Anyone favor doing away with the U.S. Constitution?

[acroso]

That Hamilton's curse book is making waves.

Jefferson seemed to think the "Articles of the Confederation" was a better way of organizing the government and the the U.S. Constitution authorized a drastic expansion an reorganization into Central Government and Centralized planning.

Seems like an enticing proposition?

Do we need a candidate who runs not on the constitution but against it next time? I think a candidate running on a platform of a return to the Articles of the Confederation would be very enticing.

[nate895]

I do not favor doing away with the US Constitution. If you look at the Articles, you will realize that both governments had almost the same powers, except interstate commerce and taxation in the US Constitution. The only other difference is the structure of government.

[powerofreason]

Going back to the Articles of Confederation is a very interesting proposition. Someone should make a list of pro's and con's on both the documents.

[acroso]

Well I oppose interstate commerce and the right to tax so the articles of Confederation sound like an excellent proposition to me.

Jefferson opposed the Constitution because he thought it was a drastic expansion of government.

Why not go back?

[nate895]

Well I oppose interstate commerce and the right to tax so the articles of Confederation sound like an excellent proposition to me.

Jefferson opposed the Constitution because he thought it was a drastic expansion of government.

Why not go back?

The interstate commerce clause was put in to make the US a free trade zone, not to actually regulate it. The right to tax was only upon the states and in the form of tariffs, so individuals did not pay taxes.

[Jeremy]

First of all, Hamilton wasn't the main author of the Constitution anyway (I think). AND Jefferson supported the Constitution since the bill of rights were made.

[Knightskye]

Bad idea.

[acroso]

State's should have sovereignty over their own trade. I don't the Federal Government should have the right to regulate them.

Paul opposes NAFTA\CAFTA global governments regulating our trade on a national scale. Makes sense to oppose the Federal government from regulating the states too,

The more power is decentralized the better!

I'm sold.

It's time to scrap the U.S. constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederation.

And no...Jefferson opposed the U.S. Constitution. Hamelton was his foe. Jefferson supported the Bill of Rights because he knew the U.S. Constitution was going to pass and he was doing his best to stop it from expanding beyond what they were granting it (the Bill of Rights tried guarantee rights.) That doesn't mean he supported the U.S. constitution.....it just means he was doing his best to deal with a fucked up situation.

http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/black_flag.jpg

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

If we're going to do away with the Constitution, why not go all the way and go to anarchism? Lol...

(I say the Constitutional republic can still be salvaged...though I may or may not end up losing trust in the concept of government based on the course of events over the next few years)

[Jeremy]

So you're an anarchist acroso (black flag)? That would explain this thread, no? =O

[acroso]

The articles of the Confederation would be a good step first. We'd have state sovereignty and more decentralized government.

If a state wanted to have a true Libertarian government that would be a good thing. If another wants something else well then...whatever



I'm close to an anarchist.....heh just extremely sympathetic to them at least and I do like Jefferson's view that the U.S. Constitution was a bad thing. The Articles were better..

Mises Institute has a lot of Literature on how a true Libertarian state might work. If it could work then all the better.


The Articles of the Confederation seemed to ensure that the Federal Government was a creation of the states and not the other way around like Lincoln (and also Hitler) supported. Hitler's first act in office was to do away with the States and he also admired Lincoln in his book Mein Komp(I don't support the South either but I do support decentralized government.) Hitler loved Lincoln's support of suspension of constitutional rights and support for centralized government, and modeled his presidency on such ideas.

Also the civil war was fought because of Buchanan's protection tarriff. If the Federal Government had not had power to regulate such thing we never would have had a Federal government vs. states war (civil war). I'm not saying that's a good thing either since the south was slave state.....

Both sides were flawed.

But I do support decentralized government.

[Jeremy]

I'm not sure how you could ever promote "going back to the Articles" when we're still working at going back to the Constitution. So there's not even a point in debating it until we're back to the Constitution.

[MGreen]

Eventually. None of this can be done overnight.

[Wendi]

The constitution worked out just fine, back when we actually followed it :rolleyes:

[acroso]

The constitution worked out just fine, back when we actually followed it :rolleyes:


The Constitution caused the Civil War. It gave Lincoln the right to supress the States. Lincoln threatened invasion in his inauguration address if they did not pay Buchananon's protective tariff to goods coming into Lousiana. The south passed the Confederate Constitution in response. Lincoln engineered a false flag operation to caox the South (who wanted to fight) into firing first to take the moral high ground. The rest was a nightmare.

IT DID NOT WORK FINE.

I'm not sympathizing with the South here, but Lincoln was a facist like Hitler and the South were a butch of morally bankrupt slavers.

Ever since the U.S. Constitution passed we've gotten more and more government. Lincoln, then FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Bush etc....it keeps getting worse. eventually we'll get the electronic police state,.

There is a case to be made that Jefferson was the only reasonable president we've had.

[Arklatex]

Let's just get people respecting the Constitution first lol.

[acroso]

Let's just get people respecting the Constitution first lol.

Why....it's a bad constitution compared to the articles. Why should we favor it?

[Jeremy]

Why....it's a bad constitution compared to the articles. Why should we favor it?

You're a bad constitution.

[acroso]

You're a bad constitution.

Do you oppose the rights of the State to regulate their own commerce? I do

And do you support the Federal Governments right to tax?

I don't

[acroso]

Also the Bill of Rights was the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Even if Jefferson supported them....it doesn't mean he supported what came before it.

[AggieforPaul]

Some people in this thread are displaying the type of dogmatic absolutism that is responsible for nobody taking libertarians seriously.

You want a candidate to win on a return to the AoC? Good luck with that, it's never going to happen.

Imagine how much better the world would be if we followed the Constitution. Congress having to issue actual issue declarations of war. Gold and silver are the only legal tender. Immediate withdrawal from NATO and the U.N. These can all be achieved if we just obey the Constitution.

To quote RP: "Why don't we just open up the Constitution, and read it!!!!!!!"

[acroso]

I disagree.

I'll vote for who's right. If someone runs a good campaign on a return to the articles....that's who I'm voting for.

In the mean time I might buy a picture of Jefferson's VP, Aaron Burr, blasting Hamilton in a duel in the front room!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg

Strike one up for the Libertarians! (and Jefferson\Burr!)











....and on a State level any politician who favors secession gets my vote.
http://www.anarchism.net/images/download_bf_1.jpg



OPPOSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

[The Machine]

The Constitution caused the Civil War. It gave Lincoln the right to supress the States. Lincoln threatened invasion in his inauguration address if they did not pay Buchananon's protective tariff to goods coming into Lousiana. The south passed the Confederate Constitution in response. Lincoln engineered a false flag operation to caox the South (who wanted to fight) into firing first to take the moral high ground. The rest was a nightmare.

IT DID NOT WORK FINE.

I'm not sympathizing with the South here, but Lincoln was a facist like Hitler and the South were a butch of morally bankrupt slavers.

Ever since the U.S. Constitution passed we've gotten more and more government. Lincoln, then FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Bush etc....it keeps getting worse. eventually we'll get the electronic police state,.

There is a case to be made that Jefferson was the only reasonable president we've had.

I think Jefferson Davis just rolled in his grave! Seriously, while this debate over foundational papers and principles is interesting, I think trying to keep US sovereignty intact should take precedence. There already IS a NAU signed, sealed, and just about to be delivered.

If the NAU Parliament becomes our governing body, the Constitution will join the Articles of Confederation as a historically significant topic of former US Government.

[acroso]

The Federal Government can not be fixed. Voting for Paul is fun because he thinks it can be fixed....but it can't. We might be able to reform Social Security....and it keep it solvent for 10 extra years until it's insolvent again....that's about it. That's conservatism.

I refuse to vote for that....well maybe I'd vote for Paul since he has some mainstream appeal. Building a Libertarian-ish movement is important and Paul has done so much pulling in mainstream Republicans.

