Ron Paul - Our Constitution...has failed.

[fr33]

Here are the 10 commandments, I will bold the parts relevant to secular government:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Freedom - God commands us not to put ourselves back into slavery, giving the government power over your life is having and serving a different god.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Liberty and Freedom, do not 'bow down' or 'worship' politicians and leaders.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Basically, honor your obligations.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Property rights established. But you need time to fulfill other obligations as well.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. Family

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” And maybe the most relevant to our present time, such wisdom! I wonder what liberals think when they read this. Anyway this plainly says that you may not assert a right to something that belongs legitimately to others.

The first 4 are all the same thing. An insecure god clouded up the list of morals because the propagandists felt threatened by reason. Never mind that in the same chapter God justified slavery, torture, wife & children beating, and other forms of immorality.....

 

[Odin]

Here are the 10 commandments, I will bold the parts relevant to secular government:

The first 4 are all the same thing. An insecure god clouded up the list of morals because the propagandists felt threatened by reason. Never mind that in the same chapter God justified slavery, torture, wife & children beating, and other forms of immorality.....

lol ok whatever. The first 4 are not all the same.

Btw I'm not someone who believes in the Bible literally but I think the 10 commandments are a very fundamental basis of moral principles. If you want to argue over that I'm happy to do so.

 

[fr33]

lol ok whatever. The first 4 are not all the same.

Btw I'm not someone who believes in the Bible literally but I think the 10 commandments are a very fundamental basis of moral principles. If you want to argue over that I'm happy to do so.

Remove the 4 that demand worship of the insecure god and I might agree with you. Except for the demand of children to honor their parents regardless of how bad their parents might be. The fact remains that the 10 commandments are taken from a chapter that commands more horrendous things in addition to the 10 commandments.

 

[Odin]

Remove the 4 that demand worship of the insecure god and I might agree with you. Except for the demand of children to honor their parents regardless of how bad their parents might be. The fact remains that the 10 commandments are taken from a chapter that commands more horrendous things in addition to the 10 commandments.

Obviously parents have to earn the respect of their children, by fulfilling their duties. No one has a 'right' to be respected, parents instead have obligations toward their children.

The first 4 commandments effectively establish these 4 secular principles:

1. No other human being can tell me what to do, without my consent.
2. No other human being can compel me to serve what he has created, without my consent.
3. No other human being can compel me to enter into any obligation, without my consent.
4. No other human being can compel me to work for him, or take my income or property, without my consent.

Referring to the 10 commandments is just one way to show how these principles are established but we could do so through reason as well.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Point of interest, . . . .why would a virtuous and moral people need a government/constitution in the first place?

 

[Travlyr]

Point of interest, . . . .why would a virtuous and moral people need a government/constitution in the first place?

They wouldn't. In a world of angels and saints no government would be needed. In our world, some people claim the right to kill lists. That is not angelic or saintly. This is Earth. Whoever has the biggest baddest weapons wins! On Earth government is a necessary institution authorized by the state to quell the unruly.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

They wouldn't. In a world of angels and saints no government would be needed. In our world, some people claim the right to kill lists. That is not angelic or saintly. This is Earth. Whoever has the biggest baddest weapons wins! On Earth government is a necessary institution authorized by the state to quell the unruly.

"On Earth, government is a necessary institution authorized by the sate to quell the unruly."

Government is authorized by government? yup, i agree. Which is why all government is illegitimate.

And if people are not saintly angels, why would 'we the people' (or according to you, the 'state') create a monopoly on violence? Wouldn't the evil people simply take over this monopoly in order to perpetrate more violence than they would have been able to do without it? In other words, if there are evil people in the world, why would we give them an army?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Point of interest, . . . .why would a virtuous and moral people need a government/constitution in the first place?

You wouldn't need a government if society were perfectly moral. However, with our Constitution, you really only need a majority of voters to be moral to make everything work the way it's supposed to.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

You wouldn't need a government if society were perfectly moral. However, with our Constitution, you really only need a majority of voters to be moral to make everything work the way it's supposed to.

