Is the Constitution a failed experiment?

[RedStripe]

Not more important than the Bill-of-Rights, which is vastly more important than the DoI.

lol the bill of rights are crappy as hell. Alien and Sedition Act? Espionage Act? No protection from state tyranny? Honestly they've done very little good. When the government REALLY wants to take away your rights clearly the BoR won't stand in the way.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not more important than the Bill-of-Rights, which is vastly more important than the DoI.

False. The DOI is beyond legal precedent, unlike the BOR. The DOI established that law cannot overcome nature (including human nature). The arrogance of the Federalists led them to turn this on its head. The BOR is an attempt to correct the wrong-headed Federalists, but it is still a legal precedent (which also rests on bogus "contract theory").

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The Constitution never failed us. It is human nature that always seeks to manipulate and distort dispite all attempts by conscious individuals to put in safeguards against such behaviors that has failed us. We have started a website and book that is being written online that delves into human nature, religion, and government as it exists today to re-establish what the founding fathers had in their hearts and minds when they established the United States. We have no ads and no agenda to make a profit off this venture... just looking to spread ideas. Please join us and read the first portion of our book.

http://www.awakentoconsciousliving.com/our-book/download-pdf-version

Whether you know it or not, you contradicted yourself here. On one hand you claim the Constitution "never failed us", and on the other hand you claim that ne'er do wells somehow hijacked the Constitution for their own evil intent. If the later is true, it naturally falsifies the former.

 

[acptulsa]

"It always will seem funny to us United Staters that we are about the only ones that really know how to do everything right. I don't know how a lot of these other nations have existed as long as they have 'til we could get some of our people around and show them really how to be pure and good like us."--Will Rogers 1932

Yeah, yeah. The Constitution is a terrible failure. And the only reason we keep it is because all of those other constitutions failed sooner and more spectacularly. Such a terrible condemnation of the document...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

My point is that the contract itself didn't fail us... we have allowed those in power to manipulate the system to circumvent the contract itself through the lack of conscious thinking amongst the citizens it was meant to protect. Those in power put people in place (supreme court) to work around the contract and the general population of voters have gone the route of ignorance in terms of government and history. Most people know more about Lindsay Lohan than the Constitution. Human nature all too often chooses to respond only to drastic suffering as a means of instituting change. As a society we have become so utterly obscessed with self-interest that there's no room for anything besides "me, me, me..." People don't care about debt, morals, God, government, their family, etc. Basically, liberty and the ability to choose what you do with your life means nothing to many. We are destined to suffer significantly greater pain that we have already during this recession unless their is a collective awakening. How likely is that? It's always a choice and as long as people look to government to solve all their problems then they are choosing to go down a path that history has shown has dire consequences.

If you disagree with my statements or find them to be contradictory then hopefully you will find clarity in our book you are welcome to read. You are also welcome to join us and modify our book if you are able to provide a greater rational to your beliefs than we have concluded. Or you can take the easy route and do what most do which is to take the "I'm right and you are wrong" route without trying to understand a different perspective.

You misuse the word "contract". (see "Money, Credit, and Economic Cycles" for more) A contract, by definition, is agreed to by all parties. The CONstitution was only signed by a very small percentage of the population over 200 years ago.

Perhaps this is the root of your misunderstanding of why the CONstitution doesn't work.

 

[acptulsa]

You misuse the word "contract". (see "Money, Credit, and Economic Cycles" for more) A contract, by definition, is agreed to by all parties. The CONstitution was only signed by a very small percentage of the population over 200 years ago.

Perhaps this is the root of your misunderstanding of why the CONstitution doesn't work.

LOL. So, any agreement that attempts to outlive those who drew it up becomes, I assume, a CONtract?

How wonderful to be born into a world knowing you have to completely redefine it when you reach the age of majority. Wonderful, that is, if you're so arrogant you don't think anyone else in the world can do anything right. Kinda scary to most humans, though...

 

[South Park Fan]

LOL. So, any agreement that attempts to outlive those who drew it up becomes, I assume, a CONtract?

How wonderful to be born into a world knowing you have to completely redefine it when you reach the age of majority. Wonderful, that is, if you're so arrogant you don't think anyone else in the world can do anything right. Kinda scary to most humans, though...

Isn't it more arrogant to think that a piece of paper written by a few politically connected individuals can defend an entire nation from would be tyrants? Looking at the path that this country has taken, I'd say the score is:
Antifederalists 1
Federalists 0

 

[YumYum]

The face of America has changed. After the economic crisis blows over and the dust settles we should probably come up with a new and improved Constitution.

I always felt that if the framers had known that there would be Satan worshipers and hard core porn in America's future, they would have worded differently the Freedom of speech/press and Freedom of religion amendments.

We need to take a national vote on every issue, and make the popular positions the laws of the land.

It would put an end to all this crazy fighting that is helping to destroy our country.

 

[Pericles]

Those that consider the Constitution a failure do so because the founders could not create a set of rules for governing that were self enforcing against any attempt to pervert them.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic leap that gets you from that point to the idea that having no rules that can be enforced unless all parties agree to thier enforcement mechanism solves the problem.

