[POLL] Do you consider yourself a Constitutionalist?

[erowe1]

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).

Do you think the Constitution we have limits the government according to God's law?

If so, then isn't the Constitution redundant?

If not, then isn't it a bad thing?

 

[Mancos]

I can only answer for myself. But if we all naturally adhered to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there would be no need for a Constitution, and in that sense, it is redundant. The problem is that not everyone recognizes, let alone adheres to, God's law.

When a society puts a common government into effect, the laws of nature and nature's God should be the guiding principles in order for that government to be successful in honoring the rights of the society, including the inalienable rights of individuals. The laws of nature, especially those pertaining to common government and the natural tendencies of those who govern, should be acknowledged and accommodated. Such natural laws include the following concepts:

• Personal responsibility, freedom of choice (liberty) and self-governance are the core foundational principles of government. Self-governance is the foundation of all government.
• Human beings should be entitled to govern themselves entirely and without interference unless their self-governance interferes with someone else’s equal freedom of choice and right of self-governance.

Because history shows that self-governance is a challenge, however, common government becomes a necessity. Consequently, common government and resulting laws are instituted primarily for application to those situations where individuals fail to satisfactorily govern themselves.

Laws are instituted to deter actions that harm others and provide consequences for the violation of these and other laws.

• Common government and laws limiting self-governance should exist only by consent of those governed by such laws.
• The primary, paramount purpose of government is to protect inalienable, individual rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).

Those chosen to lead and govern others should be chosen by consent of the people to be governed. In cases where there is no unanimous consent, the majority determines who is to lead and govern (democratic republic). Those chosen to lead and govern others are naturally obligated to act in the best interests of the people they are governing, subject to the laws of nature.

• When the best interests of people conflict, the interests of a majority of the people should be protected, subject to the laws of nature, including protection of individual inalienable rights. These rights should not be infringed upon regardless of what the majority may say or the size or strength of the majority (constitutionally limited republic).

• It is the natural disposition of almost all men, as they get authority, to begin to exercise unjust dominion. Power has a natural tendency to corrupt.

• When people are given power over others, their natural tendency is to begin to advance their own self-interests ahead of those of the governed and to exercise greater power and control than necessary, resulting in unjust dominion. And the longer they are in power, the more difficulty they have resisting these tendencies. Duration of power enhances the tendency toward corruption.

• The governed are entitled to know what their leaders are doing and to have input into the decisions their leaders make.

• Regardless of any man-made laws to the contrary, those chosen to lead and govern others are subject to applicable laws of nature and are directly accountable to those they govern.

• When human beings do create governments, they have an obligation to support the core functions of government, both financially, by exercising their right to vote, and through service. The resulting government is likewise obligated to protect, defend, and preserve fundamental individual rights, including life, liberty, and property.

• Government that governs least governs best.

 

[erowe1]

I can only answer for myself. But if we all naturally adhered to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there would be no need for a Constitution, and in that sense, it is redundant. The problem is that not everyone recognizes, let alone adheres to, God's law.

But the Constitution doesn't make any claim of being something that everyone is supposed to adhere to. It's supposed to be the law that limits the federal government.

But if we already have a law from God that rulers are bound by, why do we need a second one? Is this second one better than God's law, worse than God's law, or the same as God's law? In my opinion, it's far worse, and it positively contradicts God's law by granting license for our rulers to do things that God's law says they are not to do, such as steal and kidnap.

 

[AlexMerced]

Yeah. That's what I put for my political philosophy on my Facebook page.

technically all of them, cause from the view of a voluntarist, the use of force is illegitimate.

Trust me, the constitution is a much better system than now in same way charter schools are better than our current school system, but the end goal is to illegitimize force altogether and allow institutions to stand on their own merit although that's greater fight than this forum is having.

For example:

- We are all united in at least shrinking government to constitution size

- Any further reductions, and also the voluntary structure of society I'd imagine we'd all be less united on.

Although the second fight, isn't neccessary till we accomplish the first point.

 

[erowe1]

• When human beings do create governments, they have an obligation to support the core functions of government, both financially, by exercising their right to vote, and through service. The resulting government is likewise obligated to protect, defend, and preserve fundamental individual rights, including life, liberty, and property.

In comparing this point with other things you said, I infer that you mean the antecedent of the bolded pronoun "they" to be those same human beings who created the government, and no one else, such as their neighbors, or their descendants. Is that correct?

 

[Mancos]

In comparing this point with other things you said, I infer that you mean the antecedent of the bolded pronoun "they" to be those same human beings who created the government, and no one else, such as their neighbors, or their descendants. Is that correct?

Yes, it is "they" who created the government, or give common consent to be governed by it, that have that obligation.

And, I agree our Constitution is definitely a step down from God's law, and if everyone recognized, agreed upon, and adhered to God's law, the Constitution, as well as all the rest of our man-made laws, would be unnecessary. The Bill of Rights is a prime example of this. If everyone understood the concept of inalienable rights bestowed by our Creator, there would be no need to attempt to list and protect them in a Bill of Rights, but since many do no not recognize, or agree on, God's law, we end up in discussions like the Federalist / Anti-Federalist Debate.

 

[erowe1]

I agree our Constitution is definitely a step down from God's law, and if everyone recognized, agreed upon, and adhered to God's law, the Constitution, as well as all the rest of our man-made laws, would be unnecessary. The Bill of Rights is a prime example of this. If everyone understood the concept of inalienable rights bestowed by our Creator, there would be no need to attempt to list and protect them in a Bill of Rights, but since many do no not recognize, or agree on, God's law, we end up in discussions like the Federalist / Anti-Federalist Debate.

