Anyone favor doing away with the U.S. Constitution?

[AggieforPaul]

Some people in this thread are displaying the type of dogmatic absolutism that is responsible for nobody taking libertarians seriously.

You want a candidate to win on a return to the AoC? Good luck with that, it's never going to happen.

Imagine how much better the world would be if we followed the Constitution. Congress having to issue actual issue declarations of war. Gold and silver are the only legal tender. Immediate withdrawal from NATO and the U.N. These can all be achieved if we just obey the Constitution.

To quote RP: "Why don't we just open up the Constitution, and read it!!!!!!!"

 

[acroso]

I disagree.

I'll vote for who's right. If someone runs a good campaign on a return to the articles....that's who I'm voting for.

In the mean time I might buy a picture of Jefferson's VP, Aaron Burr, blasting Hamilton in a duel in the front room!

Strike one up for the Libertarians! (and Jefferson\Burr!)











....and on a State level any politician who favors secession gets my vote.

OPPOSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

 

[The Machine]

The Constitution caused the Civil War. It gave Lincoln the right to supress the States. Lincoln threatened invasion in his inauguration address if they did not pay Buchananon's protective tariff to goods coming into Lousiana. The south passed the Confederate Constitution in response. Lincoln engineered a false flag operation to caox the South (who wanted to fight) into firing first to take the moral high ground. The rest was a nightmare.

IT DID NOT WORK FINE.

I'm not sympathizing with the South here, but Lincoln was a facist like Hitler and the South were a butch of morally bankrupt slavers.

Ever since the U.S. Constitution passed we've gotten more and more government. Lincoln, then FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Bush etc....it keeps getting worse. eventually we'll get the electronic police state,.

There is a case to be made that Jefferson was the only reasonable president we've had.

I think Jefferson Davis just rolled in his grave! Seriously, while this debate over foundational papers and principles is interesting, I think trying to keep US sovereignty intact should take precedence. There already IS a NAU signed, sealed, and just about to be delivered.

If the NAU Parliament becomes our governing body, the Constitution will join the Articles of Confederation as a historically significant topic of former US Government.

 

[acroso]

The Federal Government can not be fixed. Voting for Paul is fun because he thinks it can be fixed....but it can't. We might be able to reform Social Security....and it keep it solvent for 10 extra years until it's insolvent again....that's about it. That's conservatism.

I refuse to vote for that....well maybe I'd vote for Paul since he has some mainstream appeal. Building a Libertarian-ish movement is important and Paul has done so much pulling in mainstream Republicans.

But if there was an alternative running on a Thomas-Jeffersonian approach, I would support him\her instead.

We'd have to get rid of 99% of the Federal Government to reform it and it's frankly impossible....and as long as it had Hamiltonian powers...it would just enlarge again. It's important to support candidates on a state level who support breaking up the union if there are any. Trying to fix the Federal Government is like trying to domesticate a crocodile.....good luck. Keep that reptile on its leash\chains....or it will eat you!

The articles of the Confederation was that leash\chains and Hamilton took the leash off. There's almost no going back...

Now we have the Patriot Act, a Federal Reserve attempting to micromanage the economy, a messed up Fractional reserve baking system, a Frannie Freddie that took out 80% of the home mortgages last year most of which were junk, a medical industrial complex, a prison industrial complex, and a military industrial complex (the real government) etc.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But if there was an alternative running on a Jeffersonian approach, I would support him\her instead.

Well then you and the other 10 people who vote for that candidate can form a club or something.

Seriously, if we're already having trouble convincing people that we've strayed from the Constitution... something that they were raised to respect, how on earth do you think we can make this giant leap to the Articles of Confederation?

 

[acroso]

secession

Well then you and the other 10 people who vote for that candidate can form a club or something.

Seriously, if we're already having trouble convincing people that we've strayed from the Constitution... something that they were raised to respect, how on earth do you think we can make this giant leap to the Articles of Confederation?

Who cares? I'm content with giving the Republicans hell. I believe eventually we'll be able to get secession movements going. Hawaii already has one. Montana and Oklahoma recently passed sovereignty resolutions....they are showing promise. If we can break the union up completely, then it's possible to reform it with something resembling the articles. And Obama presidency might actually be a good thing for brewing discontent....of course McCain stinks too so who knows. impossible to say who will be worse....we just know they'll both be TERRIBLE.

Or if not well then individual state governments would be fine with me. Just so long as we're free of the Federal Government.

We could amend the U.S. constitution too to make ti exactly like the articles of the Confederation. Of course that seems unlikely. Democracy is rule by the mob. You're still being ruled by someone. That is why decentralization is so necessary.

 

[The Machine]

You know...I have found myself and others like you coming to the realization that our current government is beyond repair. Although it is altruistic to think a constitutional process can overcome an unconstitutional government, it is an illusion--in my personal opinion--as is our so called "freedom".

 

[LibertyEagle]

Democracy is rule by the mob. You're still being ruled by someone. That is why decentralization is so necessary.

That's why our Founders gave us a REPUBLIC; not a Democracy.

 

[acroso]

realize

You know...I have found myself and others like you coming to the realization that our current government is beyond repair. Although it is altruistic to think a constitutional process can overcome an unconstitutional government, it is an illusion--in my personal opinion--as is our so called "freedom".

Yes...that's why we need "internet 2" so that private websites are mostly gone and no one can promote such ideas!

Orwell would be proud.

