Whiskey Rebellion. The ink was barely dry.Originally Posted by Ender
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
This.
I understand the concept. The argument was used by some of the Federalists, and taken up by some others, that enumeration of rights was a bad idea, because some tyrant not yet born, who wouldn't give a damn about God-given rights, would say, I don't see that one listed here. So that's a right you do not have.
On the one hand, habeus corpus is not a right specifically listed in e Constitution, yet we had it--right up until that $#@! Dubya got a wild hair. On the other hand, I shudder to think as well. There's a lot to be said for, 'Cop, you dragged me in here because you thought I violated a local statute. Well, you're violating the Federal Constitution.'
Yes, government has been imperfect from the beginning of time, and it still is. But I remember being far more free than I am now.
Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to relive the bad parts. It's not easy to teach the children what the difference was. But I do remember how to breathe free. It was good.
Well I find it pretty interesting how easily "imperfect" seems to flow off your keyboard. FWIW, "evil" is more the accurate word I would choose.
"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
Is that the same ink that authorized Congress in I.8.1 of the Constitution to impose such a tax?
I used the term 'imperfect' to differentiate between evil and rampant, unrestrained, completely unchecked evil.
No human is perfect and evil is the reason why. As Thomas Jefferson said, we have no angels in human form to put in charge of things. The whole conversation is about whether we are better off with laws and enforcers to check that evil, or whether giving power to lawmakers and enforcers merely makes them capable of greater evils.
Principles are not things we keep in museums in plexiglass cases. Principles are things we apply to the real world conditions as they exist. If we cannot, then they are useless.
"Any compromise between good and evil only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."
"expanded Rights" is OBVIOUSLY what was used to expand the power and scope of the FedGov.
237 years later, it is also obvious that the main fears listed by the anti-feds have not come to fruition. we are close, but we do not yet have an imperial presidency.
this week, they used these "expanded Rights" to pass a law on gay marriage.
query, if we are NOT here to restore our lost heritage... why are we here?
both Ron Paul and Rand Paul clearly support restoring the Republic and limited government.
I am here to assist new people in understanding our common heritage.
our system was originally based on Natural law.
what we have today is certainly NOT what was intended. the basic system, (structure) is still intact, and it CAN be used to limit the power and force of the FedGov.
I find myself constantly harassed and ridiculed for my support of the founders intent.
yes, it was the Anti-Federalists and their damn BOR that was used to kill our system based on individual Liberty.
doubt my words?
read'em and weep.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/...bill-of-rightsFDR’s Second Bill of Rights
January 11, 1944
Introduction
President Franklin Roosevelt used his 1944 State of the Union address to advance his “Second Bill of Rights”: a broad vision of the role of government in making lives more secure through expanded government programs. The recurring theme throughout is “security” and the necessary action called for is unrelenting war against the enemies of the New Deal, both foreign and domestic.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Exactly right.
The problem is not just tyranny arising from the violation of the Constitution, but also tyranny arising from the following of it.
No "law" was passed. Nine lawyers, given supreme judicial power by the constitution, decreed and dictated to the states that they must comply.
In this "philosotarian" sub-forum, to anaylze where things went wrong, and maybe hammer out a new direction, so our children's children won't have to go through this.query, if we are NOT here to restore our lost heritage... why are we here?
both Ron Paul and Rand Paul clearly support restoring the Republic and limited government.
Possibly, but not likely.I am here to assist new people in understanding our common heritage.
our system was originally based on Natural law.
what we have today is certainly NOT what was intended. the basic system, (structure) is still intact, and it CAN be used to limit the power and force of the FedGov.
Nobody is "harrassing" you. Reasonable people can disagree without constantly getting red-assed and taking everything personally.I find myself constantly harassed and ridiculed for my support of the founders intent.
If it wasn't for the First Amendment, we would not even be allowed to have this conversation.yes, it was the Anti-Federalists and their damn BOR that was used to kill our system based on individual Liberty.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 06-28-2015 at 08:12 PM. Reason: Derp: wrote seven lawyers
Here's the decision.
Nothing but 14th Amendment this and that.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 06-28-2015 at 06:33 PM.
Must've been, I suppose.
It certainly wasn't ink from the pens of those upon whom the tax had to be so forcibly imposed ...
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
Oh no?
Obama has issued 19 secret directives
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...-law/29235675/
Those directives include the authorization to kill US citizens with no trial or due process.
Sounds pretty imperial to me.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.Sorry, bro. I'd +rep you, OB, RT, etc if I could. :/
Tis true, tis sad; tis sad, tis true.
There is no spoon.
The single decision that, more than anything else, has enslaved us in the modern era.
All legal.
All constitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._FilburnWickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to pay a fine, even though he claimed that he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and there is no definitive proof that he had any intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate). Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
From this ruling comes EPA, DEA, OSHA, NTSB, and a million other branches of the regulatory state.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 06-29-2015 at 01:01 PM.
anti federalist papers predict civil war
https://www.google.com/search?q=anti...22.cfmRHqx9ovI
Thinking about this thing from a philosophical perspective, one invariably ends up pondering the very nature of humanity. It's human nature that is at fault. Whether it's a King, Bank, Tyrant, Oligarch, or some other form of oppression... human beings are DESIGNED to gain advantage over others and to CONTROL others as to benefit themselves. History proves this to be true. While the Constitution and Bill of Rights attempted to 'chain' the government in between anarchy and tyranny, it has proven only to be a temporary roadblock. The central government has long since broken whatever fickle chains were laid upon it and marched forthwith, undeterred, in the direction that brought us to the revolution in the first place.
I've said it many times on these forums, and I will say it again until more people recognize the Tytler cycle that defines our current circumstance:
◾From bondage to spiritual faith;
◾From spiritual faith to great courage;
◾From courage to liberty;
◾From liberty to abundance;
◾From abundance to complacency;
◾From complacency to apathy;
◾From apathy to dependence;
◾From dependence back into bondage <<<<<<<<< YOU ARE HERE
Some may argue that we are already de facto debt-slaves and TPTB have recognized (and thus tried to break) the cycle by making slavery a permanent station, supplemented by providing basic necessities of life (food, shelter, etc.)
Regardless, the fact remains we, as a species, will continue this cycle no matter what 'founders' write whatever 'documents' purported to 'contain' the very nature of humanity.
Our only solace is in the fact many of us are on the correct side of things, however it turns out in the end.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
Thinking about this thing from a philosophical perspective, one invariably ends up pondering the very nature of humanity. It's human nature that is at fault. Whether it's a King, Bank, Tyrant, Oligarch, or some other form of oppression... human beings are DESIGNED to gain advantage over others and to CONTROL others as to benefit themselves. History proves this to be true. While the Constitution and Bill of Rights attempted to 'chain' the government in between anarchy and tyranny, it has proven only to be a temporary roadblock. The central government has long since broken whatever fickle chains were laid upon it and marched forthwith, undeterred, in the direction that brought us to the revolution in the first place.
I've said it many times on these forums, and I will say it again until more people recognize the Tytler cycle that defines our current circumstance:
◾From bondage to spiritual faith;
◾From spiritual faith to great courage;
◾From courage to liberty;
◾From liberty to abundance;
◾From abundance to complacency;
◾From complacency to apathy;
◾From apathy to dependence;
◾From dependence back into bondage <<<<<<<<< YOU ARE HERE
Some may argue that we are already de facto debt-slaves and TPTB have recognized (and thus tried to break) the cycle by making slavery a permanent station, supplemented by providing basic necessities of life (food, shelter, etc.)
Regardless, the fact remains we, as a species, will continue this cycle no matter what 'founders' write whatever 'documents' purported to 'contain' the very nature of humanity.
Our only solace is in the fact many of us are on the correct side of things, however it turns out in the end.
tytler cycle in history
https://www.google.com/search?q=tytl...19.8_Ff0wRuu4I
Last edited by Ronin Truth; 06-29-2015 at 12:37 PM.
The Antifederalists Were Right
https://mises.org/library/antifederalists-were-right
September 27, 2006
September 27, marks the anniversary of the publication of the first of the Antifederalist Papers in 1789. The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. They feared that it would create an overbearing central government, while the Constitution's proponents promised that this would not happen. As the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. But that does not mean they were wrong or that we are not indebted to them.
In many ways, the group has been misnamed. Federalism refers to the system of decentralized government. This group defended states rights — the very essence of federalism — against the Federalists, who would have been more accurately described as Nationalists. Nonetheless, what the so-called Antifederalists predicted would be the results of the Constitution turned out to be true in most every respect.
The Antifederalists warned us that the cost Americans would bear in both liberty and resources for the government that would evolve under the Constitution would rise sharply. That is why their objections led to the Bill of Rights, to limit that tendency (though with far too little success that has survived to the present).
Antifederalists opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its checks on federal power would be undermined by expansive interpretations of promoting the "general welfare" (which would be claimed for every law) and the "all laws necessary and proper" clause (which would be used to override limits on delegated federal powers), creating a federal government with unwarranted and undelegated powers that were bound to be abused.
One could quibble with the mechanisms the Antifederalists predicted would lead to constitutional tyranny. For instance, they did not foresee that the Commerce Clause would come to be called "the everything clause" in law schools, used by centralizers to justify almost any conceivable federal intervention. The 20th-century distortion of the clause's original meaning was so great even the vigilant Antifederalists could never have imagined the government getting away with it.
And they could not have foreseen how the Fourteenth Amendment and its interpretation would extend federal domination over the states after the Civil War. But it is very difficult to argue with their conclusions from the current reach of our government, not just to forcibly intrude upon, but often to overwhelm Americans today.
