[POLL] Do you consider yourself a Constitutionalist?

[realtonygoodwin]

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. Are you one?
Why, or why not?

[AlexMerced]

I think the constitution is a good start, but even the enumerated powers are too much government powers... I'm pretty damn voluntarist

[t0rnado]

The Constitution gives the central government too much power. Given the choice, Ron Paul would probably prefer the Articles of Confederation.

[Brett85]

Yeah. That's what I put for my political philosophy on my Facebook page.

[Brett85]

I think the constitution is a good start, but even the enumerated powers are too much government powers... I'm pretty damn voluntarist

Which enumerated powers are too much? The commerce clause wouldn't be too much of a power if it was understood in it's original intent.

[realtonygoodwin]

I consider myself a Constitutionalist, but I don't like some of the amendments (I am looking at you 16)

[Vessol]

Which enumerated powers are too much? The commerce clause wouldn't be too much of a power if it was understood in it's original intent.

What about the "necessary and proper" clause and the "take care" clause?

There's massive holes in the Constitution that allow government to massively grow. That was the intent.

Who drafted the Constitution? The Federalists. They were definitely NOT for small government. Especially Hamilton who was the main person behind pushing for the Constitution and actually writing it. It's hard for me to understand that so many here hold up a document that was mainly written by a man we all despise for his involvement in the creation of the first central bank.

Thomas Jefferson, a man that many of you all rightfully admire, was strongly against the ratification of the Constitution because he feared it would give too much power to the central government. And he was right.

I understand why many people support Constitutionalism, and I am deeply empathetic and am willing to work to restore the Constitution as it is a much better alternative to what we have now. But when it comes down to it, I have many deep doubts in the Constitutions ability to prevent uncontrolled growth of government.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that 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."-Lysander Spooner

[muzzled dogg]

yeah, at my republican city committee

[Brett85]

What about the "necessary and proper" clause and the "take care" clause?

Those clauses have been distorted from their original intent. I'm just saying that if we actually followed a literal version of the Constitution, the federal government would be limited. The problem isn't with the Constitution, it's with the people who have distorted it.

[Vessol]

Those clauses have been distorted from their original intent. I'm just saying that if we actually followed a literal version of the Constitution, the federal government would be limited. The problem isn't with the Constitution, it's with the people who have distorted it.

But what was the original intent?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time imagining that Hamilton and the Federalists loved small government and state rights.

[Pericles]

The Constitution is a tool for the citizens to use to keep control of the government. If the citizens fail to use that tool properly, it is not the fault of the tool for what results. If my roof leaks, and I leave my hammer in the tool box, and the leak continues, is not the fault of my hammer.

[Flash]

I was thinking about this earlier and came to the conclusion that Ron Paul is NOT a Constitutionalist. Rather he uses the Constitution as a general guide as to how government should function. Hypothetically, what if a Congressman introduces a bill that would eliminate the Post Office and forbid the State from creating postal roads? Would Ron Paul vote for such a bill, despite the Constitution giving government authority to create the Post Office? I doubt it. Ron would change the Constitution dramatically at the first chance he got. He would plrobably increase the amount of power of states and offer the choice of secession in order to keep the federal government in check.

I'm not a Constitutionalist because I don't like the idea of a government and believe society can function in the absence of one. Actually, I fundamentally believe it would function BETTER without one. With any Constitution that exists, you have the problem of a monopoly. As it is Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, & Venus Project members can't move to a place in America and test their ideas out in the real world. Rather, we ALL must go through the government to impose our will on others. Which leads to Socialists, or statists in general, acquiring positions of power and taxing us heavily.

[South Park Fan]

The definition of insanity is doing to same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[Brett85]

But what was the original intent?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time imagining that Hamilton and the Federalists loved small government and state rights.

The original intent of the necessary and proper clause was simply to give Congress the authority to carry out all of the enumerated powers stated in Article 1, Section 8. It was never really intended to be an additional power that the Congress had.

[Vessol]

The original intent of the necessary and proper clause was simply to give Congress the authority to carry out all of the enumerated powers stated in Article 1, Section 8. It was never really intended to be an additional power that the Congress had.

It specifically says
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Yes it gives them the authority to carry out those powers, but in doing so they can create more and more laws.

The first use of the Neccessary and Proper Clause was by Hamilton to create the first central bank, The National Bank of the United States.

Again, look at who wrote the Constitution, Hamilton and the Federalists. They did not write it in the intent to limit the size and power of the government. That's why Thomas Jefferson opposed it.

Was Thomas Jefferson wrong in opposing the drafting of the Constitution?

[sl7yz0r]

I was thinking about this earlier and came to the conclusion that Ron Paul is NOT a Constitutionalist. Rather he uses the Constitution as a general guide as to how government should function. Hypothetically, what if a Congressman introduces a bill that would eliminate the Post Office and forbid the State from creating postal roads? Would Ron Paul vote for such a bill, despite the Constitution giving government authority to create the Post Office? I doubt it. Ron would change the Constitution dramatically at the first chance he got. He would plrobably increase the amount of power of states and offer the choice of secession in order to keep the federal government in check.

Umm the constitution only gives the gov authority to do these things, it does not require it to. Ron paul supporting free market solutions to problems where the constitution allows (but does not require) gov intervention doesn't make him any less of a constitutionalist.

[Flash]

Umm the constitution only gives the gov authority to do these things, it does not require it to. Ron paul supporting free market solutions to problems where the constitution allows (but does not require) gov intervention doesn't make him any less of a constitutionalist.

One could say that. It would've been proper to say:

I believe Ron Paul would erase the Post Office from the Constitution so the government would be denied the ability to create one. Still, I believe if Ron Paul could WRITE the Constitution he would make a system where states had an increased power in order to keep the federal government in check.

[AZKing]

The Constitution is still a rather flawed document. It's quite unfortunate that the Supreme Court has interpreted just about every clause to mean anything.

