What is the most best way to learn the meaning & principles of the Constitution?

[Galileo Galilei]

Poll: What is the most productive way to learn the true meaning & principles of the U.S. Constitution?

[aside from studying the plain language of the text]

1.

Study the debates of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787

2.

Study the debates of the State Ratifying Conventions between 1787 and 1789

This method was recommended by James Madison.

3.

Read the Federalist Papers

4.

Study the life, words, and actions of James Madison, including the Report of 1800 and the War of 1812

In my opinion, the Report of 1800 is the most profound and sustained work of Constitutional theory ever penned. The War of 1812 is instructive because is the best test case for theories of a profound Constitutional thinker that come in contact with stark practical realities.

Report of 1800
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_of_1800

5.

Study the life, words, and actions of Thomas Jefferson (including the Election of 1800)

6.

Study the Presidency of George Washington, including the debates with his cabinet, the House of Representatives, and the Pacificus-Helvidius Debates

Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=1910&Itemid=27

7.

Study the Marshall Court and cases like Marbury vs Madison

8.

Study the Era of Good Feelings & the Presidency of James Monroe

This has the advantage of learning about an ideal presidency of a protege of Jefferson & Madison who presided during the first relatively stable period in our history, after we had truly gained independence and thrown off the yoke of England. It was the first era in our history not marked continual profound crisis.

9.

Study Jacksonian Democracy, including the Bank War, and Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, and the Webster-Hayne Debates

10.

Study the Taney Court

11.

Study the lives, words and actions of the Adams Family; Sam, John, and John Quincy

12.

Study the anti-Federalist Papers

13.

Study the War of the Giants (election of 1824) between Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun

This election was the biggest free-for-all in American history, with five great leaders all debating the Constitution and their vision for American.

United States presidential election, 1824
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1824

14.

Study if the life, words, and actions of Joseph Story

Justice Story served from 1811 to 1845 on both the Marshall & Taney Courts, and wrote Commentaries of the Constitution in 1833. Story was the only Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison.

COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES;
WITH A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COLONIES AND STATES, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION
BY JOSEPH STORY, LL. D.,
DANE PROFESSOR OF LAW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm

15.

Study Judge James Kent's commentaries on the Constitution

COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW
BY JAMES KENT
http://www.constitution.org/jk/jk_000.htm

16.

Study the transitional presidencies of Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan, as well as the Liberty Party

17.

Study the life, words, actions, and crimes of Abraham Lincoln

18.

Study the life, words, and actions of Michael Badnarik

Good To Be King: The Foundation of Our Constitutional Freedom
by Michael Badnarik
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Be-King-Foundation-Constitutional/dp/1594110964

Video results for michael badnarik constitution
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&ei=P98FSsLmEpWqNYfD7OwH&resnum=0&q=michael+badnarik+constitution+class&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=Qd8FSunzFJWqNYfD7OwH&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

19.

Study the life, words, and actions of Dr. Ron Paul

20.

Study the Libertarian Party and their other presidential candidates, including Harry Browne, David Bergland, Ed Clark, and John Hospers

Why Government Doesn't Work
by Harry Browne
http://www.amazon.com/Government-Doesnt-Work-Harry-Browne/dp/0965603601

The Great Libertarian Offer
by Harry Browne
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Libertarian-Offer-Harry-Browne/dp/0965603695

Libertarianism in One Lesson: Why Libertarianism Is the Best Hope for America's Future
by David Bergland

A New Beginning
by Ed Clark
http://www.amazon.com/New-Beginning-Ed-Clark/dp/B001C4CTOS

Libertarianism: a political philosophy for tomorrow
by John Hospers
http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-political-philosophy-John-Hospers/dp/0840211635

:cool:

[MRoCkEd]

read it

[Galileo Galilei]

read it

[aside from studying the plain language of the text]

[MRoCkEd]

by it i mean the declaration of independence of course

[Galileo Galilei]

by it i mean the declaration of independence of course

How do you learn about the Constitution from that, other than that the Constitution is designed to protect liberty.

I see some idiot voted for the anti-federalist papers.