Therefore, it merits remembering the Antifederalists' prescient arguments and how unfortunate is the virtual absence of modern Americans who share their concerns.
One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution.
Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.
Brutus asserted that the Supreme Court envisioned under the Constitution would become a source of massive abuse because they were beyond the control "both of the people and the legislature," and not subject to being "corrected by any power above them." As a result, he objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny.
Brutus argued that when constitutional grounds for making rulings were absent, the Court would create grounds "by their own decisions." He thought that the power it would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law, manipulating the meanings of arguably vague clauses to justify it.
The Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution according to its alleged "spirit", rather than being restricted to just the "letter" of its written words (as the doctrine of enumerated rights, spelled out in the Tenth Amendment, would require).
Further, rulings derived from whatever the court decided its spirit was would effectively "have the force of law," due to the absence of constitutional means to "control their adjudications" and "correct their errors". This constitutional failing would compound over time in a "silent and imperceptible manner", through precedents that built on one another.
Expanded judicial power would empower justices to shape the federal government however they desired, because the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretations would control the effective power vested in government and its different branches.
That would hand the Supreme Court ever-increasing power, in direct contradiction to Alexander Hamilton's argument in Federalist 78 that the Supreme Court would be "the least dangerous branch."
Brutus predicted that the Supreme Court would adopt "very liberal" principles of interpreting the Constitution. He argued that there had never in history been a court with such power and with so few checks upon it, giving the Supreme Court "immense powers" that were not only unprecedented, but perilous for a nation founded on the principle of consent of the governed. Given the extent to which citizens' power to effectively withhold their consent from federal actions has been eviscerated, it is hard to argue with Brutus's conclusion.
He further warned that the new government would not be restricted in its taxing power, and that the legislatures war power was highly dangerous: "the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty."
He also objected to the very notion that a republican form of government can work well over such a vast territory, even the relatively small terrority as compared with today's US:
History furnishes no example of a free republic, anything like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.
Brutus accurately described both the cause (the absence of sufficient enforceable restraints on the size and scope of the federal government) and the consequences (expanding burdens and increasing invasions of liberty) of what would become the expansive federal powers we now see all around us.
But today, Brutus would conclude that he had been far too optimistic. The federal government has grown orders of magnitudes larger than he could ever have imagined (in part because he was writing when only indirect taxes and the small federal government they could finance were possible, before the 16th Amendment opened the way for a federal income tax in 1913), far exceeding its constitutionally enumerated powers, despite the constraints of the Bill of Rights. The result burdens citizens beyond his worst nightmare.
The judicial tyranny that was accurately and unambiguously predicted by Brutus and other Antifederalists shows that in essential ways, they were right and that modern Americans still have a lot to learn from them. We need to understand their arguments and take them seriously now, if there is to be any hope of restraining the federal government to the limited powers it was actually granted in the Constitution, or even anything close to them, given its current tendency to accelerate its growth beyond them.
It took 60 years for the US Federal government to spend the FIRST "stolen" billion dollars cumulatively ( 1789 - 1849 ).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...9/pdf/hist.pdf
Under the Articles of Confederation, I seriously doubt that our total annual budgets of the states would be anywhere near $3.8 TRILLIONS, with an accumulated debt > $200+ TRILLIONS.
this is 237 years later AF. it is NOT very hard to determine just WHAT it was that allowed them to exceed the limited powers is it?if there is to be any hope of restraining the federal government to the limited powers it was actually granted in the Constitution,
how did they do it AF? what did they use? the BOR is NOT part of the Constitution AF. it was added LATER. like MUCH later.
they used the BOR AF.
while I am a fan of the BOR, it is unmistakeable that this is how it was defeated.
I think that pushing the "reset" button all the way back to the original 10 amendments would work this time.
you do NOT.
we live in the information age now. are you advocating a confederacy AF?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
How is the Commerce Clause in any way connected to the Bill of Rights?
You're both right. And neither one of you has mentioned how they stretched rice paper thin and generally twisted and abused the general welfare clause.
What was it? 2 years?
Oh, I was getting to that.
that is a "chicken or the egg question".
a Constitutional Republic based on natural law and god given rights is an AnCaps (like me) wet dream.
I don't think the founders $#@!ed it up as bad as We/They did. (our Grandparents)
the founders made a damn fine effort that protected many, many AnCaps for a longtime. long enough to make this country great.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
how long is a piece of string erowe1?
ignorance is a choice in the information age.
how deep is half of a hole?
my bet is, that Engineer has never been a part of your job title.
Last edited by HVACTech; 06-30-2015 at 09:13 PM.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."how is the BOR connected to the CONstitution?“When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will”
Bastiat
would be a better question.
MY position is thus,
do you even HAVE a position AF? if so. PLEASE pontificate.a Constitutional Republic based on natural law and god given rights is an AnCaps (like me) wet dream.
pretty please? with sugar on top?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us