Is invoking the Constitution a good way to promote liberty? [Video]

[Conza88]

Discuss.

Ron Paul on Lysander Spooner (Video)

Question: “You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “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.”

Ron Paul: “I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution [at least tries to limit government], and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.”

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Great quote by Ron Paul right there!

[acptulsa]

Great quote by Ron Paul right there!

It is, you know.

And I think one way we'll know we're maturing to the point where we can maybe satisfy Spooner (and our favorite mule-headed Aussie as well) is when we respect each other well enough to stick to our Constitution...

[Conza88]

It is, you know.

And I think one way we'll know we're maturing to the point where we can maybe satisfy Spooner (and our favorite mule-headed Aussie as well) is when we respect each other well enough to stick to our Constitution...

"We"... hahah.

... Oh, I didn't know you, "we" were part of the state acptulsa? Come on now... when you can't even get the basics right, what hope is there of ever doing such a thing?

[Travlyr]

It is, you know.

And I think one way we'll know we're maturing to the point where we can maybe satisfy Spooner (and our favorite mule-headed Aussie as well) is when we respect each other well enough to stick to our Constitution...

Exactly. If the government is not limited by a Constitution, then they will claim unlimited power. If they are not limited, then they will claim the right to kill. They will claim the right to be judge, jury, and executor by people in blue uniforms with badges. And they will claim the right to print money currency with impunity.

[W_BRANDON]

I don't think a lot of people really understand the Constitution and that it is, in fact, the Supreme law of this country, then and now. I believe too many people view the U.S. Constitution as more of a historical document and set of general guidelines for the Federal government with diminished (ing) relevance and power.

Simply put, saying something is constitutional or unconstitutional should be the crux of the argument when applicable. Supplementing the argument with other points is fine but not if you give them precedence over the Constitution. This would be playing into the mindset of Constitutional irrelevancy.

[Travlyr]

I don't think a lot of people really understand the Constitution and that it is, in fact, the Supreme law of this country, then and now. I believe too many people view the U.S. Constitution as more of a historical document and set of general guidelines for the Federal government with diminished (ing) relevance and power.

Simply put, saying something is constitutional or unconstitutional should be the crux of the argument when applicable. Supplementing the argument with other points is fine but not if you give them precedence over the Constitution. This would be playing into the mindset of Constitutional irrelevancy.

Yes. And the U.S. Constitution does not give the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

People assume that the Justices of the Supreme Court make law because TV tells them so. They don't. The justices of the Supreme Court have no more power than you or me. They have nice robes and stuff that they put on every morning. But they do not have the power to rule over you. They only have more weapons than you. They have a MIC that rules over you.

[W_BRANDON]

Yes. And the U.S. Constitution does not give the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

People assume that the Justices of the Supreme Court make law because TV tells them so. They don't. The justices of the Supreme Court have no more power than you or me. They have nice robes and stuff that they put on every morning. But they do not have the power to rule over you. They only have more weapons than you. They have a MIC that rules over you.

Their (SCOTUS justices) primary responsibility is to judge the constitutionality of laws. This does give them tremendous power because their interpretation of the Constitution has final say in some of the most important and controversial pieces of legislation and/or lower court rulings.

The justices have become more openly hostile to the Constitution and the specific/limited authority it has given them. They disregard this mandate and go for an interpretation of a "Constitution that should have been" (in their mind).

[Travlyr]

Their (SCOTUS justices) primary responsibility is to judge the constitutionality of laws. This does give them tremendous power because their interpretation of the Constitution has final say in some of the most important and controversial pieces of legislation and/or lower court rulings.

The justices have become more openly hostile to the Constitution and the specific/limited authority it has given them. They disregard this mandate and go for an interpretation of a "Constitution that should have been" (in their mind).

They have NO power. They are simply nine people living in Washington D.C. who claim power they don't have. They claim that people around the world should send them $3 Trillion FRNs each year and if you don't send your share then they will throw you in a prison, but they are only 9 liars of millions of liars. They have no authority. They have guns. I have guns too. They don't get my guns. They get my bullets at high speed if necessary.

[Cabal]

The problem with everything you say is that it's contrary to practical reality, Travlyr.

Example: "They have NO power."

This is demonstrably false--historically, practically, even theoretically.

[Travlyr]

The problem with everything you say is that it's contrary to practical reality, Travlyr.

Example: "They have NO power."

This is demonstrably false--historically, practically, even theoretically.

Everything I say? Maybe not. Perhaps the problem is that you believe whatever the TV says.

[The Northbreather]

I agree with Dr. Ron . Its the best we have right now.

Lets shrink goverment into its smallest form. For now I'm for property rights, personal property, boarders.

Once people have experienced more personal responsibility in the presence of a smaller government, morality could very well improve to the point where government was no longer relevant and man would do away with it in its entirety.

[Odin]

It is a good point and one thing I find frustrating with some libertarians is the implication that the Constitution is sacred or perfect. Jefferson himself didn't hold that view:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

I do doubt though that Jefferson would view our current state of affairs as 'progress' from what the foundation that was laid. I also doubt that Jefferson would look at our society and say it is more developed philosophically, and more enlightened, than in that time.

[Travlyr]

It is a good point and one thing I find frustrating with some libertarians is the implication that the Constitution is sacred or perfect. Jefferson himself didn't hold that view:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

I do doubt though that Jefferson would view our current state of affairs as 'progress' from what the foundation that was laid. I also doubt that Jefferson would look at our society and say it is more developed philosophically, and more enlightened, than in that time.

In all my years of living I have never seen anyone promote the Constitution as a perfect document. It is simply a blueprint on how to limit government if obeyed.

[noneedtoaggress]

The constitution in general seems mostly to be a great way to fool an entire nation into believing that there is a some force at work preventing their government from evolving into tyranny and that they are free because they are under the protection of this force.

[FrancisMarion]

Yes, because the Constitution is written for YOU!