Is the Constitution a failed experiment?

[Mini-Me]

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.

...I'm a troll trying to stir up trouble? I'm a troll, because I believe we can improve the checks and balances in the Constitution to help prevent our current situation from happening again? Among other things, I'd like to eliminate or at least clarify the "necessary and proper" clause, clarify the commerce clause, clarify interpretation of words hundreds of years from now, and clarify that "general welfare" is specifically a preamble and purpose statement for enumerated powers (and not a blank check for unlimited government). This somehow makes me a troll? Oh, please. Take your antagonistic drama elsewhere.

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.

...and you call ME a troll? You're deliberately missing CCTelander's point (different from the one I'm making, btw) and completely misrepresenting everything he said.

You were not always like this, from what I remember. What happened? What's up with your attitude lately?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

...I'm a troll trying to stir up trouble? I'm a troll, because I believe we can improve the checks and balances in the Constitution? Oh, please. Take your antagonistic drama elsewhere.


...and you call ME a troll? You're deliberately missing CCTelander's point (different from the one I'm making, btw) and completely misrepresenting everything he said.

You didn't always be like this, from what I remember. What's up with your attitude lately?

No, I understand your point, Spooner's point, and CCT's point. You all are enemies of the US Constitution, and hence, allies of tyranny and oppression. You claim that Obama can do whatever he wants and does not have to follow the Constitution, even though he swore at oath to uphold it! You claim the Supreme Court doesn't have to follow the Constitution. You bitch and moan that the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you say it should, and then you say it doesn't have to follow the Constitution.! True stupidity. Spooner started this nonsense in the 1840s, and apparently it hasn't completely gone away.

I am a defender of liberty and of the Constitution. You are a troll.

 

[Mini-Me]

No, I understand your point, Spooner's point, and CCT's point. You all are enemies of the US Constitution, and hence, allies of tyranny and oppression. You claim that Obama can do whatever he wants and does not have to follow the Constitution, even though he swore at oath to uphold it! You claim the Supreme Court doesn't have to follow the Constitution. You bitch and moan that the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you say it should, and then you say it doesn't have to follow the Constitution.! True stupidity. Spooner started this nonsense in the 1840s, and apparently it hasn't completely gone away.

I am a defender of liberty and of the Constitution. You are a troll.

Let me guess: You haven't really read a single one of my posts, have you? You're projecting your mischaracterization of CCTelander onto me, and I don't know if this is because you're really that dense, or because you're deliberately trolling.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Let me guess: You haven't really read a single one of my posts, have you?

I have, and I have read books by Spooner. The guy is nuts. He comes along in the 1840s and makes as his fundamental claim that the only people bound by the Constitution are those who signed it. Therefore, the president is not bound by it according to Spooner.

Explain to me under your theory why Obama should be bound by the Constitution? You keep dodging this question.

 

[Mini-Me]

I have, and I have read books by Spooner. The guy is nuts. He comes along in the 1840s and makes as his fundamental claim that the only people bound by the Constitution are those who signed it. Therefore, the president is not bound by it according to Spooner.

Explain to me under your theory why Obama should be bound by the Constitution? You keep dodging this question.

Dude, I'm not the one quoting Spooner in the first place. That's CCTelander. We are two totally different posters. I'm the one saying,

Among other things, I'd like to eliminate or at least clarify the "necessary and proper" clause, clarify the commerce clause, clarify interpretation of words hundreds of years from now, and clarify that "general welfare" is specifically a preamble and purpose statement for enumerated powers (and not a blank check for unlimited government).

CCTelander is the one quoting Spooner. However, he's not arguing that government officials don't need to follow the Constitution in exercising their power; he's arguing that the power of government officials (like Obama) is completely illegitimate in the first place, and everything they do to the governed is a crime against us.

From a moral perspective, I sympathize with his position, but it's not the position I'm arguing. Instead, I'm arguing from a minarchist point of view and saying that we need to reevaluate the parts of the Constitution that statists have exploited so readily, and then rewrite those parts so they can no longer be so easily twisted by the dishonest. I'd also like to add more checks and balances and expand the definition of treason to include politicians/justices attempting to expand the government's power beyond Constitutional limits, etc.

