1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

It's the Constitution Stupid

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by Scorpio, Oct 18, 2013.



  1. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,732
    Likes Received:
    25,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's the Constitution Stupid
    Antonius J. Patrick

    we-the-people.jpg

    Arguably, the most important reason why conservatives, populists, and even libertarians have failed to halt and turn back the rise of the American Leviathan state has been largely due to their uncritical acceptance, and often times deification, of the United States Constitution.

    While at first not venerated and, in fact, detested by many among America's founding generation, the Constitution, over the time, has gained the status of Holy Writ among those on the modern-day Right.

    Recently, though, the Constitution's secular "holiness" has been challenged by a number of scholars and writers. One of the ablest has been Kenneth W. Royce, a.k.a, "Boston T. Party," in his book, Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance with Big Business. Originally written in the late 1990s, Hologram has been updated with comments on the most recent example of the growing American totalitarian state such as the draconian Obama healthcare legislation.

    Like the unappreciated and insightful anti-federalists who saw the flaws in the Constitution and accurately predicted it would lead to tyranny, Royce keenly dissects it from start to finish and concludes that the document itself is the problem, not its interpretation by liberalistic judges which has led to America’s nascent totalitarian state. The Constitution created a powerful central government and stripped the states of any real mechanism to oppose its dictates.

    Royce contends that this was no mere accident and backs his claim with solid evidence that this is what our supposedly “limited government” founding fathers wanted all along. And, to attain this end, the framers used a number of underhanded and illegal tactics against their opponents.

    The framers of the Constitution cunningly used ambiguous language and terms such as “necessary and proper,” which would later permit and excuse all sorts of state expansionary schemes and measures. While the Constitution has been championed by modern day conservatives for its brilliance in limiting government, Royce demonstrates it was brilliantly designed to do just the opposite.

    The enactment of the Constitution was a veritable coup d’état which replaced the very workable and decentralized Articles of Confederation. The much touted system of “checks and balances,” where the separate branches of the government are supposed to limit each other, was a ruse from the beginning and has shown to be utterly useless as a mechanism for curbing federal largesse.

    Conservatives consistently link the Constitution and the American Revolution into similar political categories. The adoption of the Constitution was, in fact, a true reversal of the aims of the American Revolution which was in itself and act of secession similar to what the Southern States tried to accomplish, but were coercively prevented from doing by the mentally disturbed and power-crazed dictator, Abraham Lincoln.

    The American Revolution was a revolt against empire and all of its nasty elements: militarism, conscription, mercantilism, debt, and war. The Constitution was meant, in part, to re-impose the British-styled system of government (minus an aristocracy) back on American soil.

    constitution-signing.jpg

    Those who trumpet the Constitution as a high point in the development of the Western world’s path to freedom and personal liberty show a decided lack of understanding of political theory and plain logic. While not stressed in Royce’s book, theorists have shown that individual liberty and prosperity exist most fully when there is a plethora of political jurisdictions. The best example of this was the political history of Europe which for the longest time was divided into a multitude of kingdoms, principalities, confederations, states, and free cities. During this period, not only was there a tremendous level of prosperity, but just as important was the unparalleled accomplishments in music, art, literature, and architecture.

    If America had remained under the Articles of Confederation, a similar societal development may have occurred. Instead, under the Constitution, the country became “unified” under a central state, which not only crushed local political autonomy, but suffocated true cultural diversity.

    While the 18th century opponents of the Constitution and all those who have opposed federal tyranny ever since have been unsuccessful, the end of Constitutional rule in America may be fast approaching. The continuing economic deterioration and potential financial collapse will undoubtedly have significant political ramifications, the most likely of which will be the breakup of the Union.

    The great orator and anti-federalist, Patrick Henry, said it best about the adoption of the Constitution: “I look upon [the constitution] as the most fatal plan that could be possibly be conceived to enslave a free people.”

    Comments or questions? Email us at TDV@dollarvigilante.com and we may use your email in our Feedback Friday each week.

