Constitution debate - split thread

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[FreedomsReigning]

If you think it's a good thing to mock and laugh at our Constitution, just what is it you're trying to do? Is that what you're hoping to get from Rand Paul? I don't see it happening.

[CaseyJones]

If this is gonna devolve into a philosophy debate take it to the philosophy subforum please, and welcome new person

[NIU Students for Liberty]

If you think it's a good thing to mock and laugh at our Constitution, just what is it you're trying to do? Is that what you're hoping to get from Rand Paul? I don't see it happening.

If you think a piece of paper is actually going to restrain the size and scope of government, just what is it you're trying to do?

[CaseyJones]

ok then moved to philosophy

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Sorry Casey, I couldn't resist.

[LibertyEagle]

If you think a piece of paper is actually going to restrain the size and scope of government, just what is it you're trying to do?

It never was supposed to. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE US, OF COURSE, who demanded that the Constitution be followed. But, that was before American men became pansified.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE US, OF COURSE, who demanded that the Constitution be followed. But, that was before American men became pansified.

If that myth was actually true, then why even bother with having the Constitution in the first place? Why not allow individuals the ability to secure their own rights and freedoms without force from the State?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[gwax23]

Healthy criticism of the constitution is a good thing. Its a severely flawed document that gets way too much praise imho. It wasnt born out of a drive for a truly limited government it was born out of compromise that greatly expanded the role and scope of government from our previous governing document (the Articles of Confederation) Its failed to limit the federal leviathan. It allowed for slavery, intellectual property, government regulation of money, and government monopolization of roads and post offices to name a few shortcomings. It gave the Supreme Court a Monopoly on determining constitutionality. The only thing really good about the constitution is the Bill of Rights which was added later at the request of the Anti Federalists but even that sub document doesnt go far enough in my opinion. It should not be held up as a perfect or even libertarian document.

[LibertyEagle]

If that myth was actually true, then why even bother with having the Constitution in the first place? Why not allow individuals the ability to secure their own rights and freedoms without force from the State?

If it's TRUE? Damn, are you that uneducated? Seriously? The Constitution lays out a set of principles, above all else. Look around you. You honestly believe the dumbasses would know how to secure their freedoms? Yeah, right. They would be running to hit each other over the head and steal their stuff.

[Christian Liberty]

Healthy criticism of the constitution is a good thing. Its a severely flawed document that gets way too much praise imho. It wasnt born out of a drive for a truly limited government it was born out of compromise that greatly expanded the role and scope of government from our previous governing document (the Articles of Confederation) Its failed to limit the federal leviathan. It allowed for slavery, intellectual property, government regulation of money, and government monopolization of roads and post offices to name a few shortcomings. It gave the Supreme Court a Monopoly on determining constitutionality. The only thing really good about the constitution is the Bill of Rights which was added later at the request of the Anti Federalists but even that sub document doesnt go far enough in my opinion. It should not be held up as a perfect or even libertarian document.

I have mixed feelings about intellectual property, but I agree with the rest of this post. Good stuff.

If it's TRUE? Damn, are you that uneducated? Seriously? The Constitution lays out a set of principles, above all else. Look around you. You honestly believe the dumbasses would know how to secure their freedoms? Yeah, right. They would be running to hit each other over the head and steal their stuff.

I don't really "get" some of the nasty vitrol between the pro and anti-constitution people, on either side. Nobody who supports the consitution wants the Hamiltonian abuses that the constitution is sometimes manipulated to justify. And nobody who opposes the constitution wants to remove all limits on Federal power. I think this debate comes down at least as much to method as it does to philosophy.

My question for anyone who asked me if I supported the constitution would be "in comparison to what?" An ideal society? No. Minarchism? No. The Articles of Confederation? No. Compared to the monster we have today? Heck yes.

The Constitution is not my ideal, but going back to it would be a heck of a step in the right direction.

[LibertyEagle]

I have mixed feelings about intellectual property, but I agree with the rest of this post. Good stuff.



I don't really "get" some of the nasty vitrol between the pro and anti-constitution people, on either side. Nobody who supports the consitution wants the Hamiltonian abuses that the constitution is sometimes manipulated to justify. And nobody who opposes the constitution wants to remove all limits on Federal power. I think this debate comes down at least as much to method as it does to philosophy.

My question for anyone who asked me if I supported the constitution would be "in comparison to what?" An ideal society? No. Minarchism? No. The Articles of Confederation? No. Compared to the monster we have today? Heck yes.

The Constitution is not my ideal, but going back to it would be a heck of a step in the right direction.

Because Constitution-bashing on a forum where we are trying to get people elected is stupid beyond belief. That's why.

[Christian Liberty]

Because Constitution-bashing on a forum where we are trying to get people elected is stupid beyond belief. That's why.

I view electoral politics as being stupid beyond belief in most cases. And I have no real interest in watering down the message for the ears of the stupid and/or evil.

But, I see no real point in bashing each other when we agree 90% of the time. We have bigger enemies than each other.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

If it's TRUE? Damn, are you that uneducated? Seriously? The Constitution lays out a set of principles, above all else. Look around you. You honestly believe the dumbasses would know how to secure their freedoms? Yeah, right. They would be running to hit each other over the head and steal their stuff.

Are you that much of an idiot to believe that the "dumbasses" can govern the "dumbasses"? And what principles? Where are these principles that the Constitution lays out? As gwax already pointed out, the document created more problems for American society than it solved.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[familydog]

If it's TRUE? Damn, are you that uneducated? Seriously? The Constitution lays out a set of principles, above all else. Look around you. You honestly believe the dumbasses would know how to secure their freedoms? Yeah, right. They would be running to hit each other over the head and steal their stuff.

If you have such a dour outlook on humanity, how can you trust people with a monopoly on goods and services like "law enforcement" or "national defense"? How can you even trust people to vote?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[fisharmor]

As I've said before, I don't support constitutionalism because LibertyEagle doesn't support constitutionalism.

For a century, the US constitution was not read to have granted the federal government any control over ingress or egress of individuals into or out of the boundaries of the United States.
People were free to come and go as they chose.

Immigration law was a power grab as heinous as any other power grab by the fedgov.
And people like LibertyEagle spend large amounts of time preaching to us that it is perfectly constitutional.

Yet the only justification which is ever offered for why it's constitutional is that immigration is synonymous with invasion.
And then we ignore the fact that the constitution only grants congress the power to call forth the militia to repel invasions... it does not give congress the power to form and fund INS.

In short, the self-proclaimed defenders of the constitution either can't or won't see that they use it improperly to support clearly unconstitutional policies which have no place in a free society.

I'd be willing to give it a go. But my ultimatum remains unchanged: ​you first.

[LibertyEagle]

If you have such a dour outlook on humanity, how can you trust people with a monopoly on goods and services like "law enforcement" or "national defense"? How can you even trust people to vote?

Who said I "trusted" them? No one ever said that should be the case.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson

[LibertyEagle]

Precisely. How can you even think that the people you seem to fear - the ones who would "hit each other over the head and steal their stuff" - would use their votes to do anything less?

Read the enumerated powers.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you that much of an idiot to believe that the "dumbasses" can govern the "dumbasses"? And what principles? Where are these principles that the Constitution lays out? As gwax already pointed out, the document created more problems for American society than it solved.

No, I am under no impression that anyone on this forum could govern much of anything at all. It's interesting that you pointed that out. But ok, you'll get no argument from me.

[CCTelander]

It never was supposed to. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE US, OF COURSE, who demanded that the Constitution be followed. But, that was before American men became pansified.

When you say "US," to whom are you referring?

[Cabal]

In the tradition of Jeff Foxworthy...

You Might Be a Statist If…?

Having always liked those you-might-be-a-[whatever] lists, it seems that now might be a time to come up with one of my own. No doubt some entries have been left off, but this is a good start.

