Ron Paul - Our Constitution...has failed.

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

But of course, that happens because of a perversion of intent in the first place. The Constitution never gave SCOTUS judicial review. If we are going to have any hope of revoking the falsely claimed power of judicial review, then we have to work from the roots up to emplace a majority of strict constructionists.

Also, I did want to add that if we had the ability to consistently put strict Constitutionalists up for general election, we may be surprised at how well they did. Although Paul was correct that the fundamental problem is a loss of popular morality, the effect of that has been multiplied by a two party duopoly that almost never gives the voters anything that they actually want in a General Election.

Sure, we will never have majorities until we have reversed the trend of declining morality amongst the American people. That much is clear. However, if we had a fair electoral system, we'd own a heckuvalot more right now than 5%, this I guarantee. So part of the problem is the illicit partisan duopoly restricting potentially popular choices from the General ballots.

 

[jay_dub]

But of course, that happens because of a perversion of intent in the first place. The Constitution never gave SCOTUS judicial review. If we are going to have any hope of revoking the falsely claimed power of judicial review, then we have to work from the roots up to emplace a majority of strict constructionists.

Also, I did want to add that if we had the ability to consistently put strict Constitutionalists up for general election, we may be surprised at how well they did. Although Paul was correct that the fundamental problem is a loss of popular morality, the effect of that has been multiplied by a two party duopoly that almost never gives the voters anything that they actually want in a General Election.

Sure, we will never have majorities until we have reversed the trend of declining morality amongst the American people. That much is clear. However, if we had a fair electoral system, we'd own a heckuvalot more right now than 5%, this I guarantee. So part of the problem is the illicit partisan duopoly restricting potentially popular choices from the General ballots.

Yep...you're right in that. Lots of problems.....lots of remedies needed.

Personally, I like to view the Constitution as the best we will ever do as a foundation. Strict adherence to it is far better than saying it has failed.

I'd hate to see the meme going out that the Constitution has failed. We may open the door for a Newt Gingrich/Alvin Toffler style of remaking of the entire document in doing so.

The Constitution was born out of a charge to amend the Articles of Confederation. In that regard, the men at Philadelphia overstepped their bounds. I'd hate to think what may happen if we attempted that again.

 

[UMULAS]

The purpose of the constitution was to be interpretated different on many people. There are some who have strict interpretations and some others with loose interpretations. For me, I believe that there should be both strict and loose (necessary and proper clause).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

"In the opinion of the Chair, rules, laws and the Constitution are for mundanes."

 

[Philhelm]

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

Roads and firefighters. Always roads and firefighters.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Unfortunately you can't nullify the income tax.

Sure you can.

Get seated on federal grand juries and refuse to indict.

Get seated on criminal juries and refuse to convict.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The purpose of the constitution was to be interpretated different on many people. There are some who have strict interpretations and some others with loose interpretations. For me, I believe that there should be both strict and loose (necessary and proper clause).

That may be what ended up happening, but it certainly wasn't the purpose of it. In the language of the day it was written, it wasn't even remotely ambiguous.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Exeter, June 2d, 1775.
To the Inhabitants of the Colony of New Hampshire :

Friends and Brethren : You must all be sensible that the affairs of America have at length come to a very affecting and alarming crisis. The Horrors and Distresses of a civil war, which, till of late, we only had in contemplation, we now find ourselves obliged to realize. Painful beyond expression have been those scenes of Blood and Devastation which the barbarous cruelty of British troops have placed before our eyes. Duty to God, to ourselves, to Posterity, enforced by the cries of slaughtered Innocents, have urged us to take up Arms in our Defense. Such a day as this was never before known, either to us or to our fathers. You will give us leave therefore — in whom you have reposed special confidence — as your representative body, to suggest a few things which call for the serious attention of everyone who has the true interest of America at heart. We would therefore recommend to the Colony at large to cultivate that Christian Union, Harmony and tender affection which is the only foundation upon which our invaluable privileges can rest with any security, or our public measures be pursued with the least prospect of success.