But they will still be voting for evil people who lust for power. Moral people don't want power over others.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

But they will still be voting for evil people who lust for power.

Why would a majority of moral voters vote for evil sociopathic power-driven politicians?

Moral people don't want power over others.

Which is the whole point, yes, and why when you have a majority of voters who are properly moral, then the Constitution works, and secures freedom. Even if the simple majority of all population are immoral, you can create a free environment in the US by driving up morality to a majority of voters.

Morality specifically highlighted as 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression.'

Get 51% of voters on board with 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression,' and we'll start to see liberty oriented changes and reforms so fast it'll make our heads spin.

KNOW RIGHT NOW that there will be an enormous monetary crisis in the US anywhere from September to December 2014. It may be a good idea to start sowing the seed now that initiating aggression, and claiming a right to initiate aggression (the collapse of morality) has led to the Banksters, the Federal Reserve, QE-Whatever; and the only way back is to enforce the Constitution...which in =turn can only be done by a moral people (those who reject the initiation of violence).

What I mean is that we KNOW we have a hyperinflationary crisis brewing in some odd 24 months from today. If we know about it ahead of time, can't we prep the ground now so that when it happens we can use it as a "teaching moment" to spread the ideals of liberty and nonaggression?

If expanding morality (nonaggression) is the surest path back to liberty, and we have a known-impending cataclysm of aggression's own making, then couldn't that event be used to turn people on to the philosophy of no initiation of aggression and personal liberty? Thus in turn capturing a larger segment of the voting block morally, and so in turn restoring freedom to the United States.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, for one, you're never going to eliminate the wanton delusions of those perched at the top of society. They are clearly situated there for a reason. With all that said, the common people are slowly becoming infected with the same strain of narcissism and immorality that their feckless leaders have exhibited for centuries. It's a stunning phenomenon which can be traced specifically to the breakdown of the nuclear family unit, thanks in large part to the implementation of the Prussian School of Indoctrination. A strong government cannot exist without a diminished family unit.

This is kind of a chicken vs egg question, really. Did the breakdown of the family contribute to the breakdown of society or vice versa? Probably both, but which cause initiated the spiral?

Do you restore society by restoring the family, or do you restore the family by restoring society?

Personally, I suspect you restore both of them, by restoring the moral core of nonaggression and liberty.

 

[Odin]

This is kind of a chicken vs egg question, really. Did the breakdown of the family contribute to the breakdown of society or vice versa? Probably both, but which cause initiated the spiral?

Do you restore society by restoring the family, or do you restore the family by restoring society?

Personally, I suspect you restore both of them, by restoring the moral core of nonaggression and liberty.

That's a good question, and my guess would be the breakdown of society contributed to the breakdown of the family. Specifically society and individuals within it being infected with philosophies from Bentham, Mill, Locke, and Hobbes, either consciously or unconsciously. The "pursuit of pleasure" as the ultimate moral good - hedonism - is largely responsible imo and those responsible for pushing it on us are mostly the progressives, but Republicans as well.

Whereas the tenth commandment tells us - "“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Yet that is what Obama's campaign was premised on. Envy of others, and therefore taking what they have to enrich yourself. This turns people selfish and inwardly interested - and that breaks down the family imo. It's shameful to see how petty and selfish some humans are.

 

[Odin]

Why would a majority of moral voters vote for evil sociopathic power-driven politicians?



Which is the whole point, yes, and why when you have a majority of voters who are properly moral, then the Constitution works, and secures freedom. Even if the simple majority of all population are immoral, you can create a free environment in the US by driving up morality to a majority of voters.

Morality specifically highlighted as 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression.'

Get 51% of voters on board with 'nobody has the right to initiate aggression,' and we'll start to see liberty oriented changes and reforms so fast it'll make our heads spin.

I think most people agree with that in theory but in practice they are more than willing to get someone else to do the aggression for them. Just like people won't kill their own food but don't mind eating it after someone else has killed it.

At the risk of sounding like a Bible nut, which I'm not, I'll cite the 10th commandment again - "“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”"

If you want to know how close we are to anything, ask how close we are to 51% of the people obeying this commandment, that will tell us imo.