    Antonius J. Patrick is a Washington, D.C.-based writer who reports on culture- and religion-related issues for American Free Press

    http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.13/constitution.html
     
    Libertaurum, Goldhedge, Sport and 5 others like this.
  2. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,649
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Main Entry: con·sti·tute

    Pronunciation: \ˈkän(t)-stə-ˌtüt, -ˌtyüt\Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): con·sti·tut·ed; con·sti·tut·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin constitutus, past participle of constituere to set up, constitute, from com- + statuere to set — more at STATUTE

    Date: 15th century 1 : to appoint to an office, function, or dignity
    2 : SET UP, ESTABLISH: as a : ENACT b : FOUND c (1) : to give due or lawful form to (2) : to legally process
    3 : MAKE UP, FORM, COMPOSE <12 months constitute a year> <high school dropouts who constitute a major problem in large city slums — J. B. Conant>

    http://i.word.com/idictionary/constitute

    The definition says it all!
     
    Scorpio likes this.
  3. FoundingFathers

    FoundingFathers Founder Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,900
    Likes Received:
    4,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A Constitution Flawed from Inception

    The Federal Government is the Problem

    At the outset, many of the framers of the U.S Constitution were the best minds and mainly principled advocates of self-government. Their attempt to achieve a model for a “Federalism” form of a Republic is certainly unique in history. With great gratitude, successive generations should admire and respect an intellectual application and recognition that government, by composition, should be feared and restrained. The irony that some authors possessed such wisdom, and constraints were codified, does not match with the unfortunate record for their creation. Their endeavor proved insufficient to alter the base character of human nature. Acknowledgement of historic fact, does not desecrate the failed effort, but celebrates the attempt. Without necessary criticism the prospect for any meaningful revision is impossible.

    The crux and crumple of the structure rest upon a false objective that an elastic central government can serve the basic purpose of society. In order to achieve the state of inherent autonomy, the State must be confined to a subordinate authority. The only legitimacy that is conveyed upon any government, rests upon the consent of citizens. Surely, only a toady for the regime, will argue that individual liberty and the common good, is the basis upon which the central government operates.

    The Federalist Papers are usually cited as the primary source regarding constitutional debate. However, that viewpoint embodies a very pro ratification sentiment. A more comprehensive account can be found in the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Max Farrand published in 1911, which gathers the documentary records of the Constitutional Convention into four volumes. Also the Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution are a five-volume collection compiled by Jonathan Elliot in the mid-nineteenth century.

    The volumes remain the best source for materials about the national government's transitional period between the closing of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787 and the opening of the First Federal Congress in March 1789. On September 17, 1787, the Continental Congress accepted the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention and agreed to distribute the proposed constitution to the states; each state was then to elect delegates to a state convention to approve or disapprove the new constitution. The Constitution would take effect upon ratification by the conventions of nine of the thirteen states.

    Most students are aware that the Bill of Rights was a subsequent addition to quell the concerns of distrustful skeptics. The lawful ratification by the original States has also been brought into question. Yet, the exact motivations of the Hamiltonian Federalist faction, is often ignored.

    The progressive historian Charles A. Beard, in the "Framing the Constitution” presents evidence that the framers of the Constitution were less interested in furthering democratic principles than in protecting private property and the interests of the wealthy class. His economic determinist stance is further developed in his “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution”. But you don’t have to adopt a Marxist viewpoint to concede that the crucial impetus to form a potent central government drove the movement to discard the well-served Articles of Confederation. The foremost attribute of a politician is to acquire power, while preaching public service.

    structure2.jpg
    Tyranny masquerades as the Law

    The chronicle of executive abuse is undeniable. Whether a king or president, the role performed is one of personal and arbitrary enactments. It seldom represents the spirit of the law. While legislatures are often criticized as ineffective, they typically are more likely to remain rooted in their own local community. Add to this dilemma for supremacy, a high court. If a constitution is the supreme law of the land, how can it be logically consistent to accept that a judiciary can invent jurisprudence and have the last word on what is lawful? Despotism unleashed the sentiment for independence, won by a bloody revolution. Accepting an inevitable tyranny from the bench, as the price to claim a legal status, is ridiculous. The idea of a balance of powers is non-existent in a political environment that is shaped by barristers enamored with their own version of a British Crown.

