Constitution debate - split thread

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[FreedomsReigning]

If you think it's a good thing to mock and laugh at our Constitution, just what is it you're trying to do? Is that what you're hoping to get from Rand Paul? I don't see it happening.

 

[CaseyJones]

If this is gonna devolve into a philosophy debate take it to the philosophy subforum please, and welcome new person

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

If you think it's a good thing to mock and laugh at our Constitution, just what is it you're trying to do? Is that what you're hoping to get from Rand Paul? I don't see it happening.

If you think a piece of paper is actually going to restrain the size and scope of government, just what is it you're trying to do?

 

[CaseyJones]

ok then moved to philosophy

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Sorry Casey, I couldn't resist.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If you think a piece of paper is actually going to restrain the size and scope of government, just what is it you're trying to do?

It never was supposed to. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE US, OF COURSE, who demanded that the Constitution be followed. But, that was before American men became pansified.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE US, OF COURSE, who demanded that the Constitution be followed. But, that was before American men became pansified.

If that myth was actually true, then why even bother with having the Constitution in the first place? Why not allow individuals the ability to secure their own rights and freedoms without force from the State?

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[gwax23]

Healthy criticism of the constitution is a good thing. Its a severely flawed document that gets way too much praise imho. It wasnt born out of a drive for a truly limited government it was born out of compromise that greatly expanded the role and scope of government from our previous governing document (the Articles of Confederation) Its failed to limit the federal leviathan. It allowed for slavery, intellectual property, government regulation of money, and government monopolization of roads and post offices to name a few shortcomings. It gave the Supreme Court a Monopoly on determining constitutionality. The only thing really good about the constitution is the Bill of Rights which was added later at the request of the Anti Federalists but even that sub document doesnt go far enough in my opinion. It should not be held up as a perfect or even libertarian document.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If that myth was actually true, then why even bother with having the Constitution in the first place? Why not allow individuals the ability to secure their own rights and freedoms without force from the State?

If it's TRUE? Damn, are you that uneducated? Seriously? The Constitution lays out a set of principles, above all else. Look around you. You honestly believe the dumbasses would know how to secure their freedoms? Yeah, right. They would be running to hit each other over the head and steal their stuff.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Healthy criticism of the constitution is a good thing. Its a severely flawed document that gets way too much praise imho. It wasnt born out of a drive for a truly limited government it was born out of compromise that greatly expanded the role and scope of government from our previous governing document (the Articles of Confederation) Its failed to limit the federal leviathan. It allowed for slavery, intellectual property, government regulation of money, and government monopolization of roads and post offices to name a few shortcomings. It gave the Supreme Court a Monopoly on determining constitutionality. The only thing really good about the constitution is the Bill of Rights which was added later at the request of the Anti Federalists but even that sub document doesnt go far enough in my opinion. It should not be held up as a perfect or even libertarian document.

I have mixed feelings about intellectual property, but I agree with the rest of this post. Good stuff.

If it's TRUE? Damn, are you that uneducated? Seriously? The Constitution lays out a set of principles, above all else. Look around you. You honestly believe the dumbasses would know how to secure their freedoms? Yeah, right. They would be running to hit each other over the head and steal their stuff.

I don't really "get" some of the nasty vitrol between the pro and anti-constitution people, on either side. Nobody who supports the consitution wants the Hamiltonian abuses that the constitution is sometimes manipulated to justify. And nobody who opposes the constitution wants to remove all limits on Federal power. I think this debate comes down at least as much to method as it does to philosophy.

My question for anyone who asked me if I supported the constitution would be "in comparison to what?" An ideal society? No. Minarchism? No. The Articles of Confederation? No. Compared to the monster we have today? Heck yes.

The Constitution is not my ideal, but going back to it would be a heck of a step in the right direction.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I have mixed feelings about intellectual property, but I agree with the rest of this post. Good stuff.



I don't really "get" some of the nasty vitrol between the pro and anti-constitution people, on either side. Nobody who supports the consitution wants the Hamiltonian abuses that the constitution is sometimes manipulated to justify. And nobody who opposes the constitution wants to remove all limits on Federal power. I think this debate comes down at least as much to method as it does to philosophy.

My question for anyone who asked me if I supported the constitution would be "in comparison to what?" An ideal society? No. Minarchism? No. The Articles of Confederation? No. Compared to the monster we have today? Heck yes.

The Constitution is not my ideal, but going back to it would be a heck of a step in the right direction.

Because Constitution-bashing on a forum where we are trying to get people elected is stupid beyond belief. That's why.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Because Constitution-bashing on a forum where we are trying to get people elected is stupid beyond belief. That's why.

I view electoral politics as being stupid beyond belief in most cases. And I have no real interest in watering down the message for the ears of the stupid and/or evil.

But, I see no real point in bashing each other when we agree 90% of the time. We have bigger enemies than each other.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

If it's TRUE? Damn, are you that uneducated? Seriously? The Constitution lays out a set of principles, above all else. Look around you. You honestly believe the dumbasses would know how to secure their freedoms? Yeah, right. They would be running to hit each other over the head and steal their stuff.

Are you that much of an idiot to believe that the "dumbasses" can govern the "dumbasses"? And what principles? Where are these principles that the Constitution lays out? As gwax already pointed out, the document created more problems for American society than it solved.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[familydog]

If it's TRUE? Damn, are you that uneducated? Seriously? The Constitution lays out a set of principles, above all else. Look around you. You honestly believe the dumbasses would know how to secure their freedoms? Yeah, right. They would be running to hit each other over the head and steal their stuff.

If you have such a dour outlook on humanity, how can you trust people with a monopoly on goods and services like "law enforcement" or "national defense"? How can you even trust people to vote?

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[fisharmor]

As I've said before, I don't support constitutionalism because LibertyEagle doesn't support constitutionalism.

For a century, the US constitution was not read to have granted the federal government any control over ingress or egress of individuals into or out of the boundaries of the United States.
People were free to come and go as they chose.

Immigration law was a power grab as heinous as any other power grab by the fedgov.
And people like LibertyEagle spend large amounts of time preaching to us that it is perfectly constitutional.

Yet the only justification which is ever offered for why it's constitutional is that immigration is synonymous with invasion.
And then we ignore the fact that the constitution only grants congress the power to call forth the militia to repel invasions... it does not give congress the power to form and fund INS.

In short, the self-proclaimed defenders of the constitution either can't or won't see that they use it improperly to support clearly unconstitutional policies which have no place in a free society.

I'd be willing to give it a go. But my ultimatum remains unchanged: ​you first.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If you have such a dour outlook on humanity, how can you trust people with a monopoly on goods and services like "law enforcement" or "national defense"? How can you even trust people to vote?

Who said I "trusted" them? No one ever said that should be the case.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson