Oh I'm not mad, was just a little confused at your stance here.
I don't intend to speak for PAF (though it ends up that way sometimes) but I need to point out that the constitution-hate you're talking about has almost nothing to do with content.
I agree with the concept of rights, I agree that rights are to be protected, and I agree that any system we espouse ought to be doing that.
The problem with the US Constitution is that it is objectively terrible at all of those.
I reject the idea of fealty to the constitution for its own sake. We are in a position where we are 16 years after the point where Ron Paul made the most serious attempt at directing the country back to constitutionalism, and yet even Ron Paul diverges from constitutionalism on the topic of immigration and border control. Neither of those is constitutionally prescribed, they are not powers granted to the federal government, and every argument in favor of federal border control relies on redefining or stretching the meaning of words, in exactly the same manner that leftists use to justify gun control and the welfare state.
If the constitution's greatest champions can't even stick to the text, then what they're championing isn't the constitution. I simply recognize this. If we all agreed that it says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say, that would be a starting point to discussion on what we would change. But we can't even get that conversation off the ground. Everyone has their pet issue they're willing to read into the text, and if we can't all agree to stop doing that, then constitutionalism effectively doesn't exist, whether I actively want it crushed or not.
I suspect a lot of anarchists would agree to constitutionalism if we could get there, and I suspect a lot of us are anarchists only because we recognize we can't get there.