[Njon]

It's more than just one thing. You need to know something of history, natural law, common law, the writings of the Founders, the ratifying conventions, etc.

YouTube - Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document - Ed Vieira (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SpA2Qe3FM)

[Austin]

How do you learn about the Constitution from that, other than that the Constitution is designed to protect liberty.

I see some idiot voted for the anti-federalist papers.
It's a viable option. Obviously when they were writing the anti-federalists papers, they had to combat the alleged positives of the Constitution with the reality of the matter. Probably not the best option, but still...

why even list it as option if it's idiotic?

[Galileo Galilei]

It's a viable option. Obviously when they were writing the anti-federalists papers, they had to combat the alleged positives of the Constitution with the reality of the matter. Probably not the best option, but still...

why even list it as option if it's idiotic?

The points made against the Constitution were all moslty made right at the Constitutional Convention, and at the State Ratifying Conventions.

After you take out the lack of Bill-of-Rights, even fewer points remain, since the Bill-of-Rights was added 2 years later.

Also, these anti-federalist points usually have little to do on how the Constitution should be interpretted, beyond the fact that it should be interpreted strictly based on what the text says.

Getting a grip on how to interpret the Constitution involves more than just ivory tower theory, it involves a knowledge of reality as well.

I included the anti-federalist papers to see if the anti-Constitution nuts could make a rational contribution to Ron Paul movement.

[Matt Collins]

There are a few things that should be top priority:
1- Judge Napolitano's books
2- Tom Woods / and Kevin Gutzman's books
3- Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class (available online for free).

[nate895]

The state ratifying conventions are where the original meaning was put into place. The problem is the fact that you can read into the text of the Constitution )the only thing with absolute legal merit) almost anything you want. It is a document that can be easily manipulated, and has been throughout history. That is how the Anti-Federalists saw it, and they were right.

[Uriel999]

How do you learn about the Constitution from that, other than that the Constitution is designed to protect liberty.

I see some idiot voted for the anti-federalist papers.

The anti-federalists were amazing. WTF is wrong with you?!

[Uriel999]

BTW I would group the Taney Court with Jacksonian America.

[disorderlyvision]

The anti-federalists were amazing. WTF is wrong with you?!


Agreed!

[Uriel999]

Agreed!

Hi new person! Welcome to the forum!

[nate895]

Agreed!

Then join the Anti-Federalist Party (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190249)!!!

[South Park Fan]

Anti-federalists rule!

[disorderlyvision]

Hi new person! Welcome to the forum!

Thanks, I have been lurking for a while though. I just decided to quit be lazy and opened an account.






Then join the Anti-Federalist Party (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190249)!!!

Your platform says that you wish to bring back the AoC. I do not think reinstituting the Articles of Confederation would be the answer. It seems we ran into some problems with it the first go round. Did the anti-federalists want to bring back the Articles? I do not recall. I had to read both the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers for a class a few years ago. I remember both having some solid points, but I leaned towards the anti-federalists philosophically.

I was suprised that somone on this forum called a supporter of the anti-federalists idiotic. The first thing I thought was that that person had no clue what and who the anti-federalists were. seems like they need to do some reading and educate themselves, and pull their head out of their nether regions.

I purchased a copy of the anti-federalists papers about a week ago, so that I can reread it, as it has been awhile.

[Conza88]

Albert Jay Nock: Our Enemy, The State.

[nate895]

Thanks, I have been lurking for a while though. I just decided to quit be lazy and opened an account.







Your platform says that you wish to bring back the AoC. I do not think reinstituting the Articles of Confederation would be the answer. It seems we ran into some problems with it the first go round. Did the anti-federalists want to bring back the Articles? I do not recall. I had to read both the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers for a class a few years ago. I remember both having some solid points, but I leaned towards the anti-federalists philosophically.

I was suprised that somone on this forum called a supporter of the anti-federalists idiotic. The first thing I thought was that that person had no clue what and who the anti-federalists were. seems like they need to do some reading and educate themselves, and pull their head out of their nether regions.

I purchased a copy of the anti-federalists papers about a week ago, so that I can reread it, as it has been awhile.