    Did the U.S. Constitution really break with the king and a constitutional parliament, or did it simply guarantee that a charade of popular franchise, would replace one form of legalism for another set of contrived judicatory rule? The structure for a central government was above all meant to exert a limited role and scope. Individual States would remain self-governing, with different functions and jurisdiction; within a larger union. An imaginative vision, but examine the reality.

    As difficult as it is for traditional conservatives to admit, their sacred document could not craft an enlightened human nature. Those who seek to become instruments of governance only perpetuate the error of creating an office that leads to an imperial president and an omniscient judiciary. Even under a Jefferson presidency, MARBURY v. MADISON (1803), became a land mark case establishing the practice of judicial review by federal courts over acts of the other two branches of government. The dream died as the court appropriated the ultimate say. Brute force and deadly coercion gain dominance within the executive, and manifested its culmination with Lincoln’s war of Northern Aggression. So much for viable sovereignty embodied in individual will. The clash of cultures produced the authoritarianism of a central government, because the U.S. Constitution created a model that encouraged the empowerment of a presidency.

    Citing a review by Brendan Michael Dunn of Douglass G. Adair’s influential dissertation - The Intellectual Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy: Republicanism, the Class Struggle, and the Virtuous Farmer - sums up the fundamental conflict that lead to the acceptance of a flawed constitution.

    “The greatest differences then between Hamilton and the Virginians were at the practical rather than the theoretical level. While Jefferson and Madison, in spite of the failures of the federal system, hoped to maintain the states and limit the power of the national government through separated powers, Hamilton sought to eliminate the states while unifying power at the national level. In short, the central conflict between the Jeffersonian Democrats and the Hamiltonian Federalists was not over the relative merits of social classes, but in their approach to the pre-existing states and to the character of the reformed national authority. There was a serious division at the Founding, but Adair did not fully identify it. The Founders were primarily divided on the response to a problem caused by America's federal character.”

    Mr. Dunn has it correct, even though conventional custom accepts the Statist approach of an advantageous central government. By allowing the U.S Constitution to incorporate a compromise with the Federalists, the doomed fate of the Republic was sealed. The myth that all the Founders were limited government advocates is at the core of the failed constitution. From the outset, the political rivalry essentially assured that the intent of the charter would be subverted. The drive for dominance among the Hamilton cabal had the political and economic backing of the more influential segment of society. The adverse consequences we live under today were not prevented or even curtailed by that legal document. The country never did constitute a real republic. Even if a dubious ratification took place, the results remain the same.

    If the law is but a tool to cloak coercion and federal governmental compliance, what freedom remains for indigenous community life? Without sovereign self-determination, what meaning does the Bill of Rights retain? The reality is that the Constitution has become but an impediment for the federal authorities to circumvent when it conflicts with the STATE. However, when it suits its interests, it is used as a bureaucratic and judicial weapon in the constant war against citizens. How can individual rights be protected when the skeleton for a voluntary union has already lost its skin? What remains is a carcass, picked over by vultures of privilege and protection.

    Advocacy to restore the Constitution falls short. Reform can never reinstate a natural autonomy. The establishment of an excessive central government is the tragic legacy of a flawed organization that diminished individual States authority. The essential quandary for the paradox that results from the creation of the contract is how do you hold public officials accountable and enforce sanctions for abusing the highest law of the land? Obviously, the government cannot be trusted to respect the rightful limits originally intended. If a band of urban Founding Fathers perverted their own meaning of the Constitution, what chance exists in the ominous age of globalism?

    At the very least, let us be honest and debate with integrity. The U.S. Constitution destroyed the voluntary union and replaced it with an unforgiving master. Our mutual mission should seek the building of a genuine Republic. Only with the admission that the experiment failed, can the future be rescued.