I don't have to agree to anything by that line of reasoning, and have evry incentive to use force against any who may oppose me, as I would never agree to any kind of arbitration whereby I might lose the case.

To criticize the Constitution as a failure is to criticize the hammer in the tool box for failing to repair the roof and allow the rain to enter the room.

 

[RedStripe]

The last page and a half have been hilarious. Blaming satan worship and porn for our problems, rather than the fact that the constitution was established by a small privileged minority for the benefit of a small privileged minority and, OMG, a small privileged minority continue to rule the US? WOW IM SO SHOCKED

 

[acptulsa]

To criticize the Constitution as a failure is to criticize the hammer in the tool box for failing to repair the roof and allow the rain to enter the room.

This, my friend. This.

So, the Constitution hasn't done enough to curb tyranny so we should remove all bars to tyranny? Why? Because we can better discourage tyranny through violence--and the reason we haven't is because people are afraid to use it?

Nuts. People don't want to use violence, except perhaps halfway around the world. They don't want it here at home. This is why they crave the rule of law. And why you won't be convincing a convincing majority of people to abandon it any day soon.

So, the Constitution preserves the ruling class above all. It doesn't protect all private property equally, leaving the inequality strictly in the amount of private property one person has as compared to another, and not in the law? Read the document again. When you characters can criticize it intelligently and from an informed position, call me.

The anarchists get the notion going that all government is bad, so all constitutions are bad, and the next thing you know they're accusing the head of the local PTA of being Josef Stalin. And then they wonder why people aren't listening to them. The fact of the matter is, the Constitution has worked better than anything else to date, and that includes volunteerism, voluntaryism and anything related. And to say it has no advantages over any other constitution is just as spurious an argument as saying that this biker gang couldn't sustain their anarchy, so no one can.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Would someone please explain with factual basis to me how a small, priviledged few drew up the Constitution for the benefit of a small, priviledged few? That makes no sense. We you put the power in the hands of every citizen through the capacity to vote in those of leadership it negates the ability for a small, priviledged few. It is when you have an aristocracy or ommunism and do away with citizens ability to overthrow the priviledged(i.e. bureaucratic) class that you have a system structured to benefit a small, priviledged few. Please elaborate your position because as of now it makes no sense.

I am always amazed at the mindset of an anarchist. How can any rational person believe that some form of government is necessary no matter how inefficient and potentially corrupt it is... which is why it should be left as small as absolutely possible. Then on the other end of the spectrum you have the socialist progressives who see government as this great thing that can't cure all the world's ills and suffering... failing to notice along the way that when you subsidize a negative behavior and remove personal responsibility from the individual all you do is create more of it. Both ideologies stem from a complete lack of understanding and appreciation of human nature.

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)

Also see Lysander Spooner's "No Treason". You fail to understand because you fail to read your opponent's positions.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)

Also see Lysander Spooner's "No Treason". You fail to understand because you fail to read your opponent's positions.

Spooned is an ally of big government and is a liberal democrat. Spooner says that only people who signed the Constitution are bound by it. Hence, according to Spooner, Obama does not have to follow the Constitution nor is he bound by it.

 

[BuddyRey]

Spooned is an ally of big government and is a liberal democrat. Spooner says that only people who signed the Constitution are bound by it. Hence, according to Spooner, Obama does not have to follow the Constitution nor is he bound by it.

This is just blatantly untrue. I know you're smart enough to see the distinction between Spooner's voluntaryist philosophy and the power-and-authority revering centralists of the authoritarian left. Please don't be intellectually dishonest; you're above that.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

This is just blatantly untrue. I know you're smart enough to see the distinction between Spooner's voluntaryist philosophy and the power-and-authority revering centralists of the authoritarian left. Please don't be intellectually dishonest; you're above that.

According to Spooner, the president doesn't have to follow the Constitution. But it gets worse. Neither does the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, federal judges, the cabinet, ambassadors, the Federal Reserve, the CIA, the FCC, the Pentagon, the DEA, or any other federal official or employee, according to Spooner. None of these people signed the Constitution! Great, they can claim to be volunteerists while violating the Constitution. Spooner's ideas are just bat-shit insane.

 

[Mini-Me]

To criticize the Constitution as a failure is to criticize the hammer in the tool box for failing to repair the roof and allow the rain to enter the room.

I consider it more like criticizing the roofers for building the roof out of porous and water-soluble materials. I sympathize with the an-cap position, but that's not why I criticize the Constitution specifically. The reason I criticize the Constitution specifically is because, from a minarchist point of view, a constitution could have MUCH stronger and more enforceable checks and balances than our current Constitution does. Also, it could easily do without a few of its dangerous and easily misconstrued phrases.

