# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Article: Is The Constitution Outdated?

## romacox

*Is The Constitution A Living Document?*
I asked this question in a poll, and this was one of the replies:  Only if my Mortgage is a Living Document that changes with my economic circumstances. :-D His reply was so apropo, because the Constitution is a Contract between the Federal Government, and the States citizenry. 

On page 54 of Justice Joseph Storys book, A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution Of The United States, he explains how each State, through a voting process, decided to accepted or rejected the union formed by the Constitution before joining.  So not only did the assembly vote yea or nay as to their acceptance of this Contract, but so did each State.  it is basically a Contract that says if you will agree to join the Union, we (the Federal Government) will agree to limit our powers to what is enumerated in the Constitution.  You see folks, the colonists had just fought a war risking everything to rid themselves of a government that had abused its powers. Most were not interested in submitting to another such government. (Think about it: why would the be otherwise?)

In the following video Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer debate this question:



Kevin Gutzman, Historian, says that those who would give us a living Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.




Tom Woods was asked is the Constitution a Living Document? See that discussion beginning at the 8 minute mark in the following video:




So it is not the Constitution that it is out of date.  It is the Federal Government that has broken contractbroken their promise to the citizenry of the United States.

The Heritage Foundation explains where the idea of the Constitution being a living document came from: The Progressive Movement And How It Transformed American Politics. 

Source: http://educatorssite.com/?p=763

----------


## Drex

Isn't that close to saying the bible is outdated or 10 commandments

----------


## Conza88

Ohhh, Tom Woods aye? 

*Is Limited Government an Oxymoron? | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.* 




tl;dr -_ yes_.

----------


## osan

Is the obvious state of inherent human freedom outdated?

----------


## donnay



----------


## pcgame

Does anyone have notes for Michael Badnariks constitution class, that they can e-mail me?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

_I asked this question in a poll, and this was one of the replies: ” Only if my Mortgage is a Living Document that changes with my economic circumstances.” :-D His reply was so apropo, because the Constitution is a Contract between the Federal Government, and the State’s citizenry_*.* 
Still wishful thinking.  Social contract theory=fail.  Lysander Spooner FTW!!

----------


## erowe1

> the Constitution is a Contract between the Federal Government, and the State’s citizenry.


I never signed it. Did you?

----------


## pcgame

> Does anyone have notes for Michael Badnariks constitution class, that they can e-mail me?


bump


I never signed any contract.

----------


## azxd

> Does anyone have notes for Michael Badnariks constitution class, that they can e-mail me?


I'd suggest watching the entire series, and also his Bill of Rights series ... The man does have a way with words, and if he ever decides to run for POTUS again, he'd probably get my vote.

----------


## thoughtomator

the irony is that many mortgages these days are de facto "living documents" as well... authorized by the law of unintended consequences

----------


## Cabal

I find the question of whether or not the constitution is outdated to be rather irrelevant. The important question, IMO, is whether or not the constitution is effective.

----------


## romacox

> I find the question of whether or not the constitution is outdated to be rather irrelevant. The important question, IMO, is whether or not the constitution is effective.


You make a good point. As Ron Paul says, it worked well for the first 120 years until Woodrow Wilson got his hands on it.  The 17th Amendment (which weakened the power of the States) was ratified on February 13, 1913 which was the term of Woodrow Wilson. In the same year he also ratified the 16th Amendment (tax on labor) abolished tariffs, and established the Federal Reserve (Central Banks).  As a result, the federal government finally became a pure monopoly, and citizen sovereignty which had been  protected by the Constitution perished.

The History Of Money And The Federal Reserve

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You make a good point. As Ron Paul says,* it worked well for the first 120 years* until Woodrow Wilson got his hands on it.  The 17th Amendment (which weakened the power of the States) was ratified on February 13, 1913 which was the term of Woodrow Wilson. In the same year he also ratified the 16th Amendment (tax on labor) abolished tariffs, and established the Federal Reserve (Central Banks).  As a result, the federal government finally became a pure monopoly, and citizen sovereignty which had been  protected by the Constitution perished.
> 
> The History Of Money And The Federal Reserve

----------


## Cabal

I have to share what I believe HB's sentiment is on that, I don't see how it can really be said to have worked well prior to Wilson, unless perhaps you have a fairly low standard for what qualifies as working well. I suppose you could attempt to make a case for it having 'worked well' prior to Wilson relative to how it has worked post-Wilson, but then that isn't necessarily a testament to it working well overall.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I have to share what I believe HB's sentiment is on that, I don't see how it can really be said to have worked well prior to Wilson, unless perhaps you have a fairly low standard for what qualifies as working well. I suppose you could attempt to make a case for it having 'worked well' prior to Wilson relative to how it has worked post-Wilson, but then that isn't necessarily a testament to it working well overall.