    SARTRE – December 26, 2004





    - See more at: http://batr.org/autonomy/122604.html#sthash.Z2nQr2rY.dpuf
     
  4. FoundingFathers

    FoundingFathers Founder Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,900
    Likes Received:
    4,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Articles of Confederation was Preferable

    Limited Union as Opposed to Unrestrained Empire

    Once upon a time there was a country that believed in Liberty. The people of this fair land fought a revolution to free themselves from the tyranny of a foreign king. It was called the “shot heard round the world”. The purpose for all the sacrifices, risks and sufferings was the goal of establishing a nation, where free men could create a government that rested upon the consent of the people. How very long ago that was. So many people have forgotten - about themselves, their heritage and the very purpose, their government was intended to render.

    The 1776 Revolution was fought for a common cause, to secure the natural rights of Englishmen. Each colony was settled under a charter from the king. With colonial victory, the Crown lost their claim over their former citizens. Individuals were residents of particular communities that existed in geographic regions within the former distinct colonies. These territories emerged as separate and independent states. As with any recognized civil authority, the legitimacy of their regime rests upon the conferred consent based upon the conditional sovereignty granted to that government, from the people. Home rule of the State is lawful, only as long as it retains the confidence and permission of citizens, to continue its administration.

    In relations with other states or governments, each unit of dominion preserves the authority extended, by the governed. Therefore, it should be self evident that combinations of cooperation or entry into agreed of federations, are based upon the voluntary compact that each unit of government, bestows upon the larger assembly. This elementary summary was the basic understanding that citizens of the new nation understood and accepted to be the result of the victory at Yorktown. The prize of independence meant the ability to establish governance with their permission.

    We continually hear about restoring the meaning, intent and spirit of the Constitution. Few know that we had a far preferable blueprint for a federation before the 1789 U.S. Constitution. It was called the Articles of Confederation. Have you ever read it? If not you should. At the outset it’s opening declaration has - Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States. Some may want to misconstrue that perpetual means subordinate. In Article II, the basis for union is stated with total clarity - Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

    Concern for national defense, diplomacy and treaties, assumption of war debt, extradition to state courts, unencumbered travel and commerce, coinage and adjudicator of disputes between states are subjects of mention. Prohibitions on specific areas for states are listed, while the few sections of administration by "a Committee of the States" are noted.

    In Article X, a loose option for consensus (stated to be nine states) could enact measures. The Committee of the States, or any nine of them shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine states in the Congress of the United States assembled is requisite.

    The significance is in the lack of abundant powers and the need to require agreement from nine of the thirteen states, 69% + for any new enactments. This stringent requirement does not exactly seem like the model for a subservient role for individual states!

    No doubt the U.S. Constitution, added valuable protections against a tyrannical central government in the Bill of Rights. But, the nature of the expanded roles for the executive and judicial branches in that same - U.S. Constitution - elevating them to a theoretical and dubious co-equal status, created the inevitable usurpation of the legitimate power of the independent states. We all know the tragic history of the unimpeded executive despotism in America. Far fewer understand the catastrophic precedent in the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison - placing the Supreme Court as the arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation. The mere restoration to the constraints in the 1789 U.S. Constitution will not revive the Republic from its demise into an absolutist oppressor. Only a systemic dismantling of that central government, returning primacy back to individual states will restore the vision of the American Revolution.

    The continued erosions of Liberty that used to take a decade to chip away, has gone on fast forward and has now been compressed into little over a year. The reason is unmistakable. Most Americans no longer understand the intended purpose in the struggle against King George III. They now accept a domestic grown variant that has a Texas drawl while imposing edicts that no 18th century “American Englishman” would ever tolerate. Can the Stamp Act be compared to the Patriot Act? Can quartering red coats be measured by Homeland Security? Hasn’t the dream of the Founding Fathers been transformed into an empire that august Rome would envy? From Cicero to Caesar - from Washington to Bush! Only an idiot would consider the progression an advancement in Liberty, and solely the fool would follow the contrivance of the latest version of ‘duce’.

