of 1787* to address the problems of                     the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation.*                     The United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a                     federal government with more specific powers, including those related to                     conducting relations with foreign governments. Under the reformed federal                     system, many of the responsibilities for foreign affairs fell under the                     authority of an executive branch, although important powers, such as treaty                     ratification, remained the responsibility of the legislative branch. After the                     necessary number of state ratifications, the Constitution came into effect in                     1789 and has served as the basis of the United States Government ever since.

Bonus:



> Upon learning that my new book on Alexander Hamilton (Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for Americans Today)  will be published in October, a law student from New York University  emailed to say how excited he was to hear of it. He wrote of how sick  and tired he was listening to one of his NYU law professors, Nadine  Strossen, constantly invoking Hamilton’s judicial philosophy (and that  of his political descendants) to promote bigger and bigger government,  day in and day out, in class. Being schooled in the classical liberal  tradition, this student understood that bigger and bigger government  always means less and less individual liberty. 
>  Hamilton was indeed the founding father of constitutional subversion  through what we now call "judicial activism." That’s why leftist law  professors like Strossen lionize him in their classrooms while barely  mentioning opposing viewpoints. 
>  Hamilton was the leading advocate of a constitutional convention to  "amend" the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation.  He lobbied for seven years to have such a convention convened,  constantly complaining to George Washington and anyone else who would  listen that "we need a government of more energy." Patrick Henry opposed  Hamilton by sagely pointing out that the Articles of Confederation had  created a government powerful enough to raise and equip an army that  defeated the British empire, and that that seemed sufficient to him. 
>  At the convention, which scrapped rather than amended the Articles of  Confederation, as had been promised, Hamilton laid out his grand plan: A  permanent president who would appoint the governors of each state, and  who would, through his state-level puppets, have veto power over all  state legislation. A national government with the president given  essentially the powers of a king is what he advocated. It was all  rejected, of course, when the convention spurned Hamilton’s nationalism  and adopted a federal system of government instead, with only a few  powers delegated to the central government by the sovereign states,  mostly for foreign affairs. Hamilton subsequently denounced the new  constitution as "a frail and worthless fabric."
>  He and his political compatriots, such as Senator Rufus King of  Massachusetts, and John Marshall of Virginia, then set about to sabotage  the new Constitution by "reinterpreting" the document as something very  different from what was clearly written in black and white. His  purpose, wrote Cornell University historian Clinton Rossiter in his  book, Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution, was to build "the foundations of a new empire." 
>  Jefferson and most other founders viewed the Constitution as a set of  constraints on the powers of government. Hamilton thought of it in  exactly the opposite way — as a grant of powers rather than as a set of  limitations  —  a potential rubber stamp on anything and everything the  federal government ever wanted to do. He and his fellow nationalists  (the Federalists) set about to use the lawyerly manipulation of words to  "amend" the Constitution without utilizing the formal amendment  process. "Having failed to persuade his colleagues at Philadelphia of  the beauties of a truly national plan of government," Rossiter wrote,  "and having thereafter recognized the futility of persuading the  legislatures of three-fourths of the states to surrender even a jot of  their privileges, he set out to remold the Constitution into an  instrument of national supremacy."
>  And how did he "remold" the Constitution? He began by inventing a  number of myths (i.e., lies) about the American founding. On June 29,  1787, before the Constitution was even ratified, he said that the  sovereign states were merely "artificial beings" that had nothing to do  with creating the union  —  despite the fact that the Constitution  itself (in Article 7) declared that the document would be ratified (if  it was to be ratified) by the citizens of at least nine of the thirteen  states. He told the New York State Assembly in that same year that the  "nation," and not the states, had "full power of sovereignty," clearly  contradicting the written Constitution and actual history. This lie  would be repeated by nationalist politicians from Clay, Webster and  Story, to Lincoln. It is still repeated to this day by various  apologists for the American empire. 
>  When President Washington asked Hamilton his opinion on the  constitutionality of a national bank, Hamilton responded with a  long-winded report that argued that if one reads between the lines of  the Constitution, one discovers "implied powers" that are not  specifically delegated to the central government by the states. Like the  creation of a central bank, for instance. Secretary of State Jefferson  was also asked his opinion on the matter, and essentially said that all  he saw "between the lines" of the Constitution was blank space. 
>  Hamilton prevailed, setting the template for the eventual destruction  of the Constitution. "With the aid of the doctrine of implied powers,"  Rossiter wrote approvingly, Hamilton "converted the . . . powers  enumerated in Article I, Section 8 into firm foundations for whatever  prodigious feats of legislation any future Congress might contemplate."  He established the foundations for unlimited government, in other words.  
> ...


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/07/...al-subversion/

----------


## Pericles

> My college US history text and prof for a few. It's also pretty common knowledge what the Convention was *supposed to be* for (at least it is for people my age and older).
> 
> ETA https://history.state.gov/milestones...d-ratification :
> *Constitutional Convention and Ratification, 1787–1789*
> 
>                                                      The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between                     May and September of 1787* to address the problems of                     the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation.*                     The United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a                     federal government with more specific powers, including those related to                     conducting relations with foreign governments. Under the reformed federal                     system, many of the responsibilities for foreign affairs fell under the                     authority of an executive branch, although important powers, such as treaty                     ratification, remained the responsibility of the legislative branch. After the                     necessary number of state ratifications, the Constitution came into effect in                     1789 and has served as the basis of the United States Government ever since.
> 
> Bonus:
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/07/...al-subversion/


Now have a look at how history is done at the graduate level - http://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-...-constitution/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Now have a look at how history is done at the graduate level - http://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-...-constitution/


1) that's undergraduate level writing, style, and format 2) it doesn't offer any arguments or evidence that hasn't been dealt with in this thread and related threads in the past. Feel free to try again sometime.  ~hugs~

----------


## TommyJeff

> The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.