But if there was an alternative running on a Thomas-Jeffersonian approach, I would support him\her instead.

We'd have to get rid of 99% of the Federal Government to reform it and it's frankly impossible....and as long as it had Hamiltonian powers...it would just enlarge again. It's important to support candidates on a state level who support breaking up the union if there are any. Trying to fix the Federal Government is like trying to domesticate a crocodile.....good luck. Keep that reptile on its leash\chains....or it will eat you!

The articles of the Confederation was that leash\chains and Hamilton took the leash off. There's almost no going back...

Now we have the Patriot Act, a Federal Reserve attempting to micromanage the economy, a messed up Fractional reserve baking system, a Frannie Freddie that took out 80% of the home mortgages last year most of which were junk, a medical industrial complex, a prison industrial complex, and a military industrial complex (the real government) etc.

[LibertyEagle]

But if there was an alternative running on a Jeffersonian approach, I would support him\her instead.

Well then you and the other 10 people who vote for that candidate can form a club or something.

Seriously, if we're already having trouble convincing people that we've strayed from the Constitution... something that they were raised to respect, how on earth do you think we can make this giant leap to the Articles of Confederation?

[acroso]

Well then you and the other 10 people who vote for that candidate can form a club or something.

Seriously, if we're already having trouble convincing people that we've strayed from the Constitution... something that they were raised to respect, how on earth do you think we can make this giant leap to the Articles of Confederation?



Who cares? I'm content with giving the Republicans hell. I believe eventually we'll be able to get secession movements going. Hawaii already has one. Montana and Oklahoma recently passed sovereignty resolutions....they are showing promise. If we can break the union up completely, then it's possible to reform it with something resembling the articles. And Obama presidency might actually be a good thing for brewing discontent....of course McCain stinks too so who knows. impossible to say who will be worse....we just know they'll both be TERRIBLE.

Or if not well then individual state governments would be fine with me. Just so long as we're free of the Federal Government.

We could amend the U.S. constitution too to make ti exactly like the articles of the Confederation. Of course that seems unlikely. Democracy is rule by the mob. You're still being ruled by someone. That is why decentralization is so necessary.

[The Machine]

You know...I have found myself and others like you coming to the realization that our current government is beyond repair. Although it is altruistic to think a constitutional process can overcome an unconstitutional government, it is an illusion--in my personal opinion--as is our so called "freedom".

[LibertyEagle]

Democracy is rule by the mob. You're still being ruled by someone. That is why decentralization is so necessary.

That's why our Founders gave us a REPUBLIC; not a Democracy.

[acroso]

You know...I have found myself and others like you coming to the realization that our current government is beyond repair. Although it is altruistic to think a constitutional process can overcome an unconstitutional government, it is an illusion--in my personal opinion--as is our so called "freedom".


Yes...that's why we need "internet 2" so that private websites are mostly gone and no one can promote such ideas!

Orwell would be proud.

[acroso]

BTW- if the U.S. Constitution were so great....why are we in our present situation and what in the world would prevent us from ending up where we are even if we restored it?

The U.S. constitution gave us Lincoln and centralized government. The articles of the Confederation would have stopped him in his tracks.

Hell....again....Lincoln might have done more good (stopping slavery) than he did harm (destroying the country and instituting centralized government), but that doesn't mean we should worship him. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even ban slavery in the North. Lincoln made sure loyal states were not punished. The whole thing was about the Federal Government's taxation demands.

[LibertyEagle]

One step at a time, acroso.

[strapko]

Good Idea or not should not be the question to ask. The question should be is it realistic? And judging from the time we live in, abolishing the Constitution can create an revolution not in our favor. Majority of the people are either neo-cons(Mccain) or socialist(Obama), you would need support from these groups of sheep; and before you move towards this goal, you would need to educate these people. Otherwise you'll be caught in an counter revolution and the outcome can be even worse.

[acroso]

I don't see how state secession can hurt us. The more decentralization of power the better.

