The Goal Is Freedom: Was the Constitution Really Meant to Constrain Government

0 votes

There's no shortcut to a free society. I find myself repeating this because looking for shortcuts is tempting, and thinking is easily overtaken by wishful thinking.

A shortcut favored by most advocates of limited government is "restoration" of the Constitution. "If only we could get back to the Constitution as it was written," people say. It's a sincere wish, but as a path to a free society, it's riddled with potholes. Not that I don't want the Constitution interpreted in the most restrictive way in order to prevent violations of liberty. Of course I do. The problem is how we can get there from here. Many advocates of liberty have thought they just had to appeal to the “original meaning” of the Constitution and things would more or less take care of themselves. But if that were so, why are we in the mess we're in now? I presume that earlier generations interpreted the Constitution in a way more to the liking of today's constitutionalists. What happened? Since that time, the Constitution has never been suspended; the government wasn't replaced by a non-constitutional regime. The formal Constitution has been in force continuously since 1789. Everything that happened was justified constitutionally.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=663.0

Comment viewing options

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

Any congress has a multitude of motivation.

As a human institution no government is capable of perfection.

Same goes with anarchy. Things will not be perfect under anarchy for society is still the sum of individual humans.

Neither political system will be perfect. I just wish for one that is most likely in favor of property rights and free markets.

The wild west was frought with evil and corruption, but it still thrived and evolved into what we have today.

I choose freedom with corruption and imperfections over safety. Therefore I deserve both.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

The so-called restraints on the federal government, originally

intended by the Constitution, have been under assault since its ratification. There are so many provisions and key phrases that have been judicially interpreted into a non-functional classification, for generations now. That intepretive mechanism continues to this day.

In one of the more famous (infamous?) citations issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803), the court noted that: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect". If so, then what is the "effect" of Article 1, Sec. 10's prohibition regarding a State's acceptance of any Thing but Gold and Silver coin as a tender in payment of debts? If it has no effect, which it clearly does not have, then it has been amended. How was it amended? By one of the mechanisms provided in the Constitution? No; it was "interpreted" into a non-functional legal state, little by little. This is just one of a number of examples, discussions of which have filled entire libraries. Try to raise this argument in a court of law and see how fast it gets shut down. Try making the argument at some mixed social gathering and see the stares as the audience recoils at the notion that "judges" (lawyers wearing a $25.00 black robe) could be so ignorant or corrupt in carrying out their oath of office.

Where were the protests from the citizens, over so many generations, as restraining phrase after phrase was weakened a little, here and there, over time until they became little more than historical artifacts with little or no practical force in the "modern" operation of the Constitution? There were protests. There were those who issued warnings of dire consequences that would eventually result in straying from the clear wording and intent of the Constitution. This is not to say that the entire fault lies with some group of 9 individuals who depend upon the operation of the government in order to secure funds to pay their compensation. There is plenty of blame for everyone.

_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

Thank you for posting this. Well stated.

You state the case so much better than I. Some intentionally misinterpret the Constitution. Many unintentionally misinterpret it, through ignorance and/or laziness (often both). I love the aside "judges" (lawyers wearing a $25.00 black robe)". The law is much to important to leave in trust to lawyers. Why is it the people we are supposed to show deference to with the title 'Your Honor' or 'The Honorable', so seldom act honorably?

Well, we are here, now, and

Well, we are here, now, and it is up to US to change this NOW, and up to our children to see the value of it.

One should not presume

You say that "earlier generations interpreted the Constitution in a way more to the liking of today's constitutionalists." But that is absolutely not so! From the very beginning, the Constitution has been under assault by the politician's, because it does restrict them and they want power. Think of the Alien and Sedition Acts. These were outrageous power grabs and completely unconstitutional. The fact is, if the federal government stayed within the bounds of the Constitution, the economy would be growing and our freedoms would be secure.

It seems you are not a fan of the Constitution, but there is a reason for the devotion we have for it. It is the only document in all of history which made the effort to enshrine the rights of the individual against the state. If followed it would indeed be the panacea for all our national ills.

Read the Constitution.

Sheldo, why don't you read the constitution?

Also could you please tell me where the potholes are?

Have you read...

....my article? It would appear not.

Eilif?

Reply?

Yes, I wrote it.

I don't believe in "intellectual property" but still, it is good manners to identify who wrote something being posted. I'll take the credit (or the blame).

Sheldon Richman

I've just ordered

A book on intellectual property from mises.com. I can't wait for it to show up. It's supposed to state many cases against it. I also order some Rothbard videos.

"It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."

— Thomas Paine

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Welcome to the DP Sheldon!

Hope to see you posting here in the future!

Yes and no.

The constitution was a replacement for the Articles of Confederation, which one might argue had a weaker, more limited government. In the early days of the Union, the founders were testing out exactly what the right equilibrium of power was, and they settled on the Constiution.

Fundamentally, Government should have less power the more removed it is from the people, for two big reasons. 1) Access gets concentrated at higher levels, which means that big money, and big politics has more sway than the individual*. 2) The more removed the government is, the more votes (against people with, possibly, fundamentally different moral and ethical values) you must compete.

I personally think the idea of "one world government" is not fundamentally flawed, but I shirk at the idea of a powerful world government. If it were to exist, its members should only represent democratically elected governments and then have explicitly outlined and very very limited duties, like making sure each nation adheres to the contracts (treaties) it signs, and preventing armed conflict. The league of nations wasn't such a bad idea (except for the fact that it was a bit kabal-like, and membership of non-democratic countries). It's certainly the case that the current agency attempting to become world government (UN) is dangerous. A lot of people here think it's a huge conspiracy. That may be true, but if you ask me, the notion that the UN comprises a bunch of misguided do-gooders trying to sell their flawed ideas is much, much scarier than a global conspiracy.

*This is the fundamental flaw with socialism/communism. One way of looking at power structures in society is that individuals can wield power along different axes. Money, knowledge, charisma, political connections, beauty, sex appeal, et cetera. It's actually a neo-Marxian way of looking at things (Bourdieu et cetera), but bear with me. Each of these axes is fundamentally orthogonal, but a person seeking to improve their position in society can parlay power along one of these axes to another.

What the neo-Marxians don't realize, though, is that by having the intent of abolishing monetary power, you essentially seek to restrict motion along one of these axes altogether. The removal of that freedom constricts societal motion and essentially weakens money's check on political power. That can be hard to wrap your head around -- that money can be both an enabler *and* a check for political power, but it's true, because the marxists assume that the rich are politically powerful, and vice versa by default.

If you had been listening to Dr. Paul giving speechs.....

....the reason "why are we in the mess we're in now?" , is because we have not been following the Constitution for a very long time. Since at least 1913 our government (Congress) has been shirking thier duties. No, the government has not been replaced, they just were not following the rules. The Constitution is a rule book, enumerating what the governments ( federal and state) responsibilities are, and what (more importantly) is not within thier purview. Our Congress, President, Supreme Court and Attorney Generals have been ignoring and (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreting the contents of the Constitution. Is the Constitution a perfect document, no, it is not. But it is quite possibly the most important paper ever written. It is left vague for specific reasons. (I could go on, but I have to go to work). Peace, out.

What does "thier" mean?

Or did you mean to write "their" meaning belonging to them.
About interpreting. "No state shall make anything but Gold and Silver Coin legal tender". Say, how do we interpret that. Maybe we should only use Gold and Silver Coin then. Do you think that is what they meant?
Why don't we let someone interpret that for us. You must admit it is hard to understand a straight forward sentence like that. Could it mean we are to use Silver and Gold Coin? HHHMMM I wonder. Maybe, you think, Huh?
Or how about "Congress shall declare war". I guess that means that once in a while the President can? Or maybe the Senate can? Or maybe not?

I think the gold and silver

clause was quite clear.

Regarding the war clause, I find it more muddled. Ie. what if Congress wanted to delegate the power to declare war to the President?

The power to delegate

The power to delegate resides in the people, as proven by the fact that they delegated to Congres the power to declare war in the first place. The people did not explicitly delegate to Congress the people's own power to delegate; therefore Congress cannot seize for itself the people's power to delegate. The Constitution only gives Congress power to declare war, not to delegate it further. Very very simple.

Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers

There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer

Implied vs. explicit

Yes, the people did not explicitly delegate to Congress the power to delegate...

However, a lot of politicians throughout history believe the Constitution grants implied powers.


In any case, I think this quote by Thomas E. Woods sums this up nicely:

"There is a contradiction at the heart of the very idea of constitutional government, that makes a constitution’s perversion all but inevitable.

How can an institution be restrained by a document that it has a monopoly on interpreting?"

I don't think they have been ignoring it

I mean afaik everything has to be justified against the Constitution.

