Our US Constitution is NOT a social contract.

[Anti Federalist]

the fedgov has CLEARLY turned into a MONSTER that it was never intended to be. how did this happen?

So, the answer is: you can not post the passage.

 

[erowe1]

the constitution was designed to prevent this from happening.

Why do you believe that?

 

[erowe1]

really?
that would seem a trifle odd to me. 1776 to 1791 = 15 years.
they had plenty of time for consideration. and yet!
they missed the gem that you are now about to share with us? or, did you just state (I hate that word!) this as a point of known fact?

Known fact.

 

[erowe1]

Can you elaborate?

Sure. The DOI says that any powers exercised without the consent of the people are unjust, and the Constitution enumerates a whole bunch of powers to be exercised without the consent of the people.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Sure. The DOI says that any powers exercised without the consent of the people are unjust, and the Constitution enumerates a whole bunch of powers to be exercised without the consent of the people.

Uh huh, this.

Which is why we now live in a "regulatory state", that passes regulations without representation that carry the force of law.

 

[osan]

Uh huh, this.

Which is why we now live in a "regulatory state", that passes regulations without representation that carry the force of law gangsters with guns.

Acme Sentence Repair, at your service.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

It works just fine. For every purpose except yours, which is to remain in denial.

If that was true you would be able to explain your plan to create the needed unity to overthrow the tyrants. Get started with your next post, okay.

You're trying to sell a snake oil miracle drug that you haven't the articulation to describe. Which is why you keep going off your sales talk to attack everyone who asks you a question about it.

Failure is blaming the customer for the fact that the product, the salesman, or both suck.

People have not been asking questions about it, that's the problem. They know its sound. Only agents object to it.

The product is freedom and everyone here is supposed to be interested in that, you resist more than most.

 

[Danke]

Sure. The DOI says that any powers exercised without the consent of the people are unjust, and the Constitution enumerates a whole bunch of powers to be exercised without the consent of the people.

And those are negative rights on the government. Not that they follow them.

 

[acptulsa]

The product is freedom and everyone here is supposed to be interested in that, you resist more than most.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You weren't claiming to sell freedom, but unity through a shared belief in your dogma that free speech serves no purpose other than alter abolish blah blah blah. You weren't selling clean dishes, you were selling dish soap. And your dish soap seems to lack detergent, and you can't or won't explain how it works.

'Get every single dirty dish to unanimously agree that this goop I just pulled out of my differential is soap, and they will instantly be clean as a whistle!!'

And no one is asking questions because when we did, you not only failed to answer any of them, but attacked everyone who asked.

 

[otherone]

Sure. The DOI says that any powers exercised without the consent of the people are unjust, and the Constitution enumerates a whole bunch of powers to be exercised without the consent of the people.

FFs: "Lissen up, everybody! We're here to protect your RIGHTS! Do we have your consent?"
People: "I dunno....it's sounds too good to be true...what's the downside?"
FFs: "There IS NO downside! A downside would mean violating your Rights without your consent! Do we have a deal?"
People: "Sure! We'd be stupid NOT to!"
FF's: "Great! Now give us your money."
People: "Woah...hold on...you can't do that."
FF's: "Of course we can...you gave us your consent ."

 

[CCTelander]

FFs: "Lissen up, everybody! We're here to protect your RIGHTS! Do we have your consent?"
People: "I dunno....it's sounds too good to be true...what's the downside?"
FFs: "There IS NO downside! A downside would mean violating your Rights without your consent! Do we have a deal?"
People: "Sure! We'd be stupid NOT to!"
FF's: "Great! Now give us your money."
People: "Woah...hold on...you can't do that."
FF's: "Of course we can...you gave us your consent ."

+rep

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Now you're contradicting yourself. You weren't claiming to sell freedom, but unity through a shared belief in your dogma that free speech serves no purpose other than alter abolish

That is untrue. You will be unable to quote me saying such. You misrepresent exactly as a covert manipulating agent would.

The product of unity is freedom, I'm not selling it.

You misrepresent that I say that free speech has "no purpose other than [to] alter [or] abolish.

