Suspend Constitution

[TheTexan]

Not at all.

The proposal on the table isn’t simply to respond to violent attack with deffensive violence. That would be fine.

But what’s being proposed is to respond to an opponent's unprincipled behavior by compromising or abandoning one’s own principles, to use their own tactics against them is how it’s usually phrased.

But no matter how you phrase it or try to pretty it up or justify it, it ammounts to abandoning principle in favor of expediency. You know, the very kind of thing the so-called “liberty movement” is constantly decrying in their opponents.

The worst part is that it’s completely unneccessary. There are better ways of achieving the goal, if the goal truly is liberty, that don’t require one to compromise or abandon even the tiniest fraction of their principles.

Well, to be clear, the Constitution has never been a core part of my principles. I can freely abandon it without abandoning any of my principles.

[BSWPaulsen]

Is the USA a lost cause?

The USA is carried forward by inertia and nothing else. We are in the declining stage before the collapse of an empire. Not only can it not be saved, what will follow afterward is something much worse than what exists now.

If you become what you’re fighting you’ve already lost.

Two people show up to a drug-tested powerlifting meet. One of them took no performance-enhancing drugs, did everything honorably, and loses to the person that took performance-enhancing drugs but successfully passed the test.

The fact the honorable one did not sacrifice their moral purity does not mean they won. The outcome is unchanged by any moralizing done by the loser. They still lost, and the victor has the spoils.

Leftists concern themselves with the acquisition and use of power by any means necessary while those on the right are preoccupied with moral victories that never extend beyond the conscience of the individual. Naturally, this means leftists lead countries while all anyone on the right can look forward to is being rewarded in the afterlife. On the upside, leftists do a great job at ensuring their opponents get their reward in the afterlife much sooner. Truly, a silver lining worth keeping in mind.

[Occam's Banana]

Well, to be clear, the Constitution has never been a core part of my principles. I can freely abandon it without abandoning any of my principles.

That is as it ought to be.

The Constitution is just a set of rules concerning how the over-arching federal government is supposed to be arranged and how it is supposed to operate.

That's it. That's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.

There should be nothing inherently "moral" about it, and so there should be nothing inherently "immoral" about abrogating it.

Unfortunately, many people have a strong tendency to conflate the so-called "Bill of Rights" with the Constitution - but the former was just an afterthought tacked on as a sop to skeptics, and did little to ameliorate the actual purpose of the latter, which was to concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people.

Some of the Bill of Rights are indeed predicated upon or informed by moral considerations, but it was a mistake to incorporate them into a mere "instruction manual" composed mostly of mundane administrivia (such as the minimum age of Senators, or the process by which Presidents are to be selected, or the like).. By doing so, those moral precepts became nothing more than just some more rules that can and will be adjusted and fiddled with as seen fit by those aforementioned "fewer people" - maybe according to the other rules in the document (or maybe not ...).

Constitutions should never be regarded as vehicles for the declaration or embodiment of moral principles. That's what things like churches and other (non-governmental) cultural institutions are for. Constitutions should only ever be regarded as practical instruments that can, in the limit, be cast aside and replaced, if need be, when they are no longer useful for the purpose of maintaining, preserving, and defending a stable polity in which things like markets and those "other cultural institutions" can operate on as voluntary a basis as possible.

IOW: The Constitution is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. If it no longer serves that end, then there should be no compunctions against abrogating it. The same thing goes, not just for the Constitution in particular, but for the law in general. When the law does not serve the cause of "liberty and justice for all" (or when it is being used to undermine or obstruct that cause) then it should be opposed and denied with non-compliance and active resistance - and the Constitution is, after all, just another set of laws ...

[ClaytonB]

That is as it ought to be.

The Constitution is just a set of rules concerning how the over-arching federal government is supposed to be arranged and how it is supposed to operate.

That's it. That's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.

There should be nothing inherently "moral" about it, and so there should be nothing inherently "immoral" about abrogating it.

Unfortunately, many people have a strong tendency to conflate the so-called "Bill of Rights" with the Constitution - but the former was just an afterthought tacked on as a sop to skeptics, and did little to ameliorate the actual purpose of the latter, which was to concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people.

