Courts Not Even Pretending Constitution Matters Anymore

[PierzStyx]

From Judge Roberts:

"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening . Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."


This is almost a confession coming from one of the guy who has been the deciding vote on the legality of Obamacare twice now. The courts don't even pretend to care about constitutionality anymore. Whatever government wills is law, especially if expressed by an oligarch in black robes.

[Anti Federalist]

Whatever government wills is law, especially if expressed by an oligarch in black robes.

Who was given that power by...the constitution.

[jllundqu]

Who was given that power by...the constitution.

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/aliciagrady/daaaaamn.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/aliciagrady/daaaaamn.jpg

I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

“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.”

[erowe1]

From Judge Roberts:
....Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage.

Is that true?

Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?

[jj-]

Is that true?

Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?

lol, Roberts can't even figure out what the SC decision does?

[Sola_Fide]

Is that true?

Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?

That would be the way to freedom.

[Ender]

I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

“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.”

Yep- same here- glad I am waking up.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, then the nation expects what never was and never will be."
-Thomas Jefferson-

[tod evans]

“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.”

:cool:

http://studentsforliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Lysander-Spooner-300x214.jpg

[Pericles]

Andrew Jackson figured it out. The SCOTUS can make any ruling they want, but they can't enforce it.

[ZENemy]

Well then we should stop complying with the 16th amendment since they don't abide by any other ones.

[PierzStyx]

I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

“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.”

I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.

[PierzStyx]

Is that true?

Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?

The movement for this has begun.



Truth In Media recently reported on Alabama Senate Bill 377, a legislative proposal aimed at solving an internal dispute over same-sex marriage. On May 19, the bill, which would end marriage licensing in the state and replace it with a contract process, passed the Alabama Senate with 22 voting in favor and 3 voting in opposition.

In January of this year, a federal court legalized same-sex marriage in Alabama, temporarily allowing some couples to marry before the Alabama Supreme Court issued an injunction, halting the practice. During the period of time in which same-sex marriages were allowed in the state, some local probate judges were refusing to sign off on same-sex licenses, effectively nullifying some couples’ right to marry.

In an effort to resolve the issue in advance of a potential future in which same-sex marriages may be declared legal once again, Senate Bill 377 would remove the requirement that couples obtain a license from a probate judge and replace it instead with a contract process requiring only a signature by a notary public, clergy member, or attorney. The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage and would prohibit currently-married people from marrying a second time.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center’s blog, bill sponsor State Senator Greg Albritton (R-Range) said, “When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties… Early twentieth century, if you go back and look and try to find marriage licenses for your grandparents or great grandparents, you won’t find it. What you will find instead is where people have come in and recorded when a marriage has occurred.” Senator Albritton wants to abandon the state’s recent experiment in marriage licensing and instead return to the older system where couples choose who they want to marry without government approval.

The Tenth Amendment Center’s Michael Boldin said in support of the bill, “Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things… My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”

“The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government,” wrote Shane Trejo for the Tenth Amendment Center.

Now that Senate Bill 377 has passed through the Alabama Senate, it moves on to the state’s House Judiciary Committee, where it will seek approval for a full vote before the Alabama House of Representatives.



http://truthinmedia.com/alabama-senate-approves-bill-to-abolish-marriage-licensing/

[otherone]

our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

TRANSLATION:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g3N9zsPgWNc/T-ro53UgkcI/AAAAAAAADbQ/rvSuzCL2CdY/s1600/2+25.jpg

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?


-1984

[roho76]

I find it funny how people use the inanimate object excuse when it comes to gun safety and how it's the persons fault yet somehow they expect the constitution to save them. Strange. The constitution is an inanimate object and is powerless, as we've witness more than enough in just the last week or so not to mention the last one hundred years. The constitution is worthless without a resistance behind it. Thomas Jefferson was right.

[Brett85]

Is that true?

Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?

I'm sure the Supreme Court would find that to be unconstitutional. They would probably say that every person is entitled to receive a piece of paper from the government.

[heavenlyboy34]

I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

“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.”


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.
Someone +rep my brother AF, plz.

[Anti Federalist]

I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.

One of the primary issues that the Anti Feds had with the 1787 constitution was that it assumed that vigilant people would always be on the lookout to defend their liberty.

They were opposed to aristocracy and rule by elites, which we have now.

The federalists foresaw a dimwitted public, ready to toss their liberty on the ashheap, in order to stay "safe", or be hip and trendy with whatever new values came down the pike, which we have now.

And the document failed to take either of those outcomes into question.

[Anti Federalist]

I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.

One of the primary issues that the Anti Feds had with the 1787 constitution was that it assumed that vigilant people would always be on the lookout to defend their liberty.

They were opposed to aristocracy and rule by elites, which we have now.

The federalists foresaw a dimwitted public, ready to toss their liberty on the ashheap, in order to stay "safe", or be hip and trendy with whatever new values came down the pike, which we have now.

And the document failed to take either of those outcomes into question.

[PierzStyx]

I find it funny how people use the inanimate object excuse when it comes to gun safety and how it's the persons fault yet somehow they expect the constitution to save them. Strange. The constitution is an inanimate object and is powerless, as we've witness more than enough in just the last week or so not to mention the last one hundred years. The constitution is worthless without a resistance behind it. Thomas Jefferson was right.

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

[LibertyEagle]

I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

“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.”

Bullshit. What they are doing is not constitutional at all. But, you knew that. The problem has always been that the American people are not doing their side of the job, which is to demand that it is followed.

But, what you said is a nice cop out though.

[acptulsa]

One of the primary issues that the Anti Feds had with the 1787 constitution was that it assumed that vigilant people would always be on the lookout to defend their liberty.

They were opposed to aristocracy and rule by elites, which we have now.

The federalists foresaw a dimwitted public, ready to toss their liberty on the ashheap, in order to stay "safe", or be hip and trendy with whatever new values came down the pike, which we have now.

And the document failed to take either of those outcomes into question.


Bullshit. What they are doing is not constitutional at all. But, you knew that. The problem has always been that the American people are not doing their side of the job, which is to demand that it is followed.

You're both saying the same thing.

I suppose the answer is humans can't see why they shouldn't be evil until they suffer evil. Or, as Will Rogers said, you can only get as much liberty as you give.

Which makes me think of another Will Rogers quote--We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others."

Can that be done this side of the Kingdom of God and the Judgement Day?

[Original_Intent]

I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

“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.”

I kinda hate the Lysander Spooner quote, and I think this one by Sam Adams is a more correct understanding of where the problem lies.

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” - Samuel Adams

[Gaddafi Duck]

I kinda hate the Lysander Spooner quote, and I think this one by Sam Adams is a more correct understanding of where the problem lies.

It's all make believe, folks!

All we can look forward to is technology disrupting even the government industry. Soon roads will be anachronisms, schools will be replaced by digital learning, etc. Think about it: once self driving cars exist, there's literally no possibility for cops to have speed traps. There goes a major source of fines and 98% of policing. DUIs will be an impossibility because you won't need to operate the vehicle! So, there goes the tyrannical traffic stops.

[HVACTech]

One of the primary issues that the Anti Feds had with the 1787 constitution was that it assumed that vigilant people would always be on the lookout to defend their liberty.

They were opposed to aristocracy and rule by elites, which we have now.

The federalists foresaw a dimwitted public, ready to toss their liberty on the ashheap, in order to stay "safe", or be hip and trendy with whatever new values came down the pike, which we have now.

And the document failed to take either of those outcomes into question.

yes! it was the "DOCUMENT" that failed us!

mere parchment should NEVER be depended upon.

:)

[Liberty74]

Some people just need to get OVER IT. Straights don't have a monopoly on marriage and should not be given "special rights." Besides, government didn't get involved in marriage until the early 1900s because of the growing WELFARE state. How do you hand out the stolen money to the living partner??? You needed a piece of paper.

If two consulting adults want to get married, let them. It's their life and no government or Constitution or law should say otherwise.

[KingNothing]

I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.

Well, relative to nearly every form of government before or after, it has done pretty well for itself.

Having said that, Spooner one of my all-time favorites and his general point is entirely true.

[KingNothing]

It's all make believe, folks!

All we can look forward to is technology disrupting even the government industry. Soon roads will be anachronisms, schools will be replaced by digital learning, etc. Think about it: once self driving cars exist, there's literally no possibility for cops to have speed traps. There goes a major source of fines and 98% of policing. DUIs will be an impossibility because you won't need to operate the vehicle! So, there goes the tyrannical traffic stops.

I have a theory that they'll still have DUI laws, even with self-driving cares, much like some localities are trying to ban those e-cigarettes. Government never shrinks easily. I fully expect DUI check-points to exist once every car is self-driving, and for the driver to be held responsible if he's drunk and his car wrecks itself.

[Anti Federalist]

Bullshit. What they are doing is not constitutional at all. But, you knew that. The problem has always been that the American people are not doing their side of the job, which is to demand that it is followed.

But, what you said is a nice cop out though.

Of course it is.

The constitutionally appointed judges, given their power by the constitution, have ruled this week that Obamacare subsidies and gay marriage are constitutional.

There is nothing in the constitution about the people doing much of anything.

[Anti Federalist]

I have a theory that they'll still have DUI laws, even with self-driving cares, much like some localities are trying to ban those e-cigarettes. Government never shrinks easily. I fully expect DUI check-points to exist once every car is self-driving, and for the driver to be held responsible if he's drunk and his car wrecks itself.

Not a theory, this is fact, count on it.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Think about it: once self driving cars exist, there's literally no possibility for cops to have speed traps. There goes a major source of fines and 98% of policing. DUIs will be an impossibility because you won't need to operate the vehicle! So, there goes the tyrannical traffic stops.

Think about it: There will be no self-driving cars. Only NSA-driven cars. If you cross Leviathan, you end up dead like Michael Hastings.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Besides, government didn't get involved in marriage until the early 1900s.

This is horseshit. The House of Burgesses started passing marriage laws in 1632. Before that, there were marriage laws written by the Virginia Company, which were based on the marriage laws in England, where there were also government laws about government marriage.

[LibertyEagle]

Of course it is.

The constitutionally appointed judges, given their power by the constitution, have ruled this week that Obamacare subsidies and gay marriage are constitutional.

There is nothing in the constitution about the people doing much of anything.

Seriously?

It lays out a form of government. They could put in checks and balances and restraints of power, but yeah, Americans were expected to actually care enough about their liberty to ensure that said government was coloring inside the lines.

[Occam's Banana]

Well, relative to nearly every form of government before or after, it has done pretty well for itself.

Having said that, Spooner one of my all-time favorites and his general point is entirely true.

I love me some Lysander Spooner - generally, his criticisms of the US Constitution are cogent & incisive.

But frankly, Spooner laid a dud egg in the specific case of his most oft-cited criticism - viz. "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."

If it is true that the US Constitution has indeed "authorized such a government as we have had," then Spooner is right - it really is unfit to exist (because the government it has authorized is clearly unfit to exist). However, Constitutionalists can reasonably object that the US Constitution does NOT in fact "authoriz[e] such a government as we have had." But that is a separate argument. The problem with Spooner's "certain" assertion arises from the only alternative that he offers - i.e., that the US Constitution has NOT "authorized such a government as we have had" but "has been powerless to prevent it."

This particular critique is a flamethrower that could scorch any earth at which it might be aimed - including whatever patch of ground upon which its wielder stands.

People may be animated by abstract ideas & ideals, but abstract ideas & ideals are not themselves animate. In order to carry any weight or force, they must be adhered to & applied by enough people for those ideas & ideals to prevail. If this does not happen, then those ideas & ideals (whatever they may be, and whatever other virtues or faults they might have) simply will not come off. This is every bit as true of "social democratism" or "benign monarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism" or "whatever-ism" as it is of "constitutional republicanism."

If a sufficient number of people (however many that may be) do not actively oppose - or passively acquiesce to - the abrogation of the principles & practices upon which a society is supposed to operate, then how can those principles & practices reasonably be blamed for being "powerless to prevent" their abrogration?

Contrary to Spooner's assertion - and regardless of whatever flaws inherent in them that might otherwise impair, impede or prevent their implementation - there are NO ideas, ideals, principles or practices that can implement themselves. This goes for "communism" or "capitalism" or "democracy" or "monarchism" or "republicanism" or "minarchism" or "anarchism" or "whatever-ism." And it goes regardless of whether (some of) the relevant ideas & ideals & principles & practices might have been explicitly written down in a formal "constitution" or not ...

[Lindsey]

I've seen articles that at least 3 states (AL, MS, UT) are talking about no longer issuing any marriage licenses. If this gets the government out of the marriage business, I call this a success.

[Sola_Fide]

I love me some Lysander Spooner - generally, his criticisms of the US Constitution are cogent & incisive.

But frankly, Spooner laid a dud egg in the specific case of his most oft-cited criticism - viz. "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."

If it is true that the US Constitution has indeed "authorized such a government as we have had," then Spooner is right - it really is unfit to exist (because the government it has authorized is clearly unfit to exist). However, Constitutionalists can reasonably object that the US Constitution does NOT in fact "authoriz[e] such a government as we have had." But that is a separate argument. The problem with Spooner's "certain" assertion arises from the only alternative that he offers - i.e., that the US Constitution has NOT "authorized such a government as we have had" but "has been powerless to prevent it."

This particular critique is a flamethrower that could scorch any earth at which it might be aimed - including whatever patch of ground upon which its wielder stands.

People may be animated by abstract ideas & ideals, but abstract ideas & ideals are not themselves animate. In order to carry any weight or force, they must be adhered to & applied by enough people for those ideas & ideals to prevail. If this does not happen, then those ideas & ideals (whatever they may be, and whatever other virtues or faults they might have) simply will not come off. This is every bit as true of "social democratism" or "benign monarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism" or "whatever-ism" as it is of "constitutional republicanism."

If a sufficient number of people (however many that may be) do not actively oppose - or passively acquiesce to - the abrogation of the principles & practices upon which a society is supposed to operate, then how can those principles & practices reasonably be blamed for being "powerless to prevent" their abrogration?

Contrary to Spooner's assertion - and regardless of whatever flaws inherent in them that might otherwise impair, impede or prevent their implementation - there are NO ideas, ideals, principles or practices that can implement themselves. This goes for "communism" or "capitalism" or "democracy" or "monarchism" or "republicanism" or "minarchism" or "anarchism" or "whatever-ism." And it goes regardless of whether (some of) the relevant ideas & ideals & principles & practices might have been explicitly written down in a formal "constitution" or not ...


That is true. That is why self-government is the highest of governments and the one government that makes true freedom possible. When our country was a nation of largely Christian people, it had this self-government to a much larger degree than it has today.

[paleocon1]

Is that true?

Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?

Hmmmmmm, strip marriage law down ONLY to rules regarding the well being (mostly right to support from parents, custody rights) of naturally conceived children.........

[erowe1]

I've seen articles that at least 3 states (AL, MS, UT) are talking about no longer issuing any marriage licenses. If this gets the government out of the marriage business, I call this a success.

Can you post links to those articles?

[kcchiefs6465]

I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.
Gay married couples affect Interstate Commerce. That and it is in the interest of the General Welfare of the People to 'allow' gay marriage.

So It was written. So It shall be done. Amen.

[Lindsey]

Can you post links to those articles?

Utah - http://wgntv.com/2015/06/27/utah-lawmaker-drafts-bill-to-do-away-with-marriage/

Mississippi - http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740

Alabama - http://www.christiantoday.com/article/alabama.responds.to.supreme.court.ruling.by.freezi ng.marriage.licenses/57392.htm

Oklahoma - https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2015/03/12/oklahoma-house-votes-to-dodge-marriage-equality-by-ditching-marriage-licenses-altogether/

[acptulsa]

I love me some Lysander Spooner - generally, his criticisms of the US Constitution are cogent & incisive.

But frankly, Spooner laid a dud egg in the specific case of his most oft-cited criticism - viz. "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."

If it is true that the US Constitution has indeed "authorized such a government as we have had," then Spooner is right - it really is unfit to exist (because the government it has authorized is clearly unfit to exist). However, Constitutionalists can reasonably object that the US Constitution does NOT in fact "authoriz[e] such a government as we have had." But that is a separate argument. The problem with Spooner's "certain" assertion arises from the only alternative that he offers - i.e., that the US Constitution has NOT "authorized such a government as we have had" but "has been powerless to prevent it."

This particular critique is a flamethrower that could scorch any earth at which it might be aimed - including whatever patch of ground upon which its wielder stands.

People may be animated by abstract ideas & ideals, but abstract ideas & ideals are not themselves animate. In order to carry any weight or force, they must be adhered to & applied by enough people for those ideas & ideals to prevail. If this does not happen, then those ideas & ideals (whatever they may be, and whatever other virtues or faults they might have) simply will not come off. This is every bit as true of "social democratism" or "benign monarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism" or "whatever-ism" as it is of "constitutional republicanism."

If a sufficient number of people (however many that may be) do not actively oppose - or passively acquiesce to - the abrogation of the principles & practices upon which a society is supposed to operate, then how can those principles & practices reasonably be blamed for being "powerless to prevent" their abrogration?

Contrary to Spooner's assertion - and regardless of whatever flaws inherent in them that might otherwise impair, impede or prevent their implementation - there are NO ideas, ideals, principles or practices that can implement themselves. This goes for "communism" or "capitalism" or "democracy" or "monarchism" or "republicanism" or "minarchism" or "anarchism" or "whatever-ism." And it goes regardless of whether (some of) the relevant ideas & ideals & principles & practices might have been explicitly written down in a formal "constitution" or not ...

This.

We have the world's foremost set of enumerated rights and sound principles as the established law of our land, and even though our politicians (who we presumably select) will send their goons after us for burning the wrong plant or harming the wrong bird, and send three agencies out if some beavers build a dam on our property--one to fine us for allowing a dam to be built without a permit, one to order us to destroy it, and one to fine us for harming the beavers when we do destroy it--we can't be bothered to force them to obey the Law of the Land or fire them is they don't.

And the anarchists tell us every day how much more responsible we'd be and how much easier it would be to maintain our God-given rights if we did not have that piece of paper at all.

[H. E. Panqui]

...i recently heard some gd fool republican radio tea-bagger claim, 'the constitution doesn't matter anymore'...:rolleyes:

...the loud gd fool is apparently oblivious to the reality 'the constitution' was a dead letter at least a century before the fool was born!!!