 

[CCTelander]

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.

Did you even read what I actually wrote?

Clearly, if you did, you failed to understand it.

If the CONstitution has no legitimate authority, then the federal government, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PURPORTS TO CREATE, likewise lacks any legitimate authority.

The "authority" of the fedgov DEPENDS upon the CONstutution.

CONstitution invalid = federal government invalid.

Getting it yet?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

However, he's not arguing that government officials don't need to follow the Constitution in exercising their power; he's arguing that the power of government officials (like Obama) is completely illegitimate in the first place, and everything they do to the governed is a crime against us.

Liberals say the Constitution is illegitimate because it was written a long time ago by power rich slave-owning white people, so that is their excuse for not following it. Spooner has merely substituted a similar excuse to not follow the Constitution.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Did you even read what I actually wrote?

Clearly, if you did, you failed to understand it.

If the CONstitution has no legitimate authority, then the federal government, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PURPORTS TO CREATE, likewise lacks any legitimate authority.

The "authority" of the fedgov DEPENDS upon the CONstutution.

CONstitution invalid = federal government invalid.

Getting it yet?

So is Obama bound by the Constitution?

 

[amy31416]

Eh....it's not the Constitution that's failed, it's the citizens.

 

[CCTelander]

Dude, I'm not the one quoting Spooner in the first place. That's CCTelander. We are two totally different posters. I'm the one saying,

Just for the sake of clarity, it was actually others who brought Spooner into the conversation. I merely attempted to clarify what Spooner meant. Apparently without success.

CCTelander is the one quoting Spooner. However, he's not arguing that government officials don't need to follow the Constitution in exercising their power; he's arguing that the power of government officials (like Obama) is completely illegitimate in the first place, and everything they do to the governed is a crime against us.

Exactly!

I have trouble believing that anyone could fail to see the clear logic, and be unable to understand the actual point. Perhaps though I'm wrong. I do have a fairly unique set of experiences that tends to make it easier for me to "get it."

From a moral perspective, I sympathize with his position, but it's not the position I'm arguing. Instead, I'm arguing from a minarchist point of view and saying that we need to reevaluate the parts of the Constitution that statists have exploited so readily, and then rewrite those parts so they can no longer be so easily twisted by the dishonest. I'd also like to add more checks and balances and expand the definition of treason to include politicians/justices attempting to expand the government's power beyond Constitutional limits, etc.

Even if one looks at it from a minarchist standpoint the CONstitution is literally riddled with problems.

I, of course, am NOT a minarchist, but I once was and even then a LOT of the problems were fairly obvious.

 

[CCTelander]

So is Obama bound by the Constitution?

This is becoming tiring already, but I'll try again.

Did Obama take an oath to "uphold and defend" the CONstitution? Does such an oath constitute a voluntary and explicit agreement to abide by its authority?

If the answers are "yes," then he AGREED to it, and is therefore bound by that agreement.

I, on the other hand, have offered no such agreement.

Get it?

 

[low preference guy]

This is becoming tiring already, but I'll try again.

Did Obama take an oath to "uphold and defend" the CONstitution? Does such an oath constitute a voluntary and explicit agreement to abide by its authority?

If the answers are "yes," then he AGREED to it, and is therefore bound by that agreement.

I, on the other hand, have offered no such agreement.

Get it?

ownage

 

[robert68]

This is becoming tiring already, but I'll try again.

Did Obama take an oath to "uphold and defend" the CONstitution? Does such an oath constitute a voluntary and explicit agreement to abide by its authority?

If the answers are "yes," then he AGREED to it, and is therefore bound by that agreement.

I, on the other hand, have offered no such agreement.

Get it?

So all political leaders (and persons) are bound by any and every “voluntary and explicit” agreement they make? The implications of that are ominous.