[NaT805]

I don't see how state secession can hurt us. The more decentralization of power the better.

That's because they've heard Ron Paul say the word "Constitution" a lot and any questioning of it becomes personal.

[NaT805]

I think going to the Articles of Confederation is a step BACK. It limits the governmnet even more. There is no "fiction" in a confederacy, but there is in a federal government. The only real property that exists are States, the federal government is imaginary, it exists because a piece of paper says it does. States you can see and live on. Imaginary governments don't work. A confederacy is just all those sovereign States making a contract. Federal governments is an imaginary entity the people create.

VIVA LA CONFEDERATION

[The Machine]

I think going to the Articles of Confederation is a step BACK. It limits the governmnet even more. There is no "fiction" in a confederacy, but there is in a federal government. The only real property that exists are States, the federal government is imaginary, it exists because a piece of paper says it does. States you can see and live on. Imaginary governments don't work. A confederacy is just all those sovereign States making a contract. Federal governments is an imaginary entity the people create.

VIVA LA CONFEDERATION

While I understand the gist of what you're saying, the imaginary government part is a little convoluted, since in reality, a state is formed through a paper document that says it exists and is run by a government. I think private property, individually owned through deed of sale, is about as real as it will get at the present time.

Real or not, we live under the auspices of the federal government and very soon to be superseded by the NAU.

[AggieforPaul]

well then you and the other 10 people who vote for that candidate can form a club or something.

Seriously, if we're already having trouble convincing people that we've strayed from the constitution... Something that they were raised to respect, how on earth do you think we can make this giant leap to the articles of confederation?


+1776

[AggieforPaul]

BTW- if the U.S. Constitution were so great....why are we in our present situation and what in the world would prevent us from ending up where we are even if we restored it?

The U.S. constitution gave us Lincoln and centralized government. The articles of the Confederation would have stopped him in his tracks.

Hell....again....Lincoln might have done more good (stopping slavery) than he did harm (destroying the country and instituting centralized government), but that doesn't mean we should worship him. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even ban slavery in the North. Lincoln made sure loyal states were not punished. The whole thing was about the Federal Government's taxation demands.

Not many of us here are Lincoln fans. Lincoln didn't even obey the Constitution. He illegally suspended habeas corpus. He issued counterfeit money (fiat notes) to pay for the war. What makes you think he would have obeyed the AoC?

Ultimately, no document can stop the man with the most guns (in America, its the government). The people have to elect leaders that refuse to stray from that document, and the people have to demand impeachment of leaders who do stray. The political will to obey the Constitution is there, if we just keep educating people. Ron Paul made some huge waves, and we need to keep making progress. Switching our platform to the AoC would be stupid, there's no political will to obey that document.

[acroso]

Not many of us here are Lincoln fans. Lincoln didn't even obey the Constitution. He illegally suspended habeas corpus. He issued counterfeit money (fiat notes) to pay for the war. What makes you think he would have obeyed the AoC?

Ultimately, no document can stop the man with the most guns (in America, its the government). The people have to elect leaders that refuse to stray from that document, and the people have to demand impeachment of leaders who do stray. The political will to obey the Constitution is there, if we just keep educating people. Ron Paul made some huge waves, and we need to keep making progress. Switching our platform to the AoC would be stupid, there's no political will to obey that document.

The war against the South started because he had the ability to tax. If he hadn't had (and the ability to regulate the State's trade) that there never would have been a conflict....since that was what the war was about (Buchanan's protective tariff tax.) Once again....perhaps stopping slavery did more good than it did harm (creating centralized gobmet) but both sides were flawed.

I also don't want world government regulating our trade. The Central government encroached on state rights first by taking control of their taxes and trade. Now NAFTA and CAFTA want to take control of U.S. sovereignty under the guise of free-market trade when it's really centralized\global planning.

