# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  The Merit or Lack of Merit of a Return to the Constitution

## capob

--Note, since there appears to be some confusion, I will attempt to clarify.  Apart from the first paragraph here, I am not attempting to classify or categorize Ron Paul supporters; so, please don't take the article personally.

--2nd note. Also, do note, I am not idly disparaging the constitution.  Just as I say I am trying to promote thinking  of logic backed solutions, I, myself, am trying to come up with such solutions.  See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...d-verbose-plan

I've followed Ron Paul since about 2007 when I donated to his campaign before and during the money bomb.  Seeing as the supporters of Ron Paul tend to be very much in favor of the constitution, and seeing as there is a topic on this forum just for the constitution, I would like to see opinions and criticisms of an  article I wrote a while ago regarding the constitution:

In disapproval of the current state of affairs, there are various retreats people will follow. My goal here is to refute one of these retreats and force people to start thinking of logic backed solutions. A retreat that I often see is one of "going back to the Constitution". The idea here being that government has strayed from the Constitution and the only thing needed to rectify the state of affairs is to get government back on the path of the Constitution. However, this is a very flawed idea, and I will now go into why.

Before I go into its troubles, I will say that the Constitution has many merits and was quite opportune. In absence of the Constitution, there would have continued to be a confederacy which amounted to a weak union. The federalist papers go into, at length, the problems with a weak union. A weaker union would have made for a less stable America, and less stable environments tend to hinder progress.

From a broad view, the measure of the effectiveness of a system can be taken by measuring the results of that system. In this case, if the current state of affairs, (the results of the implementation of the Constitution), are unfavorable, then why would anyone think that resetting the system would lead to some different outcome? However, this is certainly not enough to satisfy some, so I will go into detail about the Constitution of the United States.

There are a couple cases where things can go awry in the US Constitutional government. For one, government can choose not to follow the Constitution. Even if those in government were composed of all upstanding people who would do nothing contrary to the word of the Constitution, the words of the Constitution allow interpretation that can stray from the intent of the writers. And, when the words are interpreted in either, cases where the writers did not envision the situation, or in cases where the writers did not intend the situation, unintended powers for the federal government can be justified by the word of the Constitution. And, additionally, the lack of a granted power is not a restriction of power.

Based on the words of the Constitution, what limits are there to the powers of the federal government? Well, there are the limitations in article 1, section 9. Then there is the bill of rights. And, in the bill of rights, there is the line "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ". However, this is one of those lines that Jay, Hamilton, and Madison probably would have argued needn't be there and was there primarily for the comfort of those who feared the federal government would take powers not prescribed for it. For example, in the Federalist Papers:

		"Suppose, by some
		forced constructions of its authority (which, indeed, cannot easily be
		imagined), the Federal legislature should attempt to vary the law of des-
		cent in any State, would it not be evident that, in making such an at-
		tempt, it had exceeded its jurisdiction, and infringed upon that of the
		State?" - IE, hard to imagine the federal government making inheretance tax laws.

		"would it not be equally evident that this was an inva-
		sion of that concurrent jurisdiction in respect to this species of tax [in regards to land tax], which
		its Constitution plainly supposes to exist in the State governments? If
		there ever should be a doubt on this head, the credit of it will be entirely
		due to those reasoners who, in the imprudent zeal of their animosity to
		the plan of the convention, have labored to envelop it in a cloud calcu-
		lated to obscure the plainest and simplest truths.
		"


Indeed, it was interpreted prior to the bill of rights with that Amendment 10 limitation clause that the federal government's powers were indeed limited in justification to those prescribed by the Constitution, and those not prescribed by the Constitution were state affairs. Even with this amendment, however, there is still nothing explicitly stating that the federal government should not engage in actions which are not prescribed by or prohibited in the Constitution. In other words, it is not a breach of the Constitution for the federal government to form new powers; Instead, these additional powers are simply unsupported by the Constitution. What does it mean to be unsupported by the Constitution? It means that the state, the theoretical party to the Constitution, does not need to bow to the additional powers. However, if a state abides by the new powers of the federal government, then these new powers of the federal government are as effective as the powers given by the Constitution and the remedies the people have are either to move to a different state or to attempt to get their current state to stop bowing to the new powers of the federal government.

On a side note, in the bill of rights Amendment 1, where it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", this is prohibiting congress, not the states. The other ammendments not specifically stating their application is towards congress are towards both congress and the states, but, in this case, the state has the power to make laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, etc.

What method might the federal government employ to gain new powers? One method would be the creation of various overstepping laws. This leads to the question, is congress restricted in what laws they can make? There is the "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." statement, the Bill of Rights, and the "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." statement; but, the most significant restriction that appeared to me was in this: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

The sentence seems to be noting with "which" that the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution - a sort of restriction limiting congress to only make laws which are in pursuance to the Constitution. However, this can also be interpreted such that it is not a restriction, but rather, by the fact a law was passed, it is consequently in pursuance to the Constitution; ie, any law congress makes is in pursuance to the Constitution. Then, there is a third interpretation seemingly provided by Hamilton with "It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE Constitution". In other words, only the laws that congress passes which are in pursuance to the Constitution will be supreme law of the land. Another interpretation would be that the laws congress passes which are Of the United States are supreme; in contrast to laws of the District or laws of Lolipop land that congress might make. These last two interpretations do not limit congress to making laws that are in pursuance to the Constitution. As such, congress can go about making laws about what to wear and eat if they wanted.

Madison and Hamilton both argue regarding this topic that the states and the people will check the power of the federal government, Madison goes so far as to introduce the concept that the states, in protection of their own power, would inform the people and the people would then elect different federal level representatives. Well, that might work when you have a mindful and territorial state government, an informed people, and correctly functioning vote tabulators.

There is another part to the sentence in the Constitution mentioned in the above paragraph that peaked my interest: "and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". What does it mean that treaties made under the authority of the US shall be supreme law of the land? The Constitution does not even attempt to define limits for what can be included in treaties. To define limitations would undermine the sovereignty that appears to be necessary when making treaties. As such, I will consider the meaning to be simply that the treaty was made by the method prescribed in the Constitution.

It would seem the easiest way to subvert the US Government would be through a treaty.

        "Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy"
        "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;"
        "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

So, essentially, there can be a secret meeting of senators, presumably constituting a quorum, and the president where the president and at least 2/3 of the senators agree on some treaty which wholly corrupts the system. Further, treaties do not need to be made public; which means if this ever did happen, the citizenry never need be made aware of it.

Then, there is the idea that where the ends are given, the means are justified. That is, since the federal government is authorized "To establish Post Offices and post Roads", it is assumed that the means for setting up these Post Offices are also authorized. Combining this idea with some indeterminate part of the Constitution, like "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", and you will have the federal government exercising quite extravagant means for quite mundane ends. There is no explicit redress to these encroachments. So, you have a state of affairs where the power of the State would not increase, apart from by amending the constitution, and the power of the Federal Government would likely do nothing but increase. And, as the power of the federal government increased, the power to coerce and/or persuade states would also increase.

Another aspect comes from the Federalist Papers:

 		"At the expiration of twenty-
		five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of rep-
		resentatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hun-
		dred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears
		arising from the smallness of the body.
		"


The idea here being that the number of representatives to the number of representees would stay roughly the same ratio, and this ratio was 30,000/1. The reason behind this proportionality was the idea that power corrupts, the idea that the more people a representative represents, the more powerful that representative is, and the idea that by limiting the amount of people a representative represents, the less likely that representative will be corrupted by power. However, it does not appear the writers of the Constitution or of the Federalist Papers envisioned a country with 300 million people, or a county of 300 million people represented at a ratio of roughly 1 to 680,000. And, even if the ratio were kept and there were ~13k representatives, there would be problems stemming from the size of this body of representatives.

There are plenty of other aspects I could go into, but it doesn't serve to batter the Constitution when my purpose is only to show it is imperfect and a poor retreat path for those who would claim the federal government was too large. The Constitution relies on the scruples of the men it causes to be employed and the impotency of forces that might subvert it. It does both of these to a lesser extent than many other governments, but, still, it appears insufficient in dealing with the subversion factors of the present.

----------


## PierzStyx

The Constitution relies on the trust that the people will choose moral, honor bound people to represent them and lead the government. You are exactly right that this can be either a strength or a weakness. But the fact is that _ all liberty form of governments do the exact same_. For example libertarianism only works if the people are good and will not band together to overthrow the rights of the minority for the gain of the majority. Anarchism relies on this even more so as there is absolutely no government outside the home itself to protect you and yours. Because liberty requires either an entirely or partially volunteer society the main issue will _always_ be the morality of the people. Thus the problem isn't in The Constitution, it is in the people themselves.

----------


## hazek

The idea of a document binding people to behave in a certain way and them doing so merely because they'd want to do so, while having a huge economic incentive to the contrary is down right ludicrous.


Any centralized power that can be auctioned off will eventually get auctioned off no matter what people you use, it goes against the laws of praxeology and free market economics for them not to do it.

The only solution is to not have a centralized power, period. 



Why is this so hard to understand? 

If people were angels, we wouldn't need a government and since they're not guess who eventually ends up part of the government.

The Constitution either gave you the government you have or it was powerless to prevent it, in either case it's unfit to fulfill it's intended role.

Get this through your skulls already.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Any centralized power that can be auctioned off will eventually get auctioned off no matter what people you use, it goes against the laws of praxeology and free market economics for them not to do it.


The sad truth

----------


## hazek

> Because liberty requires either an entirely or partially volunteer society the main issue will _always_ be the morality of the people.


Completely false as I've made a case here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-specific-plan

----------


## capob

"The only solution is to not have a centralized power, period. "
I would say you are incorrect here.  There are many situations in which centralized government would not be auctioned off as a result of the laws of praxeology, but I will only go into one of them, because at the moment, there is only one I'm interested in.  This is an article I wrote elsewhere, and might be better taken with another two articles I wrote called: "Logic, Knowledge, Motives, and Society" and "Government and Persistence":

Article:

Strong Government, Weak Officials

There are a couple of concepts which might be applied when forming a government. In order for a society to survive, it must be able to defend itself from domineering societies. As such, the government of the society must have the ability to quickly rally the people to action. However, at the same time, to prevent subversion, the power of internal governmental officials must be very limited. The seeming contradiction of having a powerful government with weak government officials is excepted by having very short terms, very uncertain appointments, and punishments for misdirection while in office.

When you have government officials with long or repeated terms, those government officials carry the power of their office for long periods of time and will tend to use that power to benefit themselves. Even if they can not use the power to directly benefit themselves, there might be some organization that would offer less traceable benefit for that official's power. By limiting the time of an official in office, the total amount of things the official can do is limited, and, thus, the power of the official is limited. Subversion cost time and money in initially subverting the official. After an official is subverted, there is a maintenance fee, but this, I imagine, is less than the initializing cost. So, by limiting the terms of officials, subversion attempts will tend to cost more, due to initializing costs, and the successful subversion attempt will be less beneficial due to the reduced power of the official.

Even with short terms of office subversion is still readily achieved. This is done by simply limiting the pool of candidates who will go into the office to those who are already subverted. Its fairly well known that many US government offices have a revolving door between the governmental office and an office at a corporation. By vastly enlarging the pool of candidates and, to some degree, randomizing who takes the governmental office, the expense of subverting the entire pool of candidates can become prohibitively expensive. And, this idea of having a large pool with a semi-randomized selection is not too far fetched. Most offices in government do not require deep skill sets, and as such, a great many can gain the minimal skill set required for an office and enter into the pool of candidates. The randomization, while technically very easy to do, can quite easily be manipulated, and this manipulation is something to watch out for.

Punishing officials for misdirection done while in office attempts to ensure governmental officials will not use the office for personal gain. It is ludicrous to exempt former government officials from the liability for the acts they performed while in office. It is so far from equitable it is mind boggling how anyone would agree to a sort of amnesty for acts in office. If someone were to shoot another person in cold blood and kill that person, the punishment for doing so tends to be harsh. Though, are we to say that a leader who intentionally directs a society such that a great many die or are harmed should be exempted from punishment? There is an argument for this exemption. The culpability of the leader serves as an impediment to action due to the fear of the punishment. Potentially, this resulting inaction will prevent officials from meeting urgent societal needs. However, even if this reasoning were sound, it is based on the assumption that punishment will be carried out in a rash manner. This argument is, for the most part, invalid under a punishment system that punishes officials for either the lack of diligent decision making or for acting in opposition to the goal of society; a punishment system that does not simply punish officials for bad outcomes.

With the concept that actions are taken based on logic and knowledge, former government officials should be able to explain their actions. Bad actions can be explained in two ways. Either the action was a result of ignorance or the action was a result of intentional divergence from the moral of society. In the case of ignorance, it might be judged whether the ignorance was acceptable, and punishment dealt depending on the determination. In the case that the bad action was a result of intent, there should certainly be a severe punishment to dissuade others from that type of action.

There might be an argument that by disallowing long or many terms for a single person, the projects that that single person was working on will be abandoned. If a project were so important, then the reasoning for it should be clear, and to say that the next official in the office would ignore the project is folly. Inaction is itself an action, and if a new official ignores, without a stated reason, a clearly beneficial project and instead does nothing, that in itself could have some punishment attached to it. The situation might be likened to a case where a waterworks official was investigating a supported claim that the water had some toxin introduced somewhere in the utility system and then the replacing official completely ignored or stopped the investigation without a stated reason. Just as with other actions, the act of stopping action for some project of a former official should have a stated reason. This idea of having stated reasons for actions is quite important and I will explore it later. If you were to rely on unstated, unwritten reasons for actions of an official, you might as well keep your valuables in some public place and rely on the good nature of the people you live among to prevent theft of those valuables.

Potentially, there could be a sort of tug of war within an office. One official believing X moves the office in some direction, then the new official in that offices believing Y moves the office in the opposite direction. This concept, however, stems from a much more general problem and concept. What would make two logical people have opposing viewpoints? Different knowledge. In most cases, where there is different knowledge, inspection of the knowledge used by the two people can lead to conclusions and remove the opposition. One problem existing currently is a psychological problem in where neither party objectively investigates the knowledge of the opposition; Another problem is neither party has actual knowledge backing their position, but rather faith. Both of these cases can be prevented by specifically regulating against them; that is, for instance, requiring opposing officials to carry out investigations of the opposing official's basis. However, regulation to prevent this sort of tug of war is a large topic in itself that I will not get into here. And, even if there were no system to prevent this sort of tug of war, it, I would imagine, would be exceptionally rare that two opposing officials keep getting appointed; and so, for there to be a stalemate tug of war, there would have to be a fairly even divide among all the candidates in the pool of candidates; in which case, the issue is not a squabble between two, but, more likely, a significant societal issue in which the society might benefit by a stalemate until the best path is determined.