I'd still like to see the 21st Amendment interpreted for other substances.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm more of an Articles of Confederation guy myself.


The united States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the united States in congress assembled.

[Matt Collins]

Yes, but only when it is a subset of libertarianism. The post office is an example of an exception to when the Constitution is not a subset of libertarianism.

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. Are you one?
Why, or why not?

No, because I believe trade ought to be voluntary and contractual. A contract is an agreement between 2 or more people. If these people do not all consent to the terms of the contract, than it is not valid. The Constitution is not a valid contract, because it does not require the consent of those it claims to represent. "We the people".

The only part of the constitution that deserves any positive lip service from libertarians, is the Bill of Rights. The rest of it has pretty much laid the groundwork for a massive organized crime syndicate that has been growing and breeding corruption for a couple centuries.

[Kludge]

No.

RTG, you've had a tendency lately to create divisive topics with no possible positive effect on advancing RP's agenda. We really don't need this shit - had it in '07/'08. We have paleocons, anarchists, minarchists, constitutionalists, and dog-fuckers. All of us are working toward what you purport to want. Get over it.

[realtonygoodwin]

Uhh...wow. Not sure what to say to that.
Purport to want?

[Kludge]

Uhh...wow. Not sure what to say to that.
Purport to want?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purport

[realtonygoodwin]

I know what the words mean.

[Humanae Libertas]

I am somewhat of a support of it, but not entirely. There are things on there that I wish that weren't, and things there were, but what can you do...

[Brett85]

Was Thomas Jefferson wrong in opposing the drafting of the Constitution?

Well in retrospect Jefferson was probably correct, since the Constitution has been perverted and extended beyond it's original limitations. The statists have simply looked for holes in the Constitution, and they've succeeded in doing that. Perhaps they should've taken out the commerce clause, general welfare clause, and necessary and proper clause before they ratified the Constitution. I still maintain that those provisions were never intended to give the federal government a blank check to do anything it wants to do. Hamilton may have been a statist compared to Jefferson, but compared to the average American today even Hamilton would be considered a hardcore libertarian.

[Pericles]

Well in retrospect Jefferson was probably correct, since the Constitution has been perverted and extended beyond it's original limitations. The statists have simply looked for holes in the Constitution, and they've succeeded in doing that. Perhaps they should've taken out the commerce clause, general welfare clause, and necessary and proper clause before they ratified the Constitution. I still maintain that those provisions were never intended to give the federal government a blank check to do anything it wants to do. Hamilton may have been a statist compared to Jefferson, but compared to the average American today even Hamilton would be considered a hardcore libertarian.

Most criticisms of the Constitution fall into two categories (A) the document is not self enforcing - it has been possible for the federal government to usurp powers not granted to it, and (B) there is no need for government.

In either case, that is a hope for what never has been and never will be. Any set of rules need an enforcement mechanism and people willing to do the job.

[erowe1]

I voted yes.

I hold to an ideal in which no rule by conquest exists, but the only kind of government is one that truly derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Shrinking our federal government to a scope that fits within the enumerated powers of the Constitution is a good intermediate step on the way to that, as long as nobody thinks that our work would be finished once that's accomplished (I'm quite certain Ron Paul doesn't think that).

[ChaosControl]

Constitution is an okay basis, but it isn't an end goal.
It is too vague and grants the federal government too much power.
I prefer leaving things in local hands, whether they want less restrictive or more restrictive laws. People should be able to live in the society they desire.

I don't know that I consider myself a constitutionalist, but I do support holding the federal government accountable according to the constitution. If I am anything it is a localist, a minarchist or anarcho-communitarian.

[erowe1]

The statists have simply looked for holes in the Constitution, and they've succeeded in doing that.

Yes. They've been doing that for a long time, at least as far back as Hamilton. Coincidentally, he was a guy who, as much as anyone else, owns responsibility for tucking away those loopholes in the Constitution that he would later use to expand federal power. How convenient.

[Southron]

I consider myself a constitutionalist. Returning to those principles would be a great step in the right direction. But I also consider myself a republican, and I am not looking at the Constitution as a bridge to anarchy.

[Dr.3D]

No.

RTG, you've had a tendency lately to create divisive topics with no possible positive effect on advancing RP's agenda. We really don't need this shit - had it in '07/'08. We have paleocons, anarchists, minarchists, constitutionalists, and dog-fuckers. All of us are working toward what you purport to want. Get over it.

I believe I was the last one with a poll similar to this one. It's good to see it looks like we have more constitutionalists now than we did back then.

I guess my poll was divisive and didn't have a positive effect here either, even if it did show how many people here would like to see this country return to what it is supposed to be. I'm pretty sure if Ron wasn't a constitutionalist, he wouldn't be a member of congress. Sure there are many members of congress who are not constitutionalists but they sure are not anarchists either. If they were, it would be contradictory for them to be members of congress.

[Kludge]

I believe I was the last one with a poll similar to this one. It's good to see it looks like we have more constitutionalists now than we did back then.

I guess my poll was divisive and didn't have a positive effect here either, even if it did show how many people here would like to see this country return to what it is supposed to be. I'm pretty sure if Ron wasn't a constitutionalist, he wouldn't be a member of congress. Sure there are many members of congress who are not constitutionalists but they sure are not anarchists either. If they were, it would be contradictory for them to be members of congress.
Using politics as a means toward anarchy, or a more acceptable alternative (a constitutional republic, for example) in the meantime, doesn't mean that person isn't an anarchist. Aside from RPFs being much quieter, I think RP would see a good few less donations if anarchists were to be purged. Anarchists, conspiracy theorists, and even environmentalists are helpful so long as they push RP's agenda.

It's too close to campaign season to be having these kinds of discussions.

