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

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?

Forum Mission Statement

Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Read some of the posts in this thread and tell me those posters have respect for this mission.

And, you would be wrong. I don't think that defenders of the Constitution are necessarily closer to Ron Paul's views. That is not my complaint.
 
"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.?
Shay's Rebellion had great influence on creating a strong central government. Many people were fearful of allowing anarchy. The people of that time were much like we are here on RPF... not a lot of agreement. But if you read diaries from 1830's - 1860's (after President Jackson outed the bankers) many people, as they expanded westward, were free, peaceful & prosperous.
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.
I'm not falling for any fallacy. Liberty can be reclaimed, not by bureaucrats, but by the people. Except, most people don't know why the Constitution was written, they don't understand the simple concept of rights, and they are too lazy to perform their duty. Until the people really want liberty, it will be evasive... it's not free.

What part of Article VI. Clause 3 do you not understand?
"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."

Right now, some courageous individuals are challenging the legality of the establishment on this very principle. They could use support from people who have read and understand the Constitution. Read what they are doing: Kenneth Gomez for Governor of New Mexico
 
Read some of the posts in this thread and tell me those posters have respect for this mission.

And, you would be wrong. I don't think that defenders of the Constitution are necessarily closer to Ron Paul's views. That is not my complaint.

I read a lot of this thread awhile back and don't want to go back through to catch up. I think I've seen enough of the anti-Constitution position from the usual suspects to know where they're coming from, and I've never seen anything that doesn't mesh with the mission statement you quoted.

We should use the Constitution as a tool to help us shrink government. If by some miracle we actually get the federal government back down to a size that fits within the boundaries defined by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, we shouldn't stop there (and I don't think Ron Paul would either). We should keep going until we have freed ourselves from all subjugation to a government that imposes itself on us without our consent, constitutional or not.

But until that time, the constitutionalists and the anti-constitutionalists want to move in the same direction, and the mission statement you quoted is part of that.
 
I read a lot of this thread awhile back and don't want to go back through to catch up. I think I've seen enough of the anti-Constitution position from the usual suspects to know where they're coming from, and I've never seen anything that doesn't mesh with the mission statement you quoted.

Really? How about this:

The Constitution is like handing a lighter to an arsonist and telling him not to light anything on fire. When you give the power to tax you open the flood gates that will eventually give way to a totalitarian state. It is absurd to hope the arsonist doesn't use the lighter for its intended purpose..

What if something similar was written about Ron Paul's views? I doubt anyone would be so dismissive.

We should use the Constitution as a tool to help us shrink government. If by some miracle we actually get the federal government back down to a size that fits within the boundaries defined by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, we shouldn't stop there (and I don't think Ron Paul would either). We should keep going until we have freed ourselves from all subjugation to a government that imposes itself on us without our consent, constitutional or not.

But until that time, the constitutionalists and the anti-constitutionalists want to move in the same direction, and the mission statement you quoted is part of that.

On this we can agree. But that is not what is going on. The adversaries are not respectfully voicing an opinion, they are attempting to change everyone's views on the Constitution. And those who disagree with them are treated with disdain.
 
On this we can agree. But that is not what is going on. The adversaries are not respectfully voicing an opinion, they are attempting to change everyone's views on the Constitution. And those who disagree with them are treated with disdain.

If your only argument is to make character assassinations without contributing to the discussion by presenting contradicting evidence or factual rebuttals based on the historical record what is your purpose?
 
If your only argument is to make character assassinations without contributing to the discussion by presenting contradicting evidence or factual rebuttals based on the historical record what is your purpose?

My contributions to the discussion are noted in many thousands of posts. My contributions in real life are also documented. The difference between you and I is not only our philosophical views, but the way in which we share those views. I find your methods to be offensive and futile. And your use of the term "character assassination" to describe my complaint is way off base.
 
The difference between you and I is

one of us has probably been to war, caged for saying no, assaulted by thugs in uniforms, and has had real property stolen which might create a life experience that does not respect the principle of servitude to effect change. These contributions are also documented.

