Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause For Freedom

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

. . .
Everyone take a deep breath....

and continue.

Signed,
The Referee

Great segue.
I am going to compare the Constitution and its origin to basketball.
Basketball was invented by a man named James Naismith to tame a group of young men he referred to as "The Incorrigibles."

Naismith decided that a game was needed that would keep them occupied. He looked at the most popular games, what worked, what didn't, and what would be appropriate for the circumstances.

He decided that the game needed a ball as all of the most popular games used one. He decided it would have to be a passing game because running with a ball would encourage tackling. He was afraid that having a goal or something to throw the ball at would encourage violent trajectories, so he opted for the raised basket to encourage gentle skillful tosses.

That was about it. Beyond that, there really were no set rules. As the game gained popularity, there were innovations and with them, rule changes. For example, players began to pass the ball to themselves so that they could move down the court while retaining ownership of the ball, while others began to bounce (dribble) the ball as they moved. The overhead method was rejected in favor of dribbling and a new rule was created--"carrying"

Likewise, the Constitution was created by men who witnesses the problems with previous governments for their specific needs. The original "rules" were intentionally sparse and dealt mainly with the philosophical needs of a successful government rather than specifics (with the exception of the physical makeup of the government) in order to accommodate for changing specific needs.

As with basketball rules, the Constitution must be followed in order to find out if there are any areas that need improvement. If the Incorrigibles had run around with total disregard for Naismith's original rules, basketball would have been universally reviled as a tremendous flop.

We "Constitution worshipers" just don't like the idea of changing the rules before we even experience the situation as the rulebook intends.

I actually can't stand basketball. I would rather watch two men fish. Really, I'd prefer to watch two women fish . . .

 

[TGGRV]

There's a difference between being a libertarian and an anarchist.

 

[powerofreason]

There's a difference between being a libertarian and an anarchist.

Not if one is principled.

 

[foofighter20x]

Here's a question for the constitution worshippers,

Why are you so extremely opposed to a 52 state union (NAU), but you have no problem whatsoever with a 50 state union?

1. Because if there were going to be an NAU, then Canada and Mexico would need to be formally admitted. The current concept of such a union requires no such integration, but would aim to establish it solely by treaty (which is not a formal admission.

2. There are inherent cultural differences between all three societies that would work to undermine our American institutions.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There's a difference between being a libertarian and an anarchist.

Rothbard (Mr libertarian) disagrees with you.

 

[misterx]

We shouldn't worship the Constitution. We shouldn't pretend it's always right, or that it shouldn't be improved on, or that it's authoritative to the point of being the ultimate basis for our grievances against the federal government, or that the tyrannical things the federal government does that are constitutional are any less bad just because they're constitutional.

So this is what we're going to argue about? If you don't like the constitution, and think it should be improved upon, go found your own country and create a system of government more to your liking. The Constitution is the law of the land. This is the document that our country's founders agreed upon, it is not to be ignored, improved upon, or altered in any way except by amendment. To pretend you can do otherwise and still call the country America is disingenuous. What you are talking about is revolution. By "improving" the constitution, you are replacing the government that our founders created. Either you want to restore America to its glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So this is what we're going to argue about? If you don't like the constitution, and think it should be improved upon, go found your own country and create a system of government more to your liking. The Constitution is the law of the land. This is the document that our country's founders agreed upon, it is not to be ignored, improved upon, or altered in any way except by amendment. To pretend you can do otherwise and still call the country America is disingenuous. What you are talking about is revolution. By "improving" the constitution, you are replacing the government that our founders created. Either you want to restore America to it's glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?

The flaw in your argument is that you assume that you have the right to tell other people what to do with their property and thoughts because of the Constitution (which in itself goes against Constitutionalist philosophy, which believes that the Constitution restricts what government can do-not what individuals can do).

Plus, you give a false choice when you say "Either you want to restore America to it's glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?"

I suggest you take a few hours or days to straighten yourself out.

 

[South Park Fan]

There's a difference between being a libertarian and an anarchist.

That doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive.

 

[acptulsa]

Plus, you give a false choice when you say "Either you want to restore America to it's glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?"

I don't see how. Maybe a new country and constitution will lead to future days of glory, maybe it'll be worse than the Soviet constitution. Either way, since he used the word restore, that possibility doesn't make what he said a false choice.

I say it isn't broke, and we don't need to fix it--we just need to go back to using it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't see how. Maybe a new country and constitution will lead to future days of glory, maybe it'll be worse than the Soviet constitution. Either way, since he used the word restore, that possibility doesn't make what he said a false choice.

I'll explain briefly. There was plenty of glory and freedom before the constitution existed (under the BoR and AoC-and before that, civil anarchism). The Constitution did not create freedom (it already existed). It did lay the groundwork for the leviathan State, which, as we know, came to usurp freedom.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

not this shit again.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Thats actually not true.

Which part?

And even if that weren't true that doesn't give you moral cover to endorse the existence of a monster organization.

Who's endorsing a monster organization? I think everyone here is against them.

(At least when it's called government. If you call it a corporation or religion, then some here will endorse it turning into a monster).