Exactly.  I don't know of a single POTUS or congress whose nefarious deeds were curbed by the Constitution.

----------


## Travlyr

> I have to share what I believe HB's sentiment is on that, I don't see how it can really be said to have worked well prior to Wilson, unless perhaps you have a fairly low standard for what qualifies as working well. I suppose you could attempt to make a case for it having 'worked well' prior to Wilson relative to how it has worked post-Wilson, but then that isn't necessarily a testament to it working well overall.


Historically it worked relatively well for some people. Many of my ancestors came to America to escape certain death. The Huguenots are only one example. 

My great-great uncle trekked from Indiana to California in 1848 and struck it rich in the gold rush. He eventually went back home and employed hundreds as an owner of the local butchering shop. The bankers took him out of business in 1873 with their shenanigans. (_that may be a bit biased because I don't really understand what happened in 1873_) ... nonetheless he ended up broke so he bought 80 acres and started a berry farm. He ran it until he died. 

We can do better.

The "Bill of Rights" guarantee that government cannot infringe on them. That is why I consider any law that violates the supreme Law of the Land null and void of law.



> Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). 
> This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_CAtNqtbic

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The "Bill of Rights" guarantee that government cannot infringe on them. *That is why I consider any law that violates the supreme Law of the Land null and void of law.*


So, you disagree with doctrines of Federalism and nullification?  What if the people of a given state or locality pass a law (say, legalizing marijuana possession or raw food production or allowing gold/competing currencies) which is actually good for the people-but at odds with the Federal regime?

----------


## Travlyr

> So, you disagree with doctrines of Federalism and nullification?  What if the people of a given state or locality pass a law (say, legalizing marijuana possession or raw food production or allowing gold/competing currencies) which is actually good for the people-but at odds with the Federal regime?


Where in the "Bill of Rights" or the U.S. Constitution is hemp or raw food production illegal?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Where in the "Bill of Rights" or the U.S. Constitution is hemp or raw food production illegal?


It's not, but the Constitution gives congress to author laws.  It's called the USC (United States Code).  Literally a byproduct of the Constitution.

----------


## Cabal

Of course there's also the variance in interpretation of certain clauses which have been the basis for the passage of certain federal laws in contention with state laws as well.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's not, but the Constitution gives congress to author laws.  It's called the USC (United States Code).  Literally a byproduct of the Constitution.


True. However read carefully what Chief Justice Marshall had to say,



> *Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).* 
> This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.


The "Bill of Rights" are supreme. No lesser law can prevail over the supreme law.

----------


## Cabal

> The "Bill of Rights" are supreme. No lesser law can prevail over the supreme law.


And yet that hasn't been the case in practice throughout our own history, including throughout the earliest administrations.

So again, the question is: has it been effective?

----------


## Travlyr

> And yet that hasn't been the case in practice throughout our own history, including throughout the earliest administrations.
> 
> So again, the question is: has it been effective?


The question is: Who do you believe? The Law? Or the Media?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The question is: Who do you believe? The Law? Or the Media?


Who to believe is a different question.  Cabal's point is exactly right-which is what you should have been addressing.

HTH
Rev9

----------


## Travlyr

> Who to believe is a different question.  Cabal's point is exactly right-which is what you should have been addressing.
> 
> HTH
> Rev9


Cabal's point is irrelevant. The "Bill of Rights" are supreme by definition. The fact that early participants did not force their representatives and administration to adhere to the supreme law of the land is a testament to their self-interest. They were so content with opportunity that they didn't care. Their liberty and prosperity overwhelmed them to the point of indifference or apathy.

----------


## otherone

> And yet that hasn't been the case in practice throughout our own history, including throughout the earliest administrations.
> 
> So again, the question is: has it been effective?


When has a piece of paper ever been 'effective'?  You can't blame the document because we have failed to hold our representatives accountable to it.

----------


## otherone

> They were so content with opportunity that they didn't care. Their liberty and prosperity overwhelmed them to the point of indifference or apathy.