But hey, lets keep it a holier than thou thread instead of debating the mountain of evidence contained in the historical record because that discussion would truly be offensive and futile.
 
one of us has probably been to war, caged for saying no, assaulted by thugs in uniforms, and has had real property stolen which might create a life experience that does not respect the principle of servitude to effect change. These contributions are also documented.

But hey, lets keep it a holier than thou thread instead of debating the mountain of evidence contained in the historical record because that discussion would truly be offensive and futile.

Sorry to hear that. But it's no excuse for the disdain you have for people who don't see things your way.
 
If your only argument is to make character assassinations without contributing to the discussion by presenting contradicting evidence or factual rebuttals based on the historical record what is your purpose?

You don't have any explanation as to how to pay the debts from the Revolutionary War. If your answer is to just blow them off, then the military and banks would likely have orchestrated a coup d'etat to collect their money. That is what Santa Ana did in Mexico and Napoleon in France. It has happened all over the world for thousands of years.

The AoC government also owed a lot of money to British interests. The British military empire used a "divide and conquer" technique. That is a technique were the British targets are made to destroy themselves. We have been doing this in Iraq for a long time.

But the British were favoring some states over other states. In the times after the Revolution, the British would let cargo from the NE states pass, while impressing and kidnapping ships from the middle and southern states. The British wanted to set up a military alliance and reconquest. All they needed was ONE state to serve as a base. Even a small colony like Delaware or Rhone Island would have worked; just one major port as a base.

Your theories are devoid of reality. You are a fanatic who believes something because you read it somewhere. Now, no matter what the evidence, you refuse to believe the truth. The Founding Fathers were not idiots or power mongers. They were patriots and lovers of liberty. They did not want a large centralized state, nor did they want a military coup or continuous civil war over rivers, ports, and western lands with ever-shifting alliances among the English, French, Spanish, and the Indians.

They did one hell of a job, the best in all of known history. So get off the Founders backs.

And one last thing; the Constitution is not perfect. But James Madison is perfect. He is a divine man who never made a single mistake that has entered into the historical record.
 
You don't have any explanation as to how to pay the debts from the Revolutionary War.

I haven't presented an explanation as to how to pay any debts. Nor do I automatically pay a bill that simply shows up in my mail box. I have repeatedly stated there can be no discussion about how to pay something unless one knows exactly what is supposed to be paid and why.
 
Sorry to hear that. But it's no excuse for the disdain you have for people who don't see things your way.

I have disdain for bullshit claims lacking citations or evidence. As a disciple of truth my beliefs are always on the table debating any discussion and I am always willing to reconsider any view or belief based on factual evidence.
 
You don't have any explanation as to how to pay the debts from the Revolutionary War. If your answer is to just blow them off, then the military and banks would likely have orchestrated a coup d'etat to collect their money. That is what Santa Ana did in Mexico and Napoleon in France. It has happened all over the world for thousands of years.

The AoC government also owed a lot of money to British interests. The British military empire used a "divide and conquer" technique. That is a technique were the British targets are made to destroy themselves. We have been doing this in Iraq for a long time.

But the British were favoring some states over other states. In the times after the Revolution, the British would let cargo from the NE states pass, while impressing and kidnapping ships from the middle and southern states. The British wanted to set up a military alliance and reconquest. All they needed was ONE state to serve as a base. Even a small colony like Delaware or Rhone Island would have worked; just one major port as a base.

Your theories are devoid of reality. You are a fanatic who believes something because you read it somewhere. Now, no matter what the evidence, you refuse to believe the truth. The Founding Fathers were not idiots or power mongers. They were patriots and lovers of liberty. They did not want a large centralized state, nor did they want a military coup or continuous civil war over rivers, ports, and western lands with ever-shifting alliances among the English, French, Spanish, and the Indians.

They did one hell of a job, the best in all of known history. So get off the Founders backs.

And one last thing; the Constitution is not perfect. But James Madison is perfect. He is a divine man who never made a single mistake that has entered into the historical record.
I have to agree. IMO, the Mises Institute is doing a bad job of rewriting history.
 
