49 votes

US Constitution, send it to all your friends to read today

In celebration of the creation of the U.S. Constitution I propose we all encourage our friends and family to read, or at least discuss, the U.S. Constitution. This document lays the groundwork for a LIMITED government and I think it's important for us to get others to read and understand it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

what is this "Constitution Day" ?

Is that a day when we're to honor the things we disrespect ?

Why on earth would anybody want to read the constitution?

Its not like it means 1 damn thing anymore. And if you think those in power are going to let you beat them at a game they own the playing field, the propagandists, referees, and the fixers... wow you need a reality pill.

What is so damned wonderful about it anyway? Its just words on a piece of hemp.

Stop and Think
What did the constitution replace?
What was wrong with the Articles? Think now, back to middle school history. It was too weak..no? Had no authority to raise a central army! And, Gasp!, Couldn't Levy Federal Taxes!

No Freaking way! That sounds like utopia compare to what the constitution has wrought. This my friend is actually a very sad day for liberty.

See Tom Woods
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/something-to-do-on-constitution...

See No treason: The constitution of No authority
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html

Read the anti-federalists-why not it was the actual debate
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance107.html

Whoa chill on the Constitution , It is an instrument of CONTROL

It only pertains to US territories and it limits /numerates our civil liberties which are actually enumerable.
George Washington was our first federalist. He learned well from the British. Top down gov't control was the fix from the beginning. Most of the framers were masons. Control freeks. Read about the dudes that refused to sign it. There you will find the key to a true republic.
Or
Just keep enjoying the warm fuzzy propaganda that you were fed in government indoctination school.
"You are free" "you live in the best, most free country in the world"
"democracy is fair for everyone" "we must use bombs and war to spread democracy" "you get to vote for whatever gov't you want""the constitution is what separates us from the rest of the savage world"

A patriot must always be prepared to defend his country from his government.

Disappointed

that Google didn't have a creative doodle for today about the Constitution.

I posted

Three post on the 225 anniversary of the constitution, all with videos. Please check them out.

Requiem for the Constitution.

Lincoln killed the Old Republic

Congress made a deal with the bankers and they bought up what was left.

Know your Rights, they are coming to take them away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q35DoJroTYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9fdSirNinQ

Free includes debt-free!

Yea. You are absolutly right.

Yea. You are absolutly right. there is nothing to celebrate about. Only someone who doesn't understand who he really is, would rely on piece of paper written to ensure bankers they will get they dough. That is what constitution really is.

Actually it was the best plan ever written, to date.

But if the plan is not followed, well we see the results all around us.

Free includes debt-free!

Collected here in one

Collected here in one affordable volume are the most important documents of the United States of America; The Constitution of the United states, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation. These three documents are the basis for out entire way of life. Every citizen. I bought six and even gave one to our library. ISBN 1-60459-268-0 Thomas Paine COMMON SENSE cost $2.50 ISBN -13-987-0-486-29602--9 When my 91 year old mother apologized for not reading these documents until this past year i told her you have done something the majority of American citizens have never brothered to do. Added to her list is The Mayflower Compact and most of the most famous speeches by our founders and speeches by Martin Luther King, Patrick henry, and George Washington just to name a few. Both of us saw this as our civic duty.

Bob Marshall

Great collection!

Here are two on my list to read.

"Those who said no to War.} 1812 to present. T Woods coauthor

Collection of papers about the 1720 South Sea Bubble. These were hot pamphlets in the Colonies just before the Revolution.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration or Independence he had a knowledgeable audience.

Free includes debt-free!

My wife is a 7th grade Social Studies teacher

so every year I call my US Congressman and both US Senators and ask for 100 Constitutions each for my wife's classes. Every year they send them.

Call them and get some to give away yourselves, you paid for them!

fireant's picture

The best tool we have...

to show people a comparison of what we are supposed to have with what we have.

Undo what Wilson did

Government can't be limited

Once you legalize a terrorist protection racket, no document is going to limit its expansion. The document didn't do the trick the first time and it never will, no matter how well written. Government is an unnecessary evil. It is a very simple matter to privatize all commodities, services and property.

"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks

reedr3v's picture

this is especially so after a couple centuries

of government/court incremental nullification of Constitutional provisions, and decades of public indoctrination to devalue cultural traditions of personal liberty and responsibility along with dumbed down education.

Does the Constitution allow government to rob us?

http://www.dailypaul.com/255155/happy-constitution-day

Larken Rose's 'I'm allowed to rob you': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Constitution Day: ever been to a communist country, Josh?

I have myriad issues with my government these days. But I'm very grateful for our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I wish everyone could have had the experience I did of visiting behind the Iron Curtain. And I had problems with the gov't back then, too. Yet having something concrete by which to compare things did put my negative feelings into perspective. (I do mean concrete, like cinder-block gov't housing, like concrete rubble and dust all over - years after the war for lack of funds, know-how, and/or initiative to rebuild and move on - on top of repression that was palpable.)

Whether it's a perfect document or not, there was a choice at that time: some other, better document to serve as the foundation for the new nation. Apparently it took long enough to forge the one we had - drawing on all sorts of resources and with diverse opinions debated at meetings and in writings among themselves.

And the information in that video is flat wrong. NOTHING was written in stone to rule forever. Along with the wisdom of providing a system of checks & balances, written into the Constitution was an Amendment process. I'd say our big problems today exist because we've stopped honoring the Constitution - re our money system, re the wars, re our eroding liberties.

While it might be improved on, is there a country Larken has in mind with a better Constitution that ours might emulate? One that could serve as a better basis for governing a country of over 300 million people? For that matter, one in which the government does not levy any tax (or its equivalent) to, say, cover the country's defense?

I'm happy to save my grievances over federal taxes for another day. (And there is nothing about the Federal Reserve System or IRS in the Constitution.) Today, on the Constitution's 225th anniversary, I'm happy to acknowledge all that's good about our Constitution - the longest-living Constitution there is.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Hey, md.., I have been in

Hey, md.., I have been to comunist country. I lived there for my first 25 yrs.
Unfortunately, after almost another 25 yrs here, I can say it clearly. There is no difference between then there and now here, except some economic diffrence, but in 10 more yrs, that only difference will be gone , too.
I dont know, if you know this little fact. All the comunist countries in Europe had constitutions, too.

You're helping to make my point.

America is increasingly becoming a repressive society - headed towards what I experienced in communist countries I visited a few decades ago. Your saying that, in 10 more years, the differences will be gone is my serious concern. And I'm not saying there weren't some nice things I experienced in my visits, because there was. Not just the people, or the lack of street crime (you didn't dare), but the general lack of commercialism. But the repression in one country in particular was extreme where, say, freedom of expression was concerned. You had to worry that your own children might turn you in (having been instructed to by teachers "for their parents' own good"). That's why so many tried to escape, some who now live here; some had their freedom purchased by outsiders.

And while you say "except some economic difference," that's not necessarily something to sneeze at. It might not matter to some, but it matters to others. In once instance, it's not that you even paid "taxes" but that you sent your income (such as from a small business) to the government for redistribution; you then received your share back. I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot less in total came back to the people than was submitted. Despite the rhetoric of equality, there were classes: party leadership enjoyed some nice perks.

As to constitutions, they aren't inherently good or bad; it would all depend. What makes ours unique, in a good way, is the belief that our rights don't come from the government; rather, they come from our Creator. The government is only empowered to protect them. Well, ideally! These days the Constitution is regularly disregarded.

I hope you were able to retain the best of what your native country had to offer at the same time as being able to enjoy the best of what America has to offer.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

You got it right. When I

You got it right.
When I think about those yrs back then, the lack of commercialism was a good thing. I didn't know it back then.
But my general point was: even back 22 yrs ago there were stunning similarities to both "systems", that was really suprising to me. I couldn't make sense of it for yrs. Now I know. We leave in the systems of constant attempts to make absolut subjects out of us.
Repressions in communist countries were different from country to country. In this system we leave is same thing. It differs from so called democratic country to other, or from decade to decade.
Knowing how it developed in my old country I know that Americans are not ready for a change yet. It will come with more economic suffering.
Unfortunately.

The point is...

If I write on piece of paper that I'm allowed to steal from you it is just as invalid as that piece of paper written over 200 years ago saying that a group of thieves yet undetermined has the right to steal from you.

"While it might be improved on, is there a country Larken has in mind with a better Constitution that ours might emulate? One that could serve as a better basis for governing a country of over 300 million people? For that matter, one in which the government does not levy any tax (or its equivalent) to, say, cover the country's defense?"

The idea is there should be no State at all.

What rights do members of government have that we don't?

Are we not all humans?

Do we not all have the same natural rights?

Or to quote George Orwell, are "Some animals more equal than others"?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Re the Constitution, if you advocate anarchy,

I don't understand why you'd be here. Ron Paul doesn't call for dissolution of the government but a restoration to Constitutionally-limited government. On different threads re the Constitution, fonzdrew posted some clips you might interested to watch.

American Form of Gov't (Brief comparison of gov't systems):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd8uf4NPBMM&feature=player_em...
Ron Paul on the Constitution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHE_0bCSIVM
Judge Nap on the Constitution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQLVlkGvz4o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWS51iRX--c&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBkQJR9YYIY&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajEilMhhR-I&feature=relmfu

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Ron Paul is a Voluntar(y)ist

It is a short video, please give it a thorough watching and your full attention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs

The Judge too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37tEeO-qTYo @2:15-2:40

Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, and the majority of the Mises Institute fellows as well.

Voluntar(y)ists constitute a large portion of the libertarian movement.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Watched it, but I didn't find it very convincing if

it was to show that Ron Paul did not believe in the existence of either a state or in our Constitution. That he would say he's used the argument of "a lack of constitutionality" in a particular instance vs. what his real reasoning might have been (economic) - because it would be more readily accepted - doesn't say anything, categorically, about his views on the Constitution. Nor can one judge his opinion from quotes without knowing the context.

Even insofar as his being asked directly about, say, "the Constitution" vs. "self-government," he compared a socialist vs. libertarian society in terms of tolerance of "enclaves" with divergent views (socialist enclaves, i.e., communes, within a libertarian society vs. libertarian enclaves within a socialist society), that is, specific cases. He didn't say there wasn't any need for a state. Self-government IS the goal: the least necessary government at the federal level, the most in the hands of the state and individual; from there, the least necessary government at the state level, the most in the hands of the individual.

There is also reality vs. ideal. If one has a particular philosophy, one's "goal" is always working towards an ideal - but you have to take reality into account. Adam asked him directly about voluntarism, and what his "ideal" society would be. Ron Paul spoke about persuasion (such as setting an example, for one) vs. coercion if you wanted to change people's habits - or change the world. I can't imagine who would disagree with that. The problem is, people don't always voluntary honor the rights of others. Someone/something needs to be in place as an enforcer. Voila! Government. These are age-old debates.

And where guns are concerned (as enforcement always requires), I'll take public enforcement over private, thank you, with some control in the hands of the people, vs. having things end up in turf wars such as with the Mafia or gangs. I'm satisfied to work towards getting back to the Constitution before entertaining the idea of some Utopian society where we are all equal - not just in terms of our rights but equally principled individuals (including those running banks and businesses), voluntarily respectful of the rights of others; also equally physically- and mentally-capable individuals both willing and able to provide for our needs - with Roy Rogers and the Texas Rangers for hire for any needed protection. http://www.phantomranch.net/bwestern/creeds.htm

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

SELF-government is just that, you govern yourself.

"Self-government IS the goal"

That's right he said SELF-government was his real goal. Not government by "wise elected leaders".

The only justified use of force is in defense, the State is fundamentally based on coercion, It uses violence to maintain its monopoly and it steals to fund itself.