 

[acroso]

BTW- if the U.S. Constitution were so great....why are we in our present situation and what in the world would prevent us from ending up where we are even if we restored it?

The U.S. constitution gave us Lincoln and centralized government. The articles of the Confederation would have stopped him in his tracks.

Hell....again....Lincoln might have done more good (stopping slavery) than he did harm (destroying the country and instituting centralized government), but that doesn't mean we should worship him. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even ban slavery in the North. Lincoln made sure loyal states were not punished. The whole thing was about the Federal Government's taxation demands.

 

[LibertyEagle]

One step at a time, acroso.

 

[strapko]

Good Idea or not should not be the question to ask. The question should be is it realistic? And judging from the time we live in, abolishing the Constitution can create an revolution not in our favor. Majority of the people are either neo-cons(Mccain) or socialist(Obama), you would need support from these groups of sheep; and before you move towards this goal, you would need to educate these people. Otherwise you'll be caught in an counter revolution and the outcome can be even worse.

 

[acroso]

I don't see how state secession can hurt us. The more decentralization of power the better.

 

[NaT805]

I don't see how state secession can hurt us. The more decentralization of power the better.

That's because they've heard Ron Paul say the word "Constitution" a lot and any questioning of it becomes personal.

 

[NaT805]

I think going to the Articles of Confederation is a step BACK. It limits the governmnet even more. There is no "fiction" in a confederacy, but there is in a federal government. The only real property that exists are States, the federal government is imaginary, it exists because a piece of paper says it does. States you can see and live on. Imaginary governments don't work. A confederacy is just all those sovereign States making a contract. Federal governments is an imaginary entity the people create.

VIVA LA CONFEDERATION

 

[The Machine]

I think going to the Articles of Confederation is a step BACK. It limits the governmnet even more. There is no "fiction" in a confederacy, but there is in a federal government. The only real property that exists are States, the federal government is imaginary, it exists because a piece of paper says it does. States you can see and live on. Imaginary governments don't work. A confederacy is just all those sovereign States making a contract. Federal governments is an imaginary entity the people create.

VIVA LA CONFEDERATION

While I understand the gist of what you're saying, the imaginary government part is a little convoluted, since in reality, a state is formed through a paper document that says it exists and is run by a government. I think private property, individually owned through deed of sale, is about as real as it will get at the present time.

Real or not, we live under the auspices of the federal government and very soon to be superseded by the NAU.

 

[AggieforPaul]

well then you and the other 10 people who vote for that candidate can form a club or something.

Seriously, if we're already having trouble convincing people that we've strayed from the constitution... Something that they were raised to respect, how on earth do you think we can make this giant leap to the articles of confederation?

+1776

 

[AggieforPaul]

BTW- if the U.S. Constitution were so great....why are we in our present situation and what in the world would prevent us from ending up where we are even if we restored it?

The U.S. constitution gave us Lincoln and centralized government. The articles of the Confederation would have stopped him in his tracks.

Hell....again....Lincoln might have done more good (stopping slavery) than he did harm (destroying the country and instituting centralized government), but that doesn't mean we should worship him. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even ban slavery in the North. Lincoln made sure loyal states were not punished. The whole thing was about the Federal Government's taxation demands.

Not many of us here are Lincoln fans. Lincoln didn't even obey the Constitution. He illegally suspended habeas corpus. He issued counterfeit money (fiat notes) to pay for the war. What makes you think he would have obeyed the AoC?

Ultimately, no document can stop the man with the most guns (in America, its the government). The people have to elect leaders that refuse to stray from that document, and the people have to demand impeachment of leaders who do stray. The political will to obey the Constitution is there, if we just keep educating people. Ron Paul made some huge waves, and we need to keep making progress. Switching our platform to the AoC would be stupid, there's no political will to obey that document.

 

[acroso]

war

Not many of us here are Lincoln fans. Lincoln didn't even obey the Constitution. He illegally suspended habeas corpus. He issued counterfeit money (fiat notes) to pay for the war. What makes you think he would have obeyed the AoC?

Ultimately, no document can stop the man with the most guns (in America, its the government). The people have to elect leaders that refuse to stray from that document, and the people have to demand impeachment of leaders who do stray. The political will to obey the Constitution is there, if we just keep educating people. Ron Paul made some huge waves, and we need to keep making progress. Switching our platform to the AoC would be stupid, there's no political will to obey that document.

The war against the South started because he had the ability to tax. If he hadn't had (and the ability to regulate the State's trade) that there never would have been a conflict....since that was what the war was about (Buchanan's protective tariff tax.) Once again....perhaps stopping slavery did more good than it did harm (creating centralized gobmet) but both sides were flawed.

I also don't want world government regulating our trade. The Central government encroached on state rights first by taking control of their taxes and trade. Now NAFTA and CAFTA want to take control of U.S. sovereignty under the guise of free-market trade when it's really centralized\global planning.

 

[AggieforPaul]

You're preaching to the choir. I've read DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", and I accept his hypothesis that Lincoln's main agenda was propping up Henry Clay's "american system" consisting of protective tariffs, corporate welfare, and a national bank. I know the war wasn't started by Lincoln mainly over slavery. (Be careful saying that wasn't a big part of it though, Ron Paul even acknowledges it was a significant factor)

What I'm saying is that Lincoln did things the Constitution doesn't even allow. So how would the AoC have stopped him if he didn't play by the rules in the first place. He was essentially America's Stalin, he believed he was the law