You don't have any explanation as to how to pay the debts from the Revolutionary War. If your answer is to just blow them off, then the military and banks would likely have orchestrated a coup d'etat to collect their money. That is what Santa Ana did in Mexico and Napoleon in France. It has happened all over the world for thousands of years.

The AoC government also owed a lot of money to British interests. The British military empire used a "divide and conquer" technique. That is a technique were the British targets are made to destroy themselves. We have been doing this in Iraq for a long time.

But the British were favoring some states over other states. In the times after the Revolution, the British would let cargo from the NE states pass, while impressing and kidnapping ships from the middle and southern states. The British wanted to set up a military alliance and reconquest. All they needed was ONE state to serve as a base. Even a small colony like Delaware or Rhone Island would have worked; just one major port as a base.

Your theories are devoid of reality. You are a fanatic who believes something because you read it somewhere. Now, no matter what the evidence, you refuse to believe the truth. The Founding Fathers were not idiots or power mongers. They were patriots and lovers of liberty. They did not want a large centralized state, nor did they want a military coup or continuous civil war over rivers, ports, and western lands with ever-shifting alliances among the English, French, Spanish, and the Indians.

They did one hell of a job, the best in all of known history. So get off the Founders backs.

And one last thing; the Constitution is not perfect. But James Madison is perfect. He is a divine man who never made a single mistake that has entered into the historical record.

You don't think instituting a draft, invading Canada, or establishing the Second Bank of the United States were mistakes?
 
I have disdain for bullshit claims lacking citations or evidence. As a disciple of truth my beliefs are always on the table debating any discussion and I am always willing to reconsider any view or belief based on factual evidence.

I'll remember that the next time I tangle with you.
 
The Founding Fathers were not idiots or power mongers.

Let me address this. You use this term in a way that is impossible to be true. You refused to acknowledge a petition to be king a few posts back. The founding fathers represent a diverse group of people with a variety of interests. The founding fathers include signors of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution as well as other historical figures over the span of several years. The founding fathers primarily come from a group of people from a privileged class in society. How many of the founding fathers were farmers? Lawyers?

Let me also point out that when I say privileged class I mean privileged historically because the Colonies were under the crown. How many every day peasants were involved with government under the crown?

I do not think the "founding fathers" in general were idiots, nor would I use the label power monger. I would say, like most human beings, the founding fathers wanted to protect their interests under what was from their perspective, reasonable government. But if your interests were whiskey, reasonable can be considered relative if that interest was not adequately represented.
 
Last edited:
You don't think instituting a draft, invading Canada, or establishing the Second Bank of the United States were mistakes?

No, I don't.

1) Madison never instituted draft, and we won the War of 1812 without a draft.

2) We did not invade Canada, we counter-attacked the British empire by invading the province of Canada. It was good military strategy, be we had bad luck because Napoleon had just attacked Russia, so it took pressure off the British. We still won the war anyway.

3) The Second bank was the same as the first bank, so no precedent was established. But Madison vetoed a different bank bill in January 1815 that would have expanded the powers of the bank. Madison believed that the first congress and George Washington set a precedent on what powers a central bank and could not have. Madison's constitutional precedent should have been used in 1913 to stop the Fed.

We won the War of 1812 with a federal budget of less than 4% of the GNP. That would be like winning a war with China today with a federal budget of $600 billion.

If you want an idea how remarkable James Madison was, imagine what was going on in January 1815:

1) the Hartford convention was discussing possible secession and non-cooperation.

2) the treaty talks in Europe had not progressed all that much for 6 months.

3) the British were favored to win the Battle of New Orleans.

4) the federal government was desperate for money, trying to fight a war with no central bank or income tax.

Yet despite this INCREDIBLE PRESSURE, James Madison vetoed the bank bill.
 
Sorry to hear that. But it's no excuse for the disdain you have for people who don't see things your way.

How frighteningly funny and ironic coming from you. I don't have any disdain, merely disappointment. So close, but yet so far away. I'm for freedom, but I support taxation. Funny. :D

You won't even debate, acknowledge, or illustrate in any manner when presented with conflicting information to your world view. That is to be though, you are older, and older people generally are rigid in their views. It is to be expected. This revolution will be won with the younger generation.
 
Back
Top