Free speech serves infinite purposes, but its ultimate purpose is to assure survival, or to stop tyrants destruction to our unalienable rights.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Let's assume for a moment government knows best just for giggles and grins to argue the OP. I do not understand how one can promote the Constitution yet claim it does not apply to people. Let us take into consideration for a moment how government has interpreted it. In order to amend the AoC the document required agreement among all states. The Constitution only required ratification of like nine states. The theory goes the source of power of any state is the people therefore the people can override the AoC. They didn't make that theory up totally out of the blue but claims it goes back to the DoI declaring people have the right to change their government, etc. Hence "We the People." On a side note, that in itself is some interesting language. Why do you need we and people in the same phrase? Aren't they both plural? Clearly we can not logically equal people and refer to the same exact thing. Government has always interpreted the Constitution to mean it applies to states and people whereas the AoC only applied to states. Since government has the guns and that is the interpretation that has been coerced upon everyone ... what is the argument exactly? I mean on what basis are you suggesting the constitution does not apply to people or for that matter we the people? Are you proposing some new ethical theory where you are trying to declare your legal theory and interpretation of the constitution is more ethical that how it has been interpreted thus far?

 

[HVACTech]

Let's assume for a moment government knows best just for giggles and grins to argue the OP. I do not understand how one can promote the Constitution yet claim it does not apply to people. Let us take into consideration for a moment how government has interpreted it. In order to amend the AoC the document required agreement among all states. The Constitution only required ratification of like nine states. The theory goes the source of power of any state is the people therefore the people can override the AoC. They didn't make that theory up totally out of the blue but claims it goes back to the DoI declaring people have the right to change their government, etc. Hence "We the People." On a side note, that in itself is some interesting language. Why do you need we and people in the same phrase? Aren't they both plural? Clearly we can not logically equal people and refer to the same exact thing. Government has always interpreted the Constitution to mean it applies to states and people whereas the AoC only applied to states. Since government has the guns and that is the interpretation that has been coerced upon everyone ... what is the argument exactly? I mean on what basis are you suggesting the constitution does not apply to people or for that matter we the people? Are you proposing some new ethical theory where you are trying to declare your legal theory and interpretation of the constitution is more ethical that how it has been interpreted thus far?

what is the argument exactly? I mean on what basis are you suggesting the constitution does not apply to people or for that matter we the people?

what you are asking sir, is for me to prove a negative. this is not something that I can do.

separate the original Constitution from the BOR and all of the amendments.
the BOR was added 3 years later.

now, can you see what I am talking about?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Would you agree HVAC that they should have explicitly stated as much in the constitution? i.e. would it be smart of us to make a constitutional amendment that clarifies the only authority the federal government has is over the states which wish to be a part of the union?

And (for my own reading pleasure) which authors of the constitution did you find to have the most 'anarchist' tendencies or alignment?

 

[HVACTech]

Would you agree HVAC that they should have explicitly stated as much in the constitution? i.e. would it be smart of us to make a constitutional amendment that clarifies the only authority the federal government has is over the states which wish to be a part of the union?

And (for my own reading pleasure) which authors of the constitution did you find to have the most 'anarchist' tendencies or alignment?

yes, I do.
as can be seen in this very thread. there is MUCH confusion over this point.
we can now look back over 239 years and do an analysis.

I am of the opinion, that the founders wanted to protect the anarchists, from both themselves and the statists.
government, (the state) is in fact the problem, lack of government also creates problems.

to me, it is VERY clear that the founders were not statists. were they therefore anarchists?
probably.

 

[HVACTech]

//

 

[Anti Federalist]

Where the people are free there can be no great contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion, as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter become slaves. – Anti-Federalist No. 3

 

[Anti Federalist]

I am confident it must be, and that it is, the sincere wish of every true friend to the United States, that there should be a confederated national government, but that it should be one which would have a control over national and external matters only, and not interfere with the internal regulations and police of the different states in the union. Such a government, while it would give us respectability abroad, would not encroach upon, or subvert our liberties at home." – Anti-Federalist No. 5

 

[Anti Federalist]

The source of the apprehensions of this so much dreaded anarchy would upon investigation be found to arise from the artful suggestions of designing men, and not from a rational probability grounded on the actual state of affairs. The least reflection is sufficient to detect the fallacy to show that there is no one circumstance to justify the prediction of such an event. On the contrary a short time will evince, to the utter dismay and confusion of the conspirators, that a perseverance in cramming down their scheme of power upon the freemen of this State [Pennsylvania] will inevitably produce an anarchy destructive of their darling domination, and may kindle a flame prejudicial to their safety. They should be cautious not to trespass too far on the forbearance of freemen when wresting their dearest concerns, but prudently retreat from the gathering storm. – Anti-Federalist No. 6