Some of the Bill of Rights are indeed predicated upon or informed by moral considerations, but it was a mistake to incorporate them into a mere "instruction manual" composed mostly of mundane administrivia (such as the minimum age of Senators, or the process by which Presidents are to be selected, or the like).. By doing so, those moral precepts became nothing more than just some more rules that can and will be adjusted and fiddled with as seen fit by those aforementioned "fewer people" - maybe according to the other rules in the document (or maybe not ...).

Constitutions should never be regarded as vehicles for the declaration or embodiment of moral principles. That's what things like churches and other (non-governmental) cultural institutions are for. Constitutions should only ever be regarded as practical instruments that can, in the limit, be cast aside and replaced, if need be, when they are no longer useful for the purpose of maintaining, preserving, and defending a stable polity in which things like markets and those "other cultural institutions" can operate on as voluntary a basis as possible.

IOW: The Constitution is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. If it no longer serves that end, then there should be no compunctions against abrogating it. The same thing goes, not just for the Constitution in particular, but for the law in general. When the law does not serve the cause of "liberty and justice for all" (or when it is being used to undermine or obstruct that cause) then it should be opposed and denied with non-compliance and active resistance - and the Constitution is, after all, just another set of laws ...

I disagree with this view (and here's why). The Constitution is a founding document. In this, it is something like the first building built in a city, or a defensive wall built long, long ago. The act of tearing it down has much more significance than changing a zoning ordinance or changing the sprinkler timings on my lawn sprinklers. This significance is bound up in what it means to be an American, not only in a political/legal sense, but in a cultural and, yes, spiritual sense.

The DoI did not rule out the possibility that we may need to, "alter or to abolish [Government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." However, the DoI goes on to point out that this should not be done lightly. For example, right-wing think-tanks having run out of ideas on how the Republicans can continue wantonly betraying their base while not being voted into oblivion and replaced by some other party, is not a basis for re-founding the entire country from 1776 principles. I suspect that the calls I'm seeing recently for throwing out the Constitution are emanating from the usual suspects... Swamp-creatures who are just angling to rig the swindle for 2024.

If it does come to a convention of the States, however, it will not be the sterile political affair that your typical big-L libertarians would want. It would be a primarily spiritual and cultural event that would set the cultural clock back by a century, or even more (and a welcome change that would be.) I'm pointing this out because a convention is one of those "be careful what you wish for" kind of things. The populist Left is cocksure that they would win by virtue of numbers. In a convention, numbers don't matter...

[Occam's Banana]

I disagree with this view (and here's why). The Constitution is a founding document. In this, it is something like the first building built in a city, or a defensive wall built long, long ago. The act of tearing it down has much more significance than changing a zoning ordinance or changing the sprinkler timings on my lawn sprinklers. This significance is bound up in what it means to be an American, not only in a political/legal sense, but in a cultural and, yes, spiritual sense.

I did not say it was insignificant ...

The DoI did not rule out the possibility that we may need to, "alter or to abolish [Government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." However, the DoI goes on to point out that this should not be done lightly. For example, right-wing think-tanks having run out of ideas on how the Republicans can continue wantonly betraying their base while not being voted into oblivion and replaced by some other party, is not a basis for re-founding the entire country from 1776 principles. I suspect that the calls I'm seeing recently for throwing out the Constitution are emanating from the usual suspects... Swamp-creatures who are just angling to rig the swindle for 2024.

... nor did I suggest it ought to be done for "light and transient causes".

I said the Constitution is an amoral instrument whose adminstrivial rules should never be granted the weight of moral imperatives.
(That there are corrupt and/or authoritarian power-seekers on the right who would seek to exploit this to their advantage does not falsify it.)

The observance of such rules should be strictly prudential - and when it stops being prudential, those rules should stop being observed (grade-school civics-class fairy tales to the contrary notwithstanding). If Americans derive their sense of identity and "what it means to be an American" from pretending otherwise, then so much the worse for America. (That would certainly explain a lot about how it got where it is.)