 

[2young2vote]

It failed because it wasn't specific enough. Want to argue with me? Look at reality and you will know that I am correct. The fact that they can even interpret it differently is a major problem. It should have been clear as day, "this is how it is, the end". Take the first sentence of the 22nd amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." There is no possible way for people to misinterpret this to the point that they can be elected three times. There is no odd sentence structure, there are no words that may hold different definitions. This is how the entire constitution should should have been written, and some of it was, but obviously not enough. No liberal can sit there and say that it is constitutional to elect someone 3 times because the wording is 100% specific. Now lets look at some other part. How about the most controversial, the commerce clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" So we have the 10th amendment saying all powers not given to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states and the people, then it opens up this can of worms with the commerce clause. "Regulate Commerce"? If the constitution was worded in a way that could not be misinterpreted then this wouldn't even be an issue like with the presidential term limits. Instead we have multiple groups of people claiming it means multiple different things. It doesn't matter what you say it is, the fact is that other people are saying it means something else which is a failure on the constitutions part. It should be impossible to interpret it as something other than what it is.

The first and second amendments are both more specific than most of the constitution, and even THOSE can be taken advantage of. An anti-gun nut in the federal government can ban all guns except, maybe, a hunting shotgun that is heavily regulated when you purchase it and can claim "oh yeah, see? you can still purchase a gun so you still have the second amendment!" That is EXACTLY what they are doing right now. Slowly taking away your second amendment rights by misinterpreting it. Whether it is on purpose or not doesn't matter, they shouldn't be able to do this. And how about the first amendment? This is probably most respected of the bill of rights by the federal government. This is because it is written quite clearly. However, even this has been attacked by the federal government in several ways, the most recent of which is the federal government trying to force christian hospitals to provide contraception. The difference between this situation and something like the commerce clause is that it is a heck of a lot more specific. They are having trouble convincing people that it is constitutional because it specifically says in the constitution that they will " make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I even know big government liberals who agree that the hospitals shouldn't be forced to provide contraception because it is a violation of the first amendment.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The Constitution is not as ambiguous as at first it may seem. Understand that the language itself has changed, and at the time of it's writing it was a lot more definitive than it appears taking the language today. That's why all of the "Strict Construction" and "Original Intent" groups only reveal basically one well-agreed to meaning. they use the meanings of words from when the words were actually written.

For example, the word "Regulation" had a far deeper and insidious meaning in 2012 than it did in 1789. At the time the Constitution was written, 'regulation' simply meant to 'make regular.' This is the dead opposite of what regulation does today, create roadblocks and barriers to commerce. It's a blatant violation of original intent, because the word 'regulation' itself has evolved into something the Framers never contemplated.

The main reason the later amendments were more clear, is because the language has had less time to 'evolve' since they were written.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I, for one, would be open to amending the Constitution to tighten up the ambiguities that have resulted from the shifting of the language around it, BUT it would be a fruitless endeavor until and unless we have a 2/3 majority of original intent Constitutionalists in Congress and simple majorities in the legislatures of 3/4 of the States.

Like Ron Paul said, we aren't going to get there until we affect real change in the morality of the people at large to reject the initiation of aggression at all levels.

It's possible, and it's even possible within our lifetimes, but we have to be pounding the public at large with the hard and heavy message that the initiation of aggression is wrong for individuals, and it's wrong for individuals to ask their government to initiate aggression on their behalf.

Give me 51% of the population that thinks this way, and we can start moving in this direction at full speed ahead. Give me 67% of the voting public that thinks this way (could technically be done with only 35% of the at large public on board) and we'll get a set of amendments out of Congress to do it. Give me 76% of the voting public that feels this way (could technically be done with only 40% of the at large public on board) and we will sweep these amendments through the States like a freight train.

Until we are close to those numbers, then an effort to cast amendments tightening up the US Constitution back to original intent is an academic and ultimately fruitless exercise.

 

[AuH20]

This is kind of a chicken vs egg question, really. Did the breakdown of the family contribute to the breakdown of society or vice versa? Probably both, but which cause initiated the spiral?