"The problem is, people don't always voluntary honor the rights of others. Someone/something needs to be in place as an enforcer. Voila! Government. These are age-old debates."

The State is chief among these people who don't honor the rights of others, by its very nature it uses violence to take the Life, Liberty, and Property of the innocent to survive.

Yes, someone needs to defend against aggression, and that can be done better and more justly without a state.

You can have defense without a Monopoly and without coercion.

No one has the right to steal from others to fund their own defense and no one has the right to use coercion to keep competition out.

Competing private courts and competing private defense agencies could provide security more efficiently and more justly.

All without using theft and coercion to maintain their existence.

First the State takes you property (taxation), then when you refuse to hand over your property it takes your liberty (it throws you in a jail), and then when you refuse to let it take your liberty and defend yourself it takes your life!

The State is nothing but Coercion, its only tool is violence.

"And where guns are concerned (as enforcement always requires), I'll take public enforcement over private, thank you,..."

Well, at least you admit you are a defense/security socialist.

No offense intended, that's just what it is.

"...with some control in the hands of the people, vs. having things end up in turf wars such as with the Mafia or gangs."

You overlook the fact that the State is the largest criminal gang in town!

The only difference between the Mafia and the State, is people don't think the Mafia is legitimate.

As for gangs objection, read this: http://mises.org/daily/1855

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I'm aware that with self-government, you govern yourself.

The issue is that you can't force people to govern themselves, and failure to govern oneself (for lack of being willing or able) has consequences to others. And would you plan to "coerce" people to fund your proposed private law-enforcement agencies? I mean, if you're the one who's infringing on the rights of others, why should just the others have to pay? And I don't overlook the fact that the state engages in criminal acts. Power corrupts. That's why there is need to decentralize government and a need for transparency (something private establishments aren't beholden to the people to provide - at least as per the current paradigm).

You and I will never agree because I'm willing to face reality: human beings aren't perfect. Even if we ever got back to Constitutionally-limited government, however preferable to the centralized, overly-powerful and increasingly repressive government that exists today, it still wouldn't be perfect. It's an imperfect world. Whereas you're arguing theory based on some idealized libertarian Utopia. Hey, in theory, anything's possible. But okay, that's just my opinion.

Assuming I'm wrong (to think that Constitutionally-limited government as per our current Constitution, is the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future) and that you're right (believing that the human condition has evolved to a point where genuine self-government is possible - without the existence of any government), to GET where you want to go, wouldn't you first need to roll things back to AT LEAST Constitutionally-limited government? Is there some shortcut? Bottom line, aren't we headed in the same direction?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Markets are voluntary,,States are coercive.

"The issue is that you can't force people to govern themselves"

Nobody would be forcing anyone to do anything.

Nobody is ruling over you, so they are forcing you to self-govern?

That's like saying if I choose not to pay your electric bill, that I'm forcing you to not have electricity.

It's all about self-responsibility.

I don't expect anyone else to pay for goods and services I receive, I'm responsible to pay for them.

"Power corrupts. That's why there is need to decentralize government and a need for transparency (something private establishments aren't beholden to the people to provide - at least as per the current paradigm)."

Ya that's why you shouldn't support the State, arbitrary institutionalized power.

If I don't want to pay for a businesses' services, then I don't pay for them and I don't receive them, they can't force me to by a product.

The State on the other hand can and does force you to pay for things you don't want and forces you to pay for others goods and services.

A private company on the market can only get your money through your voluntary consent, the State just takes it.

"And would you plan to "coerce" people to fund your proposed private law-enforcement agencies?"

There would be no coercion, that's like asking if I would have to coerce people in order to have an ice cream business.

Security firms are businesses, you would pay for them just like you pay for life insurance.

If you choose not to pay, then you don't get someone else's services.

That's how the market works, voluntarily, no one would be forcing you to buy anything.

"human beings aren't perfect"

People are bad so we need a government made of People are bad so we need a government made of People... and so on and so on.

We are afraid people will steal from us and coerce us, so we set up a government of people who steal from us and coerce us, to protect us from people who will steal from us and coerce us?

Fox guarding the hen house.

I agree that the originally envisioned Constitutional government is preferable to what we have today, but that's not going to stop me from pointing out its flaws, and calling for something better.

We are headed in the same direction.

I can't remember who said it, but its a great analogy.

Imagine we are all on a freedom train, I want to go all the way to the last stop, and you want to get off at the second to last stop.

We are both headed in the same direction, but I and others like me (Voluntarists/Anarcho-capitalists) want to convince you and others like you (Minarchists) to hang along for the ride and go all the way with us.

That's why we post things like my original comment, our job is to educate.

Constitutional government is better, but it's still not in line with the Non-Aggression Principle, it is not morally just.

So we strive for something better.

I hold no ill will toward you, and I am enjoying this conversation, I hope you feel the same way.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Perhaps we'll continue a dialogue some time.

I don't feel you've answered my questions very well. Perhaps I need to express them better. In any event, I'm not averse to considering something I may not have before. And I'm aware that some of the founding fathers themselves had certain questions with the Constitution; a while ago a friend here at the DP brought something to my attention I said I'd check out so we could discuss it. But...

While this isn't meant to imply that I think the Constitution is perfect, I did visit a communist country to come back with a deep appreciation for certain things that, as Americans, we simply took for granted. Indeed, despite that new appreciation, I more or less took for granted myself that certain rights that we did have here, we'd always have, without realizing we had to be ever vigilant to keep them. Did you read the comment by the man who said he lived for 25 years in a communist country, has now been here for 25? He said that what's here now, reminds him of things that were there, back then, how in 10 years there probably wouldn't be any difference. It makes me both angry and sad to think how much we've lost.

Bottom line, I'm grateful for the Constitution, grateful we have such a document as our guide, if only enough people did read and appreciate it -- And That Was The Spirit Of This Post -- if only people began to think about it and measure this country's actions according to it. We don't have to start at square one with people and debate all the issues the founders did: while Congress regularly disregards it, the people DO consider the Constitution "the law of the land." We need more people demanding to know... By what authority are the Federal Reserve & IRS operating as they do? By what authority are we engaged in these wars? By what authority can we be detained indefinitely? By what authority can a president put the country under martial law in even peacetime? None of the above is done with authority from the Constitution.

Having said that, getting to my real beef with your comment, I'll make an analogy. I've donated to women's shelters. I've known people who've worked in women's shelters. I've received their newsletters. I'm aware and concerned about such issues pertaining to women and children. But on Mother's Day, I haven't appreciated a friend sending me Mother's Day cards printed by a woman's shelter, so that along with reading a greeting wishing me a happy mother's day, I had to also read a message raising awareness of rape and domestic violence. It was inappropriate and, furthermore, counterproductive.

I felt the same about your comment. Here, in response to someone's upbeat post acknowledging the Constitution on this particular day, the anniversary of its signing 225 years ago - you found nothing about the Constitution to be grateful for, preferring to just bash it. Your angry friend in the video there despises the American system, as perhaps you as well.

There are always posts & comments relating to the Constitution at the Daily Paul, many hundreds in the past year. The Constitution is kind of a REALLY BIG ISSUE here - seeing as (whether he means it or not, according to you he doesn't), Ron Paul calls himself a "strict Constitutionalist," framed himself as a champion of our Constitutional rights. Given the intent and tone of the post, IN LINE with what Ron Paul claims to stand for, here at a website begun in support of him/his basic values & beliefs, I found your comment out of order. I did not enjoy the conversation, although I imagine under other circumstances discussing the different philosophical viewpoints could be enjoyable, coming from a less obnoxious starting point, the condescending and less than truthful video clip you linked under your accusatory comment. Not that I harbor "ill will" towards you. That should be obvious. I tried to find common ground, what you nicely matched to that train analogy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcZCFMiO_6g

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Constitution Day: Might want to add some music!

http://www.dailypaul.com/254595/225-anniversary-of-our-const...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir