If the fed. gvt. gave more power to st. gvts., coudn't they become just as socialist?

[guitarlifter]

In the constitution, it states that all powers not given to the federal government are powers held by the state and the people, right? Well, if the state has that power and exercises it, what difference does it make if its the federal government or the state government having the ability to infringe upon our freedoms? I understand that the state governments can tend more "accurately" to the needs and wants of the people, but, if we are to live in a truly free society, shouldn't we support the state having no more power than the federal government and leave all power specifically in the peoples' hands? I mean, right now, even if the federal government got rid of many of today's unconstitutional, right-infringing laws, couldn't the state governments still keep all of those laws?

If I missed some key point in the constitution, be nice let me know. I'm still learning here.

[Aldanga]

If the states do such things instead of the federal government, one can easily move to another state. Moving to another country, on the other hand, is not quite so simple.

It's also much simpler to enact change in a small venue like a state as opposed to a large and disconnected arena like Washington DC.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Yes, states could be just as socialist leaning - if not more so.

But - the states would be, in effect, competing against 49 other states. Think of it as a free market competition among states. States that offer the best policies will attract the most people. Socialist states won't last long. Lots of productive citizens would move to greener pastures, sotospeak.

Right now, there is no option - except to leave the country. At least with de-centralized control, there would be 50 options.

[LisaNY]

Yeah, look at RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare. It's a lot easier to leave a socialist state than a socialist country.

[Vessol]

Not only that, but you can much more effectively fight against a State government which is much smaller, than the monolithic Federal government.

Look at the Free State Project.

[sirgonzo420]

Not only that, but you can much more effectively fight against a State government which is much smaller, than the monolithic Federal government.

Look at the Free State Project.

I've never been to New Hampshire, and am not well-versed on the Free State Project.... what have they achieved?

[ChaosControl]

Yes, they could. Which is the reason I don't understand why leftists are so opposed to decentralization. Decentralization allows for multiple types of governments depending on what people want. So I can have my voluntaryist society, and someone else can have their statist hell hole.

[guitarlifter]

Yes, states could be just as socialist leaning - if not more so.

But - the states would be, in effect, competing against 49 other states. Think of it as a free market competition among states. States that offer the best policies will attract the most people. Socialist states won't last long. Lots of productive citizens would move to greener pastures, sotospeak.

Right now, there is no option - except to leave the country. At least with de-centralized control, there would be 50 options.

There would be fifty options, but, with my belief that any form of coercion against an innocent (as in not having violated anyone's rights) person is immoral and that action can rightfully be used against those who violate others' rights, I am, therefore, driven to dethrone such powers from our country as a whole. In my search of finding a truly moral government, I find it hard to believe that, with the gross amount of misinformation fed to people, states would conform to a libertarian shape. Are there any libertarian countries right now? I can't think of any. One shouldn't have to leave their state to see a moral government. What if all states started pursuing some socialist regime and competing against each other on such grounds, thinking that it is the right way to go? Is anyone here believe that states should be stripped of these powers and such powers be given solely to the people? Btw, I am not necessarily a proponent of taking power away from the states. That's just what I happen to lean toward right now until I am sure of my belief.

[Grubb556]

Are there any libertarian countries right now?

I'm not sure if Andorra is libertarian, but their only tax is a small sales tax I think.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Are there any libertarian countries right now?


Countries and states would not be comparable because of the severe hardships in trying to move to another country.

For example, if the United States divided into 50 countries instead of states - it would eventually be difficult to move from one of the 50 countries to another. Where as, with states - moving is easy.

So - with 50 states competing and with the ease of movement - it would be very likely that at least a few states would become small gov't states. Not likely pure libertarian - but small gov'ts. The free market competition among states, sotospeak, would see to that.

For example - if gov't was mainly at the state level - and California had a vast welfare offering for its people. While Idaho was small gov't leaning. Where would you move? And where would people move who wanted the state to care for them? Over time - California would be saddled with more and more welfare cases while Idaho would likely prosper with more and more independent productive people. Businesses would also likely locate in Idaho. And over time, more and more productive people to leave California for Idaho - hastening the collapse of the socialist leaning California.

