[POLL] Do you consider yourself a Constitutionalist?

Are you a Constitutionalist?


  • Total voters
    109
Could you give an example of someone saying that?

"Oh we don't believe in the constitution, but we will use it if it will get us into a state of anarchy."

"We don't want those who disagree with us to leave, if they are giving us money."
 
Last edited:
"Oh we don't believe in the constitution, but we will use it if it will get us into a state of anarchy."

"We don't want those who disagree with us to leave, if they are giving us money."

The accusation of believing the ends justify the means usually implies that someone is tolerating unethical means to achieve their ends. I don't see anything in those statements that looks like anyone is doing that.

There certainly can't be anything wrong with merely having goals (i.e. ends) and working on ways to move toward achieving those goals (i.e. means).

Edit: Also, could you clarify what you mean by the phrase "believe in the Constitution"? Is believing in the Constitution (whatever that entails) what it means to you to be a constitutionalist?
 
Last edited:
The accusation of believing the ends justify the means usually implies that someone is tolerating unethical means to achieve their ends. I don't see anything in those statements that looks like anyone is doing that.

There certainly can't be anything wrong with merely having goals (i.e. ends) and working on ways to move toward achieving those goals (i.e. means).

Edit: Also, could you clarify what you mean by the phrase "believe in the Constitution"? Is believing in the Constitution (whatever that entails) what it means to you to be a constitutionalist?

A hypocrite would say something along the lines of, "I don't believe we should have a constitution, but if supporting one will further my ends of having anarchy, I'll support it."

Another might say, "I support having a constitution, but I'll forgo that if someone who doesn't support having a constitution is willing to support our cause by donating money."
 
A hypocrite would say something along the lines of, "I don't believe we should have a constitution, but if supporting one will further my ends of having anarchy, I'll support it."

Another might say, "I support having a constitution, but I'll forgo that if someone who doesn't support having a constitution is willing to support our cause by donating money."

I have trouble seeing it that way.

Am I a hypocrite if I say, "I don't want to go to Ohio, but if it helps me get to Pennsylvania, I'll drive through it."?

And in your second example, what do you mean by "forgo that"? You mean forgo support for having a constitution? If so, I don't see how anyone who supports having a constitution has to forgo that in order to join up with others who don't in support of a shared cause. How would such a person be forgoing anything?
 
Last edited:
As Lysander Spooner once said: "the Constitution either gives us the government that we have, or it's powerless to prevent it -- either way it's unfit to exist"
 


"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..." - The CONstitution
 
Last edited:
Great discussion.

Contrary to common belief, the Constitution is not the foundation of our country, our society, or our civilization. Instead, the laws of nature and nature’s God are the bedrock, and “We the People of the United States,” together with this patch of earth and the resources it contains, are the foundation. The Constitution is the structural foundation of our federal government, and it serves as the core structure for our governmental relationships, which are built on the foundation of we the people. But in reality, constitutional principles are just tools we use to effectively utilize the bedrock. The Constitution is intended to be the foundational tool we use in helping us recognize and adhere to the laws of nature. The Preamble to the Constitution can help us understand this:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Declaration of Independence, after making specific reference to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and the “unalienable Rights” endowed by the Creator, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, avers:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . [but] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

To effectively apply these words to our current situation, we must clearly understand at least basic, core principles of the laws of nature and the foundational concept of personal responsibility. That understanding will help us better grasp the proper roles of individuals, families, communities, churches, charities, business, media, and so forth. As people and entities take responsibility for their proper roles in accordance with the laws of nature, the role of government—specifically the federal government—becomes more limited and organically falls into its proper place.

One incorrect notion that must be corrected is that it is not the job of government to save people from the natural consequences of their decisions and actions. Rather, under our Constitution, the paramount role of government is to defend, protect, and preserve the fundamental inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Secondary priorities include the preservation of safety and security as well as general welfare and stability, but not in opposition to fundamental individual rights. With the Tenth Amendment, our Founding Fathers sought to clarify the limited role they intended the federal government to play.
 
I have trouble seeing it that way.

