PDA

View Full Version : Is the constitution your political god




Kraig
03-18-2009, 09:34 AM
I know nearly everyone here has great respect for the US Constitution, and for good reason, if our government followed it more strictly, we would not be in the situation that we are in today. That being said, do you guys consider the constitution the end all goal, do you consider it to be the ultimate form of government, do you consider it to be without need of improvement?

For me, this "movement" has been a been a seemingly endless quest for knowledge, because of that I have been constantly learning new things, accepting new ideals and rejecting old ones. To me, freedom and the moral high ground are certainly higher goals than the constitution, the constitution was created to help provide these things, these things were not created by the constitution. So what do I consider "the moral high ground"? I think what most people here can agree on: the use of force and violence outside of self defense is always wrong, and any action that does not harm others or when all involved have volunteered for it without deception then it is acceptable.

Those two basic principles of non-violence and volunteerism has led me on a path to find what form of society would best serve those goals. I went down this path and my first stop was the constitution, thinking it was the best. I then realized that, however great and significant it is, it did lead us to where we are today and is therefore flawed (not to mention even at it's birth it allowed slavery among other things). So if it is flawed, certainly it could be improved upon and become what I am looking for - so I abandoned the constitution and set out to find the ultimate form of government, an improvement on the constitution.

Unfortunately as I spent months looking for an ideal form of government, I came to the conclusion that government itself is flawed, because it violates the two basic principles that were my goal. Those two principles being my goal, I now seek even better forms of society, better than any government or constitution could possibly provide. This has me now leaning towards being an anarchist, or perhaps anarcho-capitalism if you will. But I still have so much to learn, no one can say where this will take me a year from now.

I am not posting this to create yet another anarchy vs. the state argument. That is not my point at all, just my own personal journey. My point is that if you talked to me about politics a year ago, I would have been a strict constitutionalist, and look how much that has changed! My point is to hopefully discuss how willing we are to change our beliefs when something better comes along, how willing are we to try to improve on the constitution, or take it even farther than that? I think most of us can agree that there are ideals that are certainly higher/more valuable than the constitution, the real question is this: do our political goals constantly seek those out? Or are they blinded by the constitution being the ultimate goal?

acptulsa
03-18-2009, 09:40 AM
Getting back to the Constitution would be a significant step in the right direction. Since it was never officially repealed as the law of the land, it seems like it would be a comparatively easy step.

Theory and principle are wonderful things, as far as they go. The Constitution upheld certain principles for us for a very long time. If pushing the 'reset button' will net us another two hundred years of mostly progress in securing liberty for the denizens of at least one nation on earth, I say that's worth fighting for.

yokna7
03-18-2009, 09:41 AM
anarchy maybe

Truth Warrior
03-18-2009, 09:43 AM
Nope!

No Treason. No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority. (1870).* (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)

Elwar
03-18-2009, 09:45 AM
The Constitution is a good start.

Once we're at that point, then we can start working toward true liberty.

Kraig
03-18-2009, 09:48 AM
The Constitution is a good start.

Once we're at that point, then we can start working toward true liberty.

To play the devil's advocate here, it WAS a good start. Wouldn't doing it again be the same good start just a 2nd time? Certainly there is a way to move FORWARD rather than going back to what didn't work in the long run.

BuddyRey
03-18-2009, 10:40 AM
Sadly, I can no longer call myself a Constitutionalist at all. I have a lot of problems with the Founding document, and I think it gives government far too much power. It probably would have been in much better alignment with a strictly Minarchistic (or even Voluntaryist) philosophy if the stupid Federalists hadn't mucked it up.

Truth Warrior
03-18-2009, 10:53 AM
The Constitution is a good start.

Once we're at that point, then we can start working toward true liberty. Moot point while the state still grows.<IMHO> :(

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution (http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-18-2009, 12:10 PM
I know nearly everyone here has great respect for the US Constitution, and for good reason, if our government followed it more strictly, we would not be in the situation that we are in today. That being said, do you guys consider the constitution the end all goal, do you consider it to be the ultimate form of government, do you consider it to be without need of improvement?

For me, this "movement" has been a been a seemingly endless quest for knowledge, because of that I have been constantly learning new things, accepting new ideals and rejecting old ones. To me, freedom and the moral high ground are certainly higher goals than the constitution, the constitution was created to help provide these things, these things were not created by the constitution. So what do I consider "the moral high ground"? I think what most people here can agree on: the use of force and violence outside of self defense is always wrong, and any action that does not harm others or when all involved have volunteered for it without deception then it is acceptable.

Those two basic principles of non-violence and volunteerism has led me on a path to find what form of society would best serve those goals. I went down this path and my first stop was the constitution, thinking it was the best. I then realized that, however great and significant it is, it did lead us to where we are today and is therefore flawed (not to mention even at it's birth it allowed slavery among other things). So if it is flawed, certainly it could be improved upon and become what I am looking for - so I abandoned the constitution and set out to find the ultimate form of government, an improvement on the constitution.

Unfortunately as I spent months looking for an ideal form of government, I came to the conclusion that government itself is flawed, because it violates the two basic principles that were my goal. Those two principles being my goal, I now seek even better forms of society, better than any government or constitution could possibly provide. This has me now leaning towards being an anarchist, or perhaps anarcho-capitalism if you will. But I still have so much to learn, no one can say where this will take me a year from now.

I am not posting this to create yet another anarchy vs. the state argument. That is not my point at all, just my own personal journey. My point is that if you talked to me about politics a year ago, I would have been a strict constitutionalist, and look how much that has changed! My point is to hopefully discuss how willing we are to change our beliefs when something better comes along, how willing are we to try to improve on the constitution, or take it even farther than that? I think most of us can agree that there are ideals that are certainly higher/more valuable than the constitution, the real question is this: do our political goals constantly seek those out? Or are they blinded by the constitution being the ultimate goal?

The U.S. Constitution is the legal marriage to a more perfect government. In order to correctly interpret that more perfect government and what it was intended to be, one needs to juxtapose it to the divorce from tyranny that is depicted in The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence gave our Founding-Fathers the justification to divorce the people out from under the rule of a king ordained with God's sovereign authority.
Our Founding-Fathers used the science of natural law to achieve this by reducing politics to an undeniable conclusion. What students today fail to realize is how Locke's natural-rights didn't have sociological or psychological meaning as the social sciences did not exist during that time. To the contrary, natural-rights reduced down to the physical level like DnA. Such rights were extremely meaningful because they were politically bipartisan. The importance of being an American wasn't in the endless differences in our minds but in that unique common aspect in our souls.
So, while a person might be judged a king or queen ordained with God's sovereign authority, they also have the same soul as the lowest peasant serving under his or her rule. A person who does not obey the conscience of their soul, thus blinding them to that which is self-evident and unalienably a natural right, is not fit to be a king or queen but is instead judged a tyrant.
Simple.
Therefore, our Founding-Fathers asserted:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
They then commence to narrow down politics to a natural law conclusion:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

According to our Founding-Fathers, no other political truth existed between their declaration and the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

If you don't think so, then what in your opinion does politics reduce to?

Kotin
03-18-2009, 12:14 PM
I tend more towards the good old Articles of Confederation.


good document..

Truth Warrior
03-18-2009, 12:26 PM
The U.S. Constitution is the legal marriage to a more perfect government. In order to correctly interpret that more perfect government and what it was intended to be, one needs to juxtapose it to the divorce from tyranny that is depicted in The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence gave our Founding-Fathers the justification to divorce the people out from under the rule of a king ordained with God's sovereign authority.
Our Founding-Fathers used the science of natural law to achieve this by reducing politics to an undeniable conclusion. What students today fail to realize is how Locke's natural-rights didn't have sociological or psychological meaning as the social sciences did not exist during that time. To the contrary, natural-rights reduced down to the physical level like DnA. Such rights were extremely meaningful because they were politically bipartisan. The importance of being an American wasn't in the endless differences in our minds but in that unique common aspect in our souls.
So, while a person might be judged a king or queen ordained with God's sovereign authority, they also have the same soul as the lowest peasant serving under his or her rule. A person who does not obey the conscience of their soul, thus blinding them to that which is self-evident and unalienably a natural right, is not fit to be a king or queen but is instead judged a tyrant.
Simple.
Therefore, our Founding-Fathers asserted:

They then commence to narrow down politics to a natural law conclusion:


According to our Founding-Fathers, no other political truth existed between their declaration and the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

If you don't think so, then what in your opinion does politics reduce to?

Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer96.html)

dr. hfn
03-18-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm a Jeffersonian

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-18-2009, 12:31 PM
Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer96.html)

I see you reduce politics down to thoughtlessness.

jack555
03-18-2009, 12:33 PM
No the constitution is not perfect, its just the best thats ever been made and used.



The language should be WAY clearer. Perhaps even giving an example for each amendment. The fact that the founders wanted us to have the right to bear arms and they worded it so rinky dinky is terrible. They were asking for trouble.

Truth Warrior
03-18-2009, 12:36 PM
No the constitution is not perfect, its just the best thats ever been made and used.



The language should be WAY clearer. Perhaps even giving an example for each amendment. The fact that the founders wanted us to have the right to bear arms and they worded it so rinky dinky is terrible. They were asking for trouble. How many others have you campared it to?

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Kraig
03-18-2009, 01:58 PM
The U.S. Constitution is the legal marriage to a more perfect government. In order to correctly interpret that more perfect government and what it was intended to be, one needs to juxtapose it to the divorce from tyranny that is depicted in The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence gave our Founding-Fathers the justification to divorce the people out from under the rule of a king ordained with God's sovereign authority.
Our Founding-Fathers used the science of natural law to achieve this by reducing politics to an undeniable conclusion. What students today fail to realize is how Locke's natural-rights didn't have sociological or psychological meaning as the social sciences did not exist during that time. To the contrary, natural-rights reduced down to the physical level like DnA. Such rights were extremely meaningful because they were politically bipartisan. The importance of being an American wasn't in the endless differences in our minds but in that unique common aspect in our souls.
So, while a person might be judged a king or queen ordained with God's sovereign authority, they also have the same soul as the lowest peasant serving under his or her rule. A person who does not obey the conscience of their soul, thus blinding them to that which is self-evident and unalienably a natural right, is not fit to be a king or queen but is instead judged a tyrant.
Simple.
Therefore, our Founding-Fathers asserted:

They then commence to narrow down politics to a natural law conclusion:


According to our Founding-Fathers, no other political truth existed between their declaration and the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

If you don't think so, then what in your opinion does politics reduce to?

So you are saying the constitution needs to be bound with the DOI? Too bad the DOI is just a historical document and has no authority. I think I can agree with you that this would be a step in the right direction.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-18-2009, 02:41 PM
No the constitution is not perfect, its just the best thats ever been made and used.



The language should be WAY clearer. Perhaps even giving an example for each amendment. The fact that the founders wanted us to have the right to bear arms and they worded it so rinky dinky is terrible. They were asking for trouble.

Having a Constitution for the sake of having a Constitution is no better than having no Constitution whatsoever.

Dripping Rain
03-18-2009, 02:44 PM
No

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-18-2009, 02:45 PM
So you are saying the constitution needs to be bound with the DOI? Too bad the DOI is just a historical document and has no authority. I think I can agree with you that this would be a step in the right direction.

The Constitution wasn't created by a legal authority. It was established unofficially by WE THE PEOPLE. That was the point. The signers were acting on the behalf of the people. The point, the burden, was to establish a Civil-Purpose over what they knew would become a tangled web of legal-precedents once the new government started functioning as a necessary tyranny.
It is no wonder that lawyers like to claim that legal precedents supercede Civil-Purpose. It suits them well.

Original_Intent
03-18-2009, 03:14 PM
Yes. If interpreted by the Original_Intent of the founders. :D

There is another side of the coin though. The Constitution was known to be only sufficient for the government of a moral people. So I admit that the Constitution is not sufficient to govern our current society, but that is a shortcoming of the people, not the document.

It doesn't mean I want more government. Just that our judicial system is a joke, if true criminals were punished to the degree that they should be and non-criminals such as drug users were left alone -

I'm depressed now. :(

nayjevin
03-18-2009, 03:19 PM
There is another side of the coin though. The Constitution was known to be only sufficient for the government of a moral people. So I admit that the Constitution is not sufficient to govern our current society, but that is a shortcoming of the people, not the document.

echo

if the people were on top of things the amendment process allows for always moving forward.

unfortunately, the people are on prozac :)

Original_Intent
03-18-2009, 03:27 PM
How many others have you campared it to?

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

I disagree. the piece of parchment never had and never claimed to have the power to "prevent it".

People failed, not the document. Even your sought after anarchy is open to the weakness of people reverting to their "need" for government.

Truth Warrior
03-18-2009, 04:01 PM
I disagree. the piece of parchment never had and never claimed to have the power to "prevent it".

As Lysander correctly said in 1870. :) Some here STILL seen to think it's darned near perfect. :confused:

People failed, not the document. Even your sought after anarchy is open to the weakness of people reverting to their "need" for government.

Yep, the people ELECTED and GIVEN power over a couple of CENTURIES cumulatively NOW. Nah, I'm just watching barbarism self-destruct. Maybe a few humans will manage to survive the species self-inflicted death wish. ;) Here's hoping! :)



Thanks! :)

LibertyEagle
03-18-2009, 04:22 PM
Yep, the people ELECTED and GIVEN power over a couple of CENTURIES cumulatively NOW. Nah, I'm just watching barbarism self-destruct. Maybe a few humans will manage to survive the species self-inflicted death wish. Here's hoping!

No. That's your first problem. Expecting that the American people could just sit on their asses and just hand over all the reins to our elected representatives. We were told to stay educated and to be vigilant. Problem is, we didn't. We lost our government, because WE FAILED. So no amount of additional sitting on our asses, is going to get us out of the problem that was caused by our doing the same. --

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be. -- Thomas Jefferson

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." -- John Adams

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster (1834)

"The price of freedom is Eternal Vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-18-2009, 04:45 PM
Yes. If interpreted by the Original_Intent of the founders. :D

There is another side of the coin though. The Constitution was known to be only sufficient for the government of a moral people. So I admit that the Constitution is not sufficient to govern our current society, but that is a shortcoming of the people, not the document.

It doesn't mean I want more government. Just that our judicial system is a joke, if true criminals were punished to the degree that they should be and non-criminals such as drug users were left alone -

I'm depressed now. :(

The three branches of the government no longer serve the Civil-Purpose that was laid out by *our Founding-Fathers in The Declaration of Independence. Instead, each is lost in the vast business of legal-precedence.
Like I said the other day, when government involves itself in the frugal business of happiness, the children get fed. On the other hand, when government involves itself in the more lucrative business of equality and freedom, the dogs end up starving to death while not enough poison can be bought to kill all the rats that will proliferate as a consequence.

BTW: A self-evident truth reduces to become indelibly and unalienbly written on the soul as a natural right. This means it supercedes all past traditions or future occurences irregardless. The interpretation of the Constitution as a legal document marrying us to a new more perfect government depends wholly on The Declaration of Independence as a legal decree divorcing us from tyranny. This means we no longer need to be manipulated by the instruments of tyranny. We the people already have within us unalienable natural rights.
*President Obama distances himself politically from our Founding-Fathers by referring to them eloquently as "the founding-fathers." While only foreigners refer to them that way, referring to them in such informal terms also seems to raise President Obama above their level.

Original_Intent
03-18-2009, 05:14 PM
No. That's your first problem. Expecting that the American people could just sit on their asses and just hand over all the reins to our elected representatives. We were told to stay educated and to be vigilant. Problem is, we didn't. We lost our government, because WE FAILED. So no amount of additional sitting on our asses, is going to get us out of the problem that was caused by our doing the same. --

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be. -- Thomas Jefferson

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." -- John Adams

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster (1834)

"The price of freedom is Eternal Vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson

Thanks for covering my six during my commute LE. I agree 100%. It was not a failure in the elected officials (they were the small part of the problem) the failure was in the people as a whole. <IMHO> :D

Truth Warrior
03-18-2009, 05:30 PM
No. That's your first problem. Expecting that the American people could just sit on their asses and just hand over all the reins to our elected representatives. We were told to stay educated and to be vigilant. Problem is, we didn't. We lost our government, because WE FAILED. So no amount of additional sitting on our asses, is going to get us out of the problem that was caused by our doing the same. --

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be. -- Thomas Jefferson

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." -- John Adams

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster (1834)

"The price of freedom is Eternal Vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson IF it's EVERYBODY'S fault "collectively", then it's really NOBODY'S fault "individually". ;) Poli Sci .0000001.

"We the People" NEVER agreed to the CONstitution, as YOU OF COURSE. NOW WELL KNOW. :p

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution

Around a century or so before Lysander. ;)

Truth Warrior
03-18-2009, 05:36 PM
Thanks for covering my six during my commute LE. I agree 100%. It was not a failure in the elected officials (they were the small part of the problem) the failure was in the people as a whole. <IMHO> :D

"The road to HELL is paved with the most 'optimistic' of 'good intentions', gone bad." -- TW

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that hurts us, as it is the things we do know that ain't true."

;)

jack555
03-18-2009, 05:37 PM
How many others have you campared it to?

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr


I've done enough to know that we are the only (if I'm not mistaken) 1st world nation with free speech. Thats a direct result of our constitution. Compare it with the rest of the world. We are the freeest (though day by day they are killing our freedom).

The constitution has been around for a long time...it did a good job for a long time as well. It just needs a facelift (however what is dangerous is politicians would probably kill all the freedoms in it not give us more...)

Truth Warrior
03-18-2009, 05:39 PM
I've done enough to know that we are the only (if I'm not mistaken) 1st world nation with free speech. Thats a direct result of our constitution. Compare it with the rest of the world. We are the freeest (though day by day they are killing our freedom).

The constitution has been around for a long time...it did a good job for a long time as well. It just needs a facelift (however what is dangerous is politicians would probably kill all the freedoms in it not give us more...)

Check out the CONstitution of the USSR. ;) :p :rolleyes:

Invalid
03-18-2009, 05:50 PM
No, I don't like the U.S. Constitution. It's better than rule by democracy though so for right now it's probably a good thing.

Austin
03-18-2009, 08:02 PM
No.