[RabbitMan]

I believe stripping these allowances from the states would be a huge mistake; the more local a government is, the more accountable it is. Not to mention their efficiency is much easier to scrutinize. If people are willing to pay high taxes to fund lots of public services that are well-run by competent administrators, bureaucrats, and public employees, more power to them. Decentralization is an incredibly popular concept that actually resonates with a lot of liberals, they just don't often think about it. The only criticisms I've ever heard on the left when I've brought this subject up is racism and environmental laws.

But don't countries in Europe, that are the size of American States, have to deal with their neighbors in this EXACT same fashion? It kind of blows a hole through their argument, and we usually move on to a different topic at that point. But I would love States' Rights to be more effectively articulated through Paul's platform. Emphasizing it during his answers would lead more to "That's a rational approach I guess..." and less "Did you hear that! He wants to legalize Heroin!"

[AuH20]

In the constitution, it states that all powers not given to the federal government are powers held by the state and the people, right? Well, if the state has that power and exercises it, what difference does it make if its the federal government or the state government having the ability to infringe upon our freedoms? I understand that the state governments can tend more "accurately" to the needs and wants of the people, but, if we are to live in a truly free society, shouldn't we support the state having no more power than the federal government and leave all power specifically in the peoples' hands? I mean, right now, even if the federal government got rid of many of today's unconstitutional, right-infringing laws, couldn't the state governments still keep all of those laws?

If I missed some key point in the constitution, be nice let me know. I'm still learning here.

Last I checked, states can't issue money. They're constrained by the power of the purse. Unconstitutional policy usually has signficant costs associated with it's implementation and maintenance.

[1836er]

Yeah. To put in bluntly, the socialist-left (at least amongst their smartest) know that over time the socialist states would collapse due to the most successful/ambitious people voting with their feet (moving) from the relatively less free to the relatively less free states. Imagine how much faster East Germany may have collapsed due to the mass migration of freedom seeking refugees across the iron curtain had the military/police establishment not physically turned their country into a giant prison.

The only way they think they can make socialism work in the long run is to force it upon everyone... as the socialist states would collapse when they got to a point where they were inhabited by all looters and no producers.

[Vessol]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsaqi67TuCg


Yeah. To put in bluntly, the socialist-left (at least amongst their smartest) know that over time the socialist states would collapse due to the most successful/ambitious people voting with their feet (moving) from the relatively less free to the relatively less free states. Imagine how much faster East Germany may have collapsed due to the mass migration of freedom seeking refugees across the iron curtain had the military/police establishment not physically turned their country into a giant prison.

The only way they think they can make socialism work in the long run is to force it upon everyone... as the socialist states would collapse when they got to a point where they were inhabited by all looters and no producers.

Not only that, but you'd have capital flight in socialist states. Those who make the money would be tired of the parasites leeching off them and would leave.

[Lothario]

if we're re-delegating powers, why not delegate to the city instead of the state, or the small communities instead of the city?

[Acala]

In the constitution, it states that all powers not given to the federal government are powers held by the state and the people, right? Well, if the state has that power and exercises it, what difference does it make if its the federal government or the state government having the ability to infringe upon our freedoms? I understand that the state governments can tend more "accurately" to the needs and wants of the people, but, if we are to live in a truly free society, shouldn't we support the state having no more power than the federal government and leave all power specifically in the peoples' hands? I mean, right now, even if the federal government got rid of many of today's unconstitutional, right-infringing laws, couldn't the state governments still keep all of those laws?

If I missed some key point in the constitution, be nice let me know. I'm still learning here.

Remember, the US Constitution was created BY THE STATES! The States pre-existed the US Constitution and when the States created the Federal government, they created it for very limited and specific purposes, established it in a manner that allowed them to keep control of it (States elected Senators and the President) and they preserved most of their own powers. So, yes, a limited Federal power does not mean limited State power. That was the original intent - strictly limited Federal power and plenary power in the States. So the individual States CAN and DO enact very bad laws.

But, as other posters have pointed out, decentralization allows people to vote with their feet.

The main thing the US Constitution lacks is the radical right to secession at every level.

[Vessol]

if we're re-delegating powers, why not delegate to the city instead of the state, or the small communities instead of the city?

Because the fact is that a government is a monopoly of force upon a certain amount of territory. A monopoly of force would not last long on the local level.


The main thing the US Constitution lacks is the radical right to secession at every level.

Well you can't have individuals endangering the monopoly.

[specsaregood]

Yes, they could. Which is the reason I don't understand why leftists are so opposed to decentralization. Decentralization allows for multiple types of governments depending on what people want. So I can have my voluntaryist society, and someone else can have their statist hell hole.