+REP
_A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights._
Napoleon Bonaparte

----------


## Cabal

> When has a piece of paper ever been 'effective'?  You can't blame the document because we have failed to hold our representatives accountable to it.


I'm not placing blame on a document; nor have I intended to place blame on anything in this particular discussion--that has not been my intent or purpose here. If I were to be looking to direct blame, I would probably respond by saying that blaming a document is as nonsensical as believing a document has any real power over the institution of the State.

I'm also not sure of what you mean by this notion of "we". I have no control over who is or is not held accountable to this or that; moreover, even if I could hold individuals accountable, I don't see how that would necessarily change anything--the system would still persist.

----------


## otherone

You expect the state to hold_ itself_ accountable?

----------


## Cabal

> You expect the state to hold_ itself_ accountable?


Of course not.

----------


## Bonnieblue

The thirteen colonial republics at their very inception had by virtue of distance as well as their varying charters a certain autonomy from the mother country, specifically the Crown to which they owed allegiance.  Although new charters were issue, old charters were amended, and the Crown itself eventually took nominal control of most of the colonial republics, the republics, in their day-to-day social interactions and indeed at the functional level of their respective polities, such as the House of Burgesses in Virginia, remained very autonomous.  It was the attempts of the Crown to place these quasi-independent colonial republics under the direct control of the British Parliament through the various acts thereof now well known and famous in American history which brought those colonial republics to secede from the Crown and to declare their independence from it.  Several of the colonial republics had seceded on their own prior to the joint secession as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.  Although these now seceded colonial republics cooperated more or less through the Continental Congress, it would be later that they would formulate this cooperation in terms of the Articles of Confederation which was a formal compact articulating what essentially already was namely a confederation or federation of republics, with diverse yet common histories.

Setting aside the intrigues of Hamilton and Madison and their cronies for the moment, those same republics, each exercising its sovereign authority by placing its people in convention, decided through the ratification process to secede again from the union which they had established under the Articles of Confederation and to accede to a new union under the Constitution, the validity of which is predicated on the ratification by their sovereign assemblies.  Thus, the Constitution provided the framework for a realigned union of constitutionally federated republics who were the principals of the compact known as the Constitution, and the Constitution became the means by which those principals, the thirteen republics known as states, notedly not "provinces or jurisdictions" created, thereby being the creators, their agent, i.e. their creature, known as the general government to which for the common good of all of the thirteen republics they delegated and carefully enumerated certain powers just as a group of business men, all equal partners, my create or hire a agent to assist with those things which they, the business men, had in common.

By mid 1865, Lincoln and the Republican Party, having captured the taxing authority and military machinery of the general government by running and winning as a regional party, had through a war of aggression and a war of terror successfully destroyed not one but two unions of constitutionally federated republics: the United States of America and the Confederate States of America.  In their stead and under the "tender" care of the Republican Party those two unions of constitutionally federated republics were replaced by a nascent Hobbesian state which is an abstract corporation with a monopoly on coercion and with the ability to define the limits of its own power.  As of that moment, the Constitution became meaningless and remains meaningless.  The reality for which the Constitution itself was created no longer exist.  One cannot "restore" the Constitution until that reality is restored; and that is not on the horizon.

I was privileged to attend a conference on the Confederate Constitution, which in most respects as far as documents go, is superior to the U.S. Constitution, at least for those of us who believe in republican and limited government, particularly at the "national" level.  The Confederate Constitution lies quietly in archives, there moldering in dignity like an ancient king in the tomb.  Would it were so for the U.S. Constitution.  In stead of being put to rest with the union of republics which she enabled and embodied, she was ripped away and made to become the whore of the empire which destroyed the union of federated republics.  Today, this whore is presented to us as a goddess to whom we, right and left, living-constitutionalists and strict-constitutionalists, genuflect, while the princes of this age do nefarious and unsavory things under her skirts.  She is America's political whore; just like the Queen of England is Great Britain's whore.  Neither the Constitution nor the Queen have any authority left.  They are both kept ladies.  The Queen is trotted out to begin Parliament; and the Constitution is trotted out when the tyrants who lead us take an oath to her, chuckling with hidden *Schadenfreude* as they do.

This is what is real on the late night of 19 February 2012.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You expect the state to hold_ itself_ accountable?


 Not at all.  This is one of the internal contradictions that constitutionalists have yet to resolve.  IMO, if limited liability of every person in the government were removed, there would be reason to trust it.  Till then, micro-secession is the only practical solution. 