 

[lucius]

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

Product Description: Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government

We had two sets of Founding Fathers: the 1770s set who kicked off the Revolutionary War, and the 1780s set who agitated for a constitutional convention in 1787. Except for a few persons, they were different men -- and with different agenda.

Jefferson did not write the Constitution, but most Americans seem to believe that it was a Jeffersonian product as his Declaration of Independence.

If you've ever wondered how we came to have a leviathan federal government that was supposed to remain small and defined -- Hologram of Liberty; will explain what happened.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Product Description: Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government

We had two sets of Founding Fathers: the 1770s set who kicked off the Revolutionary War, and the 1780s set who agitated for a constitutional convention in 1787. Except for a few persons, they were different men -- and with different agenda.

Jefferson did not write the Constitution, but most Americans seem to believe that it was a Jeffersonian product as his Declaration of Independence.

If you've ever wondered how we came to have a leviathan federal government that was supposed to remain small and defined -- Hologram of Liberty; will explain what happened.

Looks good. I'll have to check it out if I get a chance.

 

[acptulsa]

The long and the short of it as I see it is, people will play follow-the-leader. That simple. Educate them, by all means and please, they need the sense of responsibility. Even so, they will play follow-the-leader. So, given a choice between them being able to get rid of the lemon they chose to follow last time and being stuck with the lemon they chose to follow last time, we have a case of nolo contendre. And that being the case, the notion of disallowing the rule of law over generations is just silly.

It might work better if every member of a generation died on the same day. That way, you wouldn't have to worry about someone missing out on continuity. But generations are seldom so cooperative. At least, on their own--but I was assuming there are no Stalins on this board...

In that light, the Constitution is anything but a failed experiment, no matter how many of its letters you capitalize. In fact, it's about the best we've ever tried. And I think it deserves at least that much credit, no matter how much you'd like to shake people up and stick to arguments that give no quarter. It deserves that much credit. A lot of Americans really enjoyed the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries because men who could have been kings chose not to be.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The long and the short of it as I see it is, people will play follow-the-leader. That simple. Educate them, by all means and please, they need the sense of responsibility. Even so, they will play follow-the-leader. So, given a choice between them being able to get rid of the lemon they chose to follow last time and being stuck with the lemon they chose to follow last time, we have a case of nolo contendre. And that being the case, the notion of disallowing the rule of law over generations is just silly.

It might work better if every member of a generation died on the same day. That way, you wouldn't have to worry about someone missing out on continuity. But generations are seldom so cooperative. At least, on their own--but I was assuming there are no Stalins on this board...

In that light, the Constitution is anything but a failed experiment, no matter how many of its letters you capitalize. In fact, it's about the best we've ever tried. And I think it deserves at least that much credit, no matter how much you'd like to shake people up and stick to arguments that give no quarter. It deserves that much credit. A lot of Americans really enjoyed the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries because men who could have been kings chose not to be.

If you continue to believe this in spite of centuries of contrary evidence, you deserve your serfdom.

 

[CCTelander]

If you continue to believe this in spite of centuries of contrary evidence, you deserve your serfdom.

Hey, the CONstutution was a stunning success, from the standpoint of those wishing to establish yet another mercantilist system with themselves at the top of the food chain.

As an instrument for securing liberty? Not so much, no.

 

[acptulsa]

Hey, the CONstutution was a stunning success, from the standpoint of those wishing to establish yet another mercantilist system with themselves at the top of the food chain.

As an instrument for securing liberty? Not so much, no.

Oh, yeah, George Washington Carver was just the sort of person the framers had in mind when they set up their class system.

If you continue to believe this in spite of centuries of contrary evidence, you deserve your serfdom.

Shut up.

Not going to do it, are you? If you were in Saudi Arabia, you'd shut up. Tell me again how no government is any worse than any other.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

You reasoning is absurdly nonsequitur. For thousands of year people lived in order and harmony without a written constitution.

South Amercia is a good example. Another example is Europe. A third is the Indians. Ir the Middle East. In all these areas, there has been nothing but chaos and war for thousands of years.