[Pericles]

Using politics as a means toward anarchy, or a more acceptable alternative (a constitutional republic, for example) in the meantime, doesn't mean that person isn't an anarchist. Aside from RPFs being much quieter, I think RP would see a good few less donations if anarchists were to be purged. Anarchists, conspiracy theorists, and even environmentalists are helpful so long as they push RP's agenda.

It's too close to campaign season to be having these kinds of discussions.

The best time to hit me with the argument that I have not gone far enough, is after I have gone as far as I'm willing to go, not before I have even started the journey.

[erowe1]

The best time to hit me with the argument that I have not gone far enough, is after I have gone as far as I'm willing to go, not before I have even started the journey.

And the best time to hit your fellow-travelers with the argument that they want to go too far is when you've reached that same point.

[erowe1]

I think a poll like this could stand to use a definition for the word "constitutionalist."

Which of the following is a constitutionalist?

a) Someone who thinks that politicians ought to keep the oaths they take promising never to support legislation that expands the scope of the federal government beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

b) Someone who thinks the Constitution gets it right in establishing a government that is ideal in form and scope.

I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul is only a constitutionalist in the sense of a) and not b). And I'm pretty sure that most anarchists are as well.

[Pericles]

And the best time to hit your fellow-travelers with the argument that they want to go too far is when you've reached that same point.
Agreed - let's go.

[Dr.3D]

So from what I've been reading, it would seem many believe the old adage, "The ends justifies the means." Sounds pretty socialist to me.

[erowe1]

So from what I've been reading, it would seem many believe the old adage, "The ends justifies the means." Sounds pretty socialist to me.

Could you give an example of someone saying that?

[Dr.3D]

Could you give an example of someone saying that?

"Oh we don't believe in the constitution, but we will use it if it will get us into a state of anarchy."

"We don't want those who disagree with us to leave, if they are giving us money."

[erowe1]

"Oh we don't believe in the constitution, but we will use it if it will get us into a state of anarchy."

"We don't want those who disagree with us to leave, if they are giving us money."

The accusation of believing the ends justify the means usually implies that someone is tolerating unethical means to achieve their ends. I don't see anything in those statements that looks like anyone is doing that.

There certainly can't be anything wrong with merely having goals (i.e. ends) and working on ways to move toward achieving those goals (i.e. means).

Edit: Also, could you clarify what you mean by the phrase "believe in the Constitution"? Is believing in the Constitution (whatever that entails) what it means to you to be a constitutionalist?

[Dr.3D]

The accusation of believing the ends justify the means usually implies that someone is tolerating unethical means to achieve their ends. I don't see anything in those statements that looks like anyone is doing that.

There certainly can't be anything wrong with merely having goals (i.e. ends) and working on ways to move toward achieving those goals (i.e. means).

Edit: Also, could you clarify what you mean by the phrase "believe in the Constitution"? Is believing in the Constitution (whatever that entails) what it means to you to be a constitutionalist?

A hypocrite would say something along the lines of, "I don't believe we should have a constitution, but if supporting one will further my ends of having anarchy, I'll support it."

Another might say, "I support having a constitution, but I'll forgo that if someone who doesn't support having a constitution is willing to support our cause by donating money."

[erowe1]

A hypocrite would say something along the lines of, "I don't believe we should have a constitution, but if supporting one will further my ends of having anarchy, I'll support it."

Another might say, "I support having a constitution, but I'll forgo that if someone who doesn't support having a constitution is willing to support our cause by donating money."

I have trouble seeing it that way.

Am I a hypocrite if I say, "I don't want to go to Ohio, but if it helps me get to Pennsylvania, I'll drive through it."?

And in your second example, what do you mean by "forgo that"? You mean forgo support for having a constitution? If so, I don't see how anyone who supports having a constitution has to forgo that in order to join up with others who don't in support of a shared cause. How would such a person be forgoing anything?

[Matt Collins]

As Lysander Spooner once said: "the Constitution either gives us the government that we have, or it's powerless to prevent it -- either way it's unfit to exist"

[ClayTrainor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..." - The CONstitution

[Mancos]

Great discussion.

Contrary to common belief, the Constitution is not the foundation of our country, our society, or our civilization. Instead, the laws of nature and nature’s God are the bedrock, and “We the People of the United States,” together with this patch of earth and the resources it contains, are the foundation. The Constitution is the structural foundation of our federal government, and it serves as the core structure for our governmental relationships, which are built on the foundation of we the people. But in reality, constitutional principles are just tools we use to effectively utilize the bedrock. The Constitution is intended to be the foundational tool we use in helping us recognize and adhere to the laws of nature. The Preamble to the Constitution can help us understand this:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Declaration of Independence, after making specific reference to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and the “unalienable Rights” endowed by the Creator, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, avers:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . [but] 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.”

To effectively apply these words to our current situation, we must clearly understand at least basic, core principles of the laws of nature and the foundational concept of personal responsibility. That understanding will help us better grasp the proper roles of individuals, families, communities, churches, charities, business, media, and so forth. As people and entities take responsibility for their proper roles in accordance with the laws of nature, the role of government—specifically the federal government—becomes more limited and organically falls into its proper place.

One incorrect notion that must be corrected is that it is not the job of government to save people from the natural consequences of their decisions and actions. Rather, under our Constitution, the paramount role of government is to defend, protect, and preserve the fundamental inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Secondary priorities include the preservation of safety and security as well as general welfare and stability, but not in opposition to fundamental individual rights. With the Tenth Amendment, our Founding Fathers sought to clarify the limited role they intended the federal government to play.

[Dr.3D]

I have trouble seeing it that way.

Am I a hypocrite if I say, "I don't want to go to Ohio, but if it helps me get to Pennsylvania, I'll drive through it."?

And in your second example, what do you mean by "forgo that"? You mean forgo support for having a constitution? If so, I don't see how anyone who supports having a constitution has to forgo that in order to join up with others who don't in support of a shared cause. How would such a person be forgoing anything?

