[POLL] Do you consider yourself a Constitutionalist?

[erowe1]

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.

So in a place that's under the control of the mob, the mere fact that the mob acquired the status needed to influence the rules of that society makes its rule legitimate?

 

[ClayTrainor]

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.

So, is your answer to my initial question, a Yes?

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?

 

[Pericles]

So, is your answer to my initial question, a Yes?

That is the way the world really works. When I find government strictures unacceptable, I have the following options:

(A) live as I see fit, and see who can do anything about it
(B) use my influence to change the rules
(C) move to a location more to my liking and is willing to have me as a resident
(D) start my own country
(E) any of the above
(F) all of the above
(G) post crap on the internet

 

[Theocrat]

The Constitution Touches the Tablets of God's Law

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?

In many ways, I would say, yes, the Constitution does limit civil government, according to God's law. For instance, the Constitution does not give the federal government any powers to regulate the affairs of the Church, which is a Biblical principle taught in the Bible (cf. Leviticus 6:8-30; 1 Samuel 13:8-14; Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:7; et. al.). Also, the Constitution sets up a system of checks and balances in our federal government to keep one branch from having too much power, another principle gleaned from the Scriptures (cf. Exodus 18:21; Isaiah 33:22).

Is the Constitution in perfect accord with God's law? Of course not, but it is necessary to have in restraining our federal government from becoming a despotism. The necessity of having a constitution in addition to God's law (the Bible) is that the Bible doesn't speak to every specific example of the issues in which a civil government would have to deal with. So, in wisdom, a constitution outlines certain duties which a civil government would be responsible for, all from the foundation of what God's law says it can do, in principle and precepts. Also, the existence of the Constitution presupposes a particular worldview about the nature of civil governments that makes it vital to restrain such a form of government, namely, a Christian worldview.

Does the Constitution need some improvements? Yes. It is weak on a number of issues, but it does suffice to keep the federal government from intervening on other realms of government in society (like the family and church) as well as honoring the decentralized structure of our Republic in relation to powers of the various state governments. Of course, that only happens when men in office actually honor their oaths and actually follow what the Constitution tells them to do in their offices.

 

[erowe1]

So, is your answer to my initial question, a Yes?

Apparently only after you acquire the status to be able to do that. I'm not completely sure what that status must entail, but I assume it would have to involve enough resources to fund enough violence, propaganda, or a combination of the two to make almost everyone else decide that it's easier to accede to your rule over them than to fight it.

 

[ClayTrainor]

That is the way the world really works.

So your answer is a yes?

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?

 

[Pericles]

Apparently only after you acquire the status to be able to do that. I'm not completely sure what that status must entail, but I assume it would have to involve enough resources to fund enough violence, propaganda, or a combination of the two to make almost everyone else decide that it's easier to accede to your rule over them than to fight it.

Bingo - you have all of the rights that you can enforce.

 

[erowe1]

That is the way the world really works. When I find government strictures unacceptable, I have the following options:

(A) live as I see fit, and see who can do anything about it
(B) use my influence to change the rules
(C) move to a location more to my liking and is willing to have me as a resident
(D) start my own country
(E) any of the above
(F) all of the above
(G) post crap on the internet

Isn't G just a variation of B?

 

[erowe1]

Also, the Constitution sets up a system of checks and balances in our federal government to keep one branch from having too much power, another principle gleaned from the Scriptures (cf. Exodus 18:21; Isaiah 33:22).

Could you explain how you get the principle of checks and balances out of those verses? I don't see it.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Bingo - you have all of the rights that you can enforce.

Sure, a slave has virtually no de-facto rights, since he does not have the capacity to enforce his rights. However, does this make the enforced slavery of this individual a valid contract, in your opinion?

 

[Pericles]

So in a place that's under the control of the mob, the mere fact that the mob acquired the status needed to influence the rules of that society makes its rule legitimate?

No, it makes the mob's rule a fact. Different countries exist for a very important reason - a view as to what constitutes a functioning society. Unique to the "western" world, starting with Magna Carta, is the concept that any government has limited powers and that individual persons have a set of rights than are not subject to restriction by a governing entity - king, potentate, or mob - and the use of force to resist such encroachment is a accepted practice.

 

[Pericles]

Isn't G just a variation of B?

Yes, but it seems a much more popular option.

 

[erowe1]

No, it makes the mob's rule a fact. Different countries exist for a very important reason - a view as to what constitutes a functioning society. Unique to the "western" world, starting with Magna Carta, is the concept that any government has limited powers and that individual persons have a set of rights than are not subject to restriction by a governing entity - king, potentate, or mob - and the use of force to resist such encroachment is a accepted practice.

I don't think anyone here (as far as I have seen) disputes the fact that tyranny exists. We're debating whether or not it is moral. Some are saying it's not. You seem to be saying it is, if I understand you correctly. Or are you just saying that the fact of its existence is all that matters, and the morality of it is not worth discussing?

 

[Pericles]

I don't think anyone here (as far as I have seen) disputes the fact that tyranny exists. We're debating whether or not it is moral. Some are saying it's not. You seem to be saying it is, if I understand you correctly. Or are you just saying that the fact of its existence is all that matters, and the morality of it is not worth discussing?

The concept of morality implies choice - if one has no choice - how can an evaluation of whether actions are moral be made?

If we posit that a government can't have more rights or authority than its individual members do, how can one have a concept of a Moral society or system of governance, since the concept of morality is based on the choices of individuals?

Thus, I would argue the concept of corporations as "artificial persons" is fundamentally flawed. Corporations can't face criminal punishment on the same order as individuals - who goes to jail? Thus, corporate charters should only give the corporation limited abilities of a civil nature - ability to contract and own property.

Extending the concept of a corporation applies to the notion of a governmental entity - it does not need the consent of individuals to exist, but it has limits on the actions it may legitimately take.

 

[erowe1]

The concept of morality implies choice - if one has no choice - how can an evaluation of whether actions are moral be made?

If we posit that a government can't have more rights or authority than its individual members do, how can one have a concept of a Moral society or system of governance, since the concept of morality is based on the choices of individuals?

Thus, I would argue the concept of corporations as "artificial persons" is fundamentally flawed. Corporations can't face criminal punishment on the same order as individuals - who goes to jail? Thus, corporate charters should only give the corporation limited abilities of a civil nature - ability to contract and own property.

Extending the concept of a corporation applies to the notion of a governmental entity - it does not need the consent of individuals to exist, but it has limits on the actions it may legitimately take.

Corporations and governments are both groups of individuals, and their actions are the results of the choices of those individuals. When some individual or group subjugates another group of people to their rule against their will, I can't see how that action does not involve choice and morality.

Edit: And your final sentence seems to contradict everything else you've said. What is the basis for the limitation of the actions rulers can legitimately take if their rule is amoral? And if the rules that determine the limits of what's legitimate for them are different than the rules that determine what's legitimate for everyone else (such as prohibitions against theft, kidnapping, and extortion), then what are they?

 

[tpreitzel]

Basically, yes, if it's clauses are strictly enforced IAW original intent. I selected, other, because I'm actually more of an anti-federalist, but the US Constitution would be adequate if strictly enforced.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Sure, a slave has virtually no de-facto rights, since he does not have the capacity to enforce his rights. However, does this make the enforced slavery of this individual a valid contract, in your opinion?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I oppose the Constitution because it literally went against everything the Revolution was for. America was intended for sovereign nations/sovereign individuals entering into a voluntary Confederation (alliance) for the purposes of libertarian benefits -- Free-Trade, Free-Travel (open borders), etc. The Articles did a good job of this -- it was essentially the first EU of its time. It was never meant to have any power. Of course though the Federalists saw the potential and wrote the first American propaganda -- The Federalist Papers, which was opposed by the true republicans the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution is a massive increase in the power of Government. I don't see how any well read and well versed libertarian can support it as the ultimate goal. Any pre-tense of sovereign entities was lost upon ratification.

Remember, the propaganda for the Constitution is that the Government couldn't pay the Revolutionary war soldiers, so it decided to give itself more power to steal from more people instead of defaulting. If a company decides to sign contracts with employees stipulating 3,000$ a month for 3 years and they go bankrupt in year two, they don't decide to steal from others to pay them. Anyone who supports that should re-think their position.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

FTW!! Couldn't have said it more succinctly myself.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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!

I wouldn't count gas money before it's collected. The limited view on the short bus is inadequate. I expect more travel competition in the near future.