The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
34 votes

The Greatest Error in the Constitution

The Constitution failed, because it contains no provision of punishment for sponsoring or voting for unconstitutional laws, so Congress can pass more criminal laws than the public has the resources to fight. At this point, there is to be found no salvation in the Supreme Court, because the justices are surveilled by the executive branch. There should be a national campaign to add a punishment provision to each state's constitution for that and incidentally color the national dialog of the elections. Politicians who want illegal laws should have the fear of God stopping them before they act.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

We have all been enslaved by

We have all been enslaved by tyranny since 1215 by Magna Carta

Prior to 1215, men were free. After 1215, the government could use the law of the land to legally enslave us all, and they have.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

there in fact is a provision for such punishment there

it is in the Amendment 14 sec. 3:
"3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Unfortunately it is rarely used against the traitors giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US Constitution, so the rebelion against the same looks like an official political line in the USA now and - when one sees all the federal thugs (- from IRS to ATF...) oppressing and looting the people - it even sometimes looks like an armed insurrecton. It is all maybe because the corruption reaches already so deep and almost everywhere and the US Congress is so full of this traitors, that noone expects there anymore at least the more than third even just in one of the Houses to confirm the stripping of the federal eligibility status from the rest.

The Magna Carta was the real

The Magna Carta was the real start to tyranny. We all today are chained by Magna Carta. Clause 39 gives the government today power to enslave us all by the law of the land:

39. "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

fail? The US produced 0.5% of


The US produced 0.5% of the world's economic output in 1787, with taxes at about 2% of GDP.

In 1913, it was 42% in 1912, with taxes at 1.75% of GDP.

The they changed the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

'among these rights...'

Should have been extended to include the right to be wrong as an aspect of free will.

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

The Constitution failed

The Constitution failed because it was guaranteed to fail by creating a massive centralized gov that only a child could hope would be restrained by a piece of paper.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Not sure it matters if the

Not sure it matters if the majority are continually looking for ways around the Constitution. You can't really re-write it, because the thugs who love welfare and warfare won't join us. Which I'm fine with, but they'll kill us.

The "United States of America" is a death-pact, as we learned with the civil war. The right of secession no longer exists in the mind of the majority. This is increasingly why I am an advocate of no government. Why should my liberty be subject to the majority-vote of such an ignorant population? Why should I care what they say or do? The majority can kiss my fat ass.

The greatest error of the Consitution was the Consitution.

If we had to have a state the Articles would have been preferable.

There are nevertheless glaring errors in the Constitution, which might have bought us a little more time before we got to this point.

First and most importantly, they should not have tried to form any federal government which endorsed slavery. Slavery built into the United States was an evil moral stain that can never be undone.

The extraneous 'well regulated militia' independent clause of the second amendment had to have been included to cause just the mischief it has caused, despite assurances at the time it wasn't operant and was just 'explanatory'.

The Tenth Amendment should have as powers reserved for the states an "including but not limited to" clause specifying things they knew would be issues like nullification, secession, posse commitatus, etc.

Just like a marriage based on violence is doomed to failure, a 'social compact' based on violence is doomed. If the states had been free to leave explicitly, the north would never have been able to squeeze the south so much they felt they had to leave.

If a state can nullify it will be less likely to secede. If a state can secede there will be specious excuse for war, like 'saving the union'.

The Constitution was the

The Constitution was the beginning of the end of America's experiment with liberalism (and I mean that in the classical sense of the word). Prophetic and brilliant anti-federalist men like Patrick Henry saw it for EXACTLY what it was - a spectacular power grab and the creation of an imperial and aggressive central state.

No question

But, while I agree it was ill done in the first place, and they knew it at the time, if it had to be done, it could have been done better.

The flaw with the

The flaw with the constitution is that its a piece of paper instead of an all powerful super-computer that can vaporize corrupt politicians who violate it.

Politicians are corrupt by definition

There is nothing a politician can accomplish without first engaging in a violation of someone's rights.

Dr Paul shows that is is possible, if rare, for someone to gain office and only vote against legislation or to repeal old ones. I wouldn't call that one a 'politician' nor a 'state's man', however.

They would call that one an 'obstructionist', and so would I but I would mean it as a high compliment.


Fascinating idea if you really think about it. But the builders of the computer would have to be trusted 100%, maybe if the public watches over them...... am I looking too far into this??

The real failure is on the American people to understand law

The people do not understand that making laws applicable to the people is not within the scope of the legislatures duties and is total fallacy to even consider legislature making law for the People as a lawful possibility.

The legislature is suppose to be passing acts to manage government NOT the People. Common Law is applicable to the people of which violations are determined by Juries based allegations of harm made one against another.

Legislature making law for the People makes absolutely no sense but most are to ignorant of law to comprehend much less understand this fact.

