Is the Constitution a failed experiment?

[Matt Collins]

Chuck Baldwin's son, Timothy Baldwin, asks this question:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin146.htm

 

[bobbyw24]

Yes--bring on the New World Order.

Americans are too dumb to keep a Republic

 

[FrankRep]

Chuck Baldwin's son, Timothy Baldwin, asks this question:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin146.htm

Ben Franklin: "A Republic, if You Can Keep It"


Ron Paul: A Republic, If You Can Keep It
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm

John F. McManus: A Republic, If You Can Keep It
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/659-qa-republic-if-you-can-keep-itq


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

- John Adams

 

[Rancher]

No. The people are still asleep... that's all.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, it is a failure, as it was intended to be. Moving on to free society sooner than later, I hope.

 

[FrankRep]

The Dream of Liberty still lives on....


Overview of America
Overview of America - Public Service - DVD

Great for viewing in all venues, this video gives you a big-picture vision of why we enjoy so much personal freedom and prosperity in America. It explains in a simple fashion the different systems of government throughout the world and the different economic principles underlying each type of government-illuminating the great virtues of our unique nation. Public Service Edition. (29 min., 2007)

 

[erowe1]

Yes, it is a failure, as it was intended to be.

If it did what it was intended to do, doesn't that make it a success?

 

[BuddyRey]

Yes--bring on the New World Order.

Americans are too dumb to keep a Republic

You make it sound as if Nationalism and Globalism are the only two options. A third choice is quite literally staring right back at you in the mirror every morning.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If it did what it was intended to do, doesn't that make it a success?

If you're looking at it from the regime's POV, yes. I was taking the average person's POV.:o

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No. The people are still asleep... that's all.

People are not asleep. They believe in X before liberty.

 

[Vessol]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

This will happen time and time again, no matter what government is formed.

If we revolt and create a new Republic, it will reach the same conclusion.

 

[libertybrewcity]

no, but the presidential system is. check out my thoughts on a Constitutional Parliamentary Republic.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=255322

 

[erowe1]

That was a pretty decent article. Not too deep. But it was really refreshing to see that come from Chuck Baldwin's son. I think there's a caricature of Constitution Party folks that they treat the Constitution like it's divinely inspired. And this article does the exact opposite.

 

[fedup100]

When a illegal alien communist marxist can be put in the white house and commit every treasonable act possible and public the scratch their heads because they cannot figure out what to do about, I would say yes, it is a failed experiment.

Next time in the re-write, point out clearly for the citizens of "Idiocracy" what must be done in stick figures and by whom should such things happen in the future.

 

[Anti Federalist]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

This will happen time and time again, no matter what government is formed.

If we revolt and create a new Republic, it will reach the same conclusion.

Thus Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote.

I have no problem with this idea.

Just because it is human nature to atrophy to tyranny over time, especially after living in the wealth and comfort that freedom brings, does not relieve the current generation of the duty to reset the clock to zero again, even if it turns out exactly the same way.

Better a little liberty, for a little while, then none at all, ever, which is the default position of the human condition.

 

[Vessol]

I disagree, I think complete liberty is the default position of humanity. It wasn't until humans began fearing death that religions were formed and from religions came the State.

 

[Matt Collins]

That was a pretty decent article. Not too deep. But it was really refreshing to see that come from Chuck Baldwin's son. I think there's a caricature of Constitution Party folks that they treat the Constitution like it's divinely inspired. And this article does the exact opposite.

Tim Baldwin I think is a near genius and is close to the ranks of Bruce Fein and Judge Napolitano. If you liked this article by him you should see this: http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwinA.htm

He also has a recent book out on Amazon called Freedom For A Change: http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Chang...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280623663&sr=8-1

 

[Anti Federalist]

I disagree, I think complete liberty is the default position of humanity. It wasn't until humans began fearing death that religions were formed and from religions came the State.

Hobbes meet Calvin.

Calvin, Hobbes.

 

[osan]

Chuck Baldwin's son, Timothy Baldwin, asks this question:
[url]http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin146.htm[/URL]

Pretty good overall, but I'm not sure I agree with what I think he isimplying when he writes:

"[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]I propose this truth: a constitution is to be judged by its practical merits and revealing experience and not upon some indeterminable “intent” of what the “founding fathers meant.”
[/FONT]​

This reads way too much like a "living document" position, which is a very bad position to take. He says he loves freedom - I will accept that on faith as so. But allowing a constitution, any constitution, to alter in its fundamentals according to temporal fad is patent insanity.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Pretty good overall, but I'm not sure I agree with what I think he isimplying when he writes:

"[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]I propose this truth: a constitution is to be judged by its practical merits and revealing experience and not upon some indeterminable “intent” of what the “founding fathers meant.”
[/FONT]​

This reads way too much like a "living document" position, which is a very bad position to take. He says he loves freedom - I will accept that on faith as so. But allowing a constitution, any constitution, to alter in its fundamentals according to temporal fad is patent insanity.

No. What he is saying is that the intent of the document does not matter, only what it produces. It has produced tyranny, thus it is a failure. It was a failure 140 years ago, and it is a failure today. Look at what it either has failed to stop, or has aided and abetted in. The largest Government in the history of the world (Even bigger than Rome in its last waning throes).