It might be thought that, by having a large pool of randomly selected candidates for an office, there will be "bad apples" getting into office and causing messes. Well, for one, any intentional mess would have a punishment associated with it, and it can be assumed that those qualifying for the candidates pool would not likely bring about unintentional messes that the other candidates wouldn't also bring about. That is to say, insane people, or people without the ability to use logic to a sufficient extent, are excluded and so the idea that one of these such people would get into office is not worth getting into here.

There is the idea that by having short terms and randomized appointments, extremely well qualified or proven candidates will not get just rewards; that is, extremely well qualified candidates might not get chosen in the random selection or proven candidates, (proven by former terms), will not be re-appointed. For one, even if there weren't other systems for rewarding and promoting people who have shown themselves to be exceptionally beneficial to society, the system of candidate pools can have pools specifically for those who are extremely well qualified or who have proven themselves.

Could this system of randomized selection be combined with other systems? Who would the auditors of officials' actions be and who would determine punishments? How short should terms be? What should pool qualifications be? Who would be in charge of the randomized selection of candidates and who would audit this process? I am certainly skipping on many details that would need exploration, but this is only an introduction.

----------


## capob

"The Constitution relies on the trust that the people will choose moral, honor bound people to represent them and lead the government. You are exactly right that this can be either a strength or a weakness. But the fact is that all liberty form of governments do the exact same. For example libertarianism only works if the people are good and will not band together to overthrow the rights of the minority for the gain of the majority. Anarchism relies on this even more so as there is absolutely no government outside the home itself to protect you and yours. Because liberty requires either an entirely or partially volunteer society the main issue will always be the morality of the people. Thus the problem isn't in The Constitution, it is in the people themselves. "

I do agree with your sentiment that a lot relies on the constitution of the people (ie, their internal, individual constitution).  However, it can not be ignored that some people will ruthlessly seek power and step on others to get it.  And so, anarchism fails as outside powers usurp the anarchism collective.  Libertarianism, as I understand it, can fail the same way, or can fail with a creeping of internal power grabs (ie, government grows slowly, and since there is nothing put in place to stop it, it doesn't get stopped).

----------


## osan

One word: prolix.

----------


## capob

One word followed by many: Illiteracy
If you spent any time thinking about the subject or had done research on the subject, you'd realized that I was rather succinct.  If you read books prior on these subjects, you'd realize that people write whole books in regards to this subject.  And, yet, you troll my thread with a label prolix.  I'll tell you what, if you are too ignorant to read, that's fine, but don't try to spread your ignorance to others.

----------


## Pericles

The core issue is that the intended series of checks on federal power has been abandoned.

The system was designed so that either the SCOTUS or a majority of the states could declare a federal law unconstitutional. This prevents a monopoly of power, which is the road to tyranny.

The other check is the militia system. By having the capability of a universal militia, the founders put in Machiavelli's dictum in THE PRINCE "Good arms and good laws go together. Where the people have recourse to good arms, no Prince dare make a bad law."

The hierarchy of laws is simple
(A) US Constitution
(B) Treaties ratified by the Senate
(C) Constitutional federal laws
(D) State Constitutions
(E) State laws made in accordance with US and State Constitutions
(F) Local laws made in accordance with US and State Constitutions

What is broken is the enforcement mechanism, which depends on an informed and active citizenry. Which depends on a system of education......... that teaches the responsibilities of citizenship. Socialists realize that controlling the education system of a country ultimately leads to control of the country.

----------


## BKom

> One word: prolix.


Yeah, here's an article I've written on the tendency to be overly verbose: "DON'T DO IT." 

Did you enjoy my article? I haven't posted it anywhere else, so please be thankful that I've reproduced it here in its entirety. 

All those words to say one thing - No piece of paper was ever invented that will stop a bullet or a thief. The only thing that stops those two things is people willing to take them on. Government isn't necessarily a vehicle for doing this, but it can be if enough people are expected to understand this tenet of being a person on this planet.

----------


## Pericles

> One word followed by many: Illiteracy
> If you spent any time thinking about the subject or had done research on the subject, you'd realized that I was rather succinct.  If you read books prior on these subjects, you'd realize that people write whole books in regards to this subject.  And, yet, you troll my thread with a label prolix.  I'll tell you what, if you are too ignorant to read, that's fine, but don't try to spread your ignorance to others.


A suggestion: An initial summary paragraph would tell the reader straight away what he is going to read, and suggest to him whether or not you have an intriguing argument to make, that will attract his attention. You writing style went from point to point, and in my view would be better served by a unifying tie to bind the paragraphs together. After a couple of paragraphs containing points not of interest to the reader, some will abandon the task.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> If you spent any time thinking about the subject or had done research on the subject, you'd realized that I was rather succinct.


You were verbose and misguided:




> Seeing as the supporters of Ron Paul tend to be very much in favor of the constitution, and seeing as there is a topic on this forum just for the constitution, I would like to see opinions and criticisms of an article I wrote a while ago regarding the constitution:
> 
> In disapproval of the current state of affairs, there are various retreats people will follow. My goal here is to refute one of these retreats and force people to start thinking of logic backed solutions. A retreat that I often see is one of "going back to the Constitution". The idea here being that government has strayed from the Constitution and *the only thing needed to rectify the state of affairs is to get government back on the path of the Constitution*. However, this is a very flawed idea, and I will now go into why. [it's your cherry-picked idea]


At best, you are mistaking what people say for what they mean.  What people desire is a limited government with less control of the states and individuals, less or no taxation, end to undeclared neverending military engagements or "authorizations", and a restoration of our civil liberties.  That these can be taken away by various machinations (e.g., Lincoln did it, Wilson did it, FDR did it, and G.W. Obama are doing their best to finish it off) is not the point.

If you read Ron Paul's stance on the issues, you will note it is far more complicated than you made out, "the only thing needed to rectify the state of affairs is to get government back on the path of the Constitution.".  Flawed premise is flawed?

Somebody here posted a criticism of the constitution with frequent use of the "f-word".  It was quiet entertaining and did not, IIRC, besmirch Ron Paul supporters as overly simplistic.

My advice is to stick to criticizing the constitution which is a known document.  Real people are more complicated and hard to pin down.

----------


## BuddyRey

This is the idea I have such a hard time getting across to Joe & Jane Fox news viewer.  They genuinely believe they have a *duty* to support Mitt Romney, and that I'm some kind of traitor or Obamaite for refusing to do so.  They've let it all become about personalities instead of principles.

Whoever wins the election, the State wins and the people lose.  It doesn't matter which slavemaster you pick, they'll never allow you to choose *NOBODY* as your slavemaster.

----------


## cucucachu0000

It doesn't matter what you have written down on a piece of paper if the government didn't follow any of the Constitutions rules it can break the rules on any other constitution. It's not the Constitutions fault It's up to the people to hold their government to those rules. Thats what I'm trying to do now.

----------


## soulcyon

I think the OP is somewhat mistaken.   We're not for "going back to the Constitution" entirely, 1) because there is no way we could've understood the real intent of the writers regarding our current state of affairs and 2) Drastic changes like that will cause problems for a majority of the population.   We are in a transience state, and what (at least me) we desire is an alternate interpretation of the Constitution - namely limited government.   

We could argue semantics, what the Constitution really means and/or the history of the decisions our country has made - but that discussion will bear no fruit.   Let us look to the future, while still learning from the mistakes of the past.   We don't need to reinvent the wheel (of the state) to move forward, there are more practical options

----------


## capob

> The core issue is that the intended series of checks on federal power has been abandoned.
> 
> The system was designed so that either the SCOTUS or a majority of the states could declare a federal law unconstitutional. This prevents a monopoly of power, which is the road to tyranny.
> 
> The other check is the militia system. By having the capability of a universal militia, the founders put in Machiavelli's dictum in THE PRINCE "Good arms and good laws go together. Where the people have recourse to good arms, no Prince dare make a bad law."
> 
> The hierarchy of laws is simple
> (A) US Constitution
> (B) Treaties ratified by the Senate
> ...



Lots of things to contest here.  Did you read the article?  
You ->"The core issue is that the intended series of checks on federal power has been abandoned."  
What "series"?
Article -> "however, there is still nothing explicitly stating that the federal government should not engage in actions which are not prescribed by or prohibited in the Constitution."
If you  are considering the states ability  to point out an infringement by the federal government a check, you might as well say cameras are checks to robbery.  No, it is the force behind what occurs when the camera captures a robbery, not the camera itself.  As I stated in the article, the option is for the state to stop following laws that are infringing.  But, you come up with the boilerplace SCOTUS unconsitutional stuff.  Where in the constitution does it mention "unconstitutional"? or more to the point, that the supreme court shall be in charge, through their moral obligation, of decreeing laws unconstitutional and revoking them?


"The other check is the militia system. By having the capability of a universal militia, the founders put in Machiavelli's dictum in THE PRINCE "Good arms and good laws go together. Where the people have recourse to good arms, no Prince dare make a bad law."
Although a good idea, this is hardly true.  It would be better to say, as long as the people held good arms and the power to use them on the prince, the prince will make no laws that would enrage them to do so.  Of course, it can take a lot to get people enraged, and then you have the frog in hot water example.


"
The hierarchy of laws is simple
(A) US Constitution
(B) Treaties ratified by the Senate
(C) Constitutional federal laws
(D) State Constitutions
"

Come on.  First of all, why did you feel the need to list them?  Second of all, even on this minor point, you are wrong.

Constitution - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

For one, there is nothing stopping a treaty from altering the terms in the constitution.  And, if you had read the article, you might understand just how treaties can be misused to grant US Feds or, say, the UN unlimited powers.  For two, state constitutions or laws aren't under the constitution, they are beside it.  That is, they are supposed to deal with separate subjects and thus there is no hierarchy.  You could argue that a state can't make laws contrary to the constitution, and I would say, yes they can, but they would be contrary the the constitution and overlapping in subject, just like if laws from congress overlapped onto the state's jurisdiction.

I could go on, but not worth my time I'm afraid.

----------


## maninblack

I've migrated to the belief that central government is unnecessary and always ends in roughly the same way. Will we ever learn that? Who knows but probably not. The herd mentality is tough to break.

----------


## capob

> A suggestion: An initial summary paragraph would tell the reader straight away what he is going to read, and suggest to him whether or not you have an intriguing argument to make, that will attract his attention. You writing style went from point to point, and in my view would be better served by a unifying tie to bind the paragraphs together. After a couple of paragraphs containing points not of interest to the reader, some will abandon the task.


For the amount of text (not a lot), I figured describing the aim was good enough.    

"You writing style went from point to point, and in my view would be better served by a unifying tie to bind the paragraphs together."

If the points were not of interest to the reader, I don't see how the subject is of interest to the reader, unless the reader is simply looking for new reasons a return to the constitution is a fallacy.  In which case, my target with the article was not those people.  It would serve, however, to have those people express any additions or contradictions.

-Though, I would agree that the paragraphs could be better tied together; and thank you for the suggestion.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> ...
> ...
> What is broken is the enforcement mechanism, which depends on an informed and active citizenry. Which depends on a system of education......... that teaches the responsibilities of citizenship. Socialists realize that controlling the education system of a country ultimately leads to control of the country.


+1984
A return to truly following the U.S. Constitution would be much better than what we have now.
Then the debates about even less Gov, might actually matter.

----------


## sailingaway

Amend it then, get the overwhelming agreement needed to change the basic rules of our nation.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> Amend it then, get the overwhelming agreement needed to change the basic rules of our nation.


Agreed, a _Return to the Constitution_ will fix many of our current problems.

----------


## capob

> You were verbose and misguided:
> 
> 
> 
> At best, you are mistaking what people say for what they mean.  What people desire is a limited government with less control of the states and individuals, less or no taxation, end to undeclared neverending military engagements or "authorizations", and a restoration of our civil liberties.  That these can be taken away by various machinations (e.g., Lincoln did it, Wilson did it, FDR did it, and G.W. Obama are doing their best to finish it off) is not the point.
> 
> If you read Ron Paul's stance on the issues, you will note it is far more complicated than you made out, "the only thing needed to rectify the state of affairs is to get government back on the path of the Constitution.".  Flawed premise is flawed?
> 
> Somebody here posted a criticism of the constitution with frequent use of the "f-word".  It was quiet entertaining and did not, IIRC, besmirch Ron Paul supporters as overly simplistic.
> ...


I would say, on the contrary, you were very misguided.  I did not, and it was not my intention, to label Ron Paul supporters with those who think "the only thing needed to rectify the state of affairs is to get government back on the path of the Constitution".  Instead, I presented in the first paragraph the reason for my posting (namely, because Ron Paul supporters tend to be interested in the constitution), and then I posted the article.

I can see how the assumption might be made, but, your post is quite acrid.  Please don't post on this thread any more.

----------


## capob

> This is the idea I have such a hard time getting across to Joe & Jane Fox news viewer.  They genuinely believe they have a *duty* to support Mitt Romney, and that I'm some kind of traitor or Obamaite for refusing to do so.  They've let it all become about personalities instead of principles.
> 
> Whoever wins the election, the State wins and the people lose.  It doesn't matter which slavemaster you pick, they'll never allow you to choose *NOBODY* as your slavemaster.


A member (hazek) posted early on this thread references his desire to create a sort of club for those of like mind and eventually discriminate against those of unlike mind.  I would say, as I have been saying for years, if you have a problem with people not using logic and relying on emotion to make decisions, you must make it social unacceptable to do that.  I would say, for one, it does not serve to discuss the Fox news audience here.  I might go into why I couldn't convince people of an insane asylum that the sky is blue, but, there is little point to it.  Instead, focus on either sharpening the principles or acting in ways that will effect them.  For instance, to take from hazek, "10% discount for Ron Paul supporters".  Or, simply drop your friends that insist on acting in ways you disagree with.

----------


## capob

> It doesn't matter what you have written down on a piece of paper if the government didn't follow any of the Constitutions rules it can break the rules on any other constitution. It's not the Constitutions fault It's up to the people to hold their government to those rules. Thats what I'm trying to do now.


It is more than just the fact that a government could potentially break rules set up on some document.  Instead, it is about creating a system where that is nearly impossible to do with any success.  I would venture to say, it is obvious, and it was obvious to the people around the time of the constitution, that government can cross boundaries set in writing if not checked with things that aren't writing.

----------


## capob

> I've migrated to the belief that central government is unnecessary and always ends in roughly the same way. Will we ever learn that? Who knows but probably not. The herd mentality is tough to break.


Well, more to the point is, what system will deal with the threats that central government deals with -> such as outside powers.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

OP: the canned answer you'll be given by people you try to sell this to off this website is, "the Civil War resolved this issue.  There's nothing more to be said."  Good luck in your quest (though it's more than likely to be fruitless).

That said, hazek is right-social contract theory and Constitutionalist theory and so forth only work on paper.