 

[CCTelander]

I don't see how. Maybe a new country and constitution will lead to future days of glory, maybe it'll be worse than the Soviet constitution. Either way, since he used the word restore, that possibility doesn't make what he said a false choice.

It commits the fallacy known as a false premise, since it attempts to limit the possible options to two when there are other options available.

I say it isn't broke, and we don't need to fix it--we just need to go back to using it.

I'd say it IS broke, since it has utterly failed to keep government in check, and that failure began almost before the ink was dry.

 

[BillyDkid]

"The rule of law" is the usual rallying cry of authoritarians. Law is nothing more than an opinion with a gun behind it, at least whenever coercive government of any kind is involved.

That just isn't true. The rule of law - as oppose to the rule of men - is fundamental to freedom and liberty. The rule of law refers to a government that is constrained by law and not subject to whim of whoever has the guns.

 

[acptulsa]

I'd say it IS broke, since it has utterly failed to keep government in check, and that failure began almost before the ink was dry.

If its failure were 'utter' then we'd be having this conversation in a FEMA camp. They're trying to burn it incrementally, since they know what'll happen if they deep six it wholesale.

That's not bad at all for a mere piece of paper, I say. Certainly more than one single bullet could ever have accomplished.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

"The rule of law" is the usual rallying cry of authoritarians. Law is nothing more than an opinion with a gun behind it, at least whenever coercive government of any kind is involved.

Certainly, anyone can claim to be following the rule of law. Let's make it simple: rule of law means that you have some agreed upon rules, and everyone has to follow them. It is understood that some people will violate the rules, and there will also be punishments. This would apply to any group or society, even an "Anarchist" society.


What is "The Rule of Law"?:

In his book The Morality of Law, American legal scholar Lon Fuller identified eight elements of law which have been recognized as necessary for a society aspiring to institute the rule of law. Fuller stated the following:

1. Laws must exist and those laws should be obeyed by all, including government officials.

2. Laws must be published.

3. Laws must be prospective in nature so that the effect of the law may only take place after the law has been passed. For example, the court cannot convict a person of a crime committed before a criminal statute prohibiting the conduct was passed.

4. Laws should be written with reasonable clarity to avoid unfair enforcement.

5. Law must avoid contradictions.

6. Law must not command the impossible.

7. Law must stay constant through time to allow the formalization of rules; however, law also must allow for timely revision when the underlying social and political circumstances have changed.

8. Official action should be consistent with the declared rule.

http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/Rule_of_Law.shtml

 

[misterx]

The flaw in your argument is that you assume that you have the right to tell other people what to do with their property and thoughts because of the Constitution (which in itself goes against Constitutionalist philosophy, which believes that the Constitution restricts what government can do-not what individuals can do).

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how you get that from what I said.

Plus, you give a false choice when you say "Either you want to restore America to it's glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?"

I suggest you take a few hours or days to straighten yourself out.

How so? Either you follow the Constitution, ignore the constitution, or change the constitution. There are no other options. Ignoring it would be the status quo, following it would restore America to its former self.(I say glory because that is my view, perhaps this phrase is better since some don't think our constitution is so glorious), or you can replace the constitution with something different or nothing at all.

 

[CCTelander]

That just isn't true. The rule of law - as oppose to the rule of men - is fundamental to freedom and liberty. The rule of law refers to a government that is constrained by law and not subject to whim of whoever has the guns.

It absolutely is true. Government never remains constrained by law. It makes the laws. Has a monopoly to do so as a matter of fact. As jefferson put it:

"Of Liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its existence, is unobstructed action according to our will. But Rightful Liberty is within limits drawn around us by the Equal Rights of others. And I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because the law is often but the Tyrants-will, and always so when it violates the Rights of an individual." [emphasis mine]

The rule of law is a myth that's never been realized.

What's more, liberty minded people have been attempting to get "good" people elected in order to maintain such a "rule of law" for close to two and a half centuries now here in the US. They've even succeeded in getting their guys elected a remarkable number of times.

In spite of that, the trend has always been toward a bigger, more intrusive government. We now suffer under the largest, most intrusive government that's ever existed on the face of the Earth.

The rule of law doesn't seem to be working out so well.

 

[misterx]

I'll explain briefly. There was plenty of glory and freedom before the constitution existed (under the BoR and AoC-and before that, civil anarchism). The Constitution did not create freedom (it already existed). It did lay the groundwork for the leviathan State, which, as we know, came to usurp freedom.

Then you want revolution. You want to dismantle the system and replace it with something that you think will work better. A nation's system of law can not just change with the winds, it is the foundation that a nation is built on. It must be steady and unwavering. You can't just pull the cards from the bottom of a house and leave the rest of the deck standing. What you are talking about is building a whole new house. Not something that I necessarily disagree with, but just be honest about it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'll explain briefly. There was plenty of glory and freedom before the constitution existed (under the BoR and AoC-and before that, civil anarchism). The Constitution did not create freedom (it already existed). It did lay the groundwork for the leviathan State, which, as we know, came to usurp freedom.

BULLSHIT.

The Constitution didn't cause what is happening now. Our government isn't even following it. We didn't get here overnight. It happened over decades while We the People sat on our asses and didn't hold our government accountable. We were warned by our Founders that if we did not stay vigilant that our Republic would not last. Well, we didn't.