If it does come to a convention of the States, however, it will not be the sterile political affair that your typical big-L libertarians would want. It would be a primarily spiritual and cultural event that would set the cultural clock back by a century, or even more (and a welcome change that would be.) I'm pointing this out because a convention is one of those "be careful what you wish for" kind of things. The populist Left is cocksure that they would win by virtue of numbers. In a convention, numbers don't matter...

I oppose any such convention, for just such reasons.

That the rules of the Constitution allow for such a convention, and that terrible things might result from it while still being in full accord with those rules, only serves to reinforce and strengthen my point. To wit: the Constitution is an amoral instrument, and when the rules of which are used to secure position and power for the enemies of liberty and justice, then there should be no moralistic compunctions about abrogating those rules in order to prevent further degradation of liberty and justice.

"We lost the fight for liberty - but at least in doing so, we observed every jot and tittle of the Constitution" is not something posterity will thank us for.

[Swordsmyth]

Your fact checking can't be legit. I don't see a blue check mark.



One thing you can't misrepresent is your own contempt for the Constitution.

Contempt for the CONstitution (as people around here are wont to spell it) is something you will find much more of on your side.
It is contempt for the Constitution to interpret it is a suicide pact that allows election fraud to succeed and take control of all its mechanisms to prevent redress.
You sound just like the Tories defending the usurpations of Parliament and condemning the Revolution.

[Swordsmyth]

How is it mental gymnastics to point out that the side who hates the Constitution and never follows it is telling the side that believes in the Constitution that they have to follow it to the T to ensure that the side that hates the Constitution and never follows it remains in power?

It's hilarious watching the big bad libertarians/anarchists insist on following the rules to a T so that the party of tyranny can put an end to liberty through fraud.
I guess that as long as the rules/laws favor their leftist friends they are holy and sacred and must be honored above all the principles such people claim to stand for, it is only when rules and laws support the traditional culture, the good, the beautiful, the true, order, and civilization that they are to be defied.

[Swordsmyth]

You have to ignore the rather obvious fact that the way to fix that is to enforce it, not to sink to the level of your enemies. Or your false idols either.

And the advantage to not doing those mental gymnastics now is, you don't have to do more later when the megalomaniac you trusted to throw the ring you gave him into the fire, despite the fact that he already conspired with Nancy Pelosi to get it without your help, doesn't cooperate.

All mechanisms of enforcement within it are in enemy hands and have been exhausted.
Any blind man can see that the only option left is the one our founders resorted to after exhausting all the "legal" options in the system they had.

And that bit about Trump and Pelosi is a lie that you have had disproven to you multiple times.
It's not what Massie said and he was wrong about what he said.

[Swordsmyth]

Plus he bailed out the banks that should have gone under and still exist today. The same people who managed to use magic math to keep the economy from collapsing altogether under Bush are the same people doing it under Biden. 2008 should have been the end of the Federal reserve system.

But he opposes Trump so all sins are forgiven by the left and the leftarians.

[Swordsmyth]

That's a meaningless cliche in this case.

It's like saying, if you use violence against a violent attacker, then you've already lost.

Exactly.
And it leaves the motives of those who push pacifism and gun control on the weak and vulnerable open to question.

[Occam's Banana]

Don't worry - John Bolton is coming to save us!

https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/st...79103393341440

[Swordsmyth]

Not at all.

The proposal on the table isn’t simply to respond to violent attack with deffensive violence. That would be fine.

But what’s being proposed is to respond to an opponent's unprincipled behavior by compromising or abandoning one’s own principles, to use their own tactics against them is how it’s usually phrased.

But no matter how you phrase it or try to pretty it up or justify it, it ammounts to abandoning principle in favor of expediency. You know, the very kind of thing the so-called “liberty movement” is constantly decrying in their opponents.

The worst part is that it’s completely unneccessary. There are better ways of achieving the goal, if the goal truly is liberty, that don’t require one to compromise or abandon even the tiniest fraction of their principles.

Bunk.
Principles require power in order to enforce them
We have no path to power inside the fully subverted and defied Constitutional rules.
The only way to restore the Constitutional principles is to accept the reality that they are currently unavailable due to enemy action.