Rev9

----------


## otherone

> This is one of the internal contradictions that constitutionalists have yet to resolve.  Till then, micro-secession is the only practical solution.


How can someone who could not advocate for himself in a representative government suddenly look out for himself with micro-secession?  "Constitutionalists" envision a government *of*, for, and* by* the people.  People aren't even voting, for the most part.

----------


## Bonnieblue

> How can someone who could not advocate for himself in a representative government suddenly look out for himself with micro-secession?  "Constitutionalists" envision a government *of*, for, and* by* the people.  People aren't even voting, for the most part.


The vote is the least effective way to check politicians; that is why they play it up; they want you to think that it can stop them.  The Barons understood the elements which would stop a tyrannical king.  Not found among them was the "vote."

----------


## otherone

> The vote is the least effective way to check politicians


It's also the simplest, cheapest, and least-time consuming way to make ANY attempt at self-advocacy.....and 'we' still don't do it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *How can someone who could not advocate for himself in a representative government suddenly look out for himself with micro-secession?*  "Constitutionalists" envision a government *of*, for, and* by* the people.  People aren't even voting, for the most part.


How could one not?  It would be in his rational self-interest.  In the real world, the micro-secessionist would still interact with others who subject themselves to constitutionalism-except on his own terms.  The relationship would no longer be State-subject, but State-sovereign citizen.  I'm well aware of what Constitutionalists _envision,_ but it has yet to materialize.  If the Constitutionalist vision were to come to fruition, I would applaud them and likely work even more closely with them.

Hoppe writes in "On The Impossibility Of Limited Government": _Rather, a modern liberal-libertarian strategy of secession should take its cues from the European Middle Ages when, from about the 12th until well into the 17th century (with the emergence of the modern central state), Europe was characterized by the existence of hundreds of free and independent cities, interspersed into a predominantly feudal social structure._[32]_
By choosing this model and striving to create an America punctuated by a large and increasing number of territorially disconnected free cities — a multitude of Hong Kongs, Singapores, Monacos, and Liechtensteins strewn out over the entire continent — two otherwise unattainable but central objectives can be accomplished. First, besides recognizing the fact that the liberal-libertarian potential is distributed highly unevenly across the country, such a strategy of piecemeal withdrawal renders secession less threatening politically, socially, and economically. Second, by pursuing this strategy simultaneously at a great number of locations all over the country, it becomes exceedingly difficult for the central state to create the unified opposition in public opinion to the secessionists that would secure the level of popular support and voluntary cooperation necessary for a successful crackdown.__[33]

_
Rev9

----------


## heavenlyboy34

edit: n/m

----------


## BuddyRey

Unfortunately, the media and the masses they instruct have become so inured to common sense that the debate today has devolved to "is the Constitution a perfect and divinely-inspired document that gave government _just the right amount_ of power, or does it need to be replaced by something that gives government _a lot MORE power?!?!_"

Of course, there's a third possibility, and one neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left wants to acknowledge, which is this; the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to _empower_ big government influence peddlers, and we did perfectly fine for twelve years _without_ it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Unfortunately, the media and the masses they instruct have become so inured to common sense that the debate today has devolved to "is the Constitution a perfect and divinely-inspired document that gave government _just the right amount_ of power, or does it need to be replaced by something that gives government _a lot MORE power?!?!_"
> 
> Of course, there's a third possibility, and one neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left wants to acknowledge, which is this; the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to _empower_ big government influence peddlers, and we did perfectly fine for twelve years _without_ it.


+rep

----------


## Cabal

> "Constitutionalists" envision a government *of*, for, and* by* the people.


And this, quite frankly, is a fairy tale. The idea that you allow a State apparatus a monopoly on force and then expect the _serfs_ to rule that same State is absurd. To the State, people (both living and yet-to-be-born) are nothing more than tax livestock with which to leverage debt upon in order to satisfy the ecosystem of special-interests which relies upon it.




> Unfortunately, the media and the masses they instruct have become so inured to common sense that the debate today has devolved to "is the Constitution a perfect and divinely-inspired document that gave government _just the right amount_ of power, or does it need to be replaced by something that gives government _a lot MORE power?!?!_"
> 
> Of course, there's a third possibility, and one neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left wants to acknowledge, which is this; the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to _empower_ big government influence peddlers, and we did perfectly fine for twelve years _without_ it.


Quite right.

----------


## otherone

> The relationship would no longer be State-subject, but State-sovereign citizen.  I'm well aware of what Constitutionalists _envision,_ but it has yet to materialize.