----------


## capob

> I think the OP is somewhat mistaken.   We're not for "going back to the Constitution" entirely, 1) because there is no way we could've understood the real intent of the writers regarding our current state of affairs and 2) Drastic changes like that will cause problems for a majority of the population.   We are in a transience state, and what (at least me) we desire is an alternate interpretation of the Constitution - namely limited government.   
> 
> We could argue semantics, what the Constitution really means and/or the history of the decisions our country has made - but that discussion will bear no fruit.   Let us look to the future, while still learning from the mistakes of the past.   We don't need to reinvent the wheel (of the state) to move forward, there are more practical options


Do read the note I added to the original post.  And, to address your latter point: the question becomes, what are the details of this limited government?  Before you can be taken seriously, you have to believe in something that exists.  And, when you just say "limited government" and you have no actually document detailing exactly what that would entail, you essentially are believing and promoting something that doesn't exist.  And, please don't take this as a discouragement; rather, an encouragement to think about the details.

----------


## capob

> Amend it then, get the overwhelming agreement needed to change the basic rules of our nation.


This is easy to say, but it shirks off the duty of determining the "with what" and "how".  If you don't take this duty on yourself, why do you think anyone   else would?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is easy to say, but it shirks off the duty of determining the "with what" and "how".  *If you don't take this duty on yourself*, why do you think anyone   else would?


This is the duty of "representatives" according to the Constitution.

----------


## maninblack

> Well, more to the point is, what system will deal with the threats that central government deals with -> such as outside powers.


I'd be cool with a return to the Articles of Confederation and see how that worked out for a while.

----------


## capob

> I'd be cool with a return to the Articles of Confederation and see how that worked out for a while.


Please to read the  Federalist Papers; as, the bring up many good points as to why the confederacy was insufficient as a government.  Also, while you are reading that, you might also want to read a book called "The Law of Nations"

----------


## soulcyon

> Do read the note I added to the original post.  And, to address your latter point: the question becomes, what are the details of this limited government?  Before you can be taken seriously, you have to believe in something that exists.  And, when you just say "limited government" and you have no actually document detailing exactly what that would entail, you essentially are believing and promoting something that doesn't exist.  And, please don't take this as a discouragement; rather, an encouragement to think about the details.


The Framers believed in the Constitution and the government that resulted from this Constitution - they believed in it, regardless of the fact that a Constitutional Republic hasn't existed before.  Are you telling me the Framer's weren't taken seriously because they believed in something that didn't exist?

I agree talking in theory for too long can lead people astray from reality, but constantly referring to historical references and analyzing every situation can lead people down a similar path.   I would suggest that you appropriately balance the theory and practicality of the claims laid on the table.

I am pretty much subscribed to the Minarchism theory of limited government, and like I said before, Ron Paul's stances on the issues bring our country closer to this form of government.   I can still believe in the Minarchist government, even if it has never existed.

----------


## capob

> The Framers believed in the Constitution and the government that resulted from this Constitution - they believed in it, regardless of the fact that a Constitutional Republic hasn't existed before.  Are you telling me the Framer's weren't taken seriously because they believed in something that didn't exist?
> 
> I agree talking in theory for too long can lead people astray from reality, but constantly referring to historical references and analyzing every situation can lead people down a similar path.   I would suggest that you appropriately balance the theory and practicality of the claims laid on the table.
> 
> I am pretty much subscribed to the Minarchism theory of limited government, and like I said before, Ron Paul's stances on the issues bring our country closer to this form of government.   I can still believe in the Minarchist government, even if it has never existed.


You misunderstood my post.  To understand my post, think of, when I say "exists", I mean, a concrete idea of it exists.  And, certainly the "framers" of the constitution had a concrete idea which happened to take the form the constitution.  And, more ideas were detailed in The Federalist Papers.  But, when you simply say "limited government", it is hot air if no details come quickly after.

And, when I say concrete idea, I do not mean proven by history, but rather, with intellectual rigor.  I, myself, am not a fan of the wordiness with which many authors express their idea; nor am I a fan of author's reliance on wordy historic examples when the concept would do just fine without such.  And, certainly, I did not mean to convey that ideas are if they lack historical precedence -> a truly ridiculous idea.

----------


## soulcyon

Minarchism, go wiki it - you'll know what I'm talking about.

Ron Paul is a strong advocate of the market dealing with many of the problems the government has solved for us (roads, mail delivery, just to name a few).   I'll go into details of this limited government later, got class in a few

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Please to read the  Federalist Papers; as, the bring up many good points as to why the confederacy was insufficient as a government.  Also, while you are reading that, you might also want to read a book called "The Law of Nations"


Read the Anti-Federalist papers and learn why the Constitution was the wrong way to go about it.  (not to mention Hamilton's Curse)  The Federalists' arguments simply don't hold up to any serious scrutiny.

Here is a taste of Hamilton's Curse:

As soon as the federal government announced its trillion-dollar  bailout (for starters) of Wall Street plutocrats, defenders of the  bailout pulled out what they apparently believed was their secret  weapon: the myth of Alexander Hamilton as the alleged inventor of  American capitalism. Hamilton, they said, would approve of the bailout.  Case closed. How could anyone dispute "the architect of the American  economy"?
 Forbes.com immediately published an article entitled "Alexander  Hamilton versus Ron Paul" to make the point that libertarian critiques  of the bailout should be dismissed, since Hamilton was such a great  statesman compared to Congressman Paul and his supporters. The _Wall Street Journal Online_  published a piece by business historian John Steele Gordon in which he  argued that our real problem is that central banking is not centralized  enough; called for a financial-market dictator/regulator; supported the  bailout; and, most importantly, blamed the current economic crisis on …  Thomas Jefferson! Jefferson opposed America's first central bank,  Hamilton's bank of the United States, and was a hard-money advocate. It  is this kind of libertarian, free-market thinking, said Gordon, that is  the cause of the current crisis.
 What all this frantic Hamilton idolatry demonstrates is how the myth  of Alexander Hamilton is the ideological cornerstone of the American  system of crony capitalism financed by a huge public debt and legalized  counterfeiting through central banking. It is this system that is the  real cause of the current economic crisis — contrary to the false  proclamations issued by Forbes.com and the _Wall Street Journal._
 We live in "Hamilton's republic," as the writer Michael Lind has  proudly stated. Americans may like to quote Jefferson, George Will once  wrote, but we live in Hamilton's country. This is true, but it is not  the blessing that people like Lind, Will, and others proclaim. Just the  opposite is true, as I argue in my new book, _Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for America Today._
*The Real Hamilton* Hamilton was the intellectual leader of the group of men at the time  of the founding who wanted to import the system of British mercantilism  and imperialistic government to America. As long as they were on the  paying side of British mercantilism and imperialism, they opposed it and  even fought a revolution against it. But being on the collecting side  was altogether different. It's good to be the king, as Mel Brooks might  say.
 It was Hamilton who coined the phrase "The American System" to  describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist  tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his  political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the  slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day, as is  argued by such writers as John Steele Gordon. Unlike Jefferson, who had  read, understood, and supported the free-market economic ideas of Adam  Smith, David Ricardo, John Baptiste Say (whom Jefferson invited to join  the faculty of the University of Virginia), Richard Cantillon, and  Turgot (a bust of whom still sits in the entrance to Monticello),  Hamilton either ignored or was completely unaware of these ideas.  Instead, he repeated the mercantilist myths and superstitions that had  been concocted by apologists for the British mercantilist state, such as  Sir James Steuart.
 Hamilton championed the cause of a large public debt — which he  called "a public blessing" — not to establish the credit of the US  government or to finance any particular public works projects but for  the Machiavellian idea of tying the interests of the more affluent to  the state: being government bondholders, they would, he believed, then  support all of his grandiose plans for heavy taxation and a government  much larger than what was called for in the Constitution. He was right.  They, along with Wall Street investment bankers who have marketed the  government's bonds, have always provided effective political support for  bigger government and higher taxes. That is why Wall Street investment  bankers were first in line for a bailout, administered by one of their  fellow investment bankers, Treasury Secretary Paulson.
 Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an  invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the  European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens  when it came to tax collection. Evidence of this is the fact that  Hamilton personally led some 15,000 _conscripts_ into Western  Pennsylvania (with George Washington) to attempt to quell the famous  Whiskey Rebellion. He was eventually put in charge of the entire  expedition, and rounded up two dozen tax protesters, every one of whom  he wanted to hang. They were all pardoned by George Washington, however,  to Hamilton's everlasting regret.
 In a publication entitled "A History of Central Banking in America"  the Fed proudly labels Hamilton as its founding father, boasting that he  even spoke just like a contemporary Fed chairman. The First Bank of the  United States, which was opposed by Jefferson and Madison, created 72  percent inflation in its first five years of operation, as Murray  Rothbard wrote in _A History of Money and Banking in the United States_.  It was not rechartered in 1811, but was resurrected by Congress in  1817, after which it created America's first boom-and-bust cycle, which  led to the _Panic of 1819_, the title of another of Rothbard's great works on American economic history.
 After years of generating political corruption and economic  instability, Hamilton's bank finally came to an end by the early 1840s,  thanks to President Andrew Jackson. This led to the twenty-year "free  banking" era. Hamiltonian central banking was resurrected once again in  the 1860s with the National Currency Acts. This is an important reason  why some historians have labeled the postwar decades as a period of  "Hamiltonian hegemony."
 When Anna Schwartz, Michael Bordo, and Peter Rappaport evaluated this  precursor to the Fed in an academic publication, they concluded that it  was characterized by "monetary and cyclical instability, four banking  panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other financial disturbances"  (see their paper in Claudia Goldin, ed., _Strategic Factors in Nineteenth-Century Economic Growth_).  Naturally, the government's response to all of this economic panic and  instability caused by centralized banking was to create an even _more centralized_ banking system with the Federal Reserve Act.
 Hamilton is perhaps best known among economists for his _Report on Manufactures_.  In his 1905 biography of Hamilton, William Graham Sumner wrote that  Hamilton's report advocated "the old system of mercantilism of the  English school, turned around and adjusted to the situation of the  United States." Thomas Jefferson also wrote that Hamilton's "schemes"  for protectionism, corporate welfare, and central banking were "the  means by which the corrupt British system of government could be  introduced into the United States." They were right.
 Hamilton's reputation as having had great expertise in economics and  finance has been greatly exaggerated, wrote Sumner, who also wrote that  Hamilton's economic thinking was marred by "confusion and contradiction"  and that Hamilton was "befogged in the mists of mercantilism."  Unfortunately for us, all of Hamilton's bad ideas "proved a welcome  arsenal to the politicians" who succeeded him, noted Sumner.
 At the constitutional convention Hamilton proposed a permanent  president who would appoint all the governors of the states and would  have veto power over all state legislation. His opponents correctly  interpreted this as advocating a monarchy and, worse yet, a monarchy  based on mercantilism. The reason for consolidating all political power  first in the central government, and then in the hands of one man, the  permanent president, was so that an American mercantilist empire could  be centrally planned and controlled without any dissenters, such as tax  protestors or free traders who resided in the various states. Hamilton  (and his political heirs) understood that forced national uniformity is  the only way in which such a central-planning scheme could work. The  socialists of the 20th century understood this as well.
Hamiltonian mercantilism is essentially the economic and political  system that Americans have lived under for several generations now: a  king-like president who rules through "executive orders" and disregards  any and all constitutional constraints on his powers; state governments  that are mere puppets of the central government; corporate welfare run  amok, especially in light of the most recent outrage, the Wall Street  Plutocrat Bailout Bill; a $10 trillion national debt ($70 trillion if  one counts the government's unfunded liabilities); a perpetual  boom-and-bust cycle caused by the Wizard of Oz–like central planners at  the Fed; constant military aggression around the world that only seems  to benefit defense contractors and other beneficiaries of the warfare  state; and more than half of the population bribed with subsidies of  every kind imaginable to support the never-ending growth of the state.  This is Hamilton's curse on America — a curse that must be exorcized if  there is to be any hope of resurrecting American freedom and prosperity.

----------


## capob

> Minarchism, go wiki it - you'll know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Ron Paul is a strong advocate of the market dealing with many of the problems the government has solved for us (roads, mail delivery, just to name a few).   I'll go into details of this limited government later, got class in a few


Wikipedia -    "it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states."

Sorry  to say, it's not too hard to project failure with this type of state.  I will just go into a couple ways of failure.  One, owing to the small size of the government and lack of anti-trust laws, market entities will tend to gain power and eventually turn into monopolies or cartels and usurp the power of the government one way or another.  Two, in the power to protect against aggression, there is an expansiveness which does not appear to have a check.  To be certain, the absolute power to do one thing tends to lead to the power to do many other things.  From my article:

"Then, there is the idea that where the ends are given, the means are justified. That is, since the federal government is authorized "To establish Post Offices and post Roads", it is assumed that the means for setting up these Post Offices are also authorized. Combining this idea with some indeterminate part of the Constitution, like "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", and you will have the federal government exercising quite extravagant means for quite mundane ends. There is no explicit redress to these encroachments."

----------


## capob

> Read the Anti-Federalist papers and learn why the Constitution was the wrong way to go about it.  (not to mention Hamilton's Curse)  The Federalists' arguments simply don't hold up to any serious scrutiny.
> 
> Here is a taste of Hamilton's Curse:
> 
> As soon as the federal government announced its trillion-dollar  bailout (for starters) of Wall Street plutocrats, defenders of the  bailout pulled out what they apparently believed was their secret  weapon: the myth of Alexander Hamilton as the alleged inventor of  American capitalism. Hamilton, they said, would approve of the bailout.  Case closed. How could anyone dispute "the architect of the American  economy"?
>  Forbes.com immediately published an article entitled "Alexander  Hamilton versus Ron Paul" to make the point that libertarian critiques  of the bailout should be dismissed, since Hamilton was such a great  statesman compared to Congressman Paul and his supporters. The _Wall Street Journal Online_  published a piece by business historian John Steele Gordon in which he  argued that our real problem is that central banking is not centralized  enough; called for a financial-market dictator/regulator; supported the  bailout; and, most importantly, blamed the current economic crisis on   Thomas Jefferson! Jefferson opposed America's first central bank,  Hamilton's bank of the United States, and was a hard-money advocate. It  is this kind of libertarian, free-market thinking, said Gordon, that is  the cause of the current crisis.
>  What all this frantic Hamilton idolatry demonstrates is how the myth  of Alexander Hamilton is the ideological cornerstone of the American  system of crony capitalism financed by a huge public debt and legalized  counterfeiting through central banking. It is this system that is the  real cause of the current economic crisis  contrary to the false  proclamations issued by Forbes.com and the _Wall Street Journal._
>  We live in "Hamilton's republic," as the writer Michael Lind has  proudly stated. Americans may like to quote Jefferson, George Will once  wrote, but we live in Hamilton's country. This is true, but it is not  the blessing that people like Lind, Will, and others proclaim. Just the  opposite is true, as I argue in my new book, _Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution  And What It Means for America Today._
> *The Real Hamilton* Hamilton was the intellectual leader of the group of men at the time  of the founding who wanted to import the system of British mercantilism  and imperialistic government to America. As long as they were on the  paying side of British mercantilism and imperialism, they opposed it and  even fought a revolution against it. But being on the collecting side  was altogether different. It's good to be the king, as Mel Brooks might  say.
> ...


