The Constitutional Convention Did Not Exceed Its Power

[My First Name Is Paul]

http://constitution.i2i.org/2013/06...d-the-constitution-is-not-“unconstitutional”/

 

[fisharmor]

I really don't care if a bunch of elitists follow any particular rules when they decide to come up with a more efficient way to rob and brutalize strangers.

 

[My First Name Is Paul]

That was not the intent of the founding generation, if that is what you are implying.

 

[fisharmor]

That was not the intent of the founding generation, if that is what you are implying.

I didn't intend to be sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day growing a spare tire, either.
I didn't intend to run my hand over a table saw 17 years ago and forever lose the ability to play guitar.
These things happened nonetheless... and if I had a little more forethought back then, neither would have happened.

 

[Keith and stuff]

That article is laughable. If the Constitution was valid, it would have been approved via the approved process where all of the states approved it at once.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

http://constitution.i2i.org/2013/06/02/the-constitutional-convention-did-not-exceed-its-power-and-the-constitution-is-not-%e2%80%9cunconstitutional%e2%80%9d/

lolz. Bad arguments are bad.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo145.html
[h=1][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle[/FONT][/FONT][/h]
etc, etc. Gotta love how the neo-Hamiltonians to this day try to justify what happened way back when. lolz

 

[My First Name Is Paul]

Apparently nobody cares to read the article. What separates Natelson from those you quote is that he more than just an historian, he is a researcher and has done considerable research on the original Constitution. His conclusions are based in the law of the time, which, among other things, held that the public assigned powers to the government and and elected officials as agents acting on their behalf, just as with a power of attorney, a much more commonly emeployed legal instrument back then.

If you were to actually read the article I linked, you would find the arguments of the anarchists at LRC to be not even remotely addressing the arguments of Natelson (who, in fact, has contributed to LRC in the past).

Just because future generations chose not to follow the law as the founding generation created it does not mean the law was created with malicious intent.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The Constitution was a power grab, and I'd prefer the Articles.

At the same time, you've got to remember scale. The Constitution expanded a tiny government into a small government. Right now we have a massive government. What we have now was not the constitutional intent.

 

[My First Name Is Paul]

Natelson's article does not argue if what was done was a power grab, if some part of society benefited more than others, or if there was some underlying conspiracy. What he argues is that the process used to create and adopt the Constitution was within the law of the day.

 

[osan]

http://constitution.i2i.org/2013/06/02/the-constitutional-convention-did-not-exceed-its-power-and-the-constitution-is-not-%e2%80%9cunconstitutional%e2%80%9d/

Horrible article. Speaks in a voice accepting of the tacit presumptions of authority to act. Gigantic, monumental, colossal, catastrophic, utter FAIL.

 

[My First Name Is Paul]

Horrible article. Speaks in a voice accepting of the tacit presumptions of authority to act. Gigantic, monumental, colossal, catastrophic, utter FAIL.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Occam's Banana]

My understanding (which may be incorrect or incomplete - someone please correct me if so) is that delegates to the convention that created the Constitution had explicitly and only been empowered to work up some amendments to the Articles of Confederation (and nothing else) - and that any such amendments produced by the convention would later be adopted into the Articles only if each was unanimously approved by the states individually.

Thus, I suppose that it is not impossible that someone (such as Natelson) could reasonably try to use this as a basis for asserting the "legality" of the Constitutional Convention (and its production of the Constitution) - especially given the subsequent adoption of the Constitution by all 13 states.

But whether the process that set aside the Articles of Confederation in toto and erected the Constitution ex nihilo was "legal" or not (in whatever sense) is ultimately neither here nor there. The best criticisms of the Constitution as an usurpation are not dependent upon the putative "illegality" of the Constitutional Convention and its product (though some "anti-Constitutionalists" might try to make it so). Even if Natelson et alias could show beyond any doubt that the Constitutional fait accompli was entirely "legal," the most substantive and important objections to it would still stand unrefuted (indeed, they would remain even unaddressed).

Many of the Federalists (especially the Hamiltonians) who were primarily responsible for the creating the Constitution (and/or for promoting its subsequent adoption) were motivated by the fact that the Articles of Confederation simply (and rightly) did not give them the authority, ability or power to do the things they so badly wanted to do (such as establish a central bank, among many other things).

Anti-federalists such as Patrick Henry recognized that they were up to no good (which is why Henry famously declared that he "smelled a rat" upon hearing of the Constitutional Convention). They were absolutely right. The Articles of Confederation were (or at least came much closer to) what the Constitution pretends to be.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Remember that not all of the Federalists were Hamiltonians. James Madison (The President, not the poster) wrote the thing, and he was a strict constructionist. Which means that the constitution was intended to be strictly constructed, since that is what the writer said was supposed to be done with it. That liberals and their predecessors, the Hamiltonians, created the whole "Living Constitution" crap really just isn't Mr. Madison's fault.