These are your words. 




> United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a federal government with more specific powers...


this is what you referenced.  



As I wrote above and your reference explains(mostly), the Constitution defines specific powers the federal govement has, a good portion relating to foreign affairs.  But these are specific and not general powers.  They are defined and not unlimited.  They are minimal and not a power grab.  

It sounds to me as though your reference contradicts you but feel free to explain.

----------


## Ender

> Thing is, they didn't even need to scrap the AoC to do that. In fact, the authors of the CONstitution were believed by regular folks to be amending the AoC. The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.


This is exactly what it was.

The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to create a strong central government and it worked beautifully.

----------


## TommyJeff

> This is exactly what it was.
> 
> The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to create a strong central government and it worked beautifully.


is anyone suggesting the federal government wasn't made to be stronger or more powerful under the constitution in relation to AoC?


But why would a power grabbing coup offer limited and defined federal powers and include the 9th and 10th amendments?  You can't suggest those things make the federal government more powerful can you?

----------


## Ender

> is anyone suggesting the federal government wasn't made to be stronger or more powerful under the constitution in relation to AoC?
> 
> 
> But why would a power grabbing coup offer limited and defined federal powers and include the 9th and 10th amendments?  You can't suggest those things make the federal government more powerful can you?


Because the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES would not sign the document or become part of a united States of America w/o the Bill of Rights.

Below is a great answer I found a while back when explaining the Federalists and the Anti-federalists to some friends:




> ~What you have to understand is something that you will never be taught in school. When Great Britain granted independence to the colonies by the Treaty of Paris, 1783, thirteen new nations were created. Those nations never attempted to, or wanted to, combine into a single nation. Each was an independent, autonomous, sovereign state (as in "nation-state"), For their common defense and economic good, the allied into a confederation, first under under the Articles of Confederation, then under the Constitution of the USA.
> 
> At the Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention in 1787, they met to revise the Articles in a effort to strengthen and make more efficient the federal - not national - government. The delegates, especially the anti-federalists - were very concerned about granting too much authority to the federal government, in fear that the member nations would be subsumed into a single whole and their unique individual independence would be lost. (Those fears were realized in 1861-1865).
> 
> *It was an understood given that any nation that joined the confederation would have the option, at its sole discretion or by the vote of the people therein, to opt out of (secede from) the confederation at any time. Amendments IX and X were included in the Bill of Rights as an additional guarantee of that right.*
> 
> Because history is written by the victors, and because the USA confederation successfully invaded, conquered and annexed the free and independent member nations of the CSA (it was not a civil war by any stretch of the imagination), you are taught that the USA was established as a single nation from the outset. That is simply not true. The Founding Fathers and Framers of the constitution had no such goal in mind and everyone - then - knew it. That is why the New England states felt justified (and rightfully so when they threatened to secede in 1803, 1812, 1814 and yet again in 1815. That is why states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line felt justified in threatening to secede over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromises of 1820 and 1821, and again over the 1852 Taney Court ruling in the Dred Scott case, and why Abe Lincoln himself stood on the floor of Congress on January 12, 1848 and argued in favor of the right.
> 
> Given that the very core principle of the Declaration of Independence is that a state (again, nation-state) or a people have the right to change of leave a government that no longer serves, defends and protects the rights and interests of the governed, the delegates who had just shed so much blood, money time and effort in doing so were not about to so easily and simply throw the right in the garbage. Although all present agreed that the right was an implicit, if not express, given, they, and especially the anti-Federalists, wanted a written guarantee. The amendments were also intended to insure that the federal government would be limited to the expressly enumerated powers accorded to it in the Constitution and the Amendments expressly reserved onto the people and the member nations all powers, rights and authority not so expressly set forth.
> ...

----------


## TommyJeff

> Below is a great answer I found a while back when explaining the Federalists and the Anti-federalists to some friends:


that was an informative read but I think it proved my point more than yours. 

It addresses the state as being independent except in times of war for the collective states.  It mentions the amendments that gives states and citizens power to abolish the federal government or alter it.   And it addresses the enumerated powers of the federal government. 

We ageee on all that, but those all sound like ways to limit the federal government and not a power grab.  Can you explain any better please?

----------


## Ender

> that was an informative read but I think it proved my point more than yours. 
> 
> It addresses the state as being independent except in times of war for the collective states.  It mentions the amendments that gives states and citizens power to abolish the federal government or alter it.   And it addresses the enumerated powers of the federal government. 
> 
> We ageee on all that, but those all sound like ways to limit the federal government and not a power grab.  Can you explain any better please?


The major difference is that the "states" were actually separate countries. They were afraid that a strong central government, which was originally put together to help the 13 colonies in defense and trade ONLY, would have too much power and the individual "countries" would lose their freedom.

They were right.

The "Civil" War ended any "states" rights that were left and made everyone a slave, contrary to popular history.

----------


## TommyJeff

> The major difference is that the "states" were actually separate countries. They were afraid that a strong central government, which was originally put together to help the 13 colonies in defense and trade ONLY, would have too much power and the individual "countries" would lose their freedom.
> 
> They were right.
> 
> The "Civil" War ended any "states" rights that were left and made everyone a slave, contrary to popular history.


we still agree. 

