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

[ClayTrainor]

Government, like cancer, has but one prime objective, growth.

It is it's natural course.

Which is why, from time to time, it must be cut out, before the host dies.

Well said!

And of course, getting rid of 100% of the cancer is the best way to make sure it doesn't come back. You don't leave 5% of your cancer around to "protect my natural right to..."

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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

This is correct. The federal government was smaller in 1912, than it was when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%, per the Mises Institute.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I've yet to finish reading it myself. But I highly suggest everyone here who hasn't, read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.

http://jim.com/treason.htm

The thesis

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."

This is idiotic drivel. Spooner is arguing that people Obama and Bush or the Supreme Court do not have to follow the Constitution. According to Spooner, they can do whatever they want to. It is completely asinine to regurgitate crap like this in a liberty forum that advocates a smaller government.

 

[ClayTrainor]

This is idiotic drivel.

YouTube - Successful Troll Song

 

[Galileo Galilei]

YouTube - Successful Troll Song

You're the troll who is trashing the Constitution and lending moral support to Obama and Bush.

 

[ClayTrainor]

You're the troll who is trashing the Constitution and lending moral support to Obama and Bush.

lol.

 

[Vessol]

This is idiotic drivel. Spooner is arguing that people Obama and Bush or the Supreme Court do not have to follow the Constitution. According to Spooner, they can do whatever they want to. It is completely asinine to regurgitate crap like this in a liberty forum that advocates a smaller government.

I learned awhile ago not to feed the trolls, especially you. Good day sir.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I learned awhile ago not to feed the trolls, especially you. Good day sir.

Spooner specifically argues that only those who signed the Constitution are bound by it. That means the US congress, the president, and the Supreme Court are not bound by the Constitution according to Spooner! This is exactly the same mentality of neoco0ns and liberals.

YOU are the one who needs an LOL.

 

[BuddyRey]

I've yet to finish reading it myself. But I highly suggest everyone here who hasn't, read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.

http://jim.com/treason.htm

The thesis

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."

+1! I can't recommend the writings of Lysander Spooner highly enough. For generations, his brand of rational, deontological anti-statism has been relegated to the scrap heap of history, but I'm beginning to see a resurgence of interest in the ideas espoused in No Treason. This, above all, is what gives me hope in the future of liberty.

 

[amy31416]

Spooner specifically argues that only those who signed the Constitution are bound by it. That means the US congress, the president, and the Supreme Court are not bound by the Constitution according to Spooner! This is exactly the same mentality of neoco0ns and liberals.

YOU are the one who needs an LOL.

Spooner aside, isn't an oath essentially a verbal contract? (Haven't read the whole thread, perhaps you've made this argument.)

ETA: Regardless of the intent of the Constitution, isn't it a fact that it hasn't stopped the gov't from expanding in size and power, and thus is flawed? I suppose I could make the argument that it's the people who are flawed, but shouldn't it somehow take the nature of people into account?

 

[Pericles]

Spooner aside, isn't an oath essentially a verbal contract? (Haven't read the whole thread, perhaps you've made this argument.)

ETA: Regardless of the intent of the Constitution, isn't it a fact that it hasn't stopped the gov't from expanding in size and power, and thus is flawed? I suppose I could make the argument that it's the people who are flawed, but shouldn't it somehow take the nature of people into account?

Isn't this line of reasoning a criticism that the US Constitution is not self enforcing?

Can anyone name a rule anywhere through the course of history that is self enforcing?

Why would the US Constitution be held to a different standard?

Like I have said before, this is like blaming the hammer in my toolbox because I have a leaky roof.

 

[amy31416]

Isn't this line of reasoning a criticism that the US Constitution is not self enforcing?

Can anyone name a rule anywhere through the course of history that is self enforcing?

Why would the US Constitution be held to a different standard?

Like I have said before, this is like blaming the hammer in my toolbox because I have a leaky roof.

Yeah, it is an argument that it isn't self-enforcing/has no penalties built-in for those who violate it. Why is that so horrible?

Who cares if I can name a rule that is or isn't, and why wouldn't I hold the Constitution to a different standard of all the shit governance of humankind's bloody, messy history?

 

[Pericles]

Yeah, it is an argument that it isn't self-enforcing/has no penalties built-in for those who violate it. Why is that so horrible?

Who cares if I can name a rule that is or isn't, and why wouldn't I hold the Constitution to a different standard of all the shit governance of humankind's bloody, messy history?

Expecting any rule to be self-enforcing is unrealistic. At best, there can be incentives to keep the rules, but the "force" that enforces is always external to the thing itself.

Ultimately, the enforcement mechanism is the citizenry itself using the BoR. We can communicate, organize, arm ourselves, and take care of business - if we have the will to do so. Those who do not do so, get the government they deserve.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Isn't this line of reasoning a criticism that the US Constitution is not self enforcing?

Can anyone name a rule anywhere through the course of history that is self enforcing?

Why would the US Constitution be held to a different standard?

Like I have said before, this is like blaming the hammer in my toolbox because I have a leaky roof.

We The People are supposed to enforce it.

We are the scalpel to cut out that cancer, reset the clock to zero and start fresh.

Unfortunately, "we the people" have gotten too stupid, lazy and complacent to undertake the task anymore.

So here we sit.

 

[lucius]

Oh well...I take heart that most of them are watching Jersey Housewives or other such tripe...so nobody is paying attention to d*ck...

Isn't tv wonderful? If you watch it; you do not need to be watched--it's self-governing. A full spectrum of 'programing' tailor made for every-type of fractured-flavored monkey...I quit trying to teach math to monkeys...just take care of friends and kin...

 

[amy31416]

We The People are supposed to enforce it.

We are the scalpel to cut out that cancer, reset the clock to zero and start fresh.

Unfortunately, "we the people" have gotten too stupid, lazy and complacent to undertake the task anymore.

So here we sit.

Yes indeed.

What did Jefferson recommend? A revolution every 20 years or so? Here we are a couple hundred years later...

I still wouldn't mind some sort of statement on what should be done with those who violate the Constitution though, if only for amusement.

 

[amy31416]

Oh well...I take heart that most of them are watching Jersey Housewives or other such tripe...so nobody is paying attention to d*ck...

Isn't tv wonderful? If you watch it; you do not need to be watched--it's self-governing. A full spectrum of 'programing' tailor made for every-type of fractured-flavored monkeys...

So what's the excuse for those old-timey assholes who allowed the gov't to run roughshod over them, set up the Fed, confiscate gold, prohibit alcohol, etc.....was there some sort of rudimentary porn/trash entertainment that I'm unaware of?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes indeed.

What did Jefferson recommend? A revolution every 20 years or so? Here we are a couple hundred years later...

I still wouldn't mind some sort of statement on what should be done with those who violate the Constitution though, if only for amusement.

Agreed, criminal sanctions for those who violate.

 

[lucius]

So what's the excuse for those old-timey assholes who allowed the gov't to run roughshod over them, set up the Fed, confiscate gold, prohibit alcohol, etc.....was there some sort of rudimentary porn/trash entertainment that I'm unaware of?

They were asleep too...but we are different...more informational sources--a very different time. Pinkertons are not going to cut it this time, I speculate...

 

[LadyBastiat]

Instead of trying to refute him factually (as in trying to deny that the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government), I'd point out his argument is a non sequitur. Just because the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government over the Articles of Confederation does not mean that it was intended to grant the sweeping powers he needs. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers despite the fact it was originally intended to expand the Federal government's powers. It was not intended to grant the Federal government practical omnipotence over every aspect of human affairs.

This is a good approach imho.