Does a company's board of director's make employee rules applicable to shareholder's private lives??? NO, because it does not make any sense AT ALL. The board of director's of a company are their to manage the company not people's personal lives.

The government is NO different. Federal and State legislatures are suppose to be managing GOVERNMENT NOT THE PEOPLE. The men and women who take an oath to the Constitution to work within the Citizen capacity of government have voluntarily contractually bound themselves within a limited scope of operation within that government capacity. That contractual oath is an agreement in COMMON LAW between MEN not capacities. Any breach of their duty is a common law breach that is between the accuser and the accused. The real problem is that the American are so ignorant of law that the people's don't think there is any way to hold them accountable and take the position that it requires the government's permission to access the jury to heart the claims of breach of duty. So no we can't hold them accountable if we do not understand how the law actually works.

The failure is monumental that most will think I am the kooky one when the people arrogance in calling truth kooky means Americans are going to have experience much more tyranny before they learn their lesson about proper application of law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Why did you dig up this thread from last year?

I'm seeing numerous threads from last year, sometimes many years ago, being resurrected for no conceivable reason.

What gives?

Some one else must have dug it up

because it showed up in the most viewed list.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

That was me

I was considering a similarly titled piece on amendments.

Its called treason..... The

Its called treason, there is a pentalty for that ..... The problem is they dont follow the law, not that there is a flaw in the constitution.


I suspect the amendments. The bill of rights seems useless if it can be changed by majority vote.

Amendments- “Amendments... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution” Article 5
Deuteronomy 4:2 “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD[YHUH] your God which I command you.”

Here's another one.

Runaway Slaves- “No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.” Article 4 Section 2
Deuteronomy 23:15-26 “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”

Yep ...

... old thread somebody dragged up, but good point by OP.

The states/people should have had some more power in removing office holders AND in prosecuting them criminally for violating their oath.

The constitution allows the government to go into debt.

and lay taxes to pay that debt. It allows government to interfere with free markets. It allows the government to control militias. It allows the government to provide welfare.

Yep seems like the Constitution is alive and well and it's killing us.

The Bill of Rights on the other hand has been shredded.

Sometimes the government has

Sometimes the government has to go into debt to fight legitimate wars. There is currently no free market - it's fascism. It really doesn't allow government to provide welfare, that happened through the use of a statement of purpose for the document, general welfare in the preamble, along with the taxing power. It twist the purpose of both things.

Now, an argument can be made where some social programs are a good thing, but another argument can be made if the federal government should be doing it or someone else. The social programs here came out of an era where fascism swept into power in countries going through economic crisis or other crisis worse than ours. It was a thought where people were despite that things like fascism could happen more easily.

What legitimate Wars?.

War of 1812
Conquest of Florida 1822
Mexican American War 1849
War between the states 1860
Spanish American War 1900.
WWI and WWII (both sides financed by Federal Reserve members.
and on and on and...

Governments finance wars planning to pay creditors from loot gathered.

Not a red cent has been paid on the National Debt since 1893.

One third of the War between the States is still unpaid.

Free includes debt-free!

Worshiping the Constitution

Worshiping the Constitution is a trap. The biggest problem with the Constitution is that it replaced the much better Articles of Confederation combined with state constitutions.

The Constitution was the greatest centralization of power in this nation's history. If you don't automatically understand why that was a bad thing, you're still very naive in the freedom movement. The Constitution was guaranteed to rush tyranny in by creating a federal leviathan. Who financed the Constitutional convention? Banksters of course after creating currency crises in the states and using it as justification to create the monster we have today that gives the banksters central currency control.

No freedom loving person should have anything other than disdain for the Constitution. Otherwise you're still a naive sheep following right along with the plan written to manipulate you into supporting government power.

Ron Paul even spells it out for you in my sig line below so don't take my word for it.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I disagree and so does Amendment 10.

And I don't disagree with your word "worshipping", because that isn't wise ever as it leads to idolatry, but I disagree with your main point.

The 10th Amendment severely and unprecedentedly LIMITS not centralizes power. Not sure how you can argue against that.

It is proof positive, irrefutable, as I read the words of the 10th Amendment, that the Founding Fathers were 100% AGAINST centralization of power in the federal gov't. Heck, they said so time and time again, THUS we have the 10th Amendment. And thus we have the doctrine of NULLIFICATION as Thomas Jefferson taught it and practiced it. And also as powerful evidence I cite the making the U.S. Senators being a product of state legislature action and not a popular vote, thus further decentralizing power.

The 10th Amendment for your quick review:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In your signature, what Ron Paul was actually doing was referring to less eloquently the following quote by John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I hope this helps improve your understanding the point that no matter how well written, if you have a populace which is wicked and criminal in their thinking (like using gov't agents to plunder the population for "perceived" benefits to certain groups, i.e., robbing Peter to pay Paul), then their elected representatives will of course be wicked and ignore the rule of law. Such is what criminals do...they trample under their feet the laws of God, and esp any law which limits gov't power.