    If the U.S. Constitution can be so totally perverted to make it effectively non existent, what hope is there in it’s restoration when it mistakenly allowed for the creation of an empowered central government? The contrast, in the Articles of Confederation, offered modest functions for a federal legislature, a limited and rotating management of bureaucratic duties and a very narrow role for federal courts. By resorting to the pressures and the power ambitions of autocrats, the 1789 Constitution sowed the seeds for a worst tyranny that has eaten away at the protections that were so obviously intended, when it was written. Sovereign States have been reduced to beggars. Under the Articles of Confederation the “perpetual union between the States” might have been achievable. With the invention of a preeminent executive and a proscriptive judiciary, we have evolved into a rule by an imperial dictator blessed under the cloak and process of arbitrary sanction.

    The attempt in the U.S. Constitution to design strict prohibitions and parameters for a central government have been ignored and transgressed by succeeding generations of power mad Statists that hate Liberty as much as they love mastery over citizens. The proof of the insanity, for allowing a transfer of conditional authority into a structure that inevitably fosters the rule of depraved domination freaks, is the sad story of our history. Evil men who lust for power over all else, will always be with us. Granting them an easy road to perfect their sinister plots in the name of allegiance to country is lunacy. The principles upon which the Articles of Confederation were conceived, respected the righteousness of self rule. Revitalize the autonomy of states and diminish the scope of central intrusion. The war for independence must be fought again, the impostor who would be king is still named George . . .

    SARTRE

    originally written as a 'View from the Mount' essay - December 26, 2002
    - See more at: http://batr.org/autonomy/010905.html#sthash.da8pB9DC.dpuf
     
  5. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,732
    Likes Received:
    25,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep BB,

    FF, thank you very much for that,

    so many important points, a few of those follow

    it also illustrates why your av is what it is,



    and this is what I believe BB is referring to:

    etc,

    good stuff guys!
     
    FoundingFathers likes this.
  6. phideaux

    phideaux Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    18,913
    Likes Received:
    17,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Zentalquabula
    I agree that the Articles of Confederation was a superior document to the constitution, but I disagree on this point..

    The Constitution is all about defining and limiting the Federal government's scope and powers. Sure, it didn't go far enough but the 9th and 10th Amendments were added specifically to reinforce those limitations and to cover all those areas not specifically addressed in the body of the Constitution.

    Sure, the Founders should have added a specific provision or amendment allowing a State to secede. (I don't know if that was actually considered or debated at the time.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013
  7. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,732
    Likes Received:
    25,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    good point phid,

    as the constitution has been shredded over the years, many have asked how it could happen,

    and it does originate back at the beginning with 2 parties doing battle over states vs .fed,

    it really is amazing that they came up with the document they did considering how elemental the divisions were
     
    Sport likes this.
  8. anotherdave

    anotherdave Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    1,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another constitutional expert gets it all wrong.
     
  9. anotherdave

    anotherdave Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    1,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fortunately, one out of the bunch gets it right.
     
  10. phideaux

    phideaux Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    18,913
    Likes Received:
    17,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Zentalquabula
    IMHO the biggest mistake in the Constitution is the lack of term limits on the elected officials, and especially the lifetime appointment of appointed Supreme Court justices.

    Term limits wasn't that big a deal back then when the average lifespan was 35 years, but now it's double that. No way any politician or judge should have that much power for that long.
     
  11. anotherdave

    anotherdave Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    1,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And then wanders off.
     
  12. Publico

    Publico Banned

    Joined:
    May 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Some place
    There are several "biggest mistakes" that plague the Constitution.

    1) The failure to enforce the concept of the separation of powers. Right now there are officers of the court, a.k.a. attorneys-at-law, are serving in the various legislatures (Congress and the state legislatures), however, they owe a duty to the courts to protect the integrity of the courts (i.e. the court's decisions) from attack and that includes not impeaching and block any efforts to impeach any judges who violates the clear words of the constitution. Right now try and get a judge impeached for anything is near impossible and getting one impeached for violating his oath will never happen.

    2) Create a "Sovereign Grand Jury" with the power to hear complaints regarding judges after the "regular" course of justice has been complete. The SGJ would be able to file bills of impeachment with Congress (or legislature) which would have 30 days to act; issue criminal indictments against judges; allow the aggrieved party to sue the judge without the judge claiming "sovereign immunity." Prohibit any government employee from claiming the "5th" before any SGJ proceeding (like 'implied consent" laws) and allow "double jeopardy" prosecutions of judges who are first prosecuted by the federal and/or state governments (prevents any kind of wink and nod trials). Allow for the complete loss of citizenship and death penalty for judge convicted.

    3) Increase the size of the House of Representative to 1 in 30,000 in population counting only citizens and legals declaring intent to become citizens in the census.

    The first two will keep judges a bit more honest so life-time appointments would not be an appointment to play games with the Constitution, the law and people's lives.
     
    Rip Van Winkle, WhyKnow and phideaux like this.
  13. WhyKnow

    WhyKnow Thnk Tank Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You responded with three one-liners. Analyze the OP and give an argument?
    My opinion, if the constitution is so flawed, it has been more severely mangled since. It is the what we use legally. At this point, the only way to change what we use would be another revolution.
    I don't know if it's the constitution or not, but it an interesting opinion.
     
  14. phideaux

    phideaux Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    18,913
    Likes Received:
    17,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Zentalquabula
    About 25 years ago a lawyer friend told me he thought "lawyers passing laws is an inherent conflict of interest." It's even worse now because those lawyers don't even read the laws they are passing.
     
  15. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,792
    Likes Received:
    3,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    Hell, lawyers passing laws is what brought us to this precipice in this country in the first place. The founders knew what would happen if they allowed "Esquires" in positions of power in government, and it has...


    Another link

    nh-law-bioren-duane-merge-small.jpg
     
    phideaux and Goldhedge like this.
  16. anotherdave

    anotherdave Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    1,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The U.S. Constitution is of a limited government, drafted by the states. It performed some duties that the states could not effectively accomplish individually. It did not touch the lives of the state citizens directly.

    It has no authority over state citizenship, or the People, other than to establish immigration laws.

    The only way the U.S. can meddle in your personal affairs is because you have asked them to, either directly or thru your assent, which they have amply documented. Once they have that contract on file, they have all the power in the world to enforce it.

    Nothing is wrong with the Constitution at all. The problem is that the People, who were never a party to it, voluntarily contract as District of Columbia corporations so that they can be subject to the jurisdiction thereof and get their "fair share" of free government cheese. It's 'We, the People' that changed, not the Constitution.

    They have given up their state citizenship to become "persons" of a federal enclave. The effects on their lives is the mess you are looking at today.
     
  17. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,649
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    So keep dreaming, both the Articles & CONstitution are flawed.... FACT: The only reason a state or country is organized is to PROTECT property & the property owners wealth & life from foreign invasion & domestic crimes.... in most instances it is people of wealth that support the organizing principles. All of these documents merely define who's going to pay & how much they will pay when the BILL for protection services is rendered.... All this nonsense about life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness is merely a selling tool to shift the burden of the expense of protection onto the general populace & away from those who benefit most from the services of a central federalized .gov.

    "The progressive historian Charles A. Beard, in the "Framing the Constitution” presents evidence that the framers of the Constitution were less interested in furthering democratic principles than in protecting private property and the interests of the wealthy class." (supra)"

    The CONstitution interpretted as I have submitted above is NOT a failure, on the contrary, it has performed very well for the wealthy classes! Just because folks have been programmed to believe these documents are something else or represent something else is part of the design.... it keeps you paying your so-called UNFAIR share in the protection racket....

    "ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL"...!!! Always have been, always will be..... thats why both of the Articles & CONstitution are flawed. Its the reason behind "giverment," to retain the local support for a far removed from local reality central political organization that has now been reduced to what amounts to a global criminal racketeering organization that invades other countries to prevent monopoly competition, etc.., etc..., etc.!
     
  18. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,414
    Likes Received:
    32,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    And all this time I thought it was the POS banker's who were usurping the power of the Constitution via sleight of hand manipulation of the money...


    There are a lot of 'things' that have occurred behind the veil of secrecy that had they not, this country would be a whole lot different place than the free lunch handout it is today.
     
  19. phideaux

    phideaux Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    18,913
    Likes Received:
    17,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Zentalquabula
    Most of the Founders detested and abhorred "democracy". They warned of the problems and conflicts in democracy. That's why they set up a representational republic ("if you can keep it").

    Protection of property rights applies to everybody, not just the wealthy. It may be even more important for the masses. Not that it would be right, but the wealthy can "afford" to lose some of their property, the masses cannot.
     
  20. Publico

    Publico Banned

    Joined:
    May 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Some place
    phideaux likes this.
  21. phideaux

    phideaux Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    18,913
    Likes Received:
    17,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Zentalquabula
  22. FoundingFathers

    FoundingFathers Founder Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,900
    Likes Received:
    4,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BarnacleBob likes this.
  23. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,288
    Likes Received:
    12,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Silver stacker
    Location:
    America!
    The constitution has a few flaws, like treaties being supreme law... that creates a situation where an otherwise unconstitutional law can be passed, there are a few others...

    But the constitution isn't flawed beyond repair. There are ways to update it. The real problem with the constitution is that it relies on the people of the USA to be politically active and politically aware and this is not the case, so it creates a situation where corruption festers.
     
    Scorpio likes this.
  24. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,479
    Likes Received:
    4,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    The real issue is one of interpretation. Properly interpreted, what you refer to would not be able to happen, as the Treaty Clause was not intended to allow the rest of the Constitution to be destroyed or rendered moot. The idea was that such Treaties would be in harmony with the intent of the Constitution.

    The text reads: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,"

    The words, "under the authority of the United States" should mean the limited authority as previously laid out in the rest of the Constitution and if a proposed Treaty would allow the gov to exceed those limitations, it should therefor stand to reason that it would be un-Constitutional for the gov to enter into such a Treaty.
    However, that depends upon the will of those doing the official interpreting. We've allowed people to hold office and assume positions in gov that just don't want to see it that way.
     
  25. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,288
    Likes Received:
    12,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Silver stacker
    Location:
    America!
    That is certainly up to interpretation on what exactly that means. So that's a major flaw.

    When the constitution was first ratified, the state legislature elected the senators for congress... We have a situation now where the states have no say in this process.

    Before senators were elected by popular vote, there were many times the state legislature could not agree to elect a senator and went with a vacancy.

    I don't think the constitution is stupid, I just think it's a little flawed and outdated and the people who are responsible for fixing it are incompetent.

    I've spent more time on this forum talking about the constitution and learning about it than I ever did in school.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
  26. Bottom Feeder

    Bottom Feeder Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    2,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle
    Wasn’t there something about, during the war of northern aggression, that there wasn’t a quorum present in the house or senate and the United States of America shut off and was restarted as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Something about everyone now being a citizen (or immigrant) of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA subject to Admiralty Law?

    So is all this back and forth about the Constitution even relevant? Or is it just giving us old dogs a bone to chew on?

    Excuse my ignorance, I was just listening in the back of the hall.


    BF
     
  27. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,479
    Likes Received:
    4,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    I don't necessarily see it as a flaw. All it requires to see it the right way is a desire to uphold the documents original intent. Anyone not wanting to uphold the original intent will always be able to come up with an argument against it.

    Remember, the Constitution is but a document written by imperfect men. Had they tried writing a document that was so iron clad in its wording that there was no room at all for interpretation, it would have literally been thrown out long ago.

    Also, had they attempted to create such a rigid document, they would have likely never been able to agree on any of it and we wouldn't have it at all today.
    Or worse, it would have been thousands of pages long as they tried to spell out every scenario and define every term and word. You know, like the way they try to write laws today.
     

Share This Page