However the point made earlier is that the constitution originally written was a coup to grab much federal government power.  

Because Lincoln and others unconstitutionally seized power is not the same thing as the constitution authorizing it as a founders intent.

----------


## Ender

The Anti-Federalist POV:

 The three core issues:

*1. The omission of a bill of rights*

    The absence of a bill of rights was an often-repeated criticism of the Constitution. Antifederalists not only believed that the inclusion of a bill of rights was essential to the preservation of liberty, but they also believed that a fundamental statement of political and legal principle would educate citizens about the ideals of republicanism and make them more effective guardians of their own liberty.

*2. The centralizing tendencies of the new government*

* The new powerful central government created by the Constitution would slowly absorb all power within its orbit and effectively reduce the states to insignificant players in a powerful new centralized nation state.* *Antifederalists feared that the new Constitution would create a central state similar to Great Britain’s fiscal/military model. The extensive powers to tax, the provision for a standing army, and the weakening of the state militias would allow this new powerful government to become tyrannical.* _(This has pretty much been the result)
_
*3. The aristocratic character of the new government*

    The charge of aristocracy frequently voiced by Antifederalists could be framed in either democratic terms or in a more traditional republican idiom. Thus, for middling democrats or plebeian populists, the charge of aristocracy was in essence a democratic critique of the Constitution. According to this view, the Constitution favored the interests of the wealthy over those of common people. *For elite Antifederalists, by contrast, the charge of aristocracy echoed the traditional republican concern that any government with too much power would inevitably become corrupt and would place the interests of those in power over the common good.
*

----------


## TommyJeff

> The Anti-Federalist POV:
> 
>  The three core issues:
> 
> *1. The omission of a bill of rights*
> 
> *2. The centralizing tendencies of the new government*_
> _
> *3. The aristocratic character of the new government*


1. This has always fascinated me.  If the bill of rights wasn't included, the current perversion of federal power would be much greater.   However by listing just 10 items, it goes contrary to the enumerated powers throughout the constitution.  
I don't understand how the bill of rights is your first example of a coup power grab.  Please explain 


2.  The constitution did not let the federal government tax citizens, it could only tax the states equally. The states had power to form together and say no. Citizens cannot at this point.  States also basically held the seats in the senate, how does that position equate to increasing federal power and not state power?

3.  Of course there were critiques, there was debate on many sides of many issues for quite some time. You're still not explaining how there was a coup to give the federal government all this power as a direct result of the constitution.

i feel it important to say, again, that I agree with you on the current lopsided power favoring the federal government.  I'm just failing to see your point that this is a direct result of the constitution.

----------


## Ender

> 1. This has always fascinated me.  If the bill of rights wasn't included, the current perversion of federal power would be much greater.   However by listing just 10 items, it goes contrary to the enumerated powers throughout the constitution.  
> I don't understand how the bill of rights is your first example of a coup power grab.  Please explain 
> 
> 
> 2.  The constitution did not let the federal government tax citizens, it could only tax the states equally. The states had power to form together and say no. Citizens cannot at this point.  States also basically held the seats in the senate, how does that position equate to increasing federal power and not state power?
> 
> 3.  Of course there were critiques, there was debate on many sides of many issues for quite some time. You're still not explaining how there was a coup to give the federal government all this power as a direct result of the constitution.
> 
> i feel it important to say, again, that I agree with you on the current lopsided power favoring the federal government.  I'm just failing to see your point that this is a direct result of the constitution.


Sorry- didn't mean to imply that the B of A was a power grab concern. These 3 points were the main concerns of the Anti-Federalists. The B of A was the major factor for most of the states to finally accept the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, the other 2 concerns took over rather quickly and today we can see the consequences.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The constitution did not let the federal government tax citizens, it could only tax the states equally.


This is incorrect.  One of the main reasons the Constitution was adopted was that the Articles of Confederation didn't grant the central government the power to tax; it could only request requisitions from the States, many of which ignored the requests and refused to pony up.  This failure was pointed out in Federalist 15:




> The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist. Though this principle does not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest depends. Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The consequence of this is, that though in theory their resolutions concerning those objects are laws, constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option.


As a result, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution gave Congress a broad taxing power, which could indeed reach individual citizens. Indeed, the only thing the Constitution says Congress can't tax is exports from a State to a foreign country.

----------


## Danke

> 1. This has always fascinated me.  If the bill of rights wasn't included, the current perversion of federal power would be much greater.   However by listing just 10 items, it goes contrary to the enumerated powers throughout the constitution.  
> I don't understand how the bill of rights is your first example of a coup power grab.  Please explain 
> 
> 
> 2.  The constitution did not let the federal government tax citizens, it could only tax the states equally. The states had power to form together and say no. Citizens cannot at this point.  States also basically held the seats in the senate, how does that position equate to increasing federal power and not state power?
> 
> 3.  Of course there were critiques, there was debate on many sides of many issues for quite some time. You're still not explaining how there was a coup to give the federal government all this power as a direct result of the constitution.
> 
> i feel it important to say, again, that I agree with you on the current lopsided power favoring the federal government.  I'm just failing to see your point that this is a direct result of the constitution.