We also recommend that a strict and inviolable regard be paid to the wise and judicious councils of the late American Congress, and particularly considering that the experience of almost every day points out to us the danger arising from the collection and movements of bodies of men, who, notwithstanding, we willingly hope would promote the common cause and serve the interest of their country, yet are in danger of pursuing a track which may cross the general plan, and so disconcert those public measures which we view as of the greatest importance. We must, in the most express and urgent terms, recommend it that there may be no movements of this nature, but by the direction of the Committees of the respective Towns or Counties; and those Committees, at the same time, advising with this Congress or with the Committee of Safety in the recess of Congress, where the exigence of the case is not plainly too pressing to leave room for such advice.

We further recommend that the most industrious attention be paid to the cultivation of Lands and American Manufacture, in their various branches, especially the Linen and Woolen ; and that the husbandry might be particularly managed with a view thereto — accordingly that the Farmer raise Flax and increase his flock of sheep to the extent of his ability.

We further recommend a serious and steady regard to the rules of temperance, sobriety and righteousness, and that those Laws which have heretofore been our security and defense from the hand of violence may still answer all their former valuable purposes, though persons of vicious and corrupt minds would willingly take advantage from our present situation.

In a word, we seriously and earnestly recommend the practice of that pure and undefiled religion which embalmed the memory of our pious ancestors, as that alone upon which we can build a solid hope and confidence in the Divine protection and favor, without whose blessing all the measures of safety we have or can propose will end in our shame and disappointment.
MATTHEW THORNTON,
President.

 

[Anti Federalist]

////

 

[Lucille]

 

[truelies]

We are going to find out here in Colorado. Industrial hemp and marijuana will be legal to grow in 2013. We'll let everyone know if nullification fails.

Hmmmm, are the Guard and State Police prepared to arrest at gun point Feds who harass Colorado growers in violation of Colorado law?

 

[Travlyr]

Hmmmm, are the Guard and State Police prepared to arrest at gun point Feds who harass Colorado growers in violation of Colorado law?

The sheriffs are. The Feds are fucked.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

This is an important point, especially if we're assuming the various constitutionalist presuppositions. Originally, SCOTUS was supposed to be kept in check by a jury. IIRC, John Jay wrote an essay or two about this.

 

[gwax23]

Wow I said the same thing about the constitution on these very forums and got attacked and lambasted for it. Oooo Shucks.

Glad to here it come from our dear and glorious leader Ron Paul though maybe this will wake people up.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

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

They do all the time! Politicians lie. They lie because they need good people to not know the truth about them. Do you think everyone who voted Obama is immoral? Is that the only reason? Because if you are going that route, then you can make the argument that ANYONE who votes AT ALL is immoral.

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.

So what you're saying is that 51% of American voters must be on board with the NAP in order for the Constitution to work for Americans to enjoy a good amount of freedom? Has there ever been a 51% moral majority? How would we know if there is a 51% moral majority? Isn't that just straight up democracy? The Constitution, which is supposed to set up a Republic that protects the minority, only works if there is a democratic majority?


I'm sorry, Gunny. It doesn't make logical sense.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

They do all the time! Politicians lie. They lie because they need good people to not know the truth about them. Do you think everyone who voted Obama is immoral? Is that the only reason? Because if you are going that route, then you can make the argument that ANYONE who votes AT ALL is immoral.

Of course they lie. That's what poly-tic-tians do. As long as only 5%-10% are on board with NAP, moral voters don't matter. Anybody who voted for Obama is either immoral or deceived, because that man has a strong and blatant penchant for initiating violence and aggression. Anybody who knows exactly what Obama did and voted to re-elect him, yes, I'd say they were immoral. Likewise Romney, but there is a small window for duopoly voters who thought they had no other choice but to remove Obama, but the vast vast majority of Romney voters were likewise sanctioning the initiation of aggression, and are also immoral. I can hope that there are more desperate moral people in that window than I think, but I'm not betting on it.

Plenty of people voted against aggression in 2012, but bear in mind more people didn't vote than did. The old saw about "the moral majority" is very related to the "silent majority" and don't ordinarily vote until a Ron Paul type appears in the General.