You might be a statist if…

• You vote in every election, but soon after your candidate takes office, you wonder aloud (or secretly) about his qualifications.
• You have voted for political candidates in your own party, expecting them to care more about you than the people who actually paid for them to be elected.
• You have voted for political candidates in different political parties than your own, expecting a different result than voting for a candidate in your own party.
• You believe some bureaucrat in Washington, who doesn’t know you from Batman, actually cares about you.
• You complain to all who will listen about the terrible policies of The Other Guy, but somehow think Your Guy’s policies, demonstrably no different, are better.
• You think that a person who happens to show great skill in one narrow area, such as public speaking, is qualified to make decisions about the lives of others across many areas, as if the fastest runner in a tribe is automatically qualified to be Chief.
• You hate greedy corporations, but think an organization such as a government – itself beholden to (and factually a horribly-mutated form of) a greedy corporation – will protect you from (… wait for it …) greedy corporations.
• You think welfare only happens when the government gives money to poor people, or to rich people, or to people of another race, or to people of another socio-economic strata, or to corporations, versus whenever any organization takes money from one person via violence or coercion and gives it to another.
• You think it is possible for a government to change the laws of supply and demand or determine an appropriate response to scarcity.
• You’ve ever used the terminology "public option" and weren’t talking about making a Number 2 in the woods.
• You think the land mass – and the people inhabiting it – on one side of an imaginary line in the sand called a border, are objectively better than the land mass – and the people inhabiting it – on the other side of that imaginary line in the sand.
• You think some guy in a special uniform is objectively different from you in terms of morality and rights.
• You believe that rights are obtained by declaration, or via guns and violence, or by the application of all three.
• You think that rules written by members of the State can be used to control the State, as if consulting an old piece of parchment very closely and then yelling "Article 76!" was ever a reasonable response to a corrupt man holding a gun.
• You get squeamish about shooting someone yourself, but have no compunction with having a nameless, faceless representative of the State shoot someone on your behalf. (The further away this person lives, particularly if it’s someplace you cannot find on a map without help, the better.)
• You think it is morally justified to install an army base in the vicinity of a so-called foreign people, but would cry foul at the top of your lungs if the roles were reversed.
• You think it can be morally justified to withhold trade with the people of a country – called an embargo or imposing sanctions – in order to blackmail the ostensible ruler of that country to do your bidding, but do not understand that such an action is morally equivalent to holding an innocent person hostage in order to elicit a certain action from someone who knows them.
• You think your neighbor, or some guy on the other side of town, should be restricted from owning a firearm, since he might be psychopath, while simultaneously assuming that some other guy, who also might be a psychopath, can be armed because a third guy or group of people – none of whom you have ever met – authorizes it.
• You think that one person can morally make decisions about the appropriate use of the private property of another person.
• You think the moral nature of theft, murder, slavery, assault, and kidnapping change dependent upon the size of the group that authorizes these actions.

The moral nature of a man is unchanged by the existence of an organization or his position within that organization. Organizational pursuits wherein the only real criteria for participation is desire and the threat of negative market response is non-existent – such as politics and government bureaucracy – will, given time, attract those who are both desirous of the benefits afforded by the available ways and means and motivated by the lack of negative feedback. (In other words, losers.) Inevitably, such organizations morph toward becoming chronically inefficient or oppressive, or both. (It is ironic that one of the main arguments against anarchy is also the reason one should most urgently support it.) This will happen no matter if people are inherently good or inherently bad since the ability to off-load responsibility and rent-seek – intrinsic qualities of any state – increase given a monopoly of violence and coercion. If there is no penalty for doing dumb stuff, more dumb stuff gets done. While this situation might ultimately be worse if people are inherently evil it makes sense to keep the old fable in mind. Since it was a snake when you picked it up, eventually you will get bitten.

[LibertyEagle]

When you say "US," to whom are you referring?

The American people. Or, at least those who have any intestinal fortitude. Cowards need not apply.

[LibertyEagle]

In the tradition of Jeff Foxworthy...

In the tradition of myself...

only a pacifist wienie would think that a piece of paper would mean much of anything, without people willing to use force to insist that it is adhered to. This is true with any kind of contract, by the way.

[tommyrp12]

If you are governed and its not by choice then you are not free. That is why I wont support such a document. That and the fact that it is not for us. If you want to be deceived then by all means follow the deceivers. I will opt for the truth as I find it.

It is a trust and not a contract, and it was made for the founders and their posterity and anyone with a oath to it, the preamble does count. It outlines his fiduciary duties and all the laws contained there in are theirs to obey or change.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/prea....O00WkSXk.dpuf

Formalities

Generally, a trust requires three certainties, as determined in Knight v Knight:
1.Intention. There must be a clear intention to create a trust (Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry)
2.Subject Matter. The property subject to the trust must be clearly identified (Palmer v Simmonds). One may not, for example state, settle "the majority of my estate", as the precise extent cannot be ascertained. Trust property may be any form of specific property, be it real or personal, tangible or intangible. It is often, for example, real estate, shares or cash.
3.Objects. The beneficiaries of the trust must be clearly identified, or at least be ascertainable (Re Hain's Settlement). In the case of discretionary trusts, where the trustees have power to decide who the beneficiaries will be, the settlor must have described a clear class of beneficiaries (McPhail v Doulton). Beneficiaries may include people not born at the date of the trust (for example, "my future grandchildren"). Alternatively, the object of a trust could be a charitable purpose rather than specific beneficiaries.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm...Trust_law.html

In the United States, the settlor is also called the trustor, grantor, donor or creator. In some other jurisdictions, the settlor may also be known as the founder.

So the good news is we are actually free and only bound to obey legislation passed by congress through fraud and conditioning.
The bad news is they can do what they want to the constitution because its theirs.

I hate to be the guy to bust the patriotic bubble, but that's what that thing is about and I wish to at least dispense with the lies that it protects us or is worth defending ,the only thing worth protecting is your fellow human being's lives.
Your natural rights trump legal fiction from a private law society every time.

All the statutory construction of definitions for my state is aimed at persons which are corporations, which is legal fiction made upon registration of births which is a event and not a human being.Not once is human being mentioned. Its also through your presumed use of their internal re-venue (FRN's) see title 12 sec. 411, those FRNs are for agents.



Now think of the states as corporate persons, when the constitution was written it said "We The People" .Well the People or corporate persons back then are The States. They and the federal government are corporations. Notice the capitalization of People, it is the almost the same difference as Polish and polish. Polish is a class of People. polish is a verb.

Padelford, Fay & Co vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah

55

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court , on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...pter4/Section7

Twenty-third, "Person'' or "whoever'' shall include corporations, societies, associations and partnerships.

28 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Lets test out the second amendment and see if it makes sense now.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I am not a signatory nor a set of imaginary lines or corporate entity nor have a oath to it and I am certainly not their posterity. But my natural rights to defend myself trump it. That is why they take our weapons and that is why they get more. Its for their security not ours.

So the choice is are you a human being or a corporate fiction. I would think corporations don't have blood in their veins.
We have the right of free association and self determination, we don't automatically fall into their jurisdiction because they have drawn lines on a map.

The problem is they are sociopaths and don't much care what we want.

[fisharmor]

In the tradition of myself, only a pacifist wienie would think that a piece of paper would mean much of anything, without people willing to use force to insist that it is adhered to. This is true with any kind of contract, by the way.

The next time I rent a moving van, I'll just tell the attendant "Oh, no, you don't need a deposit... just get someone with a gun to come light me up! Then you'll totally get your money back."


Do you think about the stuff you write?

[ProIndividual]

Nationalism is a culturally significant and socially acceptable cult, and you are clearly committing blasphemy against the god-state, via your criticism of its divinely-inspired sacred texts. This OP is likely possessed, or is himself/herself a witch.

Say 3 Pledge of a Allegiances and an Emancipation Proclamation. Don't forget to look up at the cross...err, I mean flag...when praying for forgiveness. Don't make us perform an Exorcism (this includes re-education through labor and butt rape by a cell mate).

Amen. Peace be with You...something, something...yada, yada, yada...pass the donation plate.

[LibertyEagle]

The next time I rent a moving van, I'll just tell the attendant "Oh, no, you don't need a deposit... just get someone with a gun to come light me up! Then you'll totally get your money back."
[SIZE=1]

Do you think about the stuff you write?

I'll ask you the same. Because it's idiotic to believe any piece of paper has any meaning whatsoever unless others know that there are repercussions should they not uphold what they agreed to.