[Swordsmyth]

I disagree with this view (and here's why). The Constitution is a founding document. In this, it is something like the first building built in a city, or a defensive wall built long, long ago. The act of tearing it down has much more significance than changing a zoning ordinance or changing the sprinkler timings on my lawn sprinklers. This significance is bound up in what it means to be an American, not only in a political/legal sense, but in a cultural and, yes, spiritual sense.

The DoI did not rule out the possibility that we may need to, "alter or to abolish [Government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." However, the DoI goes on to point out that this should not be done lightly. For example, right-wing think-tanks having run out of ideas on how the Republicans can continue wantonly betraying their base while not being voted into oblivion and replaced by some other party, is not a basis for re-founding the entire country from 1776 principles. I suspect that the calls I'm seeing recently for throwing out the Constitution are emanating from the usual suspects... Swamp-creatures who are just angling to rig the swindle for 2024.

If it does come to a convention of the States, however, it will not be the sterile political affair that your typical big-L libertarians would want. It would be a primarily spiritual and cultural event that would set the cultural clock back by a century, or even more (and a welcome change that would be.) I'm pointing this out because a convention is one of those "be careful what you wish for" kind of things. The populist Left is cocksure that they would win by virtue of numbers. In a convention, numbers don't matter...

A CoS is an open invitation to the Ds and RINOs to shred whatever good is in the Constitution.
A coup/civil war/secession expressly devoted to restoring the Constitution as written is the only safe response at this point.
Necessary changes to the Constitution like those I advocate will have to wait until the nation and its power structures have been purged, and even then it will be best to use the normal amendment process.

[acptulsa]

And that bit about Trump and Pelosi is a lie that you have had disproven to you multiple times.
It's not what Massie said and he was wrong about what he said.

Repeat that lie all you want, just like Alinsky taught you to do. I'll keep reposting the truth, and we'll see which will out.

[huckans]

Am I the only person who sees that the original statement has an entirely different meaning if "allows for" is read as "represents the?"

To be clear, I am not a Trump apologist.

[Voluntarist]

Who you gonna believe, Trump or your lying eyes:

Former President Donald Trump said he had not called for the US Constitution to be cancelled, as Republican senators increasingly turned on him over the comment made in a social media post on Saturday.

"The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to 'terminate' the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES"

... he only wants to cancel the parts that are inconvenient for him, which isn't ALL of it - at least yet!!

[Snowball]

For better or worse, I think we're stuck with Trump. He still has a lot of support (for whatever reason).

I do think it's gonna end up exactly again like 2020 all over again. Which may even be a good thing.

I'm not so sure he wins the primary. We'll see.

[ClaytonB]

A CoS is an open invitation to the Ds and RINOs to shred whatever good is in the Constitution.
A coup/civil war/secession expressly devoted to restoring the Constitution as written is the only safe response at this point.
Necessary changes to the Constitution like those I advocate will have to wait until the nation and its power structures have been purged, and even then it will be best to use the normal amendment process.

OK, but who is the strongman that will head this coup? Because a coup always boils down to being the will of a single man. Do I trust Donald Trump more than the US Constitution? For all of its flaws and weaknesses, for all the ways that the infiltrators and traitors have been able to practically anul it, I trust the Constitution vastly more than I trust Trump. A coup would just as easily turn into a D/RINO feeding-frenzy as a CoS would, except that there would be rolling armor in the streets (possibly Chinese, who knows) to go along with it...

[Cleaner44]

If we are it would only be because we're the first generation to fully succumb to the FUD. I'm sure there were a lot of people asking General Washington if the war against the British was hopeless but he just pushed those people down in the mud so his army could keep marching without getting their feet wet.

The reality is that sooner or later there will be armed conflict. The only question is when.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
speech at the White House, 13 March 1962
- John F. Kennedy

[Swordsmyth]

OK, but who is the strongman that will head this coup? Because a coup always boils down to being the will of a single man. Do I trust Donald Trump more than the US Constitution? For all of its flaws and weaknesses, for all the ways that the infiltrators and traitors have been able to practically anul it, I trust the Constitution vastly more than I trust Trump. A coup would just as easily turn into a D/RINO feeding-frenzy as a CoS would, except that there would be rolling armor in the streets (possibly Chinese, who knows) to go along with it...