Isn't this possible with an amendment reversing the 14th amendment?  




> take its cues from the European Middle Ages when, from about the 12th until well into the 17th century (with the emergence of the modern central state), Europe was characterized by the existence of hundreds of free and independent cities, interspersed into a predominantly feudal social structure.


This is somewhat misleading.   The Vatican's power over Europe was greater than our federal government's.  In addition, losing half of the indigenous population to plague changed the economic structure of Europe forever.  Maybe a pandemic is what we need.....

----------


## oyarde

Out dated ? , No .

----------


## Bonnieblue

> Unfortunately, the media and the masses they instruct have become so inured to common sense that the debate today has devolved to "is the Constitution a perfect and divinely-inspired document that gave government _just the right amount_ of power, or does it need to be replaced by something that gives government _a lot MORE power?!?!_"
> 
> Of course, there's a third possibility, and one neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left wants to acknowledge, which is this; the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to _empower_ big government influence peddlers, and we did perfectly fine for twelve years _without_ it.


John C. Calhoun, who remains arguably the best political philosopher America has been privileged to have, has said, and I paraphrase, that societies are an product of Providence; but constitutions are wrought by the minds and the hands of men; thus, constitutions are not something to be seen as perfect.  Calhoun even argued, and I believe rightly so, that written Constitutions were the most dangerous.  Like Aristotle who was Calhoun's mentor Calhoun understood a constitution to be the way a given social order created and maintained its polity, unique to its own traditions, customs and habits.  Calhoun was, of course, a republican, meaning that he did not counsel large consolidated states.

There is not doubt that it was the intent of the monarchist Hamilton and the nationalist Madison, who has somehow weaseled for himself the honor of "Father of the Constitution," that at Philadelphia they would get a powerful and consolidated national state.  They failed because the anti-federalists forced too many compromises.  Yet, what they got was a document which had enough wiggle room to usurp the intent of the ratifying conventions.  Although the Federalist Papers where not as influential in the actual ratification process as it is claimed today, where they did have influence, they misled; for Hamilton alleged that the Constitution allowed none of the powers which the ratifiers feared, powers that he and his allies began to find and create before the ink had dried.  The usurpation culminated in Lincoln and the Republicans with the lineage of the usurpation going back through Clay, Story, Webster, Marshall, Hamilton and others.

----------


## Bonnieblue

> Isn't this possible with an amendment reversing the 14th amendment?  
> 
> 
> 
> This is somewhat misleading.   *The Vatican's power over Europe was greater than our federal government's*.  In addition, losing half of the indigenous population to plague changed the economic structure of Europe forever.  Maybe a pandemic is what we need.....


The Vatican's power nor the Church's power, and those are two very different things, the Vatican being a state and the Church being, well, the Church, was never remotely that of the federal government, never.  That is Enlightenment and Protestant propaganda.  For the record, I am not Roman Catholic but a sand hill Southern Baptist from North Louisiana.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> John C. Calhoun, who remains arguably the best political philosopher America has been privileged to have, has said, and I paraphrase, that societies are an product of Providence; but constitutions are wrought by the minds and the hands of men; thus, constitutions are not something to be seen as perfect.  Calhoun even argued, and I believe rightly so, that written Constitutions were the most dangerous.  Like Aristotle who was Calhoun's mentor Calhoun understood a constitution to be the way a given social order created and maintained its polity, unique to its own traditions, customs and habits.  Calhoun was, of course, a republican, meaning that he did not counsel large consolidated states.
> 
> There is not doubt that it was the intent of the monarchist Hamilton and the nationalist Madison, who has somehow weaseled for himself the honor of "Father of the Constitution," that at Philadelphia they would get a powerful and consolidated national state.  They failed because the anti-federalists forced too many compromises.  Yet, what they got was a document which had enough wiggle room to usurp the intent of the ratifying conventions.  Although the Federalist Papers where not as influential in the actual ratification process as it is claimed today, where they did have influence, they misled; for Hamilton alleged that the Constitution allowed none of the powers which the ratifiers feared, powers that he and his allies began to find and create before the ink had dried.  The usurpation culminated in Lincoln and the Republicans with the lineage of the usurpation going back through Clay, Story, Webster, Marshall, Hamilton and others.


+rep

----------


## Bonnieblue

> +rep


Thank you very much.