The fate of our nation remains, as it always has, in the virtue of the people, and so if the voice of the people sides with tyranny, then that is what we shall get.

And as for the "error" of the Constitution as this post attempts to point out, I would rebut by saying:
1) There was a punishment for traitors
2) The obvious question: no matter what the prescribed punishment, wouldn't criminals change it or simple ignore it? Criminals in high places have said "is" doesn't mean "is". With that type of laughable logic, the twisting of ANY legal term can be done. White could be called black, EVEN IF WRITTEN into the Constitution.

The Constitution isn't perfect, but it was indeed a foundation for freedom for the grand experiment of the Fathers. Unfortunately, we as a nation seem to be falling short of our intended blessings.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

So instead of having the

So instead of having the Constitution, we would have been left with the Articles with 13 states acting as countries and leveraging trade barriers against each other and being in a state of near total disunion. The United States would not exist today, it would probably be five or more countries.

The Constitution is a very good document. It has some flaws, but any governing document, rather it be a state or federal origin, is only as good as the people who back it up.

And how about all the abuses of liberty at the state and local level with having to get permission to add a deck to your house in many locals and other things? DUI checkpoints, click it or ticket or a number of other things.

An informed and engaged people is the only foundation to a free government.

The American Revolution was Betrayed!

The Constitution was the product of America's wealthy aristocracy - its merchants, lawyers, manufacturers, large land owners and public speculators. One of the conventioneers, Alexander Hamilton, was a confessed monarchist. Many more of this class were suspicious of the 'middling' people knowing what was best for themselves. Their lust for power was such that they sought to protect the institution of slavery by overlooking it, only making a provision against the importation of slavery beyond a certain date. They failed to grasp that local attachments, attitudes, interests, beliefs, cultures, habits, morals, basically the sum of all that makes a person from a certain place who he is, could in no way be justifiably represented in the new elite federal body of congressmen, senators, judges and presidents.

This filthy rag that so many in the liberty movement are endeared to today was written to consolidate the Confederacy into a new National Union complete with new sweeping powers. The liberty movement is usually oriented to object to any expansion of state power, so considering the Constitution as a "good document" appears to be a contradiction as the new frame of government greatly expanded political space opening up new avenues for a distant central authority to legislate the life out of the people. How can you be for limited government if you are also for the centralization of power inherent in the Constitution?

And unlike the federal realm, I have an opportunity to remonstrate with state and local officials face to face. The immediacy of local and state government offer the individual a better opportunity to have a dialogue with their representatives - something that is far more difficult at the federal level, which would require a person to shout over the fury of hundreds of thousands of lobbyists schmoozing, cash registers opening and private jets taking off.

I could go on. I won't. I would rather like to leave you with a fascinating quote from a dead man named Lysander Spooner:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

The greatest issue with the

The greatest issue with the Constitution was it allowed the sinful practice of slavery to continue. I know we couldn't have had the Union without it and we had to acknowledge rights for at least some so they could eventually be expanded to the many, but it's still an original sin of our republic.

No matter how many provisions

No matter how many provisions you put into a governing document about you can't do this or that, if a tyrant wants to find its way around them, he/she will. It's also impossible to see ahead 200 years and all the developments of society.'

Ultimately, it comes down to the people to keep the government in line by being informed and engaged. Sadly, the people are neither and thus this is the result. As Dr. Franklin told a woman who asked what government was agreed to, he said "A republic, if you can keep it."

As for the whole money debate, I fear those advocating for a hard money after an extended period of soft money are falling into a trap that will allow the parties that have created this system and gotten their ill-gotten gain to consolidate it under a hard money system and make their ill-gotten gain even more valuable, while condeeming more Americans to destitution. Many of our fellow citizens are severely in debt now and going to a hard money system would make it significantly harder to pay off because we'd be going from a money of fiat to a money of backed commodity, which would reduce the supply.

If the system hadn't been taken off the track, it could work, but we have to rebuild this country and we are going to need some credit facilities to do that. The problem with the current system is it benefits the looters. If we used credit to create manufacturing, needed public infrastructure, etc. it would increase the output of our republic and give us the money to pay off the investment long term. Then when things have been reset in a more equitable manner for the population, we could relink the dollar to a gold or silver standard in some variety.

If you look in past history in this country, when we went from soft money to hard, it was extremely difficult for the less established parts of our population. Populism has generally been about going from hard to soft money to make it easier to pay off debts. I believe in using the big bank's own system against them to get this country going again and get our country ready for going to a harder form of money.


A law not in accordance with the constitution, isn't a law.

Nullification is the answer. It starts with us as individuals.