Which establishment delegates to a CoS would you trust more?
We have no safe options.
The Constitution as written is the safest option we have and a CoS is guaranteed to change it.

[Swordsmyth]

Repeat that lie all you want, just like Alinsky taught you to do. I'll keep reposting the truth, and we'll see which will out.

You should know.
You can't claim that Congress is unable to function and invoke CoG because it passes a supposedly necessary bill, whether the passage was technically correct or not.
Failure to pass a supposedly necessary emergency bill would provide a potential excuse to invoke CoG.
Massie was wrong, but even he did not claim Trump was in on some conspiracy, you just made that up and keep repeating it in the hopes it will be accepted by those who don't pay attention.

[Swordsmyth]

Who you gonna believe, Trump or your lying eyes:



... he only wants to cancel the parts that are inconvenient for him, which isn't ALL of it - at least yet!!

And you only want to let the Dem usurpers use the tattered remains of it to shield their open burning of the most important parts of it.

[Anti Federalist]

Is the USA a lost cause?

As we knew it, yes.

And yes, I know, "OK, Doomer" - not like these predictions and forecasts are anything new, the Doomertarian crowd have been preaching this for years.

But I really do think a Rubicon has been crossed.

That GA senate race drove the point home for me. We can all shout and argue about bad polling, bad data, vote fraud, bad candidate and on and on.

But the fact of the matter is that the state of Georgia, of all places, elected a communist to represent them in the US senate.

And they were not the only place in the country that did the same.

Furthermore, these people are not "lefties" that I'm tongue in cheek calling communists.

No, they are the real deal, full blown Marxist-Leninists, in the mold of Castro and Mao and Chavez.

And that is what their supporters want: a communist revolution in the manner of Venezuela.

Unless and until the remnant decide to secede and vigorously defend a portion of what is left, then yes, the USA is done for.

And that will also spell the end for the entire American land mass.

From pole to pole, now that Brasil has fallen, nothing but an endless horizon of failing collectivist states.

[ClaytonB]

Which establishment delegates to a CoS would you trust more?

I trust We The People over DC. If the option is either trust one strongman to preserve the Union, or allow the several states to secede, I prefer secession. Perhaps they might form a new and better Union...remember that the first Union began with just 13 founding states. But the lone-strongman is just a coin-flip. The only way he could be trustworthy enough is with an unquestionably divine sign. Other than that, who knows whether he is an angel or a demon in an exceedingly clever disguise.

We have no safe options.
The Constitution as written is the safest option we have and a CoS is guaranteed to change it.

So then the options are throw out the Constitution or throw out the Constitution. That's a wash. Throw out the Constitution+secede (sovereignty goes back to the existing state governments) is obviously preferable to throw out the Constitution and Donald J. Trump decides everything from now on. Who the hell is Trump? I don't mean that in the TDS sense, I simply mean that he's just another human, so he has no magical powers or intelligence above any other American who loves their country and, to be blunt, I don't trust my fellow America-loving patriot to rewrite the Constitution. I trust them in the general sense of being a good human being, but rewriting the Constitution is another matter altogether. The Founders weren't a bunch of clowns, they knew what they were doing.

Making Trump king of America is as insane as any leftist globalist proposal.

[Madison320]

This is true, Biden is indeed a wrecking ball in his own way. Or rather, Biden's handlers.

If I wanted the country to succeed... I'd take any other Republican over Trump.

But I don't

Are you planning on moving/escaping?

I'm getting close to retirement and my investments are all geared towards higher inflation so it won't bother me if the idiots keep spending. My fear is that we go full socialist/communist and anyone with property gets the shaft. So I'm kinda hoping they wreck it to a point but only go so far.

[TheTexan]

Are you planning on moving/escaping?

I haven't decided yet. It's definitely on the table. I also have options that most Americans dont, passport wise.

I would encourage everyone to get a 2nd passport asap if you don't already.

I'm getting close to retirement and my investments are all geared towards higher inflation so it won't bother me if the idiots keep spending. My fear is that we go full socialist/communist and anyone with property gets the shaft. So I'm kinda hoping they wreck it to a point but only go so far.

Considering that literally everything is in a bubble, I guess you just gotta hope you've picked or diversified your bubbles correctly.