Am I a hypocrite if I say, "I don't want to go to Ohio, but if it helps me get to Pennsylvania, I'll drive through it."?

And in your second example, what do you mean by "forgo that"? You mean forgo support for having a constitution? If so, I don't see how anyone who supports having a constitution has to forgo that in order to join up with others who don't in support of a shared cause. How would such a person be forgoing anything?

Depends on if the final goal is really to arrive in Ohio.
Depends on if the goal is to support the constitution rather than it just being a means to a different end.

Do we all want to go to Ohio or do we want to go to Pennsylvania? Side trips take too long and are a waste of resources.

To temporarily forgo the intended goal just because it is expedient we have more supporters, no mater what their goal is, is hypocritical and a waste of resources. It would be better to focus on one goal and work toward arriving there.
 
Depends on if the final goal is really to arrive in Ohio.
Depends on if the goal is to support the constitution rather than it just being a means to a different end.

Do we all want to go to Ohio or do we want to go to Pennsylvania? Side trips take too long and are a waste of resources.

To temporarily forgo the intended goal just because it is expedient we have more supporters, no mater what their goal is, is hypocritical and a waste of resources. It would be better to focus on one goal and work toward arriving there.

I want to go to Ohio insofar as I want to go to Pennsylvania. My "support" for Ohio is merely incidental, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't carpool just because you're getting off in Ohio.

(I hate analogies)
 
Depends on if the final goal is really to arrive in Ohio.
Depends on if the goal is to support the constitution rather than it just being a means to a different end.

Do we all want to go to Ohio or do we want to go to Pennsylvania? Side trips take too long and are a waste of resources.

To temporarily forgo the intended goal just because it is expedient we have more supporters, no mater what their goal is, is hypocritical and a waste of resources. It would be better to focus on one goal and work toward arriving there.

None of that makes any sense to me. I'm sorry.

If I want to go to Pennsylvania (and I think my analogy was clear enough that that was to be my goal), and if going through Ohio is the best way to get there, then so be it. I can't be a hypocrite for using Ohio as a means to get to Pennsylvania. It's not a side trip or a waste of resources, it's the best way to the end goal. It's positively the way I'm supposed to go.

And again, I don't see how constitutionalists (people who want to get off the caravan in Ohio) are forgoing anything by teaming up with anarchists (people who want to keep going until they get to Pennsylvania). Their goal is what it is, and they're doing what they think is the best thing for them to do to get there without forgoing anything. So what if other people who have different end goals help them do that?

You keep using words like hypocrite and hypocritical in reference to things that aren't hypocritical at all. I just don't see where you're coming from.
 
Last edited:
I want to go to Ohio insofar as I want to go to Pennsylvania. My "support" for Ohio is merely incidental, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't carpool just because you're getting off in Ohio.

(I hate analogies)

Well, so far it looks like there are some hitch hikers who want to go to Pennsylvania and they are riding along with those who have a final destination of Ohio. Since most want to stay in Ohio, I guess the rest will have to find another ride after we get to Ohio. Thanks for the gas money! :D
 
Last edited:
Well, so far it looks like there are some hitch hikers who want to go to Pennsylvania and they are riding along with those who have a final destination of Ohio. Since most want to stay in Ohio, I guess the rest will have to find another ride after we get to Ohio. Thanks for the gas money! :D

That's the spirit!

Edit: But don't assume that just because someone chose the option "constitutionalist" in this poll it means a government like that described in our constitution is their final goal. It's certainly not mine (though I voted "constitutionalist"). And I highly doubt that it's Ron Paul's either.
 
Last edited:
Nooooo. Like Dubya said, "The Constitution is just a g-damn piece of paper".

Although, I would take a Constitutional government over what we have now and I think its some perfectly fine to strive for but its still very very flawed.
 
A hypocrite would say something along the lines of, "I don't believe we should have a constitution, but if supporting one will further my ends of having anarchy, I'll support it."

Another might say, "I support having a constitution, but I'll forgo that if someone who doesn't support having a constitution is willing to support our cause by donating money."

