Our US Constitution is NOT a social contract.

[HVACTech]

our US Constitution does NOT apply to the people. therefore it does NOT require their "consent"
why would you need to consent to something that does not apply to you?
you would not.

it's purpose and function was to Unite The States. it was a contract between the states and the fedgov. that's it.
social contracts DO require Consent, that is not available or needed at this level.
it's expressed purpose was to act as a shield for the people. and as a referee between the states.

this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and local.
"consent" requires LOCAL consent. not national.
the states are bound by the same rules, (based on natural law.) that the fedgov is bound by.

YES. the US Constitution is an anti-state document.
it is a tool that WE the people can use to reign in our out of control fedgov.

 

[Danke]

Fishing for trolls I see. You bored?

 

[HVACTech]

Fishing for trolls I see. You bored?

yah. a good friend on mine. (was a basic neocon) is taking the courses at Hillsdale college.

http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitutio...=drtv&utm_content=website&utm_campaign=con101

he is now on the 2nd level.. and we talk about it daily.
check this out dude, the education that we got back in the day, is holding up pretty darn good.
ceptin of course for that "anti-federalist" guy. I KNOW what that means now...

this site has anti-constitution gatekeepers....
and in case you have not noticed, they promote open rebellion as the ONLY just option.

I am here to PROMOTE and explain the US Constitution.
for that is what Dr Paul did for us.

 

[fr33]

this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and local.
"consent" requires LOCAL consent. not national.
the states are bound by the same rules, (based on natural law.) that the fedgov is bound by.

What does "local" mean to you? Did you sign up for whatever "local" means? Did I?

 

[HVACTech]

What does "local" mean to you? Did you sign up for whatever "local" means? Did I?

can you push "consent" lower than that?

pontificate thus.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Fishing for trolls I see. You bored?

He is a troll, though...

 

[mrsat_98]

Hope this helps.

 

[Ronin Truth]

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

 

[fisharmor]

it is a tool that WE the people can use to reign in our out of control fedgov.

 

[Origanalist]

///

 

[Ender]

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

Yep- my thoughts exactly.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

our US Constitution does NOT apply to the people. therefore it does NOT require their "consent"
why would you need to consent to something that does not apply to you?
you would not.

it's purpose and function was to Unite The States. it was a contract between the states and the fedgov. that's it.
social contracts DO require Consent, that is not available or needed at this level.
it's expressed purpose was to act as a shield for the people. and as a referee between the states.

this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and local.
"consent" requires LOCAL consent. not national.
the states are bound by the same rules, (based on natural law.) that the fedgov is bound by.

YES. the US Constitution is an anti-state document.
it is a tool that WE the people can use to reign in our out of control fedgov.

lol

And "the states" are...?

I get your malfunction now, at least... you think "states" are an actual thing.

They're not. They're figments of your imagination.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ronin Truth again.

 

[HVACTech]

Yep- my thoughts exactly.

c'mon guys, did any of you read the first sentence?

The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today.

he is stating that we do not have the constitution today. and he is correct.

It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on.

the constitution of 1787 was ratified in 1789. the bill of rights was added in 1791.

 

[HVACTech]

lol

And "the states" are...?

I get your malfunction now, at least... you think "states" are an actual thing.

They're not. They're figments of your imagination.

I understand the meaning of the word state.

Changes of state are physical changes in matter. They are reversible changes that do not involve changes in matter's chemical makeup or chemical properties. Common changes of state include melting, freezing, sublimation, deposition, condensation, and vaporization.

and yes, I am in a Texas state of mind.
(I used the word in a sentence)

perhaps you could share your double ought secret meaning of this word?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

 

[HVACTech]

please show me SOMETHING! ANYTHING! that you think applies to the people in the
US Constitution.
this question excludes the other two documents.

 

[HVACTech]

ya got me! that is a state alright!

 

[Ronin Truth]

c'mon guys, did any of you read the first sentence?



he is stating that we do not have the constitution today. and he is correct.




the constitution of 1787 was ratified in 1789. the bill of rights was added in 1791.

Ratification by some was contingent on a Bill of Rights being added.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

please show me SOMETHING! ANYTHING! that you think applies to the people in the
US Constitution.

The criminalization of counterfeiting and piracy.
The definition of treason.
The prohibition of slavery.
The granting of authority to Congress to enact patent and copyright laws.
The grant of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over D.C. and federal enclaves.

Shall I go on, or do you think that the people are somehow free to pass funny money, own slaves, infringe copyrights, or do anything they want in D.C.?