Taking the Constitution Seriously

[TheTexan]

I won't say "whatever that means" so I'll just say "whatever those are"

At least my principles aren't based on a document that was drafted by people who thought slavery was ok

 

[PAF]

At least my principles aren't based on a document that was drafted by people who thought slavery was ok

I don't support that document either. I support the anti feds who opposed the document but had the foresight to stick the BoR in.

I won't say you should too, but maybe you should too. And for efficiency sake, retain the BoR, but scrap the rest.

 

[TheTexan]

I don't support that document either. I support the anti feds who opposed the document but had the foresight to stick the BoR in.

I was referring to the BoR specifically with my comment. The anti-feds were as pro-slavery as anyone else.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't support that document either. I support the anti feds who opposed the document but had the foresight to stick the BoR in.

The Bill of Rights was not the product of foresight; it was an afterthought. It was a crumb tossed to the anti-Federalists as a face-saving sop (or booby prize?) for losing.

Alexander Hamilton, as a Federalist who opposed the Bill of Rights, was the foresighted one. He warned the anti-Federalists that the BoR would just end up being regarded as a list of permissions granted to "the people", rather than as a list of restrictions imposed upon the federal government.

And he was absolutely 100% right - that is exactly what happened.

I won't say you should too, but maybe you should too. And for efficiency sake, retain the BoR, but scrap the rest.

Scrap it all - the BoR included (because Hamilton was right).

The only things you really need are:
(1) enforcement of the right of secession as a necessary element of (and a fundamental basis for) any legitimate system of governance [1], and
(2) an unqualified assertion of the right to keep and bear arms for the express and explicitly-stated purpose of forcibly deposing any government that tries to deny, reject, or prevent (1).

Once you have those two things, the rest - "free speech", the right to be secure in one's person and property, the various unspecified and "unenumerated" rights glossed over and hand-waved away by the 9th amendment, etc. - can take care of themselves. [2]



[1] The clear proclamation and unequivocal exaltation of the the right of secession in the Declaration of Independence is why the Declaration should be embraced, while the Constitution - including the "Bill of Rights" booby trap - should be rejected:

"[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], 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 [best]."
​

[2] There should be no need for any "Bill of Rights"-style hall-monitor permission slips. (The swarms of officious bureaucrats sent hither to harass people and eat out their substance surely do love their neat & tidy little checklists, though, don't they?)

 

[PAF]

The Bill of Rights was not the product of foresight; it was an afterthought. It was a crumb tossed to the anti-Federalists as a face-saving sop (or booby prize?) for losing.

Alexander Hamilton - a Federalist who opposed the Bill of Rights - was the foresighted one. He warned the anti-Federalists that the BoR would just end up being regarded as a list of permissions granted to "the people", rather than as a list of restrictions imposed upon the federal government.

And he was absolutely 100% right - that is exactly what happened.



Scrap it all - the BoR included (because Hamilton was right).

The only things you really need are:
(1) enforcement of the right of secession as a necessary element of (and a fundamental basis for) any legitimate system of governance [1], and
(2) an unqualified assertion of the right to keep and bear arms for the express and explicitly-stated purpose of forcibly deposing any government that tries to deny, reject, or prevent (1).

Once you have those two things, the rest - "free speech", the right to be secure in one's person and property, the various unspecified and "unenumerated" rights glossed over and hand-waved away by the 9th amendment, etc. - can take care of themselves. [2]



[1] The clear proclamation and unequivocal exaltation of the the right of secession in the Declaration of Independence is why the Declaration should be embraced, while the Constitution - including the "Bill of Rights" booby trap - should be rejected:

​

"[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], 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 [best]."​

​

[2] There should be no need for any "Bill of Rights"-style hall-monitor permission slips. (The swarms of officious bureaucrats sent hither to harass people and eat out their substance surely do love their neat & tidy little checklists, though, don't they?)

Shoulda coulda woulda though I agree.

The Bill of Rights: The Only Good Part of the Constitution | Mises Institute

The Bill of Rights turns 232 years old today. Adopted in 1791 as a consolation prize for the Anti-Federalists, it has been the most important part of American

mises.org