So is Ron Paul a hypocrite for enlisting the help of Dennis Kucinich and others who don't even consider themselves Constitutionalists?
 
I used to be, but then I read it. Now I'm a Confederate. The original Articles of Confederation for the U.S. was a pretty good document, but the Constitution was sabotaged by Federalists, quite intentionally, while Jefferson was away in France.
 
Is Kucinich giving Ron money?

Didn't think so.

Since when were we talking about money? I was talking about different ideologies working together to achieve a common goal.

There really is not that big of a difference between Anarchists and Constitutionalists. If we achieved a Constitutionalist society, I imagine many Anarchists would support such a limited government and those that did not would at least have their choices respected and would not be violently supressed and have their property stolen by those who do prefer a State. If we actually achieved a Stateless society, no one would stop anyone from forming a VOLUNTARY government.

Ron Paul himself considers Murray Rothbard to be one of his biggest influences. Murray Rothbard is easily one of the most well-known market anarchists out there. I highly doubt Ron Paul has a big of a problem with anarchists as many on this board seem to do.
 
Last edited:
What we have is a Constitution that embodies the original Federalist agenda, with a Bill of Rights included in the first ten amendments as essentially the only bone thrown to the Anti-Federalists and their arguments and concerns. As the Federalist agenda has mutated and morphed into the Progressive agenda, and now multiplied, and gained so much strength and momentum over the years, the weak checks and balances and separation of powers outlined in the Constitution have proven wholly inadequate to the task of keeping the Federalist/Progressive agenda and the federal government in check. In fact, our federal government has become exactly what the Anti-Federalists feared—or worse. The Federalist/Progressive agenda has become so powerful that it overwhelms the original checks and balances as well as much of the original intent of the Constitution.

When we engage in this discussion, we all need to be at least somewhat intellectually honest with ourselves. Although the Constitution prescribes governmental structures we still abide by to some extent, the reality is that many provisions of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers and checks and balances, have been consistently ignored for years. For all practical purposes, it’s as though the Constitution has been gradually changed by perpetual creeping, unwritten amendment, and by the courts. In fact, in some people’s minds it has been amended in practice and application to the point that it has become largely irrelevant.

Consequently, we all owe ourselves enough intellectual honesty to address the reality of the situation instead of engaging in theoretical discussions and assertions about what might have been had we actually followed the Constitution. We can study our history and see both the strengths and the weaknesses in our primary governing document. When we undertake such study, we will see that vast, unconstitutional bureaucracies have been built that even the original Federalists would find repulsive. What we have done in this country is to allow the original Federalist agenda to grow almost completely unchecked to the point that it is so far out of control that the governments we have today are barely recognizable compared to the governments we believe our Founders intended through the Constitution.
 
Why I Am a Constitutionalist

I am a Constitutionalist because it comports with my philosophy that civil governments are necessary for the peace and security of society, but they also must be limited by the rule of law (which originates from God's divine law, reflecting His own attributes of justice, power, and protection against evildoers).
 
What about the "necessary and proper" clause and the "take care" clause?

There's massive holes in the Constitution that allow government to massively grow. That was the intent.

Who drafted the Constitution? The Federalists. They were definitely NOT for small government. Especially Hamilton who was the main person behind pushing for the Constitution and actually writing it. It's hard for me to understand that so many here hold up a document that was mainly written by a man we all despise for his involvement in the creation of the first central bank.

Thomas Jefferson, a man that many of you all rightfully admire, was strongly against the ratification of the Constitution because he feared it would give too much power to the central government. And he was right.

I understand why many people support Constitutionalism, and I am deeply empathetic and am willing to work to restore the Constitution as it is a much better alternative to what we have now. But when it comes down to it, I have many deep doubts in the Constitutions ability to prevent uncontrolled growth of government.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."-Lysander Spooner

THIS^^^ A good baseline but maybe Georgie was right...it's just a G-d damn piece of paper...I just don't think GWB had the same intent behind the remark as I would have....

Voluntaryist would probably better describe me...
 
Back
Top