----------


## otherone

> The Vatican's power nor the Church's power, and those are two very different things, the Vatican being a state and the Church being, well, the Church, was never remotely that of the federal government, never.  That is Enlightenment and Protestant propaganda.  For the record, I am not Roman Catholic but a sand hill Southern Baptist from North Louisiana.


I'm basing my assessment on a parochial education and four tedious years of theology.  The federal government doesn't have the power to excommunicate Americans.  Sure, there are other 'sticks', but having the power to inflict eternal damnation is a pretty good 'stick'

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thank you very much.


Пожалуйста большой (you're very welcome).  'Twas an excellent post!

----------


## Travlyr

> Unfortunately, the media and the masses they instruct have become so inured to common sense that the debate today has devolved to "is the Constitution a perfect and divinely-inspired document that gave government _just the right amount_ of power, or does it need to be replaced by something that gives government _a lot MORE power?!?!_"
> 
> Of course, there's a third possibility, and one neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left wants to acknowledge, which is this; the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to _empower_ big government influence peddlers, and we did perfectly fine for twelve years _without_ it.


I do not believe that "_the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to empower big government influence peddlers_." What Article, Amendment, or clause gives them that power? 

I do believe that some were trying to accomplish that goal, but the resulting document that was ratified did not achieve it. It was not until 1861 that limited government was usurped. At that time, western homestead expansion was halted, paper money was printed, wars were started ... all in violation of the Constitution. It was not the Constitution that caused that ... it was essentially a coup by the people who undermined the Constitution.

----------


## Travlyr

> John C. Calhoun, who remains arguably the best political philosopher America has been privileged to have, has said, and I paraphrase, that societies are an product of Providence; but constitutions are wrought by the minds and the hands of men; thus, constitutions are not something to be seen as perfect.  Calhoun even argued, and I believe rightly so, that written Constitutions were the most dangerous.  Like Aristotle who was Calhoun's mentor Calhoun understood a constitution to be the way a given social order created and maintained its polity, unique to its own traditions, customs and habits.  Calhoun was, of course, a republican, meaning that he did not counsel large consolidated states.
> 
> There is not doubt that it was the intent of the monarchist Hamilton and the nationalist Madison, who has somehow weaseled for himself the honor of "Father of the Constitution," that at Philadelphia they would get a powerful and consolidated national state.  They failed because the anti-federalists forced too many compromises.  Yet, what they got was a document which had enough wiggle room to usurp the intent of the ratifying conventions.  Although the Federalist Papers where not as influential in the actual ratification process as it is claimed today, where they did have influence, they misled; for Hamilton alleged that the Constitution allowed none of the powers which the ratifiers feared, powers that he and his allies began to find and create before the ink had dried.  *The usurpation culminated in Lincoln and the Republicans with the lineage of the usurpation going back through Clay, Story, Webster, Marshall, Hamilton and others.*


They never had the authority. The usurpation was criminal. They used deceit and crime to undermine legitimate authority. Paper money always expands government power. July 17, 1861. 

They achieved their power, like all power, by claiming it. They made their statement that they owned the military, they create the money, they rule over the masses, and whoever didn't agree with them disappeared. That's how the counterfeiters came to power. They did as they damn well pleased because most people were more interested in their own opportunity at the time than what some goofball back in Washington was doing to the Constitution. Counterfeiters always do as they damn well please. 

Power comes from brute force but it is limited by money. In other words, a poor brute only reigns over whoever he himself can intimidate; however, a rich brute can hire a team of thugs. A counterfeiter can rule his town if he doesn't get caught. He can rule his country if he doesn't get caught. A counterfeiting brute with an unlimited money supply (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913) can rule the world with brute force if they don't get caught. The Constitution limited their power (counterfeiting is illegal according to the Constitution). Usurping the Constitution grew their power.

This is why everyone, who believes in freedom, must work diligently for sound money, 100% redeemable. You are not ruled by the State so much as you are ruled by counterfeiters.

----------


## bolil

We have never adhered to the document so how could we know?

----------


## Voluntary Man

The argument that the Constitution is archaic is moot, since it has a built in update clause. The moment the Constitution becomes inadequate to define and restrain our modern federal government (the sole mandate of the document), its seams can be let out or its waist taken in, via the Amendment process. None but the most naive or idiotic should be surprised that the federal government prefers to completely discard its "shabby old rags," and flex its naked muscles, rather than be confined by a newly altered straight jacket. 

"There's an app for that!"

----------