That is why they are opposed to it. Because they know it would collapse without a central bank and without all the productive people and wealthy people that would flee their state.

[georgiaboy]

To the OP, that's exactly the way things are now in many policy areas. Florida and Texas have zero income tax. Most every other state does. Some states have the death penalty; others do not. Abortion is treated differently, with parental notifications, etc., across the different states. Gun laws are different in the different states. It goes on and on.

Everyone knows that Mass & CA are big socialist states, and I think Montana or Alaska holds the coveted 'freest state' award.

But yeah, if the fedgov was sized constitutionally appropriate, the spectrum could easily broaden even further.

[Lothario]

Because the fact is that a government is a monopoly of force upon a certain amount of territory. A monopoly of force would not last long on the local level.

Which is a good thing.

[Vessol]

Which is a good thing.

Not saying it isn't. But governments care only for their continued existence, nothing else.

[VIDEODROME]

The good and the bad of this is it seems chaotic and uncertain, depending on who is looking at it. Especially from the lofty perspective on top of capitol hill looking down on the States. For some reason they have a hard time loosening the tight grip on the country. They campaign saying they have "Faith in the American People" but in reality the American People terrify them.

Now in a way decentralizing power to the states might make us seem like a crazy loosely knit patchwork, and may lead to some stupid ideas and laws from different states, I think eventually very good strong innovative ideas will rise to the top and working through lots of crazy local political debate will have been worth it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes, they could. Which is the reason I don't understand why leftists are so opposed to decentralization. Decentralization allows for multiple types of governments depending on what people want. So I can have my voluntaryist society, and someone else can have their statist hell hole.

Not so! According to our Founding Fathers, there are certain truths that go beyond the expressions of ones opinion. As tyranny relies on style and eloquence, and in the sophistication of this and/or that (modern science), the sake of the people rely on substance, and in the philosophy of certain self evident and unalienable truths.
For the sake of the people, this is just how it is! The further away the government, the worst the tyranny. While the ideal government would be no government at all, we must have one. Therefore, the U.S. Constitution implemented a "more perfect union" or a "necessary tyranny." As we solve our problems on the local level and they lobby away our rights and freedoms on the Federal, states are less corrupt than Federal governments, cities are less corrupt than state governments, and Churches are less corrupt than city governments. Mom is the best! And so on . . ..

[Lothario]

Not saying it isn't. But governments care only for their continued existence, nothing else.

gotcha.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

[QUOTE=Vessol;3264570]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsaqi67TuCg

But this is a departure from the long standing social contract. If we are to expound on it, we need to first establish our Founders declaration and, as the greatest of benefits are derived from the most precious of alterations, then proceed just a little. According to the natural law they proclaimed, all men (the highest and the lowest in stature ) are created equal (with the same exact business agenda for contentment). So, as our Founders addressed a tyrant sitting on a throne, his inverse is a lowly prostitute with no place to go.
You claim we can leave and flee to a better place. According to the Almighty, the only chance she has in fleeing tyranny and addressing the burden she has inside for contentment is standing in faith and walking in faith.

[Mini-Me]

Is anyone here believe that states should be stripped of these powers and such powers be given solely to the people? Btw, I am not necessarily a proponent of taking power away from the states. That's just what I happen to lean toward right now until I am sure of my belief.

I also believe states should not have arbitrary power over people. However, centralization of power is perhaps the greatest danger the human race has ever faced or will ever face. It is NOT the federal government's job to ensure the states follow libertarian policies, and trying to make it the federal government's job is extremely dangerous. Trying to use the federal government in this way is similar to GWB's heavy-handed approach in spreading "freedom and democracy" throughout the world. So long as the federal government has the ability to set "one size fits all" policies for all states, it will continue to do so in a manner antithetical to liberty. This is partially because of the corruption and aloofness that centralization of power and distance create, but it is also because larger jurisdictions make it much more difficult for political minorities to gain traction anywhere (unless they're special interest groups with deep pockets or serious connections). I would truly love for every place in the contiguous United States - and even the world - to be libertarian, but for God's sake, I'd be happy with just ONE bastion of freedom in the vast sea of statism. The Founders sought to spread liberty by example rather than force, and we could do exactly that, if only we had a free country/state/county/whatever to start from.