Correct.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is incorrect.  One of the main reasons the Constitution was adopted was that the Articles of Confederation didn't grant the central government the power to tax; it could only request requisitions from the States, many of which ignored the requests and refused to pony up. * This failure was pointed out in Federalist 15:*
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution gave Congress a broad taxing power, which could indeed reach individual citizens. Indeed, the only thing the Constitution says Congress can't tax is exports from a State to a foreign country.


That's not a "failure" (preventing the Fedcoats from stealing from people is a success), but you are otherwise correct.

----------


## osan

> Aren't legislative powers the ability to write laws? Discuss.


Only to the degree of the grant.

----------


## osan

Oh, and BTW, I think the Constitution represents a colossal failure of imagination in the case where we assume there was no conspiracy afoot to scuttle real liberty.

All the states had to do was make a coalition force for the common defense.  Everyone contributes what they feel they need for defense of their respective territories on the understanding that some or all of those forces may be called upon to defend the other states.  Problem solved from a federal standpoint.  The funding becomes a state issue.

The establishment of Congress and the central taxing power are the biggest nails in the coffin's lid.  If we think of it carefully, there is absolutely no need for either and in fact neither of them makes a whit of sense from the standpoint of freedom.

The first nine Amendments should have been the long and the short of the Constitution, the understanding being that if you want to be in the club called "America", you play by these rules.  PERIOD.  The Tenth Amendment is feces as far as I am concerned.  Remove "the States" and I become less belligerent toward it.  But as worded, it is complete shyte.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> That's not a "failure" (preventing the Fedcoats from stealing from people is a success), but you are otherwise correct.


Was it OK for the States to steal from people?  In other words, if a State wanted to honor a requisition under the AoC, was it OK for it to tax its citizens? And if it wasn't, then the AoC's procedure for requisitions was meaningless.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> All the states had to do was make a coalition force for the common defense.  Everyone contributes what they feel they need for defense of their respective territories on the understanding that some or all of those forces may be called upon to defend the other states.  Problem solved from a federal standpoint.  The funding becomes a state issue.


This overlooks the fact that (a) the central government under the Articles of Confederation had other expenses besides common defense -- for example, it had to conduct foreign affairs (which costs money) and it had a boatload of foreign debt.  On top of that, some States refused to pay their requisitions, so that state funding didn't work.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Was it OK for the States to steal from people?  In other words, if a State wanted to honor a requisition under the AoC, was it OK for it to tax its citizens? And if it wasn't, then the AoC's procedure for requisitions was meaningless.


Of course not. But the thing is, when a state gets intolerable, you just move to another state. When the CONstitution's cartelized power decides to $#@! you over, there's nowhere to go(unless you're one of those lucky enough to have the means to move overseas to a tax haven).

----------


## anaconda

> I agree that this is it's biggest weakness.  I say that the Constitution should have proscribed some kind of harsh penalty for the violation of the oath of office.  The oath swears or affirms to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I would that a mechanism were provided for the people to prosecute an official for a violation of their oath.
> 
> Say a really high bar like 25% of a district signatures sets a public referendum of "should this person be tried?"  A majority "Yes" opens up a trial by grand jury.  Twelve juries of 12 persons, each 12 person jury sequestered unto itself apart from the other 12 person juries.  Individual 12-person juries must be unanimous to render a guilty verdict, but only a majority of the 12 juries finding guilty are necessary to render a guilty verdict.  In the event of a 6 jury to 6 jury tie, then the question of guilt yes or no goes again to public referendum.  If a finding of guilt is returned, then a series of types of crimes against the Constitution is defined, and a spectrum of punishment is laid out for each.  They can range from high treason to middlin graft to incidental misuse of office.  Array the fines and severity of imprisonment on a spectrum and let the people vote on the punishment.  Center the average and the mean and then impose that punishment on the faithless elected.
> 
> If a Congressman could potentially get 25 to life, or even the death penalty for failing to obey the Constitution, then it might change his perspective a little bit.


I recall Molyneux lamenting something to the effect that his cell phone agreement was far more specific and detailed than the U.S. Constitution.

----------


## anaconda

> It works.  We the people fail.  We as a group of citizens stopped caring and turned over our government to politicians


_At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787,  Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention,  a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.”  Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”_

----------


## osan

> This overlooks the fact that (a) the central government under the Articles of Confederation had other expenses besides common defense -- for example, it had to conduct foreign affairs (which costs money) and it had a boatload of foreign debt.  On top of that, some States refused to pay their requisitions, so that state funding didn't work.


Well then perhaps foreign affairs are not the function of a central government.  Even so, who says that such affairs must perforce be so costly?  Why are they so costly?  Because we are up to our eyes in things for which we have no business.  The presupposition, of course, is that we MUST be in these things, whether it be spying, or what have you.  But ask yourself this: are such presuppositions valid?  I have not run down that rabbit hole yet, but suspect the answer is "not necessarily".

I daresay, and I will stand by this opinion until proven otherwise, that the vast and overwhelming majority of all our (humanity's) political machinations are the result of nothing fancier or more worthy than rank drama-queenery.  There is that class of people who seem unable to go about their lives without manufacturing low-rent, yet potentially very dangerous and destructive drama for the entire planet.

Of course, root causes notwithstanding, the dangers turn out to be very real as made manifest by nuclear weapons, for instance.  This is the sad truth underlying all human relations: the lowest denominator dictates the direction reality shall take.  In other words, entropy wins every time because _we subject ourselves_ to its ravages.  None of this has to be, in principle; but because someone, somewhere, stoops and nobody removes him from the book of the living, the rest of the world, or large swaths of it, get sucked into the black vortex.