Depends on if the final goal is really to arrive in Ohio.
Depends on if the goal is to support the constitution rather than it just being a means to a different end.

Do we all want to go to Ohio or do we want to go to Pennsylvania? Side trips take too long and are a waste of resources.

To temporarily forgo the intended goal just because it is expedient we have more supporters, no mater what their goal is, is hypocritical and a waste of resources. It would be better to focus on one goal and work toward arriving there.

[Kludge]

Depends on if the final goal is really to arrive in Ohio.
Depends on if the goal is to support the constitution rather than it just being a means to a different end.

Do we all want to go to Ohio or do we want to go to Pennsylvania? Side trips take too long and are a waste of resources.

To temporarily forgo the intended goal just because it is expedient we have more supporters, no mater what their goal is, is hypocritical and a waste of resources. It would be better to focus on one goal and work toward arriving there.

I want to go to Ohio insofar as I want to go to Pennsylvania. My "support" for Ohio is merely incidental, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't carpool just because you're getting off in Ohio.

(I hate analogies)

[erowe1]

Depends on if the final goal is really to arrive in Ohio.
Depends on if the goal is to support the constitution rather than it just being a means to a different end.

Do we all want to go to Ohio or do we want to go to Pennsylvania? Side trips take too long and are a waste of resources.

To temporarily forgo the intended goal just because it is expedient we have more supporters, no mater what their goal is, is hypocritical and a waste of resources. It would be better to focus on one goal and work toward arriving there.

None of that makes any sense to me. I'm sorry.

If I want to go to Pennsylvania (and I think my analogy was clear enough that that was to be my goal), and if going through Ohio is the best way to get there, then so be it. I can't be a hypocrite for using Ohio as a means to get to Pennsylvania. It's not a side trip or a waste of resources, it's the best way to the end goal. It's positively the way I'm supposed to go.

And again, I don't see how constitutionalists (people who want to get off the caravan in Ohio) are forgoing anything by teaming up with anarchists (people who want to keep going until they get to Pennsylvania). Their goal is what it is, and they're doing what they think is the best thing for them to do to get there without forgoing anything. So what if other people who have different end goals help them do that?

You keep using words like hypocrite and hypocritical in reference to things that aren't hypocritical at all. I just don't see where you're coming from.

[Dr.3D]

I want to go to Ohio insofar as I want to go to Pennsylvania. My "support" for Ohio is merely incidental, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't carpool just because you're getting off in Ohio.

(I hate analogies)

Well, so far it looks like there are some hitch hikers who want to go to Pennsylvania and they are riding along with those who have a final destination of Ohio. Since most want to stay in Ohio, I guess the rest will have to find another ride after we get to Ohio. Thanks for the gas money! :D

[erowe1]

Well, so far it looks like there are some hitch hikers who want to go to Pennsylvania and they are riding along with those who have a final destination of Ohio. Since most want to stay in Ohio, I guess the rest will have to find another ride after we get to Ohio. Thanks for the gas money! :D

That's the spirit!

Edit: But don't assume that just because someone chose the option "constitutionalist" in this poll it means a government like that described in our constitution is their final goal. It's certainly not mine (though I voted "constitutionalist"). And I highly doubt that it's Ron Paul's either.

[Schmitto2121]

Nooooo. Like Dubya said, "The Constitution is just a g-damn piece of paper".

Although, I would take a Constitutional government over what we have now and I think its some perfectly fine to strive for but its still very very flawed.

[Vessol]

A hypocrite would say something along the lines of, "I don't believe we should have a constitution, but if supporting one will further my ends of having anarchy, I'll support it."

Another might say, "I support having a constitution, but I'll forgo that if someone who doesn't support having a constitution is willing to support our cause by donating money."

So is Ron Paul a hypocrite for enlisting the help of Dennis Kucinich and others who don't even consider themselves Constitutionalists?

[Dr.3D]

So is Ron Paul a hypocrite for enlisting the help of Dennis Kucinich and others who don't even consider themselves Constitutionalists?

Is Kucinich giving Ron money?

Didn't think so.

[BuddyRey]

I used to be, but then I read it. Now I'm a Confederate. The original Articles of Confederation for the U.S. was a pretty good document, but the Constitution was sabotaged by Federalists, quite intentionally, while Jefferson was away in France.

[Vessol]

Is Kucinich giving Ron money?

Didn't think so.

Since when were we talking about money? I was talking about different ideologies working together to achieve a common goal.

There really is not that big of a difference between Anarchists and Constitutionalists. If we achieved a Constitutionalist society, I imagine many Anarchists would support such a limited government and those that did not would at least have their choices respected and would not be violently supressed and have their property stolen by those who do prefer a State. If we actually achieved a Stateless society, no one would stop anyone from forming a VOLUNTARY government.

Ron Paul himself considers Murray Rothbard to be one of his biggest influences. Murray Rothbard is easily one of the most well-known market anarchists out there. I highly doubt Ron Paul has a big of a problem with anarchists as many on this board seem to do.

[Mancos]

What we have is a Constitution that embodies the original Federalist agenda, with a Bill of Rights included in the first ten amendments as essentially the only bone thrown to the Anti-Federalists and their arguments and concerns. As the Federalist agenda has mutated and morphed into the Progressive agenda, and now multiplied, and gained so much strength and momentum over the years, the weak checks and balances and separation of powers outlined in the Constitution have proven wholly inadequate to the task of keeping the Federalist/Progressive agenda and the federal government in check. In fact, our federal government has become exactly what the Anti-Federalists feared—or worse. The Federalist/Progressive agenda has become so powerful that it overwhelms the original checks and balances as well as much of the original intent of the Constitution.