[AggieforPaul]

You're preaching to the choir. I've read DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", and I accept his hypothesis that Lincoln's main agenda was propping up Henry Clay's "american system" consisting of protective tariffs, corporate welfare, and a national bank. I know the war wasn't started by Lincoln mainly over slavery. (Be careful saying that wasn't a big part of it though, Ron Paul even acknowledges it was a significant factor)

What I'm saying is that Lincoln did things the Constitution doesn't even allow. So how would the AoC have stopped him if he didn't play by the rules in the first place. He was essentially America's Stalin, he believed he was the law

[acroso]

AggieforPaul,

Rockwell has a podcast called Lincoln's war. Certainly slavery became part of it but it never had anything to do with the initial causes of the war, which was Buchanan's protective tariff's.

Also if Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery- why did he keep it legal in all Northern and border states that participated?

[AggieforPaul]

Because he didn't want to piss them off. He wanted them on his side. Abolitionism wasn't his main motive for going to war, I know that.

[Truth Warrior]

Why not? The government has, WITH the people's IMPLIED consent. ;)

[Kludge]

What I'm saying is that Lincoln did things the Constitution doesn't even allow. So how would the AoC have stopped him if he didn't play by the rules in the first place. He was essentially America's Stalin, he believed he was the law

Right. I'm sure everyone agrees that the Constitution is being violated on a regular basis by legislators and enforcers on almost every level.

I think it really comes to the Supreme Court and who's bringing up lawsuits to them against the U.S. Gov't. I'd argue that the ACLU has probably done the most to protect our Constitutional rights in that sense. Maybe it would be simpler to instead fund, promote and otherwise enable private government accountability organizations to take issues up with the Supreme Court. But then, with the way the gov't is set up, even the Supreme Court is corruptable if the mob in congress/executive branch allows a mob of authoritarians into judging.

[Agent Chameleon]

Sorry, but the Articles of Confederation were a disaster.

I do however think the Constitution needs to be updated into a more clear language so we don't need any of these "interpretation" debates anymore.

[Truth Warrior]

Sorry, but the Articles of Confederation were a disaster.

I do however think the Constitution needs to be updated into a more clear language so we don't need any of these "interpretation" debates anymore.

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

;)

[brandon]

A presidential candidate has no business opposing the constitution. A president must follow the constitution no matter what it says.

If you want to oppose the constitution, then you run for a legislative office. After you're elected you can draft a bill calling for a new constitutional convention.

[Truth Warrior]

A presidential candidate has no business opposing the constitution. A president must follow the constitution no matter what it says.

If you want to oppose the constitution, then you run for a legislative office. After you're elected you can draft a bill calling for a new constitutional convention.

The Military Lies
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/young-r4.html

[Kludge]

If you want to oppose the constitution, then you run for a legislative office.

So long as we have executive orders, is the presidential position technically not a legislative position?

[brandon]

So long as we have executive orders, is the presidential position technically not a legislative position?

Good point.

[Truth Warrior]

Wasn't Roe v. Wade merely SCOTUS legislation for a cover of just another previous spineless Democrat controlled Congress?

[The Moog Magician]

The Articles of Confederation failed because it only created bitterness between the states rather than uniting them. It was a horrible form of government, and it created an incredibly weak United States that would have quickly been utterly destroyed.

[Agent Chameleon]

The Articles of Confederation failed because it only created bitterness between the states rather than uniting them. It was a horrible form of government, and it created an incredibly weak United States that would have quickly been utterly destroyed.

+1

[The Moog Magician]

I'm so sick of all the anarchist nonsense on this board, and even more sick of anti-constitution talk.

Anarchists believe in no government but yet believe in the rule of law in some capacity. This is a contradiction, but basically I interpret this as extremely local rule of law for crimes that only affect another's rights. This is actually very consistent with the views of federalists like Hamilton and Madison. Bear with me.

The Articles of Confederation was an admirable attempt at extremely little national government, and it did not work. I wish it did, believe me, but it would only lead to completely independent states. That possibly wouldn't be SO bad, but I believe in the sovereignty of nations. Our revolution was fought and won united, and we share a national identity. Therefore, keeping the states united is a justifiable and noble purpose of the national government, in my opinion.

Under the Articles, States argued about differing currencies, taxation of state to state imports, etc. Plus, the national government could only ask the states for money, so the war debt was not paid. And it could only ask for soldiers, so no war against foreign tyrannical control could be fought. This could only be disastrous for the United States. They would be not only weak, but utterly untrustworthy as well. How could you trust an ally whose members can't get along to be faithful to your alliance? We would have fallen under the Articles, and all that was won in the American Revolution would be lost. The world's number 1 symbol for freedom would be lost.

The Constitution had two purposes--one driven by the federalists and one by the anti-federalists. The main text of the constitution lays out a very small, succinct list of national powers, most of which exist to keep states from arguing. There is no tyrannical control allowed in this constitution as long as they are read through the lens of the original intent of its authors. Perhaps the largest power is to regulate interstate commerce, which was intended only to prevent states from ripping each other off. Modern tyrants use this clause as justification to regulate anything which at some point had anything to do with transportation from one state to another, which provides the federal government with near limitless control over the economy.

The other purpose of the Constitution was ensured by the anti-federalist through the Bill of Rights. This, of course, was intended to provide written protection of a few essential civil rights. The 14th Amendment applied these restrictions to state and local governments.

Now to the main point... There is nothing in the Constitution that could be considered too powerful, so long as the people keep the government strictly to it, unless you believe in the complete sovereignty of each individual state. The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, only state or local governments can make laws that really restrict the actions of people. Maybe you believe that even states are too large to have this much power, and I can understand that argument, but certainly the Constitution with its Amendments (aside from the 16th Amendment) does not allow for Washington-born tyranny.

What I'm saying is the theoretical American government is not inconsistent with the goals of anarchists who believe in the rule of law. The problem is NOT the Constitution nor the founders. The Constitution, conversely, is near perfection in terms of limiting government to only those things which it absolutely must have for the preservation of the nation. The problem is the inherent laziness, weakness, and ignorance of people. Rather than supporting the elimination of the Constitution and the national government, we Ron Paul followers ought to convince people that their federal government is huge and tyrannical because we have let it get that way. The Constitution needs to be our focus rather than its destruction. It's Ron Paul's focus, too.

[Truth Warrior]

The Articles of Confederation failed because it only created bitterness between the states rather than uniting them. It was a horrible form of government, and it created an incredibly weak United States that would have quickly been utterly destroyed. So that justifies and explains the unauthorized and illegal coup by the Federalist's cabal?

FYI ......

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

[LibertyEagle]

BTW- if the U.S. Constitution were so great....why are we in our present situation and what in the world would prevent us from ending up where we are even if we restored it?

Because we sat on our asses too long and let our public servants get away with murder. That's why!!

It was our job to watch the SOBs and to throw them out of office, if they didn't follow the Constitution. Well, we didn't. We sat here and watched our Constitution, little-by-little be ripped to shreds. So, don't sit there and blame the Constitution, we should blame OURSELVES. After that, perhaps we should figure out how we can reach the People, without running them off, because we approach them like a bunch of lunatic punks.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ~Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry

[The Moog Magician]

Again, I believe in the sovereignty of nations. We are a nation with a great shared history, and that is worth preserving.

[The Moog Magician]

Because we sat on our asses too long and let our public servants get away with murder. That's why!!

It was our job to watch the SOBs and to throw them out of office, if they didn't follow the Constitution. Well, we didn't. We sat here and watched our Constitution, little-by-little be ripped to shreds. So, don't sit there and blame the Constitution, we should blame OURSELVES. After that, perhaps we should figure out how we can reach the People, without running them off, because we approach them like a bunch of lunatic punks.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ~Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry

Bingo.

[Truth Warrior]

It's the US military's job also. Read the oaths they all take and swear to. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

It's the US military's job also. Read the oaths they all take and swear to. :rolleyes:

Why the rolleyes?