As to whether America could draw away from all this idiocy, having plunged this deeply into it, is a question the answer to which remains to be discovered.  However, I do not find it likely that we will show the good sense, the integrity, and the intestinal fortitude to find out.  Simply put, it is far too easy and superficially compelling to remain on our current track.  This returns us to my hypothesis that the only thing that can bring the race of men out of its death spiral is the "reset event" - a sufficiently disruptive occurrence that leaves men standing before a stark, simple, and very immediate choice, with slackened jaw that whispers to us in the voice of God: change or be extinguished.

A self-sufficient America, having dispensed with the madness of the rest of the world's nations, well armed, and united in the fundamental principles of proper human relations, which are the very definition of well-tempered freedom, would have prospered as the others either consumed themselves in the stupidities of authoritarian collectivism, or came around to the grand virtues of liberty to become happy, healthy, free and prosperous nations in their own rites.

There is a whole other set of considerations - vistas of truth and the attendant strategies that open before us that arise with these thoughts, but those are vast and not always pleasant.  At any rate, they are not for this thread, methinks.

One thing I will say, however, is that any nation of _consequence_* occupying a stratum of lower denomination (greater entropy) than the rest of the world presents a clear and present threat to all.  As to what to do about such a "rogue" nation... well, that is another question entirely.  The fact is that entropy is more powerful than order; it is the thing against which ordered life must constantly battle without respite.  Think of a floating city in the skies above the earth.  The fight against gravity can have no cease, for in even the briefest refrain initiates an immediate jaunt toward the ground.  So it is against chaos, to which one can never turn his back, lest he succumb to its effects and be consumed by it.  Order and chaos in human affairs are fundamentally incompatible, for the former cannot destroy the latter, but rather only hold it at bay, whereas the latter is fully capable of destroying the former precisely due to the fact that it is the more natural state of existence.  It may seem a strange asymmetry, but it is nonetheless as real and as serious as a heart attack.

We, the race of men, have before us choices.  Not all are particularly pleasant.


*an admittedly loaded term.

----------


## osan

> The Constitution really should have outlined penalties for representatives that failed to abide by the original intent. Like public hanging. Drawing and quartering. Burning at the stake.


Try _THIS_.


*A Missing Link In Normative Government*




For many, the term "normative" may be foreign, yet they almost certainly know that to which it refers.  When we speak normatively, we speak of what we believe _ought_ to be, usually in terms of some ideal we employ as a standard of judgment.  "People ought not murder each other" is a normative statement.  In contrast, a _positive_ statement is one of pure observation of what _is_.  "People sometimes murder each other" is one example of such a statement.

When we speak normatively about "government", we are asserting our opinions about how it ought to be in terms of its structure, granted powers, and the behavior of those holding governmental positions, particularly where elected officials are concerned.  There has been much written about this over the centuries, some of which has been very insightful.  Despite the volume of work that has been produced on theories of government, governmental designs, and the large body of commentary on official behavior handed down to us through the ages, humanity has done an appallingly poor job of learning from the mistakes it has made in specifying those designs and responding to the endless litanies of documented governmental failure and abuse that almost universally characterizes the behavior of government officials in the modern nation-state.  A significant error of these architects and chroniclers has largely lain in their substantial failure to establish complete and correct normative models and standards by which governments should be designed and implemented, and the behaviors of their operating officials judged and punished where appropriate. 

For the past several centuries the various forms and instances of human government of the type we currently refer to as "the state" have proven themselves failures without notable exception.  Here, the term "state" is effectively synonymous with "empire" in the sense that, as was the case in the days of antiquity, governance is based upon the threat and application of force to compel behavior.  The main difference between then and more modern times (say, the past 500 years) is that the concepts of individual human rights had not yet been well developed and widely accepted.  Therefore, there was no standard by which rulers could have been widely judged as having acted beyond morally justifiable limits.  In some sense it could be argued that this lack of knowledge excuses the rulers of old, for they often knew nothing else but the standard of absolute authority and in most cases, tyranny, that the presumption of divine authority conferred, fostered, and served to reinforce. 

The advent of the penning of documents such as the Magna Carta, as well as the advent of the European Renaissance with the attendant rise of "science" and the manifold revolutions in human thought brought an end to the era of excusable ignorance by rulers, at least on that continent and later in the New World.  Despite this, the everyday reality of the governed man changed with deplorable paucity.  The single and relatively shining exception to this general condition lay in the establishment of the United States of America, where the form of governance that was established signified a quantum departure from all previous forms, wherein the fundamental assumptions laid in diametric opposition to those of the governments of virtually every other nation-state on the planet at the time. But even that significant alteration in the design of human governance has proven inadequate to the task to which it had been set based on the understandings held by the Founders regarding the individual and his place in the scheme of human affairs.  The Constitution of the United States, a work of significant creative genius, suffers from a litany of readily discernible flaws, some of which fall into the category of those discussed here. 

Two complementary characteristics which governments of "state" commonly share are the grossly *inadequate specification of proper sanctions to be imposed upon those officials who wantonly or negligently violate the rights of others* in the discharge of their official duties, and their enforcement.  This discussion shall deal with the former only, the latter being left perhaps for another day.  By the close of the eighteenth century, human history had provided oceans of examples of the endlessly recurring problems relating to the behavior of  persons who had assumed mantles of power over the people of nations throughout the ages. As bright and presumably forthright as the Founders were, and as great a feat of creative genius as was their new Constitution, replete with its revolutionary view of governance and the primacy of the individual over "the state", they nevertheless failed to sufficiently take heed of the lessons of history when considering the normative basis for designing their new confederation.  Some may balk at this assertion or even take offense at it, but the outcome of their efforts as embodied in the manifold troubles the nation now faces establishes it as a truth that is in part attributable to their architectural shortcomings and missteps.

