Is the Constitution a failed experiment?

[Galileo Galilei]

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?

According to Spooner, Obama isn't obligated, because Obama did not sign the Constitution. So now you are basically throwing Spooner under the bus.

 

[acptulsa]

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.

Don't forget strong man dictators. Had plenty of those without written constitutions as well. Nothing like having an answer to 'Because I say so!' And 'Because the Law of the Land says otherwise!' is a pretty good answer to have. I know I have enjoyed having that at my disposal very much in my practical life.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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.

We had a very small federal government prior to 1913, accounting for only 1.75% of the GNP per the Mises Institute. In 1913, the States ruined the Constitution by voting the federal government the income tax, and the direct election of Senators, which was even worse. The direct election of Senators led directly to the Federal Reserve Act, and by 1937, abandonment of the commerce clause.

So you are blaming the wrong people.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Don't forget strong man dictators. Had plenty of those without written constitutions as well. Nothing like having an answer to 'Because I say so!' And 'Because the Law of the Land says otherwise!' is a pretty good answer to have. I know I have enjoyed having that at my disposal very much in my practical life.

We had a dictator, too, Lincoln, but thanks to the Constitution we could throw him off. Not so in South America.

 

[CCTelander]

According to Spooner, Obama isn't obligated, because Obama did not sign the Constitution. So now you are basically throwing Spooner under the bus.

No, you're simply being obtuse, deliberately or otherwise. Or maybe it's outright mendacity.

Perhaps if you went back and actually read what was posted, very slowly, you'd gain some understanding.

Regardless, it's clear that "discussing" anything with you is utterly pointless.

 

[low preference guy]

We had a dictator, too, Lincoln, but thanks to the Constitution we could throw him off. Not so in South America.

Read your history. There were periods of time where countries in South America had good capitalist Presidents with a Constitution in place. Many of them were overthrown, and the Constitutions were discarded later by the new dictators. So no, having a Constitution does not mean you can get rid of every dictator. You gave a bad example.

Also, are you aware that South America is not a country?

 

[CCTelander]

Here's some interesting information regarding the CONstitution for anyone interested in something other than the blind worship of it that seems to be the order of the day for some in this thread.

http://mises.org/media/1183

 

[acptulsa]

Here's some interesting information regarding the CONstitution for anyone interested in something other than the blind worship of it that seems to be the order of the day for some in this thread.

"You have yet to show me better" constitutes blind worship? Go con someone else.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's some interesting information regarding the CONstitution for anyone interested in something other than the blind worship of it that seems to be the order of the day for some in this thread.

http://mises.org/media/1183

Nice find, thanks.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well-said.

If we were to judge the Constitution by this criteria, it would be impossible to critique the Constitution. Under your definition the Constitution can never be a failure, because it is never a failure of the Constitution, but of the people. If this is the case, then it matters not what document is held to the forefront, because any document can not be a failure. This to me is absurd, but I will let you ruminate on how illogical this position is.

If we were to take the opposite position to this it would have to be that any success that came about, came about because of the people, not of the document. Why even have it then? Success or failure is wholly on the people to you. Why do you uphold a document that can neither be successful or a failure?

 

[CCTelander]

If we were to judge the Constitution by this criteria, it would be impossible to critique the Constitution. Under your definition the Constitution can never be a failure, because it is never a failure of the Constitution, but of the people. If this is the case, then it matters not what document is held to the forefront, because any document can not be a failure. This to me is absurd, but I will let you ruminate on how illogical this position is.

If we were to take the opposite position to this it would have to be that any success that came about, came about because of the people, not of the document. Why even have it then? Success or failure is wholly on the people to you. Why do you uphold a document that can neither be successful or a failure?

Notice also that when things have gone good (in the estimation of the CONstitutionalists), the CONstitution gets the credit. But when things go bad it's always the "people," in other words the victims, who are at fault.

Kind of just restating what you said, but you get the idea.

 

[acptulsa]

If we were to judge the Constitution by this criteria, it would be impossible to critique the Constitution. Under your definition the Constitution can never be a failure, because it is never a failure of the Constitution, but of the people. If this is the case, then it matters not what document is held to the forefront, because any document can not be a failure. This to me is absurd, but I will let you ruminate on how illogical this position is.

If we were to take the opposite position to this it would have to be that any success that came about, came about because of the people, not of the document. Why even have it then? Success or failure is wholly on the people to you. Why do you uphold a document that can neither be successful or a failure?

Nonsense.

To use Pericles' example, a carpentry job can fail because a worker has a crappy hammer, or because he or she doesn't know one end from a good hammer from the other. To claim that only the worker or only the hammer can be at fault is indeed silly. To claim that LibertyEagle was saying anything of the sort is even sillier--and disingenuous--and an epic fail.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Read your history. There were periods of time where countries in South America had good capitalist Presidents with a Constitution in place. Many of them were overthrown, and the Constitutions were discarded later by the new dictators. So no, having a Constitution does not mean you can get rid of every dictator. You gave a bad example.

Also, are you aware that South America is not a country?

Talk about moving the goalposts, so you are implying there has never been any good US presidents or governors in the United States? And Constitutions that get overthrown don't protect liberty. And South America is not a country, that's right. It is a shithole for most people over the past 200 years.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nonsense.

To use Pericles' example, a carpentry job can fail because a worker has a crappy hammer, or because he or she doesn't know one end from a good hammer from the other. To claim that only the worker or only the hammer can be at fault is indeed silly. To claim that LibertyEagle was saying anything of the sort is even sillier--and disingenuous--and an epic fail.

No it's not. In every thread like this all the people who say the Constitution is a success, defends the arguments from those of us who say it is a failure, based on experience of history; say it is not the documents fault, but of the people. When challenged to come up with successes, they always say it is the success of the document. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The only thing that is disingenuous is the people saying the document is not a failure, but the people are, and then turning around and saying that the document is a success, but not the people.

It's an either or scenario. Either the document lead to success or failure, or the people led to success or failure and the document didn't matter. I don't understand why Constitutionalists reject Voluntaryism, NAP, and true liberty if their argument for the Constitution boils down to the people understanding, appreciating, and fighting to keep liberty -- e.g. Natural Law, NAP, Free-Markets, voluntary interaction. That is fucking disenguous bullshit.

By any abject standards (That of procuring and securing liberty) the Constitution is a wild failure. I think this much was obvious in 1797 with the Alien & Sedition Acts. (Committed by the same very people who helped write and sign, and push for ratification of the document!!) -- What does this tell you about monopolizing power, aggressive force, and unremitted violence?

 

[robert68]

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.

As I see it, the implication of what Spooner wrote, is that a President doesn’t have the legal authority to do anything, not do anything he/she wants.

No Treason (1867-1870)

 

[Meatwasp]

Whimsical dreamers.
Wanting chaos so they can feel secure in their little niches
Unholy alliances so they can hold to their breasts screaming we have made this happen. They are the bottom feeding of humanity and thrive on destruction and chaos.

 

[lucius]

Whimsical dreamers.
Wanting chaos so they can feel secure in their little niches
Unholy alliances so they can hold to their breasts screaming we have made this happen. They are the bottom feeding of humanity and thrive on destruction and chaos.

Or could it be that the United States' Articles of Confederation had decentralizing aspects that hinder the growth of leviathan, now produced under the Constitution, which we don't follow by the way. The Banker's interests certainly did not like them and they went away. Amusing argument...

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Or could it be that the United States' Articles of Confederation had decentralizing aspects that hinder the growth of leviathan produced under the Constitution, which we don't follow by the way. The Banker's interests certainly did not like them. Not certain, amusing argument...

Wrong, the AoC was already on a path for big government tyranny, because all power was centralized under it. In 1783, the absolute centralization almost came to fruition, but it was halted by George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. In March of 1783, a military coup almost took over central control of the AoC in the Newburgh conspiracy.

 

[RedStripe]

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.

I've heard some pretty ignorant things on this forum but this might be the worst.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I've heard some pretty ignorant things on this forum but this might be the worst.

Well, learn your history, ideas have consequences. Spooner's ideas came out in the 1840s, just when Abe Lincoln was getting settled into politics.

Spooner's main point was that only those who signed the Constitution were bound by it. Hence, when Lincoln became president, he seized upon Spooner's point, and claimed to not be bound by the Constitution.

Funny, you, Spooner, and Lincoln all on the same philosophical page.

Remember, ideas have consequences. In the example of Spooner, very bad consequences.