[Truth Warrior]

I'm so sick of all the anarchist nonsense on this board, and even more sick of anti-constitution talk.

Anarchists believe in no government but yet believe in the rule of law in some capacity. This is a contradiction, but basically I interpret this as extremely local rule of law for crimes that only affect another's rights. This is actually very consistent with the views of federalists like Hamilton and Madison. Bear with me.

The Articles of Confederation was an admirable attempt at extremely little national government, and it did not work. I wish it did, believe me, but it would only lead to completely independent states. That possibly wouldn't be SO bad, but I believe in the sovereignty of nations. Our revolution was fought and won united, and we share a national identity. Therefore, keeping the states united is a justifiable and noble purpose of the national government, in my opinion.

Under the Articles, States argued about differing currencies, taxation of state to state imports, etc. Plus, the national government could only ask the states for money, so the war debt was not paid. And it could only ask for soldiers, so no war against foreign tyrannical control could be fought. This could only be disastrous for the United States. They would be not only weak, but utterly untrustworthy as well. How could you trust an ally whose members can't get along to be faithful to your alliance? We would have fallen under the Articles, and all that was won in the American Revolution would be lost. The world's number 1 symbol for freedom would be lost.

The Constitution had two purposes--one driven by the federalists and one by the anti-federalists. The main text of the constitution lays out a very small, succinct list of national powers, most of which exist to keep states from arguing. There is no tyrannical control allowed in this constitution as long as they are read through the lens of the original intent of its authors. Perhaps the largest power is to regulate interstate commerce, which was intended only to prevent states from ripping each other off. Modern tyrants use this clause as justification to regulate anything which at some point had anything to do with transportation from one state to another, which provides the federal government with near limitless control over the economy.

The other purpose of the Constitution was ensured by the anti-federalist through the Bill of Rights. This, of course, was intended to provide written protection of a few essential civil rights. The 14th Amendment applied these restrictions to state and local governments.

Now to the main point... There is nothing in the Constitution that could be considered too powerful, so long as the people keep the government strictly to it, unless you believe in the complete sovereignty of each individual state. The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, only state or local governments can make laws that really restrict the actions of people. Maybe you believe that even states are too large to have this much power, and I can understand that argument, but certainly the Constitution with its Amendments (aside from the 16th Amendment) does not allow for Washington-born tyranny.

What I'm saying is the theoretical American government is not inconsistent with the goals of anarchists who believe in the rule of law. The problem is NOT the Constitution nor the founders. The Constitution, conversely, is near perfection in terms of limiting government to only those things which it absolutely must have for the preservation of the nation. The problem is the inherent laziness, weakness, and ignorance of people. Rather than supporting the elimination of the Constitution and the national government, we Ron Paul followers ought to convince people that their federal government is huge and tyrannical because we have let it get that way. The Constitution needs to be our focus rather than its destruction. It's Ron Paul's focus, too.

Well if YOU would just get YOUR governments out of OUR lives, off OUR backs, and out of OUR pockets. Just maybe, we'd then shut up and just let YOU play your silly statist games.

Until that time just adjust and adapt. :p

[Truth Warrior]

Again, I believe in the sovereignty of nations. We are a nation with a great shared history, and that is worth preserving. It's just too bad that you don't seem to believe in the sovereignty of individuals also. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Why the rolleyes?

The Military Lies
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/young-r4.html

[LibertyEagle]

Well if YOU would just get YOUR governments out of OUR lives, off OUR backs, and out of OUR pockets. Just maybe, we'd then shut up and just let YOU play your silly statist games.

Until that time just adjust and adapt. :p

The interesting thing about all this, is that Ron Paul's movement is about reinstating the Constitution and the rule of law. His organization, the CFL, is suggesting we do that, by taking back the Republican party.

So, while you're very welcome here, TW, I fail to see what your goal is? Is it to derail Ron Paul's plan? Who, since he is a congressman, it would seem that you also classify as a "statist". :rolleyes:

Oh, and BTW, it is YOUR government too. Regardless of how much YOU or any of us don't like how our public servants are subverting it now.

[LibertyEagle]

The Military Lies
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/young-r4.html

I said nothing about the military. You did.

[LibertyEagle]

It's just too bad that you don't seem to believe in the sovereignty of individuals also. :rolleyes:

And you base that on what, TW?

[Truth Warrior]

The interesting thing about all this, is that Ron Paul's movement is about reinstating the Constitution and the rule of law. His organization, the CFL, is suggesting we do that, by taking back the Republican party.

So, while you're very welcome here, TW, I fail to see what your goal is? Is it to derail Ron Paul's plan? Who, since he is a congressman, it would seem that you also classify as a "statist". :rolleyes: Haven't you and I been through this ALREADY, SEVERAL TIMES before? :rolleyes:

Help me to understand why I should even bother to answer your questions, since you continue to refuse to answer mine.

I have NO interest in helping you to merely play "Gotcha!". :p

Thanks! :)

[LibertyEagle]

Haven't you and I been through this ALREADY, SEVERAL TIMES before? :rolleyes:

Help me to understand why I should even bother to answer your questions, since you continue to refuse to answer mine.

I have NO interest in helping you to merely play "Gotcha!". :p

Thanks! :)

You have no interest in answering anyone's questions apparently, TW. :rolleyes:

Your silence speaks volumes. ;)

[mport1]

I'd love to see the Constitution done away with along with the government.

[TastyWheat]

If the Constitution was abused then the Articles of Confederation would be abused.

[Agent Chameleon]

If the Constitution was abused then the Articles of Confederation would be abused.

+1

[Truth Warrior]

You have no interest in answering anyone's questions apparently, TW. :rolleyes:

Your silence speaks volumes. ;) As does your's ALWAYS!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why do you always type like you edit for infowars, prisonplanet, etc? Are you their webmaster? lol

[Truth Warrior]

Why do you always type like you edit for infowars, prisonplanet, etc? Are you their webmaster? lol
Because emphasis and nuance tend to just routinely get lost in the purely written word, like on Internet forums. Hence the provided editor options and emoticons, to help to address the communication shortfalls.<IMHO>

Taint any kind of rocket science to figure out there, Bub. :rolleyes:

[acroso]

Jefferson favored the articles...state power.

They worked better. Jefferson warned of the dangers of a Federal Government that was all empowered by the U.S. Constitution and he was right. People keep "Romanticizing" a document that was corrupt and unworkable from the start.

Back to the articles!

I think Paul should run on a restoration of the U.S. Constitution but also he should support changing it so it's exactly like the articles. Or alternatively he could oppose the U.S. Constitution and support its replacement by the articles. Both of these accomplish the same thing so either way.

[LibertyEagle]

As does your's ALWAYS!

I'm not being silent, TW. You are. ;)

[NaT805]

I love you Truth Warrior.

[NaT805]

The reason the Constitution got abused is because they had the power to begin with...Power corrupts, it doesn't matter how little.

No government should be able to do anything an individual cannot, should I have the authority to levy taxes on you? Or charge people that you trade with a tariff?

[mediahasyou]

Going back to the Articles of Confederation is a very interesting proposition. Someone should make a list of pro's and con's on both the documents.

:rolleyes:http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146994


The articles does not justify theft. And therefore, is the best document.

[hypnagogue]

I think the Constitution is due for an overhaul, but you can't do that while it's reeling out of control. Step one, restore adherence. Step two, improve and update.

[Agent Chameleon]

I think the Constitution is due for an overhaul, but you can't do that while it's reeling out of control. Step one, restore adherence. Step two, improve and update.

+1

[Truth Warrior]

I love you Truth Warrior. Thank you.

[BCR_9er]

"The United States is putting together a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? Think about it it has served us well for over 200 years and we don't appear to be using it anymore."

-Jay Leno

[ChooseLiberty]

Anyone favor doing away with the U.S. Constitution?

Kristol, Bush, randomly selected neocons? :D