Modern state governments, regardless of their particular form, all share certain characteristics to a greater or lesser degree.  Before going any further, we should become clear on what "government" is, that we may continue on with clarity and precision, which are the necessary elements required for a sufficient and proper understanding of the concept.  "Government" is nothing more than a set of conceptual conventions that are either agreed upon by a group of individuals, are forced by one group upon another, or a combination of the two.  There is no material reality to "government" just as in the case with "the state".  There are only those individuals who work alone or in concert with others to operate according to the dictates of "government" as they exist on paper (usually expressed as "law"), and often to the degree and manner to which they can get away with interpreting or otherwise ignoring those dictates to suit their personal and group objectives even when the actions taken pursuant to those interpretations violate the spirit of the law and, more importantly, the rights of the individual.  This is a fundamental aspect of government that must be paid its due respect and be fully grasped by anyone interested in the truth about "states", their attendant "governments", and the consequences of these modes of official individual behavior.

One of the universally present characteristics of modern government is the establishment of at least two classes of citizen: civilians and governors, which in practice readily translates directly into "slaves and masters" of various types and degrees, all idealistic language of rights and righteousness to the contrary notwithstanding. This stratification establishes those who are in charge and those who are to toe their lines.  While the lines in question are often seemingly reasonable in theory, in practice they are usually expressions of pure barbarism and tyranny.  Respect for the rights of the individual exists mainly on paper and in practice only where it is either convenient to the masters or where the slaves wield sufficient power to force the issue in their rightful favor.

There is, however, a circumstance relating to the structure of such governments that stands out most prominently, yet receives next to no sensible attention by those who would implement a new government or by those over whom such governments ostensibly preside, the greater truth being that in reality that they _rule_.  This circumstance centers upon the most notable absence of meaningful designs, implementations, and enforcement of a body of well-structured and complete specifications of standards of behavior of government officials and the suitable forms and degrees of punishment for those who fail to uphold those standards, either through intent or through negligence. 

Part of the reason for this appears to stem from the basic set of perceptions that most people seem to hold with respect to "government".  One of the false presumptions is that government actually exists in and of itself, a belief that is demonstrably and provably false in much the same way as is the case with "the state".  What this presumption serves to do is create a false sense of substance in the mind of the individual holding and accepting it.  Note that such an individual need not necessarily like it or agree with it, but most often regards it as an immutable fact to which one must resign himself because there is no getting around it.  How ironic it is to find that in such cases the jailer need build no prisons, for each inmate has done it for him, the work being of the utmost quality.

With such a false presumption underpinning the perceptions and belief systems of the individual, the power of those assuming authority over him is enhanced immeasurably.  The set of false inferences and conclusions that follow from the acceptance of, and belief in this single, innocuous looking, yet devastatingly powerful psychological device is large, somewhat varying between individuals, and universally debilitating.  For example, accepting "the state" and "the government" as actual, extant entities with material realities of their own lends a credibility to these grand lies in precisely the manner of Marshall McLuhan's "the medium is the message".  The significance of this cannot be overstated, nor can the importance of dispelling these lies and bringing the light of truth to those who suffer from this particularly destructive form of psychological derangement.  That we give credibility at all to "the government" as anything other than a group (or mob) of individuals acting in accord with some interpretation of a set of what are probably arbitrarily enacted dictates is tantamount to pulling the trigger of a gun pointed at our own heads.  We doom ourselves by this method on the belief that there is no choice.

If we dispense with the belief in the material reality of government and state, what remains?  Groups of people telling other groups of people what to do or not do, most often based on the arbitrarily constructed mandates enacted by some other group of individuals and for which the executives reserve the right to violate the natural rights of the individual up to and including taking his life away through acts of brutal violence.

Dispensing with these false beliefs alters one's apprehension of the truth dramatically and in so doing many new truths follow most naturally from the resulting altered state of awareness.  The relevance here is that one of the truths which becomes evident is the centrally important need for a set of cleary specified, complete, and correct rules that define the standards of behavior for individual public officials in their capacities as agents of "government", and the penalties for failing to comply with them in full measure.  When one realizes that all government officials are nothing more than ordinary people discharging ordinary duties _in service to_ their fellow citizens, the tacit mystique of super-human "state" and "government" authority instantly dissipates into the aether and reveals itself as false nonsense.  Being so freed, one is then able to properly regard such people and their roles - to see and understand that such people have been vested in the sacred trust of their fellows and that violation of that trust constitutes the paramount of all possible criminal acts.

That being the case, reason then demands that such people be held to a higher standard of behavior in the discharge of those duties and that when one violates the trust, the penalties must therefore be harsh and without mercy or pity such that all other agents of the "public good" are given the most stern warning against trespassing upon the rights of their fellows either through intent or negligence.  More than any other citizen, the feet of the government official must be held to the fire fueled by the standards of behavior in order that they should quake with fear at the prospect of willfully or negligently causing harm to those to whom they take an oath to serve and whose rights they swear to protect.