When we engage in this discussion, we all need to be at least somewhat intellectually honest with ourselves. Although the Constitution prescribes governmental structures we still abide by to some extent, the reality is that many provisions of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers and checks and balances, have been consistently ignored for years. For all practical purposes, it’s as though the Constitution has been gradually changed by perpetual creeping, unwritten amendment, and by the courts. In fact, in some people’s minds it has been amended in practice and application to the point that it has become largely irrelevant.

Consequently, we all owe ourselves enough intellectual honesty to address the reality of the situation instead of engaging in theoretical discussions and assertions about what might have been had we actually followed the Constitution. We can study our history and see both the strengths and the weaknesses in our primary governing document. When we undertake such study, we will see that vast, unconstitutional bureaucracies have been built that even the original Federalists would find repulsive. What we have done in this country is to allow the original Federalist agenda to grow almost completely unchecked to the point that it is so far out of control that the governments we have today are barely recognizable compared to the governments we believe our Founders intended through the Constitution.

[Theocrat]

I am a Constitutionalist because it comports with my philosophy that civil governments are necessary for the peace and security of society, but they also must be limited by the rule of law (which originates from God's divine law, reflecting His own attributes of justice, power, and protection against evildoers).

[WyoLiberty]

What about the "necessary and proper" clause and the "take care" clause?

There's massive holes in the Constitution that allow government to massively grow. That was the intent.

Who drafted the Constitution? The Federalists. They were definitely NOT for small government. Especially Hamilton who was the main person behind pushing for the Constitution and actually writing it. It's hard for me to understand that so many here hold up a document that was mainly written by a man we all despise for his involvement in the creation of the first central bank.

Thomas Jefferson, a man that many of you all rightfully admire, was strongly against the ratification of the Constitution because he feared it would give too much power to the central government. And he was right.

I understand why many people support Constitutionalism, and I am deeply empathetic and am willing to work to restore the Constitution as it is a much better alternative to what we have now. But when it comes down to it, I have many deep doubts in the Constitutions ability to prevent uncontrolled growth of government.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that 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."-Lysander Spooner

THIS^^^ A good baseline but maybe Georgie was right...it's just a G-d damn piece of paper...I just don't think GWB had the same intent behind the remark as I would have....

Voluntaryist would probably better describe me...

[erowe1]

I am a Constitutionalist because it comports with my philosophy that civil governments are necessary for the peace and security of society, but they also must be limited by the rule of law (which originates from God's divine law, reflecting His own attributes of justice, power, and protection against evildoers).

Do you think the Constitution we have limits the government according to God's law?

If so, then isn't the Constitution redundant?

If not, then isn't it a bad thing?

[Mancos]

I can only answer for myself. But if we all naturally adhered to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there would be no need for a Constitution, and in that sense, it is redundant. The problem is that not everyone recognizes, let alone adheres to, God's law.

When a society puts a common government into effect, the laws of nature and nature's God should be the guiding principles in order for that government to be successful in honoring the rights of the society, including the inalienable rights of individuals. The laws of nature, especially those pertaining to common government and the natural tendencies of those who govern, should be acknowledged and accommodated. Such natural laws include the following concepts:

• Personal responsibility, freedom of choice (liberty) and self-governance are the core foundational principles of government. Self-governance is the foundation of all government.
• Human beings should be entitled to govern themselves entirely and without interference unless their self-governance interferes with someone else’s equal freedom of choice and right of self-governance.

Because history shows that self-governance is a challenge, however, common government becomes a necessity. Consequently, common government and resulting laws are instituted primarily for application to those situations where individuals fail to satisfactorily govern themselves.

Laws are instituted to deter actions that harm others and provide consequences for the violation of these and other laws.

• Common government and laws limiting self-governance should exist only by consent of those governed by such laws.
• The primary, paramount purpose of government is to protect inalienable, individual rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).

Those chosen to lead and govern others should be chosen by consent of the people to be governed. In cases where there is no unanimous consent, the majority determines who is to lead and govern (democratic republic). Those chosen to lead and govern others are naturally obligated to act in the best interests of the people they are governing, subject to the laws of nature.

• When the best interests of people conflict, the interests of a majority of the people should be protected, subject to the laws of nature, including protection of individual inalienable rights. These rights should not be infringed upon regardless of what the majority may say or the size or strength of the majority (constitutionally limited republic).

• It is the natural disposition of almost all men, as they get authority, to begin to exercise unjust dominion. Power has a natural tendency to corrupt.

• When people are given power over others, their natural tendency is to begin to advance their own self-interests ahead of those of the governed and to exercise greater power and control than necessary, resulting in unjust dominion. And the longer they are in power, the more difficulty they have resisting these tendencies. Duration of power enhances the tendency toward corruption.

• The governed are entitled to know what their leaders are doing and to have input into the decisions their leaders make.

• Regardless of any man-made laws to the contrary, those chosen to lead and govern others are subject to applicable laws of nature and are directly accountable to those they govern.

• When human beings do create governments, they have an obligation to support the core functions of government, both financially, by exercising their right to vote, and through service. The resulting government is likewise obligated to protect, defend, and preserve fundamental individual rights, including life, liberty, and property.

• Government that governs least governs best.

[erowe1]

I can only answer for myself. But if we all naturally adhered to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there would be no need for a Constitution, and in that sense, it is redundant. The problem is that not everyone recognizes, let alone adheres to, God's law.


But the Constitution doesn't make any claim of being something that everyone is supposed to adhere to. It's supposed to be the law that limits the federal government.

But if we already have a law from God that rulers are bound by, why do we need a second one? Is this second one better than God's law, worse than God's law, or the same as God's law? In my opinion, it's far worse, and it positively contradicts God's law by granting license for our rulers to do things that God's law says they are not to do, such as steal and kidnap.

[AlexMerced]

Yeah. That's what I put for my political philosophy on my Facebook page.

technically all of them, cause from the view of a voluntarist, the use of force is illegitimate.

Trust me, the constitution is a much better system than now in same way charter schools are better than our current school system, but the end goal is to illegitimize force altogether and allow institutions to stand on their own merit although that's greater fight than this forum is having.