This is just various ad hominem arguments against Hamilton and his intent.  For example:
"Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection."
Doesn't negate the idea that large standing armies are necessary to protect against aggression; it just negates that that was the reason Hamilton wanted them.  I do appreciate bringing content to the debate, but please keep the content relevant.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> ...please keep the content relevant.


Ron Paul (whose name is on this forum) wants a Return to the Constitution.
How could that not be _much better_ than what we have now?

----------


## maninblack

> Please to read the  Federalist Papers; as, the bring up many good points as to why the confederacy was insufficient as a government.  Also, while you are reading that, you might also want to read a book called "The Law of Nations"


Please look at at how that turned out.

----------


## capob

> Ron Paul (whose name is on this forum) wants a Return to the Constitution.
> How could that not be _much better_ than what we have now?


I didn't say it wouldn't be better and that's not something I'm going to argue right now.

----------


## capob

> Please look at at how that turned out.


Please read the original post, because, either you didn't or you are just completely oblivious to what you read and what it means about me.

----------


## Brian Coulter

If we're able to return to it that means it worked.

----------


## capob

> If we're able to return to it that means it worked.


Ha.  And if you were all turned into footstools for generations, and by some happenstance, there was a return to the constitution then the constitution works?  Horrible logic.  It seems like some of those who might have contributed have given up since i responded to them and what's left is a bunch of people who like drive by mouthings.

----------


## soulcyon

> Wikipedia -    "it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states."
> 
> Sorry  to say, it's not too hard to project failure with this type of state.  I will just go into a couple ways of failure.  One, owing to the small size of the government and lack of anti-trust laws, market entities will tend to gain power and eventually turn into monopolies or cartels and usurp the power of the government one way or another.  Two, in the power to protect against aggression, there is an expansiveness which does not appear to have a check.  To be certain, the absolute power to do one thing tends to lead to the power to do many other things.


@market entities, they will never have the right to initiate force of violence, because government is the only entity allowed to do so.   Thus the government has a monopoly over violence and can never be usurped by free-market entities.   I'm not exactly sure how your quote from your article is relevant, because it speaks directly about our current Constitution, and not one of a Minarchist system.  When you clearly define the limits of the federal government, it is very difficult to legally overreach your power - at best you can find loopholes, but if there is an accepted morality that government cannot overreach its power, loopholes are futile.   However, when the definition is vague (like in our current Constitution), then it is very easy to legally extend powers - which your article is correct about, because it talks about our current Constitution.

----------


## capob

> @market entities, they will never have the right to initiate force of violence, because government is the only entity allowed to do so.   Thus the government has a monopoly over violence and can never be usurped by free-market entities.   I'm not exactly sure how your quote from your article is relevant, because it speaks directly about our current Constitution, and not one of a Minarchist system.  When you clearly define the limits of the federal government, it is very difficult to legally overreach your power - at best you can find loopholes, but if there is an accepted morality that government cannot overreach its power, loopholes are futile.   However, when the definition is vague (like in our current Constitution), then it is very easy to legally extend powers - which your article is correct about, because it talks about our current Constitution.


The quote is literally from the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on minarchism.  If you don't want  me to use wikipedia, which has only a small article on minarchism, either direct me to a better source or produce your own details on the system so that I might analyze; otherwise, what I said sticks.  The idea that, because you outlaw violence, except for violence by government, market monopolies will refrain is absurd.  You need to be rigorous in your system design or you will be swallowed up by its flaws and ambiguities and uncertainties.

There are a lot of dynamics that need to be thought through in regard to government and society (see http://persistencesociety.com/), and it is not so simple that you can just name one of these coarsely defined terms and say that's good enough.  If you want a better government, then you need to know exactly what that better government is; and maybe then you can start thinking about how to get it.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Completely false as I've made a case here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-specific-plan


I understand your argument, but you are simply incorrect. People don't live by philosophy. They live by their urges and desires and seek to fulfill those. For many that means wealth for them at all costs to anyone else. Go ahead and make your little club. I guarantee the next Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, or tribe of Goths will happily crush you into the ground, take your women, and pillage your food and wealth all while you're pontificating about their evils.

----------


## PierzStyx

> "The Constitution relies on the trust that the people will choose moral, honor bound people to represent them and lead the government. You are exactly right that this can be either a strength or a weakness. But the fact is that all liberty form of governments do the exact same. For example libertarianism only works if the people are good and will not band together to overthrow the rights of the minority for the gain of the majority. Anarchism relies on this even more so as there is absolutely no government outside the home itself to protect you and yours. Because liberty requires either an entirely or partially volunteer society the main issue will always be the morality of the people. Thus the problem isn't in The Constitution, it is in the people themselves. "
> 
> I do agree with your sentiment that a lot relies on the constitution of the people (ie, their internal, individual constitution).  However, it can not be ignored that some people will ruthlessly seek power and step on others to get it.  And so, anarchism fails as outside powers usurp the anarchism collective.  Libertarianism, as I understand it, can fail the same way, or can fail with a creeping of internal power grabs (ie, government grows slowly, and since there is nothing put in place to stop it, it doesn't get stopped).


That....is exactly what I said. So you agree.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I think the OP is somewhat mistaken.   We're not for "going back to the Constitution" entirely, 1) because there is no way we could've understood the real intent of the writers regarding our current state of affairs and 2) Drastic changes like that will cause problems for a majority of the population.   We are in a transience state, and what (at least me) we desire is an alternate interpretation of the Constitution - namely limited government.   
> 
> We could argue semantics, what the Constitution really means and/or the history of the decisions our country has made - but that discussion will bear no fruit.   Let us look to the future, while still learning from the mistakes of the past.   We don't need to reinvent the wheel (of the state) to move forward, there are more practical options


This idea that The Constitution needs _interpreting_ is one liberal use to justify their abandonment of The Constitution. The document is straightforward and easy to understand. The only way one could not understand it is by intentional action to be ignorant.

----------


## osan

> Whoever wins the election, the *State* wins and the people lose.


Well, yes and no.  "The state" is nonexistent as a thing in and of itself.  "The state", defined as that class of persons discharging the various functions of governance is very large - millions of people - and does not as a whole benefit equally.  Some elements of that set may even feel the pinch.  Therefore, the question arises as to which set of persons can we identify as the ones truly benefiting and how is it so.  Such persons may not be technically part of "the state" but hold some nontrivial influence over how "the state" functions, which directly effects the behavior of the vast and overwhelming proportion of the population. 

But identifying such persons is not actually necessary when one possesses the correct knowledge for living with includes the proper set of principles.  With such principles at hand, individuals, communities, and even subsets thereof can choose to live as they see fit and challenge the power of "the state" regardless of who may comprise it.  Risky business, mind you, when numbers are low.  It is all matters of choice.  Live as slaves or do not live as slaves.




> It doesn't matter which slavemaster you pick, they'll never allow you to choose *NOBODY* as your slavemaster.


