Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause For Freedom

[brandon]

I can just see it now, in 100 years there will be people who praise the NAU's constitution but are strongly against the move to form the American Union which will unite NA with SA.

 

[mediahasyou]

It is more about what the government can not do.

true, i had that same after thought. i was sticking with the parallelism of the 1st sentence. a true libertarian would be able to acknowledge that gov can do nothing morally like you did.

 

[Steeleye]

Ahh, but the constitution established a ruling body above our state governments and thus ceded state sovereignty to a interstate ruling body.

It's pretty much the same thing, just on a slightly larger scale.

No it's not. The United States was a voluntary federation established for the mutual benefit of the states in regards to regulation of commerce, diplomatic affairs, and waging defensive wars.

 

[Theocrat]

Correction to the Anarchist (Who Worships Rothbard's Writings)

There are some on this forum with a disturbingly mindless love of the Constitution. The Constitution does describe a superior form of government to the one we are currently enslaved under, that is for sure. But I think some on this forum could benefit from reading the following article.


I will add the following recent post by Stephan Kinsella on the LRC blog


Thoughts?

No Constitutionalist worships the Constitution. We value it because it restrains the jurisdiction of our federal government by giving it necessary but enumerated powers.

 

[powerofreason]

I would like to reiterate the point made by Stephan Kinsella that modern democracy as first established by the Constitution is responsible for "...rejecting traditional, superior, unwritten, monarchist limits on state power, thus setting the world on the path of democracy and democratic tyranny, and all the evils of the 20th Century–WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Great Depressions I and II–not to mention the illegal, immoral, murderous, centralizing War to Prevent Southern Independence..."

I wonder how much longer the evils of democracy could have been held off for if the US went the way of monarchy? Maybe it never would have really caught on without the Constitution. That would make it quite an abhorrent document. Imagine if all those evils of the 20th century never took place. Imagine what a better place the world would be.

 

[brandon]

No it's not. The United States was a voluntary federation established for the mutual benefit of the states in regards to regulation of commerce, diplomatic affairs, and waging defensive wars.

The constitution was a secretive power grab which illegally overthrew the articles of confederation and established a strong federal government. Shortly after the constitution was in place the federal government started rolling out statist authoritarian laws, such as the alien and sedition act. It's just gotten worse since.

 

[mediahasyou]

I can just see it now, in 100 years there will be people who praise the NAU's constitution but are strongly against the move to form the American Union which will unite NA with SA.

thank you prophet yates. im sure history channel will have specials on your nostradamus-like skills in 100 years also.

 

[brandon]

thank you prophet yates. im sure history channel will have specials on your nostradamus-like skills in 100 years also.

lmao

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ahh, but the constitution established a ruling body above our state governments and thus ceded state sovereignty to a interstate ruling body.

It's pretty much the same thing.

Not really. The original intent was that a state could secede from the union anytime they decided that the union was not in their best interest. What's more, the states were the ones in control. Unfortunately, We the dumbass People, allowed for these checks and balances to be chipped away, until we found ourselves in the predicament we are now in.

No, the problem is not our Constitution; it is the fact that our government is not following it. Would you really rather throw it out and take a chance that whatever document that some NAU parliament put together would be better?

The people in the European Union took that chance and now, they are trying to figure out how the hell to get out of it. They were also told that a EU Constitution would not be created. Guess what? They lied.

Are you so sure you want to throw out the one good thing we have in our favor and just take a chance that the powers that be will put together something much more to your liking. Something that we can all just sing kumbaya?

 

[LibertyEagle]

It is more about what the government can not do.

Exactly.

 

[powerofreason]

No Constitutionalist worships the Constitution. We value it because it restrains the jurisdiction of our federal government by giving it necessary but enumerated powers.

Restrains the federal government? You can't be serious! The federal government is not restrained. At all. And returning to enforcement of the Constitution, if such a thing were ever possible would just move the timer back, so to speak, until tyranny was once again the norm. Governments have a natural tendency to become more tyrannical over time because of their monopolistic nature. They only follow the rules necessary for maintaining legitimacy. Which become less and less over time as the people get used to the creeping tyrannical norm.

 

[t0rnado]

No it's not. The United States was a voluntary federation established for the mutual benefit of the states in regards to regulation of commerce, diplomatic affairs, and waging defensive wars.

All of that applies to the EU as well as to the NAU. Mexico, Canada, and the US would benefit in regards to the regulation of commerce, etc.

How so? Any specifics?

Actually, all the Federalist papers were in support of the Constitution, while the anti-Federalist papers were against the Constitution. Specifically, Federalist Paper #30, which was written by Alexander Hamilton, proposed a national tax.

 

[powerofreason]

Either the Constitution is responsible for our current situation today or has failed to stop it, I might point out.

 

[SimpleName]

This is basically what separates real libertarians and everyone else. "Real" (always w/the quotes) libertarians use the Constitution as a goal while many others use it as the end all. I think the authors are a little extreme in their "Constitution worship" calls, but I too am a bit frustrated with people who act like the Constitution IS true liberty. Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Chuck Baldwin, Jesse Ventura, and of course Judge Napolitano (I still love the guy) all submit to this ridiculous idea that the Constitution is above liberty itself despite claiming to be libertarian. I think this clinging fuels the progressive's fire. They say it is outdated, it is inefficient, and frequently insist that the Founders didn't know the world we live in today. That's why they so blatantly ignore it...they simply don't care what the Founders wanted because to them it can't work anymore.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

thank you prophet yates. im sure history channel will have specials on your nostradamus-like skills in 100 years also.

lolz... it will probably be in Chinese too!

 

[Theocrat]

You're Looking At the Symptom, Not the Cause

Restrains the federal government? You can't be serious! The federal government is not restrained. At all. And returning to enforcement of the Constitution, if such a thing were ever possible would just move the timer back, so to speak, until tyranny was once again the norm. Governments have a natural tendency to become more tyrannical over time because of their monopolistic nature. They only follow the rules necessary for maintaining legitimacy. Which become less and less over time as the people get used to the creeping tyrannical norm.

Repeat after me. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. However, I do agree with you that a piece of paper is not going to solve our problems alone.

Not that we've cleared that up, let me just add that our current federal government is behaving in accordance with the principles which you hold dear--anarchy. It is not submissive to any final government or law (i.e. its constituents and the Constitution), it makes its own rules without the intrusion of an outside authority, and it does as it pleases without restraint, whether it takes property from citizens or grants rights to others that it feels deserves rights.

 

[t0rnado]

Repeat after me. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. However, I do agree with you that a piece of paper is not going to solve our problems alone.

Not that we've cleared that up, let me just add that our current federal government is behaving in accordance with the principles which you hold dear--anarchy. It is not submissive to any final government or law (i.e. its constituents and the Constitution), it makes its own rules without the intrusion of an outside authority, and it does as it pleases without restraint, whether it takes property from citizens or grants rights to others that it feels deserves rights.

Can you define the word anarchy?

 

[Theocrat]

The Other Side of Totalitarianism

Do you own a dictionary or are you just ignorant? If you can't separate tyranny from anarchy, you're an idiot.

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.

 

[Vessol]

Can you define the word anarchy?

In his mind: Non-Christian Moral Decay

 

[South Park Fan]

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.

You can't be serious. Anarcho-capitalism is merely self-government taken to its logical conclusion. If one has the right to self-government, then logically he has the right to choose not to be governed.