Since most people believe in arbitrary, unlimited government, we are unlikely to get nationwide liberty in our lifetimes. Instead, the only way to get liberty anywhere is by advocating states' rights and decentralization of power. This allows like-minded minorities, such as us, to actually shape policy in certain jurisdictions. Similarly, ending the moral hazard of redistribution creates natural incentives for every state and locality to have saner (more libertarian-leaning) economic policies, and the ability to "vote with your feet" and move somewhere freer and more prosperous creates jurisdictional competition and accountability that would otherwise not exist.

[Vessol]

But this is a departure from the long standing social contract. If we are to expound on it, we need to first establish our Founders declaration and, as the greatest of benefits are derived from the most precious of alterations, then proceed just a little. According to the natural law they proclaimed, all men (the highest and the lowest in stature ) are created equal (with the same exact business agenda for contentment). So, as our Founders addressed a tyrant sitting on a throne, his inverse is a lowly prostitute with no place to go.
You claim we can leave and flee to a better place. According to the Almighty, the only chance she has in fleeing tyranny and addressing the burden she has inside for contentment is standing in faith and walking in faith.

If there's a contract, I don't remember signing it.

[guitarlifter]

I also believe states should not have arbitrary power over people. However, centralization of power is perhaps the greatest danger the human race has ever faced or will ever face. It is NOT the federal government's job to ensure the states follow libertarian policies, and trying to make it the federal government's job is extremely dangerous. Trying to use the federal government in this way is similar to GWB's heavy-handed approach in spreading "freedom and democracy" throughout the world. So long as the federal government has the ability to set "one size fits all" policies for all states, it will continue to do so in a manner antithetical to liberty. This is partially because of the corruption and aloofness that centralization of power and distance create, but it is also because larger jurisdictions make it much more difficult for political minorities to gain traction anywhere (unless they're special interest groups with deep pockets or serious connections). I would truly love for every place in the contiguous United States - and even the world - to be libertarian, but for God's sake, I'd be happy with just ONE bastion of freedom in the vast sea of statism. The Founders sought to spread liberty by example rather than force, and we could do exactly that, if only we had a free country/state/county/whatever to start from.

Since most people believe in arbitrary, unlimited government, we are unlikely to get nationwide liberty in our lifetimes. Instead, the only way to get liberty anywhere is by advocating states' rights and decentralization of power. This allows like-minded minorities, such as us, to actually shape policy in certain jurisdictions. Similarly, ending the moral hazard of redistribution creates natural incentives for every state and locality to have saner (more libertarian-leaning) economic policies, and the ability to "vote with your feet" and move somewhere freer and more prosperous creates jurisdictional competition and accountability that would otherwise not exist.

The thing about libertarian ideas though is that we're not forcing our ideas upon innocent people. We're talking about state governments that are violating others' rights, something that is inalienable. Would it be wrong to make a federal law against theft? If not, then would it be wrong to tell a state that taxation is an equal crime because that is theft? Taxation is literally theft, so why allow a state to do it if the people cannot without prosecution? Why allow a state to do anything that a person cannot? I just feel that it's like granting a group of people the power to commit crimes even if they have good intentions. I'm surely not allowed to steal so I may give to the poor, so why can the state? What makes it moral to give a state such power? Does mob rule make taxation moral or right? I think not. The government's only goal would be to protect rights and nothing more. I don't believe in compromising beliefs for any reason.

I'm really trying to think of a way to implement a truly libertarian society, even if in just one state. How would we do that? I want a state that has no economic regulations; no social laws such as anti-gay marriage, drug, prostitution laws, etc; all property is private property and nothing state-owned; and no taxes. If we gave power to the states, I don't see any state willingly doing that. What state is going to give up all of those things? I don't want to drive state-imposed speed limits. I want those roads to be privately owned and the rules based on a contract be set by the owner.

[lx43]

Of course they can be socialist.

[lx43]

If there's a contract, I don't remember signing it.

I hear this this bs a lot from liberals who say we have social contract to help the poor, to keep the elderly in a care free life, to pay for education. I sure as hell never signed the contact.

[VIDEODROME]

No taxes?

I don't really see how you can have a government with no funding source. It doesn't have to be the current ones though. We have to many taxes because government's, state or otherwise, do way to much. For example I'd consider excises like Permits or Licenses for some things. Even if those things aren't always mandatory. If the fee is reasonable and the paperwork isn't to absurd I think many would pay to be licensed in a trade.