Where are these standards to be found?  In the United States Code? If they are there, they are not made in any way apparent to the "ordinary" citizen, either in the letter and spirit of the law, or in its application against those who trespass upon their fellows.   Yet when the "civilian" so trespasses, he is most often called rapidly to account for his actions and, barring sufficient defense, made to pay the price in prison.  How is it that we allow the likes of the police to brutalize us with impunity?  We are assaulted in the media with an endless barrage of tales of government officials committing the most heinous crimes against us while rarely being called upon to account for their actions, and even more rarely being made to atone with prison time and economic restitution.  If this situation does not merit close attention and a demand for substantive correction, then which one does?

The normative specification of governmental structure and function needs to be perfected by adding the full set of strict rules defining proper action as well as that for rightly punishing those who violate the rights of peaceable citizens who act within the boundaries of their rights.  If the role of governance is to serve "the people", then why is it that they most often trespass upon them?  Why are they not placed and kept on severely foreshortened leashes such that anyone acting in the capacity of a government official will not be even remotely amenable to paying the price of violating their fellows?  This is the normative mode of thinking that must be established in the minds of men such that tolerance of what has proven to be the typically hubris-laden and contempt-logged behavior of government officials falls to zero.  All violations of one's rights by others must be viewed and dealt with in such a manner and degree that people, regardless of their stations in life, will be utterly dissuaded from considering such acts as even the most remote possibility.  And when this comes to pass, non-governmental people will also come to respect their public servants more fully.  On the balance, the results will produce a condition far closer to freedom and greater prosperity for all.

----------


## osan

> I agree that this is it's biggest weakness.  I say that the Constitution should have proscribed[sic] some kind of harsh penalty for the violation of the oath of office.  The oath swears or affirms to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I would that a mechanism were provided for the people to prosecute an official for a violation of their oath.


This is sound.




> Say a really high bar like 25% of a district signatures sets a public referendum of "should this person be tried?"  A majority "Yes" opens up a trial by grand jury.  Twelve juries of 12 persons, each 12 person jury sequestered unto itself apart from the other 12 person juries.  Individual 12-person juries must be unanimous to render a guilty verdict, but only a majority of the 12 juries finding guilty are necessary to render a guilty verdict.  In the event of a 6 jury to 6 jury tie, then the question of guilt yes or no goes again to public referendum.  If a finding of guilt is returned, then a series of types of crimes against the Constitution is defined, and a spectrum of punishment is laid out for each.  They can range from high treason to middlin graft to incidental misuse of office.  Array the fines and severity of imprisonment on a spectrum and let the people vote on the punishment.  Center the average and the mean and then impose that punishment on the faithless elected.
> 
> If a Congressman could potentially get 25 to life, or even the death penalty for failing to obey the Constitution, then it might change his perspective a little bit.


I like this tack.  The only thing I would change is the number of juries to 13, making deadlock impossible.  I see no need to complicate the process with returns to referendum, especially to determine guilt.  I don't see that as being particularly wise.  The rest is very good, however.  

A majority of unanimous juries in a body of 156 individuals would be statistically valid in terms of even distributions of attributes that would better assure a fair judgment.

One other thing I would add: whereas in the criminal trial of a civilian the defendant should be afforded every evidentiary, procedural, and presumptive advantage, in that of a government official, such advantages should be removed.  In my world there would be no suppression of evidence due to technical irregularities, for example in how it was attained.  Evidence would be included or excluded strictly on its merit as such.  Furthermore, there would be not a single trial judge, but a bank of not less than 13; this to keep judicial hanky panky including protection of the guilty, as well as activism to an absolute minimum.

I wholly agree with you that the prospect of draconian punishment, and it SHOULD be draconian, would drive a very different bargain for the vast and overwhelming majority of public servants.

----------


## osan

> It is for this reason that _while I 100% vehemently oppose_ a Convention of the States in the current climate, *if there unfortunately is one,* then I want to go and present my "make violating the Oath a felony" Amendment.


If it is so, then you need to go with your ducks in a line.

This is a project perfect for RPFs.  We have the brain power needed.  Do we have the will?  I'd be happy to help. While not quite a daunting task, it is by no means trivial.  If this were to be done correctly, great care in the structure and wording of the work would be in order.  It would have to be clear, complete, and correct; not as easy as it may seem at first blush.

----------


## osan

> Yeah.  You and me both.  I just figure if the idiots are going to give us an unmitigated disaster, there ought to be at least someone pointing out the correct path if only for the historic record.


You'd not be alone.  I, too, would go - if for no other reason than the kicks of being a grand and barbed thorn in the sides of the crooks.

----------


## osan

> No retroactive prosecution of course however


Killjoy.




> we aren't savages.


Feh... speak for yourself.

----------


## osan

> I can appreciate how some people like to trace back and look at the US Constitution and figure out where it went wrong.
> 
> Unfortunately, that approach will never work.
> 
> I have had to revise programs in excess of 10,000 lines of code before.  This is well in excess of the length of the constitution.  In a few cases, I had to perform some pretty deep surgery to a) get to the root of the problem, b) fix the problem, and c) make sure it still runs correctly.  I would end up reading through and understanding the whole thing prior to trying to make a change.  So I have a bit of experience in taking a huge, complex document that does something, and changing it, sometimes fundamentally.  Here are some things to consider.


Any program in excess of 10K "lines" of code is a cluster-copulation and the product of inept implementation.  When I would come across such things, guess what?  They got re-written from the ground up.  It may seem costly, but in truth it is the far more cost-effective solution in the longer term.




> Now think about all the other things that we take for granted in the constitution, which one little change can modify.