For example:

- We are all united in at least shrinking government to constitution size

- Any further reductions, and also the voluntary structure of society I'd imagine we'd all be less united on.

Although the second fight, isn't neccessary till we accomplish the first point.

[erowe1]

• When human beings do create governments, they have an obligation to support the core functions of government, both financially, by exercising their right to vote, and through service. The resulting government is likewise obligated to protect, defend, and preserve fundamental individual rights, including life, liberty, and property.

In comparing this point with other things you said, I infer that you mean the antecedent of the bolded pronoun "they" to be those same human beings who created the government, and no one else, such as their neighbors, or their descendants. Is that correct?

[Mancos]

In comparing this point with other things you said, I infer that you mean the antecedent of the bolded pronoun "they" to be those same human beings who created the government, and no one else, such as their neighbors, or their descendants. Is that correct?

Yes, it is "they" who created the government, or give common consent to be governed by it, that have that obligation.

And, I agree our Constitution is definitely a step down from God's law, and if everyone recognized, agreed upon, and adhered to God's law, the Constitution, as well as all the rest of our man-made laws, would be unnecessary. The Bill of Rights is a prime example of this. If everyone understood the concept of inalienable rights bestowed by our Creator, there would be no need to attempt to list and protect them in a Bill of Rights, but since many do no not recognize, or agree on, God's law, we end up in discussions like the Federalist / Anti-Federalist Debate.

[erowe1]

I agree our Constitution is definitely a step down from God's law, and if everyone recognized, agreed upon, and adhered to God's law, the Constitution, as well as all the rest of our man-made laws, would be unnecessary. The Bill of Rights is a prime example of this. If everyone understood the concept of inalienable rights bestowed by our Creator, there would be no need to attempt to list and protect them in a Bill of Rights, but since many do no not recognize, or agree on, God's law, we end up in discussions like the Federalist / Anti-Federalist Debate.

If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that we ought to accept a little bit of tyranny as an accommodation to human wickedness, and that an ideal world filled with righteous people wouldn't need to accept the necessary evil of the state, kind of like Madison's line, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

That idea has some attraction. I see why people think it. But the more I consider it, the more I'm inclined to disagree.

I would rather say that the following two statements are true:
1) Morality is always good, and no matter what level of tyranny people are under, the more moral they are, the better it will be for society.
2) No matter how much or little tyranny exists anywhere, and no matter how moral or immoral a society is, it would always be better if the people were under less tyranny, up to the point of none at all.

One of the great things about a free market, for example, is that it takes individual selfish motives that may be rooted in immorality in their hearts, and it harnesses that greed into a system that benefits others more than they would benefit if there were some central manager trying to regulate the greed.

[nobody's_hero]

I believe it was Jefferson who said 'that written constitutions may be violated in times of passion, yet they furnish a text around which the people may rally and be recalled.'

A constitution is essentially worthless when it comes to limiting the power of government, but that was not the constitution's purpose. The framers would not have been so naive as to think a physical piece of paper could magically sprout arms and legs and beat the snot out of its violators.

The constitution was drafted, simply to have something in writing. That is an important function in itself, because without it, constitutionalists like Ron Paul would have much harder time convincing folks than he already is. People might say: 'Why should we believe Ron Paul? For all we know, he made up the idea of 'enumerated powers' on a whim.'

And most everyone on here will agree that it's always a good idea to get something in writing.

[Wesker1982]

If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that we ought to accept a little bit of tyranny as an accommodation to human wickedness,

Yeah this doesn't make sense. If the majority of people are evil, they will control the state. Human wickedness is nothing but a devastating argument against centralized authority. The idea of collective wisdom and virtue composed of individual ignorance and evil, is a bit INSANE.

The state is composed of individuals who are susceptible to the same flaws as everyone else. There is no logic in collective wisdom composed of individual ignorance.


The reasoning employed by those who want governmental regulation contains a self-contradiction. On the one hand they assert that the American people are unalterably gullible. They must be protected because, left to their own devices, they become victims. They can be made to think, for example, that if they use a certain brand of aftershave lotion, they will end up with the girl in the ad. On the other hand, the argument assumes that the boobs are smart enough to pick political leaders capable of regulating these sirens. This is impossible.- Walter Block from Defending the Undefendable

[AParadigmShift]

As Lysander Spooner once said: "the Constitution either gives us the government that we have, or it's powerless to prevent it -- either way it's unfit to exist"

I think we could distill gov't - even a constitutional Democratic~Republican form - down to Spooner's [eventual] axiom of all government rationalization: Our Power is Our Right.

A constitutionalist? Once I self-styled myself such, now, not so much.

[newbitech]

I said "other" cause my views are my own and labeling as such is a recipe to be put in to a box with others who identify the same way.

I like the constitution because of the idea that it represents. I wish more people would be constitutionalist in the sense of representing the same idea.

[WyoLiberty]

Check out Boston T. Party's Hologram of Liberty. It's an excellent read...



Hologram of Liberty –The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government – is a cold splash of water on our civic mythology. Hologram's main contention is that the 1787 Convention, its Constitution and Federal Government was the most brilliant and subtle coup d'etat in political history. While the majority of Americans then were Jeffersonian in nature, a few Hamiltonian Federalists eradicated our Swiss-style Confederation and replaced it with a latent leviathan. The Federal Government was given several escape keys to the putative handcuffing by the Constitution. Using the "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses in conjunction with congressional powers under treaty, interstate commerce, and emergency, the "Founding Lawyers" of 1787 purposely designed a constitutional infrastructure guaranteed to facilitate a future federal colossus. While such a massive government was impossible to erect in the freedom-conscious 1780's, the "virus" of tyranny was cunningly hidden within the Constitution to foment the eventual federal behemoth we are burdened with today. The feds take in a third of economic activity and regulate everything from the price of corn to the size of chimneys and it's all constitutional!" Oh, it's only 'constitutional' because autocratic Supreme Court Justices say it is!," some would reply.

http://javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html

[Pericles]

Check out Boston T. Party's Hologram of Liberty. It's an excellent read...




http://javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html

Funny about mentioning Switzerland, as the same thing is happening there - an increasing number of federal laws, taking decision making ability away from the Kantons.