For example if you operate a Restaurant it should be beneficial to have a license displayed showing you operate under good standards. Or in the name of Freedom we could provide an allowance for taping a piece of paper in the window saying Unlicensed.

[Vessol]

No taxes?

I don't really see how you can have a government with no funding source. It doesn't have to be the current ones though. We have to many taxes because government's, state or otherwise, do way to much. For example I'd consider excises like Permits or Licenses for some things. Even if those things aren't always mandatory. If the fee is reasonable and the paperwork isn't to absurd I think many would pay to be licensed in a trade.

For example if you operate a Restaurant it should be beneficial to have a license displayed showing you operate under good standards. Or in the name of Freedom we could provide an allowance for taping a piece of paper in the window saying Unlicensed.

Still sounds coercive.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If there's a contract, I don't remember signing it.

There is that which you don't know, which matters little, and that which you do know self evidently and unalienably, of which I needn't condescend to explain to you.
In other words, there is something you know uniquely as an American citizen while you don't need any experts explaining it to you.
The social contract began with Socrates, was further crafted by Plato, Aristotle and many others before being blessed by the Almighty, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Contrary to today's diseducation, our Founding Fathers did not reject this social contract, but they expounded upon it.

[Vessol]

There is that which you don't know, which matters little, and that which you do know self evidently and unalienably, of which I needn't condescend to explain to you.
In other words, there is something you know uniquely as an American citizen while you don't need any experts explaining it to you.
The social contract began with Socrates, was further crafted by Plato, Aristotle and many others before being blessed by the Almighty, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Contrary to today's diseducation, our Founding Fathers did not reject this social contract, but they expounded upon it.

Can I show up at your house randomly with a new car, hand you the bill and say "Here you go, now make sure you get the payments on time otherwise I'll throw you in a cage in my basement."??

No sane person would accept that.

The entire idea of a social contract is bullshit made by Statists to try to defend their coercive monopolies. It's non-sense.

I don't give taxes or anything to the government because there is some mystical unique "Americanness" or whatever bullshit about it. I give them money because they have a god damn gun pointed at my head.

That's all a government is. A gun. Pointed at the head at each and every person under its dominion. If you refuse to give your property to the government, they will put you in a cage. And if you resist, they'll shoot you. That's all government is and always will be, involuntary coercive violence.

[low preference guy]

No taxes?

I don't really see how you can have a government with no funding source.

What about charging a voluntary fee for enacting or enforcing contracts? Only those who use contracts will pay. Since there is always a need of contracts to run big, long-term projects, that source of revenue will always be around. If government is small and only protects life, liberty, and property, it will be more than enough to pay for it.

[jack555]

i once heard it described as a political lag, think of the european union. Politicians make large choices for countries they are not even from and it is very hard to stop them because the politicians are so far away. The closer you bring government to you the more say you will have in it. This is not to say state government is the best but its better then a huge federal government. The closer to home you get it the better.

[heavenlyboy34]

No taxes?

I don't really see how you can have a government with no funding source. It doesn't have to be the current ones though. We have to many taxes because government's, state or otherwise, do way to much. For example I'd consider excises like Permits or Licenses for some things. Even if those things aren't always mandatory. If the fee is reasonable and the paperwork isn't to absurd I think many would pay to be licensed in a trade.

For example if you operate a Restaurant it should be beneficial to have a license displayed showing you operate under good standards. Or in the name of Freedom we could provide an allowance for taping a piece of paper in the window saying Unlicensed.

If we accept what the Constitutionalists say, then tariffs would be sufficient to pay for a Constitutional government at the national level. States and cities would set up funding systems as they wish. Your restaurant example is pretty silly. The goal of "making restaurants safe" could be achieved much more effectively by certification by a neutral 3rd party (such as what UL does for appliance makers). This certification would not be necessary, of course, but it would put customers at ease.

[guitarlifter]

I honestly think that a government whose sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property and nothing more could easily be funded by donations from 300,000,000 people. Churches find plenty of funding because people realize that the people who work solely for the church do nothing else and need that money to live, so why can't the same work for government?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Can I show up at your house randomly with a new car, hand you the bill and say "Here you go, now make sure you get the payments on time otherwise I'll throw you in a cage in my basement."??

No sane person would accept that.

The entire idea of a social contract is bullshit made by Statists to try to defend their coercive monopolies. It's non-sense.