I'm a computer programmer/software engineer kind of guy, and from my perspective, the Constitution is buggy. Disregarding RedStripe's pessimism about their motives (that's neither here nor there), let's assume the Framers did the best they could. They did the best they could, but in the course of human history, the Constitution was merely a beta version of a working final product, at best, or more likely the precursor to a better-engineered document. From their vantage point writing a first attempt (or second if you count the AoC), they could not clearly foresee the holes in the Constitution. Some may have, but they were overruled by others without such foresight. As a whole, the Framers did not foresee the easily abused phrases, the future tactic of redefining words to reinterpret the document, or the problem with not specifically addressing within the document itself how its words should be interpreted/defined. They did not foresee its general unenforceability or the weakness of their attempt at checks and balances.

We have the advantage of hindsight. We can foresee these things, because we already know how they went down. We need to LEARN from the Framers' mistakes, and that means more than simply telling the youth (after we "fix it," if we "fix it"), "Next time, be more vigilant!" Yes, that's important, but we also need to improve the tools we the people have at our disposal in order to make it easier. When we get the chance, we need to write patches to fix the bugs. Pretending the document is already good enough without modification means sticking our heads in the sand.

 

[LibertyEagle]

To criticize the Constitution as a failure is to criticize the hammer in the tool box for failing to repair the roof and allow the rain to enter the room.

Well-said.

 

[CCTelander]

According to Spooner, the president doesn't have to follow the Constitution. But it gets worse. Neither does the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, federal judges, the cabinet, ambassadors, the Federal Reserve, the CIA, the FCC, the Pentagon, the DEA, or any other federal official or employee, according to Spooner. None of these people signed the Constitution! Great, they can claim to be volunteerists while violating the Constitution. Spooner's ideas are just bat-shit insane.

This is either one of the flat out stupidest assertions I've ever read online, and I've read a LOT of stupid assertions, or it's the most flagrantly mendacious misrepresentation of another's position I've ever read.

I'm making no judgement as to which.

Spooner's position is simply that it's morally reprehensible to bind an individual, by force, to any contract that they didn't explicitly and voluntarily agree to. He's absolutely right.

By that, the CONstitution is invalid, since it claims to bind people to its authority who have not explicitly agreed to it.

However, if the CONstitution is invalid, then the federal government, WHICH IT PURPORTS TO CREATE, is also without ANY legitimate authority, since that government cannot even legitimately exist without the "authority" of the CONstitution underpinning it.

Those people you cite HAVE NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY if the CONstitution has none.

It's VERY basic logic and reason.

Your comments are farcical.

Try again after you've bothered to actually inform your opinion.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I consider it more like criticizing the roofers for building the roof out of porous and water-soluble materials. I sympathize with the an-cap position, but that's not why I criticize the Constitution specifically. The reason I criticize the Constitution specifically is because, from a minarchist point of view, a constitution could have MUCH stronger and more enforceable checks and balances than our current Constitution does. Also, it could easily do without a few of its dangerous and easily misconstrued phrases.

The Constitution worked fine until 1913, when it was changed fundamentally by the States. In 1912, the share of federal GNP was only 1.75%. It had remained at around 2% or less for about 125 years in peacetime and at 4% in wartime, excepting Lincoln, who jacked it up to a still fairly moderate 10% for a few years.

In fact, the central government in 1912 was smaller than it was when the Articles of Confederation were ratified.

History shows that you can't pull the central government below 1% of GNP, without putting people's life, liberty and property in danger. The smallest budget in the US since the AoC was in 1811, when frugal James Madison presided over a budget of 1.23% of the GNP.

So if you think the Constitution failed, then you think everything in world history has failed, which isn't a very enlightening position.

Just to make things clear, a 2% federal budget today would mean $300 billion for all federal expenditures per year.

At 4%, the ideal wartime spending level, we have only $600 billion. And that's for real wars, not the Middle East BS.

Even Lincoln, at the height of the Civil War would only be spending $1.5 billion per year, less than half what Obama is spending now.

Basically, you're a troll, trying to stir up trouble.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

This is either one of the flat out stupidest assertions I've ever read online, and I've read a LOT of stupid assertions, or it's the most flagrantly mendacious misrepresentation of another's position I've ever read.

I'm making no judgement as to which.

Spooner's position is simply that it's morally reprehensible to bind an individual, by force, to any contract that they didn't explicitly and voluntarily agree to. He's absolutely right.

By that, the CONstitution is invalid, since it claims to bind people to its authority who have not explicitly agreed to it.

However, if the CONstitution is invalid, then the federal government, WHICH IT PURPORTS TO CREATE, is also without ANY legitimate authority, since that government cannot even legitimately exist without the "authority" of the CONstitution underpinning it.

Those people you cite HAVE NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY if the CONstitution has none.

It's VERY basic logic and reason.

Your comments are farcical.

Try again after you've bothered to actually inform your opinion.

So basically you are saying that Obama doesn't have to follow the Constitution and you agree with Spooner. Truly an idiotic position to take. If the Constitution has no legitimate authority, then Obama can just ignore it an impose martial law or socialism or attack whatever nation he wants to gobble up whatever else he wants to do. Even the neocons don't try to push this rubbish.