Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
States voluntarily joined the Union after the Constitution was ratified and again after the Civil War was fought. Why would they do that if it did not benefit them?
Look, I'll be the first to admit the Constitution is not perfect.
However, if it was followed our way of life would be incomprehensible (in a good way) compared to today.
The Constitution did not give many powers to the federal government. The federal government has given itself powers. Take the interstate commerce clause. That was put in the Constitution because all 13 states were engaging in mercantilism trade wars with each other, destroying each others economy. The federal government was given the authority to make commerce regular, or uniform.
Now the federal government uses the interstate commerce clause to allow for regulation of inactivity, because it affects interstate commerce. Austrians of course know that all human action is a part of economics, thus any action affects the economy. The feds are not following the meaning of the document. If they actually did what they were supposed to, we could be purchasing health insurance across state lines.
I will start even before the beginning. Consider structure. The Constitution of the USA is sadly lacking in several structural elements necessary to make the job of would-be tyrants significantly more difficult. The prime example of such a deficiency lies in the fact that no dictionary of terms is included in the tractatus, nor is there any statement regarding how terms are to be interpreted. If nothing else, there should have been included therein a mandate that every element of the work be taken in the originally intended meaning. That SCOTUS has on occasion been on board with originalist or constructionist views of the document is not very helpful because they have also stood otherwise in other instances. Add to that that there is nothing in princple that constrains them to originalist views and the basis for easy usurpation sits before you, waving in the wind whilst glowing brightly and making rudely loud noises.
This alone assassinates the document in terms of its solidity of meaning. I really need go no further, but let us trundle along a bit more just for the sake of morbid curiosity.
The document is in serious trouble in its first three words, "We the People". The implication here is that the document speaks unanimously for all persons and that clearly is not the case, particularly given the fact that it presumes to speak at a level of conceptual address above that of what I term the "principia fundamentalia". These fundamental principles are those that may be comfortably said to apply commonly to all people. These are the principles of liberty as have been very well described and discussed in various places such as isil.org, the Shire Foundation, and http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...ee-living.html . It is my contention that the ONLY level at which one-size-fits-all thinking validly applies to humanity is way down in the basement. The moment you move above this fundamental level of conceptual abstraction, differences between individuals begin to show themselves and you are already in rapidly warming waters if your purpose is to declare universal dos and don'ts.
If "We the People" was then followed by the Bill of Rights and forsaking the rest of the document I would have far fewer negative things to say about the Constitution. That the document specifies a legislative, judicial, and executive structure for the entire nation is very troublesome because I am confident when I assert that there is at least one person within these shores with whom this structure is disagreeable, yet he is forced to toe this line that exists up on the conceptual stratosphere, far removed from the fundamental principles of innate human liberty. This is a serious problem, unless of course you wish to argue in favor of the additive nature of rights, which will get you into some serious trouble with me.
Next, what exactly does it mean to "form a more perfect Union"? Why should a union be formed at all? What about those of us uninterested in such a union or in any unions for that matter? The presumption of consent flows well past Reason's skin.
What does it mean to "promote the general Welfare"? These four innocuous seeming words have paved the way for much of the misery, loss of freedom, and sublimation of our prosperity. There are numerous SCOTUS rulings and opinions that address the meaning of the phrase. Why was it necessary to figure out the meaning? Was it? To many of us, the answer is clearly "no", yet to others it was most decidedly "yes". The SCOTUS seized the low hanging opportunity for power and was able to easily do so PRECISELY because the structure and content of the Constitution failed to deny them the pretext for doing so and in fact provided them with a very plausible one instead. The document is SILENT on the meaning, the framers either naively assuming nobody would question the original meaning as being obvious and the only one that anyone would ever take as rightful, or they purposely left the wording vague so as to leave things as open-ended as possible while still appearing pure and noble in the naive and insufficiently critical eyes of the citizens.
And so we arrive at the goal of "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty". If ever there had been a need for a complete and precisely correct definition of a term, here it was. What, exactly, defines "Liberty"? Yes, it seems so obvious to us, does it not? Yet we can dig up cite after cite of court rulings based on opinions so barking mad as to utterly defy credulity. Without an unmistakably unequivocal, clear, and complete definition of "Liberty", the term then means whatever SCOTUS says it does and without an explicit prohibition on judicial review (an admittedly two-edged sword), there is absolutely nothing to stop a newer court from reversing the rulings of previous ones. It has happened more times that I find comfortable and it will happen again.
The Constitution in these ways fails to protect the rights of the individual in any substantively meaningful way. A ctiizen may assert his rights and a court may respond with, "BWAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... your rights are what WE say they are, piss-ant."