I don't give taxes or anything to the government because there is some mystical unique "Americanness" or whatever bullshit about it. I give them money because they have a god damn gun pointed at my head.

That's all a government is. A gun. Pointed at the head at each and every person under its dominion. If you refuse to give your property to the government, they will put you in a cage. And if you resist, they'll shoot you. That's all government is and always will be, involuntary coercive violence.

I have no reason to condescend as surely your conscience is in disagreement with you.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I honestly think that a government whose sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property and nothing more could easily be funded by donations from 300,000,000 people. Churches find plenty of funding because people realize that the people who work solely for the church do nothing else and need that money to live, so why can't the same work for government?

The total value of effort the people put into taking care of themselves far surpasses the huge amounts of effort our government counterfeits. Let's hear tyranny claim otherwise.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I haven't read the thread, so please excuse me if this has been put in here. I'm going to read it now, just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of what the Constitution says.

United States Constitution
Article 4 Section 4


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article 1 Section 10 (states can make their own money, but it must be gold or silver coin)

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Article 6 Clause 2 (U.S. Constitution supersedes all State laws)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I haven't read the thread, so please excuse me if this has been put in here. I'm going to read it now, just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of what the Constitution says.

United States Constitution
Article 4 Section 4



Article 1 Section 10 (states can make their own money, but it must be gold or silver coin)


Article 6 Clause 2 (U.S. Constitution supersedes all State laws)


Amendment 10

As we know, the Constitution can mean whatever the lawyers desire for it to mean. White can become black, and black can become white. However, there are certain self evident truths existing unalienable in every American as a collective conscience, with these establishing a natural law that justified our Founding Fathers in divorcing us out from under tyranny before remarrying us to a "more perfect union."
At times, our nation has had movements back towards this natural law at which times the Constitution worked as it was designed to do. If one wants to hit an apple out of a tree, one has to aim for the blue sky; likewise, if one wants to make The U.S. Constitution work, one has to aim for the higher ideal in The Declaration of Independence!
However, if all one is aiming for is the U.S. Constitution, one should expect a dark sky lacking any ideal or meaning.

[heavenlyboy34]

As we know, the Constitution can mean whatever the lawyers desire for it to mean. White can become black, and black can become white. However, there are certain self evident truths existing unalienable in every American as a collective conscience, with these establishing a natural law that justified our Founding Fathers in divorcing us out from under tyranny before remarrying us to a "more perfect union."
At times, our nation has had movements back towards this natural law at which times the Constitution worked as it was designed to do. If one wants to hit an apple out of a tree, one has to aim for the blue sky; likewise, if one wants to make The U.S. Constitution work, one has to aim for the higher ideal in The Declaration of Independence!
However, if all one is aiming for is the U.S. Constitution, one should expect a dark sky lacking any ideal or meaning.

This is probably the most coherent, sensible post you've yet made.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

As we know, the Constitution can mean whatever the lawyers desire for it to mean.

Not at all. The Supreme Court interprets the law. However, if the people do not like the Court's interpretation of the law they can amend the Constitution via the Congress and State Governments.

Obviously, the Constitution is not perfect. But it is the best we've been able to do thus far. I agree with Dr. Paul when he says we need to just follow the law as it is written. I can't speak for him, but my own opinion is that in doing this we can establish common understanding, balance within the government, and a baseline from which to proceed.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This is probably the most coherent, sensible post you've yet made.

Thank you. I finally made a little sense out of my broad, general education.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not at all. The Supreme Court interprets the law. However, if the people do not like the Court's interpretation of the law they can amend the Constitution via the Congress and State Governments.

Obviously, the Constitution is not perfect. But it is the best we've been able to do thus far. I agree with Dr. Paul when he says we need to just follow the law as it is written. I can't speak for him, but my own opinion is that in doing this we can establish common understanding, balance within the government, and a baseline from which to proceed.
Au contraire! The Articles of Confederation was better, and the Declaration of Independence alone even better yet.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Not at all. The Supreme Court interprets the law. However, if the people do not like the Court's interpretation of the law they can amend the Constitution via the Congress and State Governments.

Obviously, the Constitution is not perfect. But it is the best we've been able to do thus far. I agree with Dr. Paul when he says we need to just follow the law as it is written. I can't speak for him, but my own opinion is that in doing this we can establish common understanding, balance within the government, and a baseline from which to proceed.

