Beware of Constitution worshippers!

[Josh_LA]

I dunno, I have heard plenty of folks say the Patriot Act is okay because the Constitution will prevent the government from abusing the power...

On the same coin, the Patriot Act IS ok because it can't enforce and excercise itself (and it's not as if the government always obeys the laws and justifies their actions to you).

 

[micahnelson]

If we had a CONCON, would people be so gungho about the constitution as the ultimate authority?

We support the constituion, but most of us, only as originally interpreted. Though, we interpret the right of the "people" to include women and minorities- a way in which it was not originally interpreted.

Is it safe to say we support the rule of law? But what if a CONCON went down, and a few inalienable rights were tossed out like speech and arms, and a few were tossed in like healthcare and television reception- would we still support the rule of law if the CONCON was done properly?

We only have three checks and balances. What happens when they all fail?

SO MANY QUESTIONS!

One last one.

Wouldn't members of our government having a Can-Can be more of a display of liberty than whatever CONCON they would come up with? Yes.

 

[user]

Yes, be careful, there are a lot of them here.

 

[SimpleName]

Good article. Although the Constitution is not "just a piece of damn paper" like George Bush is quoted as saying, it should not be the center focus of increasing liberty. I liked the mention of eminent domain. While it does use the phrase "just compensation", the government can easily proclaim what is "just" and then take the land as it chooses. No one should argue first for the Constitution and then for liberty. LIBERTY is the priority, not a document written by a bunch of wealthy slaveholders.

 

[Kraig]

Great article, thanks for posting it.

 

[10thAmendment]

The Article V state majority can amend the Constitution at any time it pleases. So I will surmise that people like Manual Lora represent minority factions who don't like what the Constitution says and spend their time writing essays in an effort to subvert majority will as reflected by the Constitution.

On the other hand, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution are so prevalent these days that the federal government would collapse if forced to operate within the constraints of the long-ignored Constitution.

 

[johnrocks]

I think I understand, it irks me when people say things like "you don't have the right to smoke MJ because it's not protected like guns are", we don't get our rights from the Constitution or the State powers, this was a central argument of the Anti-Federalists who opposed a Bill of Rights thinking it would limit our rights to just those stated. I'm torn since I think if we didn't have the BoR's then all bets would be off on a lot of those very rights today yet I don't think those rights limit my rights.

 

[stilltrying]

rights - a legal claim

that is the definition, plain and simple, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from the creator not the government, government simply states that you have a legal claim to what they will allow. who is they? the justice system/BAR Society. the legislative may make up statutes but the justice system will rule if they are valid or not. what makes up a society? a defined set of codes, conduct and standards. are you a member of the law society? no, not unless you are a lawyer who has passed the bar exam. if you are not a lawyer then you are not required to follow statutes as only the legal society can make/enforce those statutes in the court of law upon members of their society. there is some amazing information out there on this stuff if you really want to know what is going on.

I may miss a few things here and there on what the exact definition of a society is but i think i have hit the gist of what i have learned so far

 

[BuddyRey]

Another problem I see with basing one's philosophy on the Constitution is that it removes the concept of Natural Rights and deontological ethics, and lends credence to the kind of thinking, pervasive in today's culture, that things are not good or bad in any objective way, but only based on whether or not they're "legal."

Though I would never try to draw the conclusion that the vast majority of Constitutionalists are anything less than the most stellar and upstanding proponents of liberty, the "temping trap" of eschewing Natural Rights theory for Social Contract Theory or other non-deontological ethical systems is one which has caused many a-good libertarian to go bad.