Just so we can say I went past the Preamble, A1S1 similarly starts with trouble: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Granted? By whom? The "people"? Who the hell are the people and what about those who neither agree nor consent to such a structure and such grants of power?
We can go on and on like this throughout the document, which is built upon a set of assumptions that prove themselves supremely rotten when taken in the context of the Liberty they presume to recognize and protect. Even those protections are most often vaguely defined or poorly worded. The Second Amendment is a good case in point. The prefatory clause was wholly extraneous and as we have seen, served only to confuse issues on the street with imbeciles such as those found at VPC claiming the protection applies only to the National Guard. The Amendment could and should have been worded far more directly with less eye toward "art" and in a more comprehensive and explicit manner. It was the single most important right to be enumerated and they fagged out on their responsibility to their posterity, either naively assuming or intentionally crafting. Congress has repeatedly made the hay of oppression based on their idiotic "interpretation" of what the 2A means. The proof of this can be seen in NFA34, GCA68, the bans from 86, the prohibition on bearing arms in authoritarian $#@! holes like NJ, CA, IL, MA, NY, MD, and so forth. My 2A rights mean NOTHING when I visit friends in NJ because if I elect to exercise my inborn right to the means of self-defense which derives directly from my right to defend myself, others, and property, I may call myself fortunate to come away in handcuffs and not in a body bag.
No Constitution, regardless of how well crafted can guarantee that tyranny will not rise, but it can provide reasonable mechanisms for making the tyrant's job far and away more difficult even where there is but a relatively small minority of citizens who actively stand guard at Liberty's step.
Do we really need to do more of this or has the point been made sufficiently? Personally, I see no point in continuing because we will only succeed in pointing out the same sorts of flaws over and over again until we reach the end.
Last edited by osan; 10-14-2012 at 10:11 AM. Reason: Fixed typos
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
Very good. It is fairly easy to find all the negatives and flaws. Does this mean that we should just give up trying to restore the rule of law as structured in the Constitutions? At least representatives of individual States each ask to be a republic form of government under the U.S. Constitution. Is the UN charter better? It has never been ratified and it is much more tyrannical than the U.S. or State Constitutions. My point being that if we don't construct or respect a government by agreement (Constitution), then we get an unstructured government by default (UN).
One more point I would like to emphasize on the Constitution. That Constitution did not create the tyrannical monster we put up with today. The tyrannical monster comes with fiat money. That is why wars come with fiat money. War Is A Racket and pays insiders big bucks. It is all about control over society.
I agree with Ron Paul that returning to sound monetary principles, fully redeemable, undermines big government tyranny.
I do not believe you can infer from anything I have ever written in these fora that would suggest we give up on liberty. Quite the contrary, I have very explicitly and strenuously emphasized the need to press on regardless of the fact that we are almost certainly doomed. Giving up is not in the equation for me and IMO should not be for any decent person who sees, understands, and agrees with the concept of freedom.
I would have to reread the UN charter, which I have somewhere in my effects, to say whether it is "better", but I suspect it is not so in any way I would personally find meaningful. As for your final assertion, I must disagree. A constitution is not required, nor is "government" per se. What counts is how the function of GOVERNANCE is discharged and I assert unequivocally that this can and should be done locally and can only be legitimate when it operates pursuant only to the most basic principles upon which proper human relations are based.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
I did not intend to infer that you were suggesting giving up on liberty at all. I know you are a freedom fighter... one of the best. My question specifically addressed whether we should be fighting to restore the Constitutions. I work toward that goal but maybe I'm wrong. I do believe they were designed as tools for strong local governments, weaker State governments, and weaker still Federal governments.
Not obeying the Constitutions has proven to allow for strong world government weaker national governments weaker still state governments and very weak local government.
Until someone convinces me otherwise, I will continue to fight strongly to restore the Constitutions because I believe obeying them is preferable to redesigning government which MUST exist in a society of land ownership.
Terrible, evil, disgusting plan.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ghost-of-...ver-civil-war/
The late, great Tim Russert asked Paul about remarks he made to The Washington Post. “I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. ‘According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.’”
“Absolutely,” Paul replied. “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist…”
“We’d still have slavery,” Russert interjected.
“Oh, come on,” Paul replied, dismissively. “Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where the hatred lingered for 100 years? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”
Federal spending in 1912 was only 1.75% of GDP. That's 125 years after the Constitution was ratified. Yes, the Constitution is a limiting document. But it was radically changed in 1913.
Yet even now, the US government is much smaller than those in Europe. The European governments will all collapse as the baby boomers hit their 70s and 80s. But the US will survive and perhaps return to glory.
Knowledge is Liberty!
Most people in the US in the 1800s had no contact whatsoever with the federal government.
Why don't you go study the Revolution in Mexico. None of their Constitutions were ever followed at all. The Constitution of 1812 was written and ignored, as was the Constitution of 1824. Even if they were followed, they weren't very good.
Last edited by Galileo Galilei; 10-14-2012 at 01:15 PM.
Knowledge is Liberty!
Ha. Ha haaha!
You're a funny guy.
No, Travlyr. The states did not "voluntarily" rejoin the union after they lost the civil war.
The whole point of the war was to make sure the Union stayed intact. In fact, they were never even recognized of ever even leaving the union, the whole thing was regarded as an "insurrection"
Last edited by TheTexan; 10-14-2012 at 02:13 PM.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Baloney. The whole point of the war, was the same reason for all wars, war economy is profitable for insiders. There was plenty of cause on both sides. High level insiders agitated the war because they knew the discord was great. Slavery was a huge issue.
Read the 14th amendment.
See that? President Grant promised to pay the war debts in gold rather than Greenbacks.Section. 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
I didn't say the Southern States rejoined the Union voluntarily. Read carefully. Many many States voluntarily joined the Union after the Constitution was ratified and after the Civil War. I live in one of them. All the Western States including Alaska and Hawaii.
You are so prejudiced against the State you can't read carefully.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I do have a problem with that but I can't change it. What I can say is that I have studied Abe Lincoln for many years. I know everybody here hates him but he was not the monster as portrayed. He had plenty of faults, but why do you think they killed him before Reconstruction could take place? It is my opinion that history following the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation would have been much more favorable to the South if Lincoln had lived. His main issue was slavery. Abraham Lincoln favored the Declaration of Independence over the Constitution.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
There are some severe violations committed by evil that unconditional right of secession is just not an option. For example, the leaders in the United States who are calling for false flag events in order to go to war on Iran need to be stopped. Somebody has to intervene and stop them. I don't know how it will happen but we can't just let them enforce sanctions on the people of Iran and then let them bomb them to oblivion. Humanity is more important than that.
No, that is bad history.
Read Lincoln's House Divided Speech
Springfield, Illinois
June 16, 1858
Abe's father Thomas Lincoln was against slavery. While they were not active in the abolitionist movement, Abe Lincoln grew up in a home who deplored slavery.
Alaska can't secede because it is its duty to stop Washington D.C. from doing evil $#@!?
Is that what you're saying here?
No, that is bad history.
Read Lincoln's House Divided Speech
Springfield, Illinois
June 16, 1858
Abe's father Thomas Lincoln was against slavery. While they were not active in the abolitionist movement, Abe Lincoln grew up in a home who deplored slavery.The bottom line is, whether or not the bankers are the ones who started the war - I won't get into that, the cause Lincoln and his men thought they were fighting for at the start of the war was the preservation of the union. That's simply historical factOriginally Posted by Lincoln
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that Alaska benefits too much from the Union to even want to secede.
Lincoln wanted to put a stop to slavery. That is also a historical fact. That is what he was saying in 1858... two years before he became president.
Later in that speech,
Originally Posted by Lincoln
Last edited by Travlyr; 10-14-2012 at 03:47 PM.
Then can you please give a straight answer to this question: "Then why are you against the unconditional right of secession?"
Because "I am against the unconditional right of secession because states benefit too much to even want to secede" is not a valid answer
His declared purpose of going to war was not to end slavery, though. Also a historical fact.Lincoln wanted to put a stop to slavery. That is also a historical fact. That is what he was saying in 1858... two years before he became president.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
The reason I am against unconditional right of secession is because there could be some instances where a State so violates the rights of its citizens that it warrants invasion. It is a humanitarian cause.
He was in office one month before the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter.
Pretending that the Republican Party, in 1860, was not against slavery is very convenient, but not true.In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against expanding slavery beyond the states in which it already existed.
Last edited by Travlyr; 10-14-2012 at 04:03 PM.
The Emancipation Proclamation was part of war strategy, announced 2 years into the conflict.
It was done because the British were contemplating entering on the side of the British; the Emancipation Proclamation stopped this because it would make the British appear to be defending slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the non-aligned border states.
Lincoln was against slavery, but that is not why he invaded the South. He did not hold a very high opinion of blacks, whom he wanted deported.
That still doesn't make sense though. A state doesn't have to be in the union for you to declare a humanitarian war against it. Why not allow unconditional secession, and declare your humanitarian wars as necessary, regardless of if that state or nation is or is not in the union?
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Are you kidding? Why would a state want to secede, today? I don't know Travlyr. Maybe the endless wars. The Federal Reserve. The Drug War. The massive police state. The megalithic Federal government.
Why oh why would a state want to secede. This country is just so great, I have no idea why any country would want to secede
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Connect With Us