First off, two things: 1) The Supreme Court has not always resided over judging constitutionality; so, likewise, in the future it might not reside over such a responsibility. 2) Second, the states can just choose to ignore the determinations made by the Supreme Court. When the majority of them finally choose to ignore it, then it will have lost its authority and need to be restructured. For example, any number of Justices can be appointed to the Supreme Court as the number nine is not set in stone.
There has always been a social contract (constitution) between the government and the people as that is the only way in which a tyranny of just a few could have persecuted (controlled) a majority of the people. However, not every nation has a Declaration of Independence from tyranny. In that formal document, our Founders broke away from legal precendence (past traditions) by using the science of natural law to establish certain self evident truths unalienably.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Au contraire! The Articles of Confederation was better, and the Declaration of Independence alone even better yet.

The DI is not a social contract. And although I'd rather live under the AC, that doesn't necessarily mean it was better than the current Constitution. I personally would like to live under no government, but we have to deal with what we've got. I don't see the debate between the AC and the Constitution as a "better than" or "either or" debate. Regardless of what social contract you have, it is only as strong as the principles and morals held within the hearts of each citizen.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

First off, two things: 1) The Supreme Court has not always resided over judging constitutionality; so, likewise, in the future it might not reside over such a responsibility. 2) Second, the states can just choose to ignore the determinations made by the Supreme Court. When the majority of them finally choose to ignore it, then it will have lost its authority and need to be restructured. For example, any number of Justices can be appointed to the Supreme Court as the number nine is not set in stone.
There has always been a social contract (constitution) between the government and the people as that is the only way in which a tyranny of just a few could have persecuted (controlled) a majority of the people. However, not every nation has a Declaration of Independence from tyranny. In that formal document, our Founders broke away from legal precendence (past traditions) by using the science of natural law to establish certain self evident truths unalienably.

responses to...
1)Any court can determine the constitutionality of a law, but the Supreme Court is the final decider. (What do you mean, "in the future it might not reside over such a responsibility"?) If we just follow the law, the SC determines a law's validity.
2)You're talking about nullification (Yes, a state can nullify any law it deems unconstitutional, but not the Constitution itself.) It cannot "ignore" the Supreme Court, it must act via nullification.

Your concepts about what we "ought" to be are not rooted in what we are "supposed" to be. As I said before, I believe Anarchy is the way to go. Unfortunately, most people do not. The Constitution as it is written is a lot better than what is going on now. If we would just follow it, we'd be much closer to the governmentless world you aspire to. In other words, baby steps.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

responses to...
1)Any court can determine the constitutionality of a law, but the Supreme Court is the final decider. (What do you mean, "in the future it might not reside over such a responsibility"?) If we just follow the law, the SC determines a law's validity.
2)You're talking about nullification (Yes, a state can nullify any law it deems unconstitutional, but not the Constitution itself.) It cannot "ignore" the Supreme Court, it must act via nullification.

Your concepts about what we "ought" to be are not rooted in what we are "supposed" to be. As I said before, I believe Anarchy is the way to go. Unfortunately, most people do not. The Constitution as it is written is a lot better than what is going on now. If we would just follow it, we'd be much closer to the governmentless world you aspire to. In other words, baby steps.
This is a subtle point difficult to understand. I am not for a governmentless world.
In the beginning, the Supreme Court wasn't sure how to express its powers. They wrote worthless Writs of Mandimus demanding the states act a certain way which many would ignore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court found a purpose for itself by determining that it would have been "unconstitutional" for it to reside over such a particular case. So, if the court didn't start off from the get go determining the question of what was constitutional or not, it could one day also make the opposite determination that its purpose isn't to reside over such questions.
Look at it this way. President Obama is ignoring the Constitution. Numerous states took the president (administration) to court and they won. Yet, the president has decided to ignore a Federal judge. See, the president even had his own lawyers fighting this tooth and nail. When he lost, he just chose to simply ignore the verdict (regarding healthcare). If the president can ignore the Constitution, the states can ignore the Supreme Court. He is making a mockery out of our government, our nation, and the world for that matter.

[nobody's_hero]

Yes, very much so, but it allows for 'breathing room.'

For example, as a Georgian, I'm glad that Massachusetts has a mandatory health insurance law. It gives people who desire that sort of nonsense a place to go and keeps them out of my hair here in the South (at least until they bankrupt their state and leave for new ones to convert).

It became a problem for me when that crap went national.