"The Constitution was intended to expand power of the government"

[Danke]

CONSTITUTOR: He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The soldiers' families, friends, and churches would have raised funds through charity. (people still have to raise money to support soldiers, in fact, no thanks to your beloved CONstitution)

So if that doesn't work, then the military just arrests to government for non-payment of debt and/or other pretenses. The AoC never paid the debts and had no plausible way to do it.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

CONSTITUTOR: He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

Tell that to the people leading the military coup. That'll stop 'em!!

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What part of New Hampshire? I would recommend Keene since it seems like all the activism is there.

Any. Manchester & Keene are probably the two biggest hotbeds, though there is stuff going on everywhere in the State. Pick wherever suits you best. The more bodies there that hold libertarian principles the better.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So you think things turned out better than in France? How was the AoC going to pay it's debts to the military? You ignore the 8000 pound gorilla in the corner.

I think the fact most of the IOU's were sold to speculators by your own admission calls into question your whole theory of a military takeover. It is a contradiction to your claim the military was owed money if the vast majority of those IOU's were already liquidated.

Shay's rebellion was over debtor prisons and debt relief. It was about farmers getting the shaft who just left the militia broke fighting one war only to return home and find themselves facing debtor prisons or property loss due to heavy taxes.

I don't blame them at all. If I risked everything to fight a war, was wounded in that war, resigned unpaid, only to return home facing debtor prison I would be advocating for a change in management too.

"I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."

"On September 19, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts indicted eleven leaders of the rebellion as "disorderly, riotous, and seditious persons."

If history is going to repeat itself in America. I am going to be standing on the right side of battle lines. I will stand and fight with Daniel Shays. If George Washington comes out of retirement to oppose it so be it. If Samuel Adams wants to advocate suspending habeas corpus and a punishment of execution in opposition so be it.

If there is a third chapter in the American revolution it is not going to take place in the hills of Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania. It is going to take place in living rooms and it will be up close and personal.

 

[Travlyr]

Preamble

Constitution for the United States of America​

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This is the intent.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So if that doesn't work, then the military just arrests to government for non-payment of debt and/or other pretenses. The AoC never paid the debts and had no plausible way to do it.

So? The Constitution was a poor solution to this problem. Your fundamental assumption is that the government had the right to the moneys of the citizenry. (i.e. "So if that doesn't work, then the military just arrests to government for non-payment of debt and/or other pretenses.") This false assumption then leads you to further false assumptions, such as the legitimacy of robbery (aka taxation) and the other tyrannies legitimatized by the CONstitution.

Again, my argument should not be construed to be so much a defense of the AoC as a defense of Voluntaryism and opposition to the coercive nature of both the AoC and the CONstitution (and every other Statist form of government, for that matter). It just so happens that the AoC is less tyrannical than the CONstitution. (if the AoC were in existence now, I would be arguing against it as well)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is the intent.

That is the eyewash for the masses.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This is the intent.

That is the sales pitch.

 

[Travlyr]

That is the eyewash for the masses.

That is the sales pitch.

Then explain this:

Article. VI. Clause 3
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Then explain this:

Article. VI. Clause 3
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

That is to the guard against any federal infiltrator rebellions to insure the creditors of society get paid.

 

[Travlyr]

That is to the guard against any federal infiltrator rebellions to insure the creditors of society get paid.

Or, it is to empower the people to protect them from elected officials ignoring their duty to the constitution.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Or, it is to empower the people to protect them from elected officials ignoring their duty to the constitution.

I can see how one could arrive at such a noble, idealistic interpretation if we completely ignored the historical record of the federal government serving creditor interests before We The Peoples interests.

 

[Travlyr]

I can see how one could arrive at such a noble, idealistic interpretation if we completely ignored the historical record of the federal government serving creditor interests before We The Peoples interests.

The intentions of the founding fathers were honorable as evidenced by the Preamble, and their inclusion of Article VI. Clause 3 forcing elected officials the duty of upholding the Constitution by Oath.

The fact that the people do not exercise their duty to the Constitution is the only reason that creditors are, and have been, 1st priority. And why not? Natural selection. The strongest/smartest wins. The people still do not understand the Constitution, their rights, or their duty.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The intentions of the founding fathers were honorable as evidenced by the Preamble, and their inclusion of Article VI. Clause 3 forcing elected officials the duty of upholding the Constitution by Oath.

I guess that depends on your definition of honorable. I find nothing honorable about Washington coming out of retirement to oppose Shays rebellion. I find nothing honorable about any of the other founders harsh criticism of it.

Jefferson on the other hand had no problem with it since this is where his the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time remark comes from.

The Constitution first represents expanding central power to provide a surety for creditors and second a compromise among aristocrats with different interests on how such a government should work.

The fact that the people do not exercise their duty to the Constitution is the only reason that creditors are, and have been, 1st priority. And why not? Natural selection. The strongest/smartest wins. The people still do not understand the Constitution, their rights, or their duty.

I do believe most people are generally good but I don't agree with your extremely optimistic point of view people will throw off chains of servitude if it is easier to bear them.

The only redeeming quality I find with the Constitution is that it can be amended. Considering I am overwhelmingly surrounded by statist, war mongering, protectionist, xenophobes I wish the same could be said about the American people.

 

[treyfu]

Take a few minutes to read what Lysander Spooner had to say about the Constitution.

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44

 

[Agorism]

It was an expansion.

 

[mczerone]

While technically correct, the major government expansion came after the money changers took control.

"Took" control? Are you really implying that they weren't there from the start? That Hamilton and the rest of the merchantalists weren't the driving factor behind replacing the Arts. of Confederation with the document that ex nihilo created the power to impose tariffs, the power to coin money, the power to run a fixed-rate postal service, the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to impose a federal militia, etc.?

The anti-Federalists needed to compromise with these barons in order to impose the Bill of Rights, and to defend the rights of individuals (some by means of protecting the power of the several states). You have fallen for the "Nader fallacy" whereby you claim that the massive powers of the federal government were created without ill intent, were later subjugated to evil self-interested, and can be reclaimed by a benevolent bureaucrat to set things right.

Unfortunately history shows that the offices, institutions, and constitutions themselves were imparted by the self-interested rent seekers, and serve no good role, even if they were to be run "correctly".


To the OP: your friend is very correct, and the Constitution would be a great base-line to try to return to, but it itself was a vast power-grab to try to reduce the number of power-centers to which the special interests needed to lobby for favors.

 

[Deborah K]

I'm still not clear as to why those of you who are adversaries of the Constitution are members of this forum? What is your objective? AustrianEconDisciple claims he is here to find liberty. But by condemning the philosophy of the mission statement with which 2/3rds of the forum members agree makes your motives appear subversive.

Galileo, I applaud your efforts and your patience. Keep it up.

 

[erowe1]

I'm still not clear as to why those of you who are adversaries of the Constitution are members of this forum? What is your objective? AustrianEconDisciple claims he is here to find liberty. But by condemning the philosophy of the mission statement with which 2/3rds of the forum members agree makes your motives appear subversive.

Galileo, I applaud your efforts and your patience. Keep it up.

I take it you think that the people defending the Constitution come closer to Ron Paul's viewpoint than the ones you call "adversaries of the Constitution." Is that right? If so, why do you think that?