[Snowball]

The Constitution functioned only in time and part of the demographic.

Times and demographics are changing.

The Constitution is not going to protect any of us from what is here and what is coming.

States have to secede. People have to secede. Otherwise, it's going to get 2-3-4x worse... and the Constitution will allow it all.

[Swordsmyth]

I trust We The People over DC. If the option is either trust one strongman to preserve the Union, or allow the several states to secede, I prefer secession. Perhaps they might form a new and better Union...remember that the first Union began with just 13 founding states. But the lone-strongman is just a coin-flip. The only way he could be trustworthy enough is with an unquestionably divine sign. Other than that, who knows whether he is an angel or a demon in an exceedingly clever disguise.



So then the options are throw out the Constitution or throw out the Constitution. That's a wash. Throw out the Constitution+secede (sovereignty goes back to the existing state governments) is obviously preferable to throw out the Constitution and Donald J. Trump decides everything from now on. Who the hell is Trump? I don't mean that in the TDS sense, I simply mean that he's just another human, so he has no magical powers or intelligence above any other American who loves their country and, to be blunt, I don't trust my fellow America-loving patriot to rewrite the Constitution. I trust them in the general sense of being a good human being, but rewriting the Constitution is another matter altogether. The Founders weren't a bunch of clowns, they knew what they were doing.

Making Trump king of America is as insane as any leftist globalist proposal.

Neither Trump nor I have suggested making him king or permanently doing away with the Constitution.
Trump suggested ignoring a few procedural elements as the result of the fraud and either declaring him the rightful winner after due investigation or holding another election in which the fraud is not allowed.

[Swordsmyth]

As we knew it, yes.

And yes, I know, "OK, Doomer" - not like these predictions and forecasts are anything new, the Doomertarian crowd have been preaching this for years.

But I really do think a Rubicon has been crossed.

That GA senate race drove the point home for me. We can all shout and argue about bad polling, bad data, vote fraud, bad candidate and on and on.

But the fact of the matter is that the state of Georgia, of all places, elected a communist to represent them in the US senate.

And they were not the only place in the country that did the same.

Furthermore, these people are not "lefties" that I'm tongue in cheek calling communists.

No, they are the real deal, full blown Marxist-Leninists, in the mold of Castro and Mao and Chavez.

And that is what their supporters want: a communist revolution in the manner of Venezuela.

Unless and until the remnant decide to secede and vigorously defend a portion of what is left, then yes, the USA is done for.

And that will also spell the end for the entire American land mass.

From pole to pole, now that Brasil has fallen, nothing but an endless horizon of failing collectivist states.

Brazil has not fallen yet.
The military there is starting to roll against the commies' footsoldiers.
A coup against the commie court and their anointed dictator should follow
It's to be hoped something similar may at last come here.

[ClaytonB]

Neither Trump nor I have suggested making him king or permanently doing away with the Constitution.
Trump suggested ignoring a few procedural elements as the result of the fraud and either declaring him the rightful winner after due investigation or holding another election in which the fraud is not allowed.

I agree that the fraud has to be stopped and I don't have any solutions to offer in that regard. But every political coup since forever has always started with "just these few rules, just for a while". In fact, we've already had a coup, it's called The "Patriot" Act (and all ensuing measures after that); it was a coup instigated by all 3 branches simultaneously, against We The People. But Trump has never breathed a single word about repealing it. So, whatever deal Trump's offering We The People is just another scam if it involves repealing or suspending the Constitution. How about we keep the Constitution and nullify the illegal, treasonous and anti-American "Patriot" Act, NDAA, Military Commissions Act, and the rest of it. Yeah, I get it, the Left and the Pharma-Industrial Complex are just as evil, but two evils don't fix anything, they just make everything twice as bad. If Trump is a true Patriot, he will confront the monster head-on. He certainly pissed off all the right people the first time around, but if he wants to win in 2024 and fix this country, the way to do it is to take on the snakes in his own party at the root of the problem, instead of trying to play it off like all of the post-9/11 tyranny is all perfectly OK and we just need to suspend the Constitution for a while in order to drag sitting members of Congress into military tribunals. And yes, that would effectively make Donald Trump a king, not a President.