I'll grant you, I'd rather the AoC over the constitution. The constitution is a limited government document, but allows a little bigger than what I would like. I don't know exactly what the AoC contained, but I know it was less, and less is pretty much better. That said, the original intent of the constitution was not for unlimited government. Nor was unlimited government ever instituted under the constitution (The constitution itself was pretty much ignored by Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, and pretty much everyone during and after the Progressive Era possibly exempting Coolidge.) [Analysis is likely incomplete, and exempts Presidents that only violated the constitution to relatively small degrees, like Washington with the Whiskey Rebellion or Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase].

The bottom line is, thugs with guns can ignore words written in ink. That's it. Its not really the constitution's fault.

Do you really think anyone at the constitutional convention, heck, even Hamilton, would support the monstrosity we have today? I don't think so.

 

[osan]

Care to elaborate?

I spent the day plowing in 90+* weather. Then up on the roof for repairs. I am tired, I stink like the Mongol horde, and my parts hurt, so no I don't.

All you need to do is engage in some proper critical analysis of the article. You can do it on a line-by-line basis and uncover all manner of fail in that article. Once you get into the groove the flaws jump out at you. If you are not trained or experienced in this sort of thing, I suggest you learn because it is really important to know how.

Seriously, that article is so poorly reasoned, you should have no trouble at all demolishing it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Remember that not all of the Federalists were Hamiltonians. James Madison (The President, not the poster) wrote the thing, and he was a strict constructionist. Which means that the constitution was intended to be strictly constructed, since that is what the writer said was supposed to be done with it. That liberals and their predecessors, the Hamiltonians, created the whole "Living Constitution" crap really just isn't Mr. Madison's fault.

I'll grant you, I'd rather the AoC over the constitution. The constitution is a limited government document, but allows a little bigger than what I would like. I don't know exactly what the AoC contained, but I know it was less, and less is pretty much better. That said, the original intent of the constitution was not for unlimited government. Nor was unlimited government ever instituted under the constitution (The constitution itself was pretty much ignored by Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, and pretty much everyone during and after the Progressive Era possibly exempting Coolidge.) [Analysis is likely incomplete, and exempts Presidents that only violated the constitution to relatively small degrees, like Washington with the Whiskey Rebellion or Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase].

The bottom line is, thugs with guns can ignore words written in ink. That's it. Its not really the constitution's fault.

Do you really think anyone at the constitutional convention, heck, even Hamilton, would support the monstrosity we have today? I don't think so.

You think the Louisiana Purchase was a "small degree"?

 

[Christian Liberty]

You think the Louisiana Purchase was a "small degree"?

Maybe I'm biased since I like Jefferson as a Founder. But compared to anything that was done by Jackson, Lincoln, or the Progressive Presidents... yeah...

Millions of dollars wasted isn't "Small" but it is comparatively so.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Remember that not all of the Federalists were Hamiltonians. [...]

This is correct. That's why I was careful to preface my earlier remarks with "Many of the Federalists (especially Hamiltonians) [...]"

And Thomas Jefferson (certainly no Hamiltonian he) was pro-Constitution. (I guess we can't all be perfect ... )

Do you really think anyone at the constitutional convention, heck, even Hamilton, would support the monstrosity we have today? I don't think so.

I think Hamilton would shit his drawers in excitement over and approval of the monstrosity we have today. I truly and sincerely do ...

 

[robert68]

The state conventions arranged by the federalists to vote on ratification was simply extralegal. Among other things, the paragraph from the article below is collectivist delusion and fiction:

• The ratification procedure was crafted so that the Constitution would never come until effect unless it represented the will of a majority of the American electorate. The Framers did this in two ways: (1) Ratification or rejection would come not from state politicians, but from conventions directly elected by the voters for the sole purpose of considering the Constitution, and (2) the Constitution would not go into effect unless conventions in nine states agreed.

 

[erowe1]

Maybe I'm biased since I like Jefferson as a Founder. But compared to anything that was done by Jackson, Lincoln, or the Progressive Presidents... yeah...

Millions of dollars wasted isn't "Small" but it is comparatively so.

It's not just millions of dollars wasted. It's a major step in creating the hierarchy of federal government sovereign over states.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not just millions of dollars wasted. It's a major step in creating the hierarchy of federal government sovereign over states.

This^^