But, it's a political document. Thus it has to be interpreted by men. Just as we interpret it from the perspective of liberty, the politicians interpret according to their own political ideologies (conservatism and liberalism for 99% of them).

Re: I don't think they have been ignoring it

Your right, on many occasions their not ignoring it, BUT purposefully redefining it................... But again, I think you already know that.

I half-agree with you

It does seem that the politicians can wiggle around every constitutional clause imaginable. I think the founders certainly underestimated the slimeeness of future office-holders. The problem lies I think not with the concept of written constitutional government, but with our current constitutions vagueness. Our next constitution must have complete bluntness in regards to such issues as gun-rights, civil-liberties, sex-rights, etc

Re: I half-agree with you

What do you mean by, "Our next Constitution?" I'm not going down that path. Most of us will agree to go along with refining certain things, such as, a couple of amendments, but not "Our next Constitution."

It is also the fact that most people never read it and

most people here have not read it. In fact most Ron Paul supporters have yet to read it. If you can read but don't read, you will know no more than someone who can't read!
But if you read the constitution you need to know some basics. One is that we have a congress that derive their power from the constitution and "powers not specifically granted to the congress by the constitution they do not have."
Nowhere does it say that powers and duties charged to them they can assign to the president. Such as declaring war for instance.
But there is a loophole a big loophole. Because in article 1 section 8 clause 17 there is a country within a country. This country is supposed to be a republic. The country within is a democracy. That is the district of Columbia (The Federal) and their jurisdiction covers only the district of Columbia 10 miles Square. When the congress is in session which jurisdiction are they under. Well all you have to do is look at the flag and if the US Flag is flying then you know. But do you know? Do you? Do you really know what the US Flag looks like. Have you noticed that more and more you are seeing what looks like the US Flag with Gold fringes around three edges. You should know that this flag is not the US Flag but it is the Admiralty flag. That flag represents maritime law (international law). The law like on a ship at sea.
When the house or president pass laws or make laws they can pretty much do what they want under the Constitution as long as they do it under the democracy in Article 1 section 10 clause 17. But they do not have jurisdiction in the states, only on federal territory and enclaves.
But now if you go in to a court any court you will see the gold fringed flag
because they have established jurisdiction by the dumb people who surrender to their jurisdiction and by the Governors and state attorneys selling out and not kicking them out.
The feds should not own any land. the land belongs to the states and it's Citizens. But the Governors have sold out and some don't understand their duty is to protect you and keep you under the jurisdiction you are in.
There is just too much to write to get the point across but at least this is a beginning. One more thing, remember you are a Citizen with a Capital C.
Not a citizen with a lower case c as described in the 14th amendment which was never ratified but illegally adapted by the congress. this was intended to create a new type of citizen totally under their control without any constitutional protection which is what most people now function as without their knowledge.

It doesn't matter if politicians haven't read it

Even if one has read it, they can interpret it to meet their objectives (ie. gov't welfare).

A political document is inherently flawed because it can't jump up and interpret itself.

the constitution was not written in a foreign language

so there is nothing to interpret. It is written for everyone. It also says that laws too complicated for the common man to understand are null and void.
Why don't you read it?
By the way if only the people would read it then politicians and the news media would not get away with misleading the public about what it says.
The problem is that they know the populace will not read it or much of anything else either so they lie lie lie and get away with it.
Most folks stop educating themselves about anything except football and beer not realizing that the most important game is to know how the laws affect us. But I have no faith in the public, sorry.

If it was written for everyone

why then was there the need for the hundreds of pages of Federalist papers that explain the intentions behind it?

Here is your answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOjGMELryw

Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/

Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/

The constitution was never

The constitution was never meant to be a living breathing constitution.
The progressives would have you beleive that.
While many may argue that the constitution is not perfect.
It does however set a guideline to what federal governement can and cant do.

"Who Killed The Constitution" by Thomas E. Woods.
check it out

Honestly

Glad to have you here. Why exactly is it bad?

Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/

Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Thank you, But Im not saying

Thank you,

But Im not saying that the constitution is absolutely perfect. I think they could have been much clearer and stern about what it stood for. However, It does lay out the role of federal government. And that is not a living, changing idea. And this new idea that if the constitution doesnt strictly say its against it then it must be for it, is a fallacy. By new I mean within the last 150 years. Many people dont look at the whole constitution before bashing it. There are more than just the amendments. There are the articles. And that is where the Federal powers are mapped