Do you restore society by restoring the family, or do you restore the family by restoring society?

Personally, I suspect you restore both of them, by restoring the moral core of nonaggression and liberty.

But let's examine a key factor in the descent of the family unit. As the regulatory & taxation noose has tightened, one parent's income is no longer enough to live a satisfactory existence. So now, we have often both parents working full time and the state assumes a much larger role as the primary teacher. That is why I feel that full economic freedom and private property rights are the two greatest solutions towards escaping this dystopian grid that has been set up.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

But let's examine a key factor in the descent of the family unit. As the regulatory & taxation noose has tightened, one parent's income is no longer enough to live a satisfactory existence. So now, we have often both parents working full time and the state assumes a much larger role as the primary teacher. That is why I feel that full economic freedom and private property rights are the two greatest solutions towards escaping this dystopian grid that has been set up.

And at the root of all of that is the willingness to initiate aggression. In this specific case, the aggression necessary to force other people into compliance with an excessively burdensome tax code, and regulatory register.

So, how I see it, and the primary point I was trying to make, is that the immorality that leads to initiated aggressiveness, is deeper to the root than the nuclear family issue, because if we were somehow able to deal with the initiation of aggression and 'fix' that problem, then 90% of the negative pressure on the family unit will abate.

 

[jay_dub]

I, for one, would be open to amending the Constitution to tighten up the ambiguities that have resulted from the shifting of the language around it, BUT it would be a fruitless endeavor until and unless we have a 2/3 majority of original intent Constitutionalists in Congress and simple majorities in the legislatures of 3/4 of the States.

Like Ron Paul said, we aren't going to get there until we affect real change in the morality of the people at large to reject the initiation of aggression at all levels.

It's possible, and it's even possible within our lifetimes, but we have to be pounding the public at large with the hard and heavy message that the initiation of aggression is wrong for individuals, and it's wrong for individuals to ask their government to initiate aggression on their behalf.

Give me 51% of the population that thinks this way, and we can start moving in this direction at full speed ahead. Give me 67% of the voting public that thinks this way (could technically be done with only 35% of the at large public on board) and we'll get a set of amendments out of Congress to do it. Give me 76% of the voting public that feels this way (could technically be done with only 40% of the at large public on board) and we will sweep these amendments through the States like a freight train.

Until we are close to those numbers, then an effort to cast amendments tightening up the US Constitution back to original intent is an academic and ultimately fruitless exercise.

I'm of the opinion that the SCOTUS has been responsible for much of our decline.

We are a nation of laws. We follow the rule of law. The SCOTUS is the law of the land.

Just in doing research on some of my areas of interest, none of which is the SCOTUS, I've seen how that body has been instrumental in steering us away from the Founders' intent. One of the problems is that convoluted precedents are used as the basis for justification for further bastardization of our Constitution.

The SCOTUS, with Chief Justice Salmon Chase, in 1869 ruled that secession never happened and could not happen; that all the seceding states were in rebellion. This, while in 1867, Chase advised that Jefferson Davis not be tried because secession was not rebellion.

Social Security was sold to the people as insurance, yet became a tax due to a SCOTUS ruling. ObamaCare is much the same.

A minimum wage law was struck down by the SCOTUS in the 1920's, but was later implemented in the 30's under Roosevelt. This shows just how susceptible the SCOTUS is to political influence. Even now one of the biggest reasons for voting for a given 'lesser of 2 evils' is the prospect of who they may appoint to the Court.

The SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS is not above politics; it is the ultimate brass ring of power for a political party. This, IMO, is the wellspring for the failures of the Constitution.

EDIT: Also, I think it's absurd for a simple majority to be able to determine the law of the land. How many times has what is Constitutional been determined by a 5/4 ruling?

With the country fairly evenly split among ideologies, it's easy to see that political influence, exerted through the SCOTUS, has made our founding document nothing more than a political yo-yo. This corruption is an edifice that is constantly being built upon to allow even further corruption through precedent.

 

[robert68]

It failed because it wasn't specific enough...

It had to be that way to be acceptable to the "states" in it's initial (extralegal) adoption.