How you get from there to the anarcho-capitalist "all voting is violence" mantra, I cannot fathom.

So what you're saying is that 51% of American voters must be on board with the NAP in order for the Constitution to work for Americans to enjoy a good amount of freedom? Has there ever been a 51% moral majority? How would we know if there is a 51% moral majority? Isn't that just straight up democracy? The Constitution, which is supposed to set up a Republic that protects the minority, only works if there is a democratic majority?


I'm sorry, Gunny. It doesn't make logical sense.

A lot of Americans are already there but do not vote because all of their choices (or so they perceive) are immoral. And you do not need 51% of America to start the reconstruction of government, only 51% of voters.

You do need a clear majority of Americans to restore a full-on moral society, but you only need a simple majority of voters to start reforming government to restore liberty. And taking our liberty back from government is what we are after, right?

And no, it's not democracy I am talking about, it's a Constitutional Representative Republic. A 51% moral majority will elect representatives like themselves, and if they have lied, then they will be replaced.

Our Republic cannot protect the minority until and unless we have moral (NAP) representatives making (repealing) laws and executing them, which is why I have seized on the shortest path to wrenching liberty from the jaws of a tyrannical government.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Of course they lie. That's what poly-tic-tians do. As long as only 5%-10% are on board with NAP, moral voters don't matter. Anybody who voted for Obama is either immoral or deceived, because that man has a strong and blatant penchant for initiating violence and aggression. Anybody who knows exactly what Obama did and voted to re-elect him, yes, I'd say they were immoral. Likewise Romney, but there is a small window for duopoly voters who thought they had no other choice but to remove Obama, but the vast vast majority of Romney voters were likewise sanctioning the initiation of aggression, and are also immoral. I can hope that there are more desperate moral people in that window than I think, but I'm not betting on it.

Plenty of people voted against aggression in 2012, but bear in mind more people didn't vote than did. The old saw about "the moral majority" is very related to the "silent majority" and don't ordinarily vote until a Ron Paul type appears in the General.

How you get from there to the anarcho-capitalist "all voting is violence" mantra, I cannot fathom.




A lot of Americans are already there but do not vote because all of their choices (or so they perceive) are immoral. And you do not need 51% of America to start the reconstruction of government, only 51% of voters.

You do need a clear majority of Americans to restore a full-on moral society, but you only need a simple majority of voters to start reforming government to restore liberty. And taking our liberty back from government is what we are after, right?

And no, it's not democracy I am talking about, it's a Constitutional Representative Republic. A 51% moral majority will elect representatives like themselves, and if they have lied, then they will be replaced.

Our Republic cannot protect the minority until and unless we have moral (NAP) representatives making (repealing) laws and executing them, which is why I have seized on the shortest path to wrenching liberty from the jaws of a tyrannical government.

To sum up this post...

"We cannot protect the minority until we have the majority."


I don't even know how to respond to that. Especially since it's coming from liberty supporter. Do you hear what you're saying? "Give us the power and we'll be good rulers!"

It doesn't work, Gunny.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

To sum up this post...

"We cannot protect the minority until we have the majority."


I don't even know how to respond to that. Especially since it's coming from liberty supporter. Do you hear what you're saying? "Give us the power and we'll be good rulers!"

It doesn't work, Gunny.

Really? Because that doesn't even remotely resemble what I said.

So how about stop cramming your own words into my mouth and try again?

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Really? Because that doesn't even remotely resemble what I said.

So how about stop cramming your own words into my mouth and try again?

Dude, I read it three times before I posted. Would you sum up what you were saying so that I can better understand?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Dude, I read it three times before I posted. Would you sum up what you were saying so that I can better understand?

Well then you read it wrong, and I'm still pissed about having someone else's words rammed down my throat, so I'm not predisposed to do your work for you.

The other thing I found interesting about your post was the assumption that moral Constitutionalists like Ron Paul are no better than John McCain.

Doesn't feel very good when someone does it to you, now does it?

And I didn't even use pretend quotation marks like you did.

ETA - and my characterization even directly follows from what you said, and it still sucked, didn't it? What you claimed I said, didn't even follow from my post, which makes it even worse.