Article: Is The Constitution Outdated?

[Cabal]

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

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

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

Of course, there's a third possibility, and one neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left wants to acknowledge, which is this; the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to empower big government influence peddlers, and we did perfectly fine for twelve years without it.

Quite right.

 

[otherone]

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

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

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

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

 

[oyarde]

Out dated ? , No .

 

[Bonnieblue]

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

Of course, there's a third possibility, and one neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left wants to acknowledge, which is this; the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to empower big government influence peddlers, and we did perfectly fine for twelve years without it.

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

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

 

[Bonnieblue]

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



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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

+rep

 

[Bonnieblue]

+rep

Thank you very much.

 

[otherone]

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thank you very much.

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

 

[Travlyr]

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

Of course, there's a third possibility, and one neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left wants to acknowledge, which is this; the U.S. Constitution was a document designed to empower big government influence peddlers, and we did perfectly fine for twelve years without it.

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

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

 

[Travlyr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bolil]

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

 

[Voluntary Man]

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

"There's an app for that!"