If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that we ought to accept a little bit of tyranny as an accommodation to human wickedness, and that an ideal world filled with righteous people wouldn't need to accept the necessary evil of the state, kind of like Madison's line, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

That idea has some attraction. I see why people think it. But the more I consider it, the more I'm inclined to disagree.

I would rather say that the following two statements are true:
1) Morality is always good, and no matter what level of tyranny people are under, the more moral they are, the better it will be for society.
2) No matter how much or little tyranny exists anywhere, and no matter how moral or immoral a society is, it would always be better if the people were under less tyranny, up to the point of none at all.

One of the great things about a free market, for example, is that it takes individual selfish motives that may be rooted in immorality in their hearts, and it harnesses that greed into a system that benefits others more than they would benefit if there were some central manager trying to regulate the greed.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I believe it was Jefferson who said 'that written constitutions may be violated in times of passion, yet they furnish a text around which the people may rally and be recalled.'

A constitution is essentially worthless when it comes to limiting the power of government, but that was not the constitution's purpose. The framers would not have been so naive as to think a physical piece of paper could magically sprout arms and legs and beat the snot out of its violators.

The constitution was drafted, simply to have something in writing. That is an important function in itself, because without it, constitutionalists like Ron Paul would have much harder time convincing folks than he already is. People might say: 'Why should we believe Ron Paul? For all we know, he made up the idea of 'enumerated powers' on a whim.'

And most everyone on here will agree that it's always a good idea to get something in writing.

 

[Wesker1982]

If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that we ought to accept a little bit of tyranny as an accommodation to human wickedness,

Yeah this doesn't make sense. If the majority of people are evil, they will control the state. Human wickedness is nothing but a devastating argument against centralized authority. The idea of collective wisdom and virtue composed of individual ignorance and evil, is a bit INSANE.

The state is composed of individuals who are susceptible to the same flaws as everyone else. There is no logic in collective wisdom composed of individual ignorance.

The reasoning employed by those who want governmental regulation contains a self-contradiction. On the one hand they assert that the American people are unalterably gullible. They must be protected because, left to their own devices, they become victims. They can be made to think, for example, that if they use a certain brand of aftershave lotion, they will end up with the girl in the ad. On the other hand, the argument assumes that the boobs are smart enough to pick political leaders capable of regulating these sirens. This is impossible.- Walter Block from Defending the Undefendable

 

[AParadigmShift]

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"

I think we could distill gov't - even a constitutional Democratic~Republican form - down to Spooner's [eventual] axiom of all government rationalization: Our Power is Our Right.

A constitutionalist? Once I self-styled myself such, now, not so much.

 

[newbitech]

I said "other" cause my views are my own and labeling as such is a recipe to be put in to a box with others who identify the same way.

I like the constitution because of the idea that it represents. I wish more people would be constitutionalist in the sense of representing the same idea.

 

[WyoLiberty]

Check out Boston T. Party's Hologram of Liberty. It's an excellent read...

Hologram of Liberty –The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government – is a cold splash of water on our civic mythology. Hologram's main contention is that the 1787 Convention, its Constitution and Federal Government was the most brilliant and subtle coup d'etat in political history. While the majority of Americans then were Jeffersonian in nature, a few Hamiltonian Federalists eradicated our Swiss-style Confederation and replaced it with a latent leviathan. The Federal Government was given several escape keys to the putative handcuffing by the Constitution. Using the "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses in conjunction with congressional powers under treaty, interstate commerce, and emergency, the "Founding Lawyers" of 1787 purposely designed a constitutional infrastructure guaranteed to facilitate a future federal colossus. While such a massive government was impossible to erect in the freedom-conscious 1780's, the "virus" of tyranny was cunningly hidden within the Constitution to foment the eventual federal behemoth we are burdened with today. The feds take in a third of economic activity and regulate everything from the price of corn to the size of chimneys and it's all constitutional!" Oh, it's only 'constitutional' because autocratic Supreme Court Justices say it is!," some would reply.

http://javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html

 

[Pericles]

Check out Boston T. Party's Hologram of Liberty. It's an excellent read...




http://javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html

Funny about mentioning Switzerland, as the same thing is happening there - an increasing number of federal laws, taking decision making ability away from the Kantons.

 

[trey4sports]

It is all about the interpretation of the constitution IMHO

 

[ClayTrainor]

To the Constitutionalists:

Should I and/or a group of people be able to write things down on a piece of paper, and then force you to obey those things, even if you didn't sign it? Would you view this as a valid contract?

 

[Xavi1990]

Ah yes, the American constitution; so ineffable it had to be changed 27 times.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Constitution is pointless if the govt decides not to abide by it.

government in essence wants to grow.

 

[Pericles]

To the Constitutionalists:

Should I and/or a group of people be able to write things down on a piece of paper, and then force you to obey those things, even if you didn't sign it? Would you view this as a valid contract?

With whom, or with what entity did you agree to be born and live?

 

[ClayTrainor]

With whom, or with what entity did you agree to be born and live?

I was born because my parents had sex, not because I chose to be born, nor did I choose where I was born.

 

[Pericles]

I was born because my parents had sex, not because I chose to be born, nor did I choose where I was born.

Thus, you did not get to choose in which society or culture you were born into, and by extension the rules of government for that society. Such decisions being the province of those who has acquired the status needed to influence the rules of said society.