[trey4sports]

It is all about the interpretation of the constitution IMHO

[ClayTrainor]

To the Constitutionalists:

Should I and/or a group of people be able to write things down on a piece of paper, and then force you to obey those things, even if you didn't sign it? Would you view this as a valid contract?

[Xavi1990]

Ah yes, the American constitution; so ineffable it had to be changed 27 times.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Constitution is pointless if the govt decides not to abide by it.

government in essence wants to grow.

[Pericles]

To the Constitutionalists:

Should I and/or a group of people be able to write things down on a piece of paper, and then force you to obey those things, even if you didn't sign it? Would you view this as a valid contract?

With whom, or with what entity did you agree to be born and live?

[ClayTrainor]

With whom, or with what entity did you agree to be born and live?

I was born because my parents had sex, not because I chose to be born, nor did I choose where I was born.

[Pericles]

I was born because my parents had sex, not because I chose to be born, nor did I choose where I was born.

Thus, you did not get to choose in which society or culture you were born into, and by extension the rules of government for that society. Such decisions being the province of those who has acquired the status needed to influence the rules of said society.

[erowe1]

Thus, you did not get to choose in which society or culture you were born into, and by extension the rules of government for that society. Such decisions being the province of those who has acquired the status needed to influence the rules of said society.

So in a place that's under the control of the mob, the mere fact that the mob acquired the status needed to influence the rules of that society makes its rule legitimate?

[ClayTrainor]

Thus, you did not get to choose in which society or culture you were born into, and by extension the rules of government for that society. Such decisions being the province of those who has acquired the status needed to influence the rules of said society.

So, is your answer to my initial question, a Yes?


Should I and/or a group of people be able to write things down on a piece of paper, and then force you to obey those things, even if you didn't sign it? Would you view this as a valid contract?

[Pericles]

So, is your answer to my initial question, a Yes?
That is the way the world really works. When I find government strictures unacceptable, I have the following options:

(A) live as I see fit, and see who can do anything about it
(B) use my influence to change the rules
(C) move to a location more to my liking and is willing to have me as a resident
(D) start my own country
(E) any of the above
(F) all of the above
(G) post crap on the internet

[Theocrat]

Do you think the Constitution we have limits the government according to God's law?

If so, then isn't the Constitution redundant?

If not, then isn't it a bad thing?

In many ways, I would say, yes, the Constitution does limit civil government, according to God's law. For instance, the Constitution does not give the federal government any powers to regulate the affairs of the Church, which is a Biblical principle taught in the Bible (cf. Leviticus 6:8-30; 1 Samuel 13:8-14; Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:7; et. al.). Also, the Constitution sets up a system of checks and balances in our federal government to keep one branch from having too much power, another principle gleaned from the Scriptures (cf. Exodus 18:21; Isaiah 33:22).

Is the Constitution in perfect accord with God's law? Of course not, but it is necessary to have in restraining our federal government from becoming a despotism. The necessity of having a constitution in addition to God's law (the Bible) is that the Bible doesn't speak to every specific example of the issues in which a civil government would have to deal with. So, in wisdom, a constitution outlines certain duties which a civil government would be responsible for, all from the foundation of what God's law says it can do, in principle and precepts. Also, the existence of the Constitution presupposes a particular worldview about the nature of civil governments that makes it vital to restrain such a form of government, namely, a Christian worldview.

Does the Constitution need some improvements? Yes. It is weak on a number of issues, but it does suffice to keep the federal government from intervening on other realms of government in society (like the family and church) as well as honoring the decentralized structure of our Republic in relation to powers of the various state governments. Of course, that only happens when men in office actually honor their oaths and actually follow what the Constitution tells them to do in their offices.

[erowe1]

So, is your answer to my initial question, a Yes?

Apparently only after you acquire the status to be able to do that. I'm not completely sure what that status must entail, but I assume it would have to involve enough resources to fund enough violence, propaganda, or a combination of the two to make almost everyone else decide that it's easier to accede to your rule over them than to fight it.

[ClayTrainor]

That is the way the world really works.

So your answer is a yes?


Should I and/or a group of people be able to write things down on a piece of paper, and then force you to obey those things, even if you didn't sign it? Would you view this as a valid contract?

[Pericles]

Apparently only after you acquire the status to be able to do that. I'm not completely sure what that status must entail, but I assume it would have to involve enough resources to fund enough violence, propaganda, or a combination of the two to make almost everyone else decide that it's easier to accede to your rule over them than to fight it.

Bingo - you have all of the rights that you can enforce.

[erowe1]

That is the way the world really works. When I find government strictures unacceptable, I have the following options:

(A) live as I see fit, and see who can do anything about it
(B) use my influence to change the rules
(C) move to a location more to my liking and is willing to have me as a resident
(D) start my own country
(E) any of the above
(F) all of the above
(G) post crap on the internet

Isn't G just a variation of B?

[erowe1]

Also, the Constitution sets up a system of checks and balances in our federal government to keep one branch from having too much power, another principle gleaned from the Scriptures (cf. Exodus 18:21; Isaiah 33:22).

Could you explain how you get the principle of checks and balances out of those verses? I don't see it.

[ClayTrainor]

Bingo - you have all of the rights that you can enforce.


Sure, a slave has virtually no de-facto rights, since he does not have the capacity to enforce his rights. However, does this make the enforced slavery of this individual a valid contract, in your opinion?