Most Anti-Federalists wanted the articles with amendments. They thought the troubles were hyped up well over what they really were. For example, Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts was seen as a huge problem by Federalists, but Anti-Federalists liked to point out that the rebellion was subdued by the state militia. The other problems could have easily been solved by amendment that would have provided solid revenue streams to the general government, and limiting the authority of the states to emit bills of credit.

[Galileo Galilei]

The anti-federalists were amazing. WTF is wrong with you?!

Where can I find their analysis of Article I, Article II, and Article III?

This is a poll about how to best study the Constitution.

[nate895]

Where can I find their analysis of Article I, Article II, and Article III?

This is a poll about how to best study the Constitution.

That is what the Anti-Federalists did. They analyzed the text the Constitution more in depth than anyone else. Read the Anti-Federalist writer "Brutus" if you want to see their in depth analysis on the powers granted to the General Government.

[Galileo Galilei]

Albert Jay Nock: Our Enemy, The State.

That's a great book. It doesn't have much analysis of the Constitution, compared to the Federaoist Papers.

[Galileo Galilei]

That is what the Anti-Federalists did. They analyzed the text the Constitution more in depth than anyone else. Read the Anti-Federalist writer "Brutus" if you want to see their in depth analysis on the powers granted to the General Government.

This is a poll about learning the meaning and principles of the Constitution.

[Galileo Galilei]

There are a few things that should be top priority:
1- Judge Napolitano's books
2- Tom Woods / and Kevin Gutzman's books
3- Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class (available online for free).

I put a link to Badnarik's videos in the opriginal post.

[nate895]

This is a poll about learning the meaning and principles of the Constitution.

Yes, and the Anti-Federalists understood what the Constitution would mean in the future. The state ratifying conventions is where they put into place what the people thought the Constitution meant, but the text of the Constitution is the only thing with absolute legal standing. The Anti-Federalists understood that power hungry politicians in the Federal Leviathan could manipulate the Constitution to mean whatever they wanted it to mean.

[Galileo Galilei]

The state ratifying conventions are where the original meaning was put into place. The problem is the fact that you can read into the text of the Constitution )the only thing with absolute legal merit) almost anything you want. It is a document that can be easily manipulated, and has been throughout history. That is how the Anti-Federalists saw it, and they were right.

You can do that with any text. Every government in history has done this.

The Constitution is different in that it has hundreds of internal safeguards, found no where else.

The AoC had virtually no internal safeguards at all to protect from tyranny.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.amazon.com/Making-America-Substance-Meaning-Constitution/dp/0880800178/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241985689&sr=8-2

Dr. Paul has said that he refers to this book, often.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ii1wOweUL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Beyond that, you need to read much more than one thing, like the poll seems to indicate. Read the Anti-Federalist papers, yes, but also read the Federalist papers and a lot of other things too.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, and the Anti-Federalists understood what the Constitution would mean in the future. The state ratifying conventions is where they put into place what the people thought the Constitution meant, but the text of the Constitution is the only thing with absolute legal standing. The Anti-Federalists understood that power hungry politicians in the Federal Leviathan could manipulate the Constitution to mean whatever they wanted it to mean.

That took over 70 years until Dishonest Abe Lincoln came along. Every generation has the responsibilty to protect liberty. Even after Lincoln, Constitutional incursions were relativley minor until 1913.

Have you not read Democracy in America?

We had the world's greatest republic in the 1840s, thanks to the Constitution.

[nate895]

You can do that with any text. Every government in history has done this.

The Constitution is different in that it has hundreds of internal safeguards, found no where else.

The AoC had virtually no internal safeguards at all to protect from tyranny.

I don't see any "necessary and proper" clauses in the AoC. I don't see any "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" clauses. The states serve as a check in the AoC, the central government would have just enough power with amendments to protect the frontiers and provide for free trade and nothing more.

[nate895]

That took over 70 years until Dishonest Abe Lincoln came along. Every generation has the responsibilty to protect liberty. Even after Lincoln, Constitutional incursions were relativley minor until 1913.

Have you not read Democracy in America?

We had the world's greatest republic in the 1840s, thanks to the Constitution.