This is the key point in all of this.  You will NOT be allowed complete non-participation and as your degree of non-participation rises the prices forced upon you grow (e.g. John Joe Gray in TX).  Beyond a point the costs will be exorbitant and you will be required to live in a state of perpetual red-alert.  You will not be allowed to engage in free commerce, so get used to the notion of "off the grid" living.  Ultimately, however, you will tire and when the lapse comes, some agent of "the state" will likely take you by force or simply kill you, citing the threat you pose to "society", another non-entity commonly treated as if it existed as a whole in and of itself and sharing the same characteristics of a gestalt human being, replete with wishes, desires, demands, and of all things, _rights_.  This is one of the several similar deliberate or ignorant misuses of concepts such as "state" and "government" as force multipliers to get people to behave as desired.

Learn to identify the means by which "they" maintain and grow power via consent of the governed.  This is central to finding ways of undoing them or at the very least exposing them for what they are and what they _actually_​ do.

----------


## Travlyr

> From a broad view, the measure of the effectiveness of a system can be taken by measuring the results of that system. In this case, if the current state of affairs, *(the results of the implementation of the Constitution)*, are unfavorable, then why would anyone think that resetting the system would lead to some different outcome? However, this is certainly not enough to satisfy some, so I will go into detail about the Constitution of the United States.


False premise nets false conclusion. We are not experiencing the result of the implementation of the Constitution. We are experiencing the result of ignoring the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was undermined. It was subverted in July 17, 1861: "_Congress authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue paper currency due to insufficient coinage to pay war costs.  Called "Demand Notes" because they are payable upon demand in coin, the notes are essentially Government IOUs._" (Unconstitutional). Again with the unratified 14th & 16th amendments, and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act signed on December 23, 1913 with 1/3 of the congress absent.

It was a coup d'état and keep secret for generations.

Either government is legitimate (constitutional) or it is illegitimate (unconstitutional). What we endure is illegitimate government. Strict constitutional government would be vastly different than what we experience today.

Your argument to not obey the Constitution is the same as what we endure by ignoring it.

Allodial title to land, obeying the rule of law, and separation of money and state liberates.

----------


## capob

> False premise nets false conclusion. We are not experiencing the result of the implementation of the Constitution. We are experiencing the result of ignoring the Constitution.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution was undermined. It was subverted in July 17, 1861: "_Congress authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue paper currency due to insufficient coinage to pay war costs.  Called "Demand Notes" because they are payable upon demand in coin, the notes are essentially Government IOUs._" (Unconstitutional). Again with the unratified 14th & 16th amendments, and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act signed on December 23, 1913 with 1/3 of the congress absent.
> 
> It was a coup d'état and keep secret for generations.
> 
> Either government is legitimate (constitutional) or it is illegitimate (unconstitutional). What we endure is illegitimate government. Strict constitutional government would be vastly different than what we experience today.
> 
> Your argument to not obey the Constitution is the same as what we endure by ignoring it.
> ...


How, by "Congress authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue paper currency due to insufficient coinage to pay war costs" is the constitution ignored?   My guess is that you did not read the full article - unfortunately I can't show you like interest, as I already read your post.

"Again with the unratified 14th & 16th amendments"
I am aware if this type of thinking -> it has been around for decades.  And there are various degrees you can get into: US a corporation, citizens collateral on debt, birth certificate used as bonds, etc: all of which, by researching, do nothing to solve a problem.   And, as for the 16th amendment, seeing as you are so disinclined to read, I imagine you did not read the many supreme court rulings on the interpretation of the 16th amendment that appeared quite close to the time it was passed (although it can be argued it was not ratified and that's another story).  

Your main argument amounts to folly, for various reasons, some which you might find in the OP.  It's amazing the bravado people get when they find an ounce of knowledge online that they think they hold above others.

I will say, however, your post did serve some good.  I noticed a grammatical error in my article.

----------


## capob

> That....is exactly what I said. So you agree.


So sorry,  I did mean to disagree more thoroughly.  Must have gotten distracted.  What I think I was getting at is that you can't rely on the good nature of people, and so these liberty forms of government   are doomed to fail.  But, I  would disagree that these are all liberty forms of government.  Of course, the word liberty is itself a matter for discussion, but my aim is to construct a sort of government that isn't so susceptible to the malignant people and still offer what might be called liberty.  And, in light of the idea that a system can be constructed that both serves to present liberty and does so successfully with people who's nature isn't always good, the constitution fails in comparison - and thusly, I would disagree with the phrase "Thus the problem isn't in The Constitution, it is in the people themselves."

----------


## capob

> This idea that The Constitution needs _interpreting_ is one liberal use to justify their abandonment of The Constitution. The document is straightforward and easy to understand. The only way one could not understand it is by intentional action to be ignorant.


I think you miss the idea of interpretation.  It is not necessarily  about interpreting what it says, but, instead, interpreting what it doesn't say    -  that is, determine the intent and how the intent applies to things which aren't specifically stated in the constitution.

----------


## Travlyr

> How, by "Congress authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue paper currency due to insufficient coinage to pay war costs" is the constitution ignored?   My guess is that you did not read the full article - unfortunately I can't show you like interest, as I already read your post.


I read it and I read your attempt at circumventing the constitution at this link. I prefer the wisdom of the Founders over your misinterpretation of life.

Here is how the Constitution is ignored: Congress must obey the Constitution. Any law they pass must not conflict with the Constitution or else it is null and void of law. It is not up to the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality. It is up to the people.




> *Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 (1803):* 
> "No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect", “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law", "Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the Supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law." 
> (If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.)





> "Again with the unratified 14th & 16th amendments"
> I am aware if this type of thinking -> it has been around for decades.  And there are various degrees you can get into: US a corporation, citizens collateral on debt, birth certificate used as bonds, etc: all of which, by researching, do nothing to solve a problem.   And, as for the 16th amendment, seeing as you are so disinclined to read, I imagine you did not read the many supreme court rulings on the interpretation of the 16th amendment that appeared quite close to the time it was passed (although it can be argued it was not ratified and that's another story).


The 14th and the 16th amendments were not ratified which makes them null and void of law as well.

----------


## capob

> I read it and I read your attempt at circumventing the constitution at this link. I prefer the wisdom of the Founders over your misinterpretation of life.
> 
> Here is how the Constitution is ignored: Congress must obey the Constitution. Any law they pass must not conflict with the Constitution or else it is null and void of law. It is not up to the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality. It is up to the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th and the 16th amendments were not ratified which makes them null and void of law as well.



http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../137/case.html  -> please show me where you are getting these   quotes from

"I read it and I read your attempt at circumventing the constitution at this link"  
I think you make need to look up the word circumvent.

"I prefer the wisdom of the Founders over your misinterpretation of life."  
More attacks without the purpose of construction just make me less inclined to care what you say.

"I read it" "Congress must obey the Constitution. Any law they pass must not conflict with the Constitution or else it is null and void of law"
Well, I suppose you might have read it, but you clearly didn't understand what it meant.  The idea that a law is "void of law" is contradictory and amusing.  A better way  of putting it would be, "any law ... is void of a basis".  But, I already addressed this in the article.  Simply passing laws that aren't backed by the constitution isn't a breaking of the constitution -> the laws are simply unbacked.  And, so long as the state follow the laws so passed, those laws certainly aren't "null".

You fail to to address the other points of my article such as the potential for misuse of treaties.  It is not about determining how the Constitution did fail, it is about determining how it could fail.  And, this idea that the Constitution didn't fail in that it was ignored gives me further reason to believe that my conversation with you will go no where.  That the constitution, after implementation, could be ignored is a reflection of its failings if it were ignored.

----------

