Is the Constitution a failed experiment?

[RedStripe]

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.

Hahaha, please show me where Lincoln 1) read Spooner's argument AGAINST the legal authority of the federal government (due to the insufficiency of its founding document), 2) relied on Spooners reasoning and 3) claimed that he was not bound by the constitution.

Clearly you have not even read No Treason, for if you had, you would know that the point is that the constitution does not bind anyone - and therefore the federal government has no authority. A conclusion that is frankly antithetical to everything that Lincoln believed about the federal government.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Hahaha, please show me where Lincoln 1) read Spooner's argument AGAINST the legal authority of the federal government (due to the insufficiency of its founding document), 2) relied on Spooners reasoning and 3) claimed that he was not bound by the constitution.

Clearly you have not even read No Treason, for if you had, you would know that the point is that the constitution does not bind anyone - and therefore the federal government has no authority. A conclusion that is frankly antithetical to everything that Lincoln believed about the federal government.

You are making my point. If the Constitution has no authority, then Lincoln can do whatever he wants. Which is what he did.

 

[CCTelander]

You are making my point. If the Constitution has no authority, then Lincoln can do whatever he wants. Which is what he did.

No, RedStripe isn't making your point.

But YOU definitely are studiously avoiding the real point. Having had it explained to you now by at least half a dozen people, it's clear that you're doing so mendaciously, and not out of simple error or misunderstanding.

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. You might actually try it some time.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

No, RedStripe isn't making your point.

But YOU definitely are studiously avoiding the real point. Having had it explained to you now by at least half a dozen people, it's clear that you're doing so mendaciously, and not out of simple error or misunderstanding.

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. You might actually try it some time.

No, you are trying to demand that everyone interpret Spooner the way you want him to be interpreted. The fact is, Lincoln did not sign the Constitution, so he was not bound by it as Spooner said. At the time Lincoln became president, Spooner's ideas were very popular. People like you need to take responsibility for the consequences of your ideas. All you do is dodge and blame others. People like you, Lincoln and Spooner who opposed the Constitution have just led to big government and war in this great nation.

I support the Constitution, as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and George Washington. And also as does Ron Paul. That is the key to liberty, the Constitution.

Your attacks on the US Constitution might be welcome at the dailykos, but not here. You are intent an stirring up trouble.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, you are trying to demand that everyone interpret Spooner the way you want him to be interpreted. The fact is, Lincoln did not sign the Constitution, so he was not bound by it as Spooner said. At the time Lincoln became president, Spooner's ideas were very popular. People like you need to take responsibility for the consequences of your ideas. All you do is dodge and blame others. People like you, Lincoln and Spooner who opposed the Constitution have just led to big government and war in this great nation.

I support the Constitution, as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and George Washington. And also as does Ron Paul. That is the key to liberty, the Constitution.

Your attacks on the US Constitution might be welcome at the dailykos, but not here. You are intent an stirring up trouble.

Except, he didn't. Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the CONstitution was ratified. I don't know why you keep deluding yourself like this.

As to "People like you, Lincoln and Spooner who opposed the Constitution have just led to big government and war in this great nation."-this is yet more wishful thinking on your part. Not only can you not defend your own Federalism effectively, you can't effectively oppose Anti-Federalists and other anti-Constitutionalists. Back to school for you, young man.

You accuse CCTealander of "blaming others", without sound grounds to do so-since the Constitution is the matter at hand, and he (correctly) opposes it, what do you expect him to do? Kiss your hand and pretend you're correct?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Except, he didn't. Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the CONstitution was ratified. I don't know why you keep deluding yourself like this.

Jefferson supported the Constitution from the beginning, as soon as James Madison explained it to him.

As to "People like you, Lincoln and Spooner who opposed the Constitution have just led to big government and war in this great nation."-this is yet more wishful thinking on your part. Not only can you not defend your own Federalism effectively, you can't effectively oppose Anti-Federalists and other anti-Constitutionalists. Back to school for you, young man.

You accuse CCTealander of "blaming others", without sound grounds to do so-since the Constitution is the matter at hand, and he (correctly) opposes it, what do you expect him to do? Kiss your hand and pretend you're correct?

If you oppose the Constitution, then you are in the wrong forum. People here defend liberty. Jack CONway doesn't support the Constitution, either.

 

[South Park Fan]

The Constitution is not liberty. At best, it is a document meant to protect liberty already existing. At worst, it is the antithesis of liberty for violating the principle of self-government.

By the way, your statement about Lincoln and Spooner is an obvious lie. Spooner did not write No Treason, where he denounced the Constitution, until 1870. Prior to then, he had been a constitutionalist who had used a constitutionalist argument to defend abolitionism. It was the abuses of the Lincoln administration that radicalized his beliefs about self-government to the logical conclusion of voluntaryism. Also, even if Spooner's ideas HAD predated Lincoln's, you interpret his logic incorrectly. The idea is that no government has just authority whether it has a "social contract" or not. Lincoln used government force regardless of whether it was authorized by the Constitution. Those views couldn't be more different.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The Constitution is not liberty. At best, it is a document meant to protect liberty already existing. At worst, it is the antithesis of liberty for violating the principle of self-government.

By the way, your statement about Lincoln and Spooner is an obvious lie. Spooner did not write No Treason, where he denounced the Constitution, until 1870. Prior to then, he had been a constitutionalist who had used a constitutionalist argument to defend abolitionism. It was the abuses of the Lincoln administration that radicalized his beliefs about self-government to the logical conclusion of voluntaryism. Also, even if Spooner's ideas HAD predated Lincoln's, you interpret his logic incorrectly. The idea is that no government has just authority whether it has a "social contract" or not. Lincoln used government force regardless of whether it was authorized by the Constitution. Those views couldn't be more different.

I never said that No Treason was read by Lincoln, Spooner's views on the Constitution were well known before the civil war.

 

[South Park Fan]

I never said that No Treason was read by Lincoln, Spooner's views on the Constitution were well known before the civil war.

Again, Spooner did not hold the same views of the Constitution before the Civil War. He argued that slavery was unconstitutional in The Unconstitutionality of Slavery and he defended his private mailing business on constitutional grounds. This irked William Lloyd Garrison who was distinctly anti-Constitution due to its support of slavery. One would think that someone who believed the Constitution was void wouldn't have used constitutionality as their prime argument. These views hadn't changed until the Civil War, when Spooner published No Treason (1870). Had you used Garrison instead of Spooner, your argument might have some credibility, but Lincoln did not urge the Northern states to secede, to the contrary he forced the Southern states to remain in the Union. While Garrison, postbellum Spooner, and Lincoln all hated the Constitution, the former two did so on libertarian grounds whereas Lincoln did so on tyrannical grounds. It's as ridiculous as saying the Founding Fathers influenced Hitler since they both fought against Britain.

 

[CCTelander]

No, you are trying to demand that everyone interpret Spooner the way you want him to be interpreted.

I have made no such demand.

In fact, there is NO NEED to "interpret" Spooner's words, since there is absolutely nothing vague, ambiguous, or abstruse about them. Spooner makes his opinion crystal clear if one were to but read what he's written, which you quite obviously have not.

The fact is, Lincoln did not sign the Constitution, so he was not bound by it as Spooner said. At the time Lincoln became president, Spooner's ideas were very popular.

At the time Lincoln became president Spooner was, in fact, a CONstitutionalist, so your claim is meaningless. Spooner didn't even write No Treason until something like five years AFTER Lincoln's death.

Epic fail.

People like you need to take responsibility for the consequences of your ideas. All you do is dodge and blame others.

People like you desperately need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension. An additional course in ethics and morality, particulaly as it regards intellectual argument, would also seem to be indicated.

People like you, Lincoln and Spooner who opposed the Constitution have just led to big government and war in this great nation.

Chortle!

The CONstitution itself is a charter for virtually unlimited government. Always has been, always will be.

The flaws (from the standpoint of someone desiring true liberty) to be found therein are legion. Excepting the Bill of Rights, which wasn't added until YEARS AFTERWARD, the document contains barely a single redeeming virtue.

I support the Constitution, as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and George Washington.

And I oppose that abomination, as did John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, and many, MANY others.

Wow, dropping names instead of actually bothering with some kind of substantive argument is pretty damned easy. Unfortunately, it proves absolutely nothing.

And also as does Ron Paul.

The moment I decide to let Ron Paul do my thinking for me, this might actually have some meaning.

That is the key to liberty, the Constitution.

Snicker!

See above.

Your attacks on the US Constitution might be welcome at the dailykos, but not here.

And your arguments (using the term purely for the sake of charity) in favor might be more welcome in an American grade school classroom, since they exactly mirror, and are of exactly the same quality as, the romantic but utterly false delusions that are usually drummed into the heads of helpless children therein.

You are intent an stirring up trouble.

 

[CCTelander]

Except, he didn't. Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the CONstitution was ratified. I don't know why you keep deluding yourself like this.

As to "People like you, Lincoln and Spooner who opposed the Constitution have just led to big government and war in this great nation."-this is yet more wishful thinking on your part. Not only can you not defend your own Federalism effectively, you can't effectively oppose Anti-Federalists and other anti-Constitutionalists. Back to school for you, young man.

You accuse CCTealander of "blaming others", without sound grounds to do so-since the Constitution is the matter at hand, and he (correctly) opposes it, what do you expect him to do? Kiss your hand and pretend you're correct?

No doubt he intends to win me over with his stunning rhetorical skills.

I suggest that he not hold his breath!

 

[CCTelander]

The Constitution is not liberty. At best, it is a document meant to protect liberty already existing. At worst, it is the antithesis of liberty for violating the principle of self-government.

By the way, your statement about Lincoln and Spooner is an obvious lie. Spooner did not write No Treason, where he denounced the Constitution, until 1870. Prior to then, he had been a constitutionalist who had used a constitutionalist argument to defend abolitionism. It was the abuses of the Lincoln administration that radicalized his beliefs about self-government to the logical conclusion of voluntaryism. Also, even if Spooner's ideas HAD predated Lincoln's, you interpret his logic incorrectly. The idea is that no government has just authority whether it has a "social contract" or not. Lincoln used government force regardless of whether it was authorized by the Constitution. Those views couldn't be more different.

Good call!

Thanks for the support.

 

[lucius]

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.

Hamilton was an agent of the banking interests...Arron Burr did this country a great service, too bad it just wasn't sooner-- a true patriot.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton was an agent of the banking interests...Arron Burr did this country a great service, too bad it just wasn't sooner-- a true patriot.

So you wanted the military coup to move forward? Then your sacred AoC would be sol.

 

[RedStripe]

You are making my point. If the Constitution has no authority, then Lincoln can do whatever he wants. Which is what he did.

Um, Lincoln "can do whatever he wants" whether the Bible is the word of God or not, and whether the Constitution has authority or not - you are confusing a legal argument with an argument about physics.

You think that "whether the constitution has authority" is a question of FACT, which it is not, except insofar as the way in which the question is answered and acted upon by people, which, in truth, is a separate fact.

You've made a complete fool of yourself in this thread.

 

[RedStripe]

I'm going to pull a Galileo Galilei:

Since Lincoln said the Constitution gave him the power to do what it did, the Constitution must have been a bad document for giving him that power!!!

 

[lucius]

So you wanted the military coup to move forward? Then your sacred AoC would be sol.

Let Jefferson answer this one:

"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Let Jefferson answer this one:

"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson wasn't in favor of military coups, and certainly wasn't in March of 1783.

You remind me of the sheeple; you read a few articles on the Lew Rockwell blog, and think you're an expert.

And your hatred of Hamilton is insane. Hamilton's bank was abolished in 1811, and has nothing to do with today's Fed. In fact, if people today knew exactly how few powers Hamilton's "strong" bank had, we might be able to roll back the Fed's powers right now.

 

[acptulsa]

I have made no such demand.

In fact, there is NO NEED to "interpret" Spooner's words, since there is absolutely nothing vague, ambiguous, or abstruse about them. Spooner makes his opinion crystal clear if one were to but read what he's written, which you quite obviously have not.





At the time Lincoln became president Spooner was, in fact, a CONstitutionalist, so your claim is meaningless. Spooner didn't even write No Treason until something like five years AFTER Lincoln's death.

Epic fail.





People like you desperately need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension. An additional course in ethics and morality, particulaly as it regards intellectual argument, would also seem to be indicated.





Chortle!

The CONstitution itself is a charter for virtually unlimited government. Always has been, always will be.

The flaws (from the standpoint of someone desiring true liberty) to be found therein are legion. Excepting the Bill of Rights, which wasn't added until YEARS AFTERWARD, the document contains barely a single redeeming virtue.





And I oppose that abomination, as did John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, and many, MANY others.

Wow, dropping names instead of actually bothering with some kind of substantive argument is pretty damned easy. Unfortunately, it proves absolutely nothing.





The moment I decide to let Ron Paul do my thinking for me, this might actually have some meaning.





Snicker!

See above.





And your arguments (using the term purely for the sake of charity) in favor might be more welcome in an American grade school classroom, since they exactly mirror, and are of exactly the same quality as, the romantic but utterly false delusions that are usually drummed into the heads of helpless children therein.

Somebody let this dog off of that chain. Maybe it will stop barking and growling and make a substantive contribution.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Jefferson wasn't in favor of military coups, and certainly wasn't in March of 1783.

You remind me of the sheeple; you read a few articles on the Lew Rockwell blog, and think you're an expert.

And your hatred of Hamilton is insane. Hamilton's bank was abolished in 1811, and has nothing to do with today's Fed. In fact, if people today knew exactly how few powers Hamilton's "strong" bank had, we might be able to roll back the Fed's powers right now.

and you have the same problem, though you take bits and pieces from various sources biased in favor of your opinion to build absurd arguments that defy reality.

And your naive trust of Hamilton is even more insane than his "hatred" of him.

The following is from a non-libertarian site, so you can't accuse me of bias.

"Alexander Hamilton was a talented political figure in American history, but he was prevented from achieving widespread recognition because of an overbearing nature and an inability to relate to the concerns of the common man. His views on the issues of favoring federal authority over the states rights, now firmly established, are still argued today.

*The Bank of New York, opened on June 9, 1784, was created by private investors and chartered (underwritten) by The Bank of England. It was the first bank in New York City.

The Bank won a 20-year charter from Congress that was rescinded in 1811, due to its association with the Bank of England, tight monetary policies, and competition with state chartered banks. Some accused it of corruption, but it survived and continues to operate independently."