Certainly plausible, which is why you either leave it as it is, or you start from scratch.  My inner idealist say scrap it all and get on with anarchy.  My inner realist clubs my inner idealist into coma, and recommends the more adult solution of writing a new document.




> 2) More importantly, the first step in solving any problem is..... _to accurately define the problem._


Not just accurately, but completely and clearly.  Specifications need to be clear, complete, and correct - what I call the "3-Cs"




> Anyone who has been in IT for any length of time should have warning sensors that go off the minute someone goes out of scope.


Yeah well, what _should_ be and what _is_ ain't the same in this case.  A vast population of IT people are seriously ill-trained.

Once again, no matter how well written, a constitution is only as good as the people living by its specifications.  It is naught but a script.  If people do not learn their lines and roles, the script holds no meaning.

----------


## osan

> So after a 200+ year test run, does it work, or does it fail?


"It" doesn't do anything.

WE succeed or fail.  A sheet of paper simply sits, idle.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Well then perhaps foreign affairs are not the function of a central government.


But they were under the AoC.  That was the point.




> Even so, who says that such affairs must perforce be so costly?


Maintaining embassies isn't cheap.

----------


## osan

> But they were under the AoC.  That was the point.


Perhaps the AoC were wrong, too.





> Maintaining embassies isn't cheap.


Well then I would propose not having them.  Rent a building on the cheap with the understanding of the host nation that if anything were to befall our diplomats, retribution would be apocalyptic for them.  We brook none of this brand of nonsense.  Want to bring war?  We will bring it back to you 1000x.  Be friendly, or at the very least polite, or risk genocide.  The choice is yours, and please have a nice day.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Well then I would propose not having them.  Rent a building on the cheap with the understanding of the host nation that if anything were to befall our diplomats, retribution would be apocalyptic for them.  We brook none of this brand of nonsense.  Want to bring war?  We will bring it back to you 1000x.  Be friendly, or at the very least polite, or risk genocide.  The choice is yours, and please have a nice day.


That isn't the way diplomacy works.  Suppose the government wants to lease or buy land in a foreign country to establish a military base.  Should it simply threaten to nuke the foreign country back into the stone age unless they cave in to our demands, or should it use more persuasive methods that might include throwing parties at the embassy for foreign diplomats or sponsoring pro-American cultural programs?

Of course, one might say we shouldn't have bases in foreign countries to begin with, but this would only display a total lack of strategic thought.

----------


## osan

> That isn't the way diplomacy works.  Suppose the government wants to lease or buy land in a foreign country to establish a military base.  Should it simply threaten to nuke the foreign country back into the stone age unless they cave in to our demands, or should it use more persuasive methods that might include throwing parties at the embassy for foreign diplomats or sponsoring pro-American cultural programs?


This seems a bit non sequitur.  




> Of course, one might say we shouldn't have bases in foreign countries to begin with, but this would only display a total lack of strategic thought.


Not necessarily.  It may suggest a _different_ vein of strategic thought.  Whether inferior, equal, or superior is a whole other question.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> This seems a bit non sequitur.


It was simply meant to illustrate that there's a lot more expense involved in having effective foreign relations than renting a building "on the cheap."

----------


## osan

> It was simply meant to illustrate that there's a lot more expense involved in having effective foreign relations than renting a building "on the cheap."


Then let the world come to us and open embassies here.  Let them incur the costs.  Can we not have discourse with them this way?  I know it's not quite as good as face-to-face with certain officials, but who cares?  If an issue is THAT important, we send an ambassador or other official on site.  Let them stay in a hotel, for Pete's sake.

I do not buy that our diplomacy must cost untold billions.  I find this belief indicative of a severe failure of imaginative creativity.  "We" appear to be so hopelessly tied to certain assumptions that better solutions have wandered beyond our reach.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Then let the world come to us and open embassies here.  Let them incur the costs.  Can we not have discourse with them this way?  I know it's not quite as good as face-to-face with certain officials, but who cares?  If an issue is THAT important, we send an ambassador or other official on site.  Let them stay in a hotel, for Pete's sake.


There's more to it than that.  For instance, how would you feel if you were visiting a foreign country and lost or were robbed of your passport or were wrongly arrested by a foreign government and there's no one around to help you?

----------


## osan

> There's more to it than that.  For instance, how would you feel if you were visiting a foreign country and lost or were robbed of your passport or were wrongly arrested by a foreign government and there's no one around to help you?


And so the rest of the nation needs to pay countless billions for that sort of thing?

If we are a land of free men, we accept the risks of being free.  If you don't want to be arrested by a corrupt criminal government, stay home.  It is really quite as simple as that.  Otherwise, you take responsibility for yourself.  That means doing your research on travel to given foreign destinations and you weigh the risks v. benefits.  Then you make your decision and you live with it.

I do NOT see the role of "government" as including the protection of the rights of its people when those people leave their home shores.

Freedom can be a REAL bitch at times, which is why so few people are interested in it.  They want all the benefits of freedom while resolutely rejecting the risks and other costs.  FAIL.

None of this is complicated when one apprehends and accepts the truth about freedom.  It is only when people begin expecting that which is unreasonable that things begin to get complicated and barely manageable.

If you want to see the world that badly, or take that high paying position in Pakistan, then you accept the fact that you may end up in a foreign prison, killed in a mugging, etc. and take responsibility for your priorities and don't whine and cry about your choices after the worst has come to pass.

It's all about being an adult, which few of us are.

----------

