MTV: The Holocaust Happened to People Like Us

Thank you. This needs to go far and wide.

Hello everyone! I’m a first-time poster on the DailyPaul.com forum, but I became very distressed when I began to read some of the grossly fallacious things that people (especially Ron Paul supporters) were saying in this thread. For this reason I became compelled to register and bring up my own opinion on the matter of the contractual nature of the Constitution.

By no means am I a Constitutional scholar, political philosopher, or contract attorney (and so I encourage those with dissenting outlooks to voice them), and thusly I must prelude my argument with several axioms set by people who do have more years of Constitutional study under their belts. We need not look further than to the man that this entire website promotes, the so-called “Champion of the Constitution”, Dr. Ron Paul himself.

Back in February of 2008, the LA Times reported on a very important quote by Dr. Paul when he stated that “the Constitution was written for one specific purpose, and that was to restrain government, not to restrain the people." Paul is even further supported ironically by Patrick Henry (who unlike Paul was as an anti-federalist who was vehemently against the ratification of the Constitution) when he echoes in a very similar fashion that “the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government—lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Therefore, I would argue that Spooner is absolutely right that there is no binding nature of the Constitution when it applies to the people. There was never supposed to be one.

So, what about the application to government officials? Do they have an absolute obligation to uphold the Constitution? Let’s look at this a bit further. If we were to abandon Rousseau’s implicit social contract idea (although we can still accept social contract theory and retain our individualism philosophy through Proudhon’s interpretation), and instead accept Spooner’s perspective that the Constitution necessitates explicit consent—then yes, as I established above, we (the people) are absolutely not bound by the Constitution, but our governmental representatives ARE bound when they proclaim their explicit voluntary consent to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” in their oath of office. Therefore, we must remember that the Constitution retrains the power of the GOVERNMENT not the PEOPLE.

I would like to close my rather verbose diatribe, by saying to those that seek the destruction of the Constitution to end the State, are very wrong in their thoughts, but I suppose that is my Minarchist beliefs that anarchy is (although ideal) impossible due to the inherent human need for power, and thusly robber barons would replace Washington bureaucrats in a society void of government.

Anyways, stay involved and active everyone!