If the Constitution cannot enforce itself, it is unworthy of existence, even if it takes one thousand years for that to happen.

It took the crown 400 years to infringe on the Magna Carta before the English Civil War, that didn't stop them from raising armies to correct the injustice and reform it. We need to alter or abolish our form of government, and the Constitution is simply too flawed to do that.

[Galileo Galilei]

Most Anti-Federalists wanted the articles with amendments. They thought the troubles were hyped up well over what they really were. For example, Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts was seen as a huge problem by Federalists, but Anti-Federalists liked to point out that the rebellion was subdued by the state militia. The other problems could have easily been solved by amendment that would have provided solid revenue streams to the general government, and limiting the authority of the states to emit bills of credit.

The anti-Federalists seceded from the Union in 1861.

One reason for the Constitution was to protect the states from foreign invaders.

The South, once outside the Union, was prompty invaded and conquered in only four years.

This is not a unique event.

For example, the ancient Greeks had a confederacy, until Philip and Alexander the Great decided to expand Macedonia.

In fact, the entire history of confederacies, in one of individual states, or groups of states, ravaging and conquering their former allies.

When confederacies did not eat each other alive, they were conquered by foreign invaders.

An example of this is the 12 Tribes of Israel, who got picked off one-by-one by the Assyrians and then the Babylonians.

This has what has always happened in history.

Another example is the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, which added province after province of formally independent states. In the later Empire, the provinces were bleed dry. Then we got the dark ages.

Our Founding Fathers, especially James Madison, studied history so it did not repeat itself.

[nate895]

The anti-Federalists seceded from the Union in 1861.

One reason for the Constitution was to protect the states from foreign invaders.

The South, once outside the Union, was prompty invaded and conquered in only four years.

This is not a unique event.

For example, the ancient Greeks had a confederacy, until Philip and Alexander the Great decided to expand Macedonia.

In fact, the entire history of confederacies, in one of individual states, or groups of states, ravaging and conquering their former allies.

When confederacies did not eat each other alive, they were conquered by foreign invaders.

An example of this is the 12 Tribes of Israel, who got picked off one-by-one by the Assyrians and then the Babylonians.

This has what has always happened in history.

Another example is the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, which added province after province of formally independent states. In the later Empire, the provinces were bleed dry. Then we got the dark ages.

Our Founding Fathers, especially James Madison, studied history so it did not repeat itself.

You apparently do not understand that the South had a huge government during the war, and that they fought a war centrally planned. If they would have chosen to take the Guerrilla War route, they would have won.

[LibertyEagle]

If the Constitution cannot enforce itself, it is unworthy of existence, even if it takes one thousand years for that to happen.
Nothing can enforce itself, besides a prison. WE were supposed to be the Constitution's enforcers. We were told that. But, we opted to sit on our asses. THAT is why we are in the mess we are in now.


It took the crown 400 years to infringe on the Magna Carta before the English Civil War, that didn't stop them from raising armies to correct the injustice and reform it. We need to alter or abolish our form of government, and the Constitution is simply too flawed to do that.

Our FORM of government is quite good. In fact, the best that mankind has ever devised. What's wrong is how we've allowed it to be perverted over time, by our lack of action.

Reinstate the founders' intent of the Constitution. That means we need to strip everything else away. Yeah, that's the ticket. :)

[Galileo Galilei]

I don't see any "necessary and proper" clauses in the AoC. I don't see any "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" clauses. The states serve as a check in the AoC, the central government would have just enough power with amendments to protect the frontiers and provide for free trade and nothing more.

OK, so laws in the AoC did not have to be nescessary, they did not have to be proper, and they did not have to be in the general welfare.

And they did not protect the right of free trade.

[Galileo Galilei]

You apparently do not understand that the South had a huge government during the war, and that they fought a war centrally planned. If they would have chosen to take the Guerrilla War route, they would have won.

Sure they would. They had 45% of their population enslaved. They had no industrial base.

I'm sure the guerrilla warriors would have done a better job than Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee.

In fact the South did have guerilla warriors, but not enough.

You see, free people fighting for their liberty make great guerilla warriors. Slaves don't.