[Pericles]

So in a place that's under the control of the mob, the mere fact that the mob acquired the status needed to influence the rules of that society makes its rule legitimate?

No, it makes the mob's rule a fact. Different countries exist for a very important reason - a view as to what constitutes a functioning society. Unique to the "western" world, starting with Magna Carta, is the concept that any government has limited powers and that individual persons have a set of rights than are not subject to restriction by a governing entity - king, potentate, or mob - and the use of force to resist such encroachment is a accepted practice.

[Pericles]

Isn't G just a variation of B?
Yes, but it seems a much more popular option.

[erowe1]

No, it makes the mob's rule a fact. Different countries exist for a very important reason - a view as to what constitutes a functioning society. Unique to the "western" world, starting with Magna Carta, is the concept that any government has limited powers and that individual persons have a set of rights than are not subject to restriction by a governing entity - king, potentate, or mob - and the use of force to resist such encroachment is a accepted practice.

I don't think anyone here (as far as I have seen) disputes the fact that tyranny exists. We're debating whether or not it is moral. Some are saying it's not. You seem to be saying it is, if I understand you correctly. Or are you just saying that the fact of its existence is all that matters, and the morality of it is not worth discussing?

[Pericles]

I don't think anyone here (as far as I have seen) disputes the fact that tyranny exists. We're debating whether or not it is moral. Some are saying it's not. You seem to be saying it is, if I understand you correctly. Or are you just saying that the fact of its existence is all that matters, and the morality of it is not worth discussing?
The concept of morality implies choice - if one has no choice - how can an evaluation of whether actions are moral be made?

If we posit that a government can't have more rights or authority than its individual members do, how can one have a concept of a Moral society or system of governance, since the concept of morality is based on the choices of individuals?

Thus, I would argue the concept of corporations as "artificial persons" is fundamentally flawed. Corporations can't face criminal punishment on the same order as individuals - who goes to jail? Thus, corporate charters should only give the corporation limited abilities of a civil nature - ability to contract and own property.

Extending the concept of a corporation applies to the notion of a governmental entity - it does not need the consent of individuals to exist, but it has limits on the actions it may legitimately take.

[erowe1]

The concept of morality implies choice - if one has no choice - how can an evaluation of whether actions are moral be made?

If we posit that a government can't have more rights or authority than its individual members do, how can one have a concept of a Moral society or system of governance, since the concept of morality is based on the choices of individuals?

Thus, I would argue the concept of corporations as "artificial persons" is fundamentally flawed. Corporations can't face criminal punishment on the same order as individuals - who goes to jail? Thus, corporate charters should only give the corporation limited abilities of a civil nature - ability to contract and own property.

Extending the concept of a corporation applies to the notion of a governmental entity - it does not need the consent of individuals to exist, but it has limits on the actions it may legitimately take.

Corporations and governments are both groups of individuals, and their actions are the results of the choices of those individuals. When some individual or group subjugates another group of people to their rule against their will, I can't see how that action does not involve choice and morality.

Edit: And your final sentence seems to contradict everything else you've said. What is the basis for the limitation of the actions rulers can legitimately take if their rule is amoral? And if the rules that determine the limits of what's legitimate for them are different than the rules that determine what's legitimate for everyone else (such as prohibitions against theft, kidnapping, and extortion), then what are they?

[tpreitzel]

Basically, yes, if it's clauses are strictly enforced IAW original intent. I selected, other, because I'm actually more of an anti-federalist, but the US Constitution would be adequate if strictly enforced.

[ClayTrainor]

Sure, a slave has virtually no de-facto rights, since he does not have the capacity to enforce his rights. However, does this make the enforced slavery of this individual a valid contract, in your opinion?

:confused:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I oppose the Constitution because it literally went against everything the Revolution was for. America was intended for sovereign nations/sovereign individuals entering into a voluntary Confederation (alliance) for the purposes of libertarian benefits -- Free-Trade, Free-Travel (open borders), etc. The Articles did a good job of this -- it was essentially the first EU of its time. It was never meant to have any power. Of course though the Federalists saw the potential and wrote the first American propaganda -- The Federalist Papers, which was opposed by the true republicans the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution is a massive increase in the power of Government. I don't see how any well read and well versed libertarian can support it as the ultimate goal. Any pre-tense of sovereign entities was lost upon ratification.

Remember, the propaganda for the Constitution is that the Government couldn't pay the Revolutionary war soldiers, so it decided to give itself more power to steal from more people instead of defaulting. If a company decides to sign contracts with employees stipulating 3,000$ a month for 3 years and they go bankrupt in year two, they don't decide to steal from others to pay them. Anyone who supports that should re-think their position.

[heavenlyboy34]

What about the "necessary and proper" clause and the "take care" clause?

There's massive holes in the Constitution that allow government to massively grow. That was the intent.

Who drafted the Constitution? The Federalists. They were definitely NOT for small government. Especially Hamilton who was the main person behind pushing for the Constitution and actually writing it. It's hard for me to understand that so many here hold up a document that was mainly written by a man we all despise for his involvement in the creation of the first central bank.

Thomas Jefferson, a man that many of you all rightfully admire, was strongly against the ratification of the Constitution because he feared it would give too much power to the central government. And he was right.

I understand why many people support Constitutionalism, and I am deeply empathetic and am willing to work to restore the Constitution as it is a much better alternative to what we have now. But when it comes down to it, I have many deep doubts in the Constitutions ability to prevent uncontrolled growth of government.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that 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."-Lysander Spooner

FTW!! :cool: Couldn't have said it more succinctly myself.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Well, so far it looks like there are some hitch hikers who want to go to Pennsylvania and they are riding along with those who have a final destination of Ohio. Since most want to stay in Ohio, I guess the rest will have to find another ride after we get to Ohio. Thanks for the gas money! :D

I wouldn't count gas money before it's collected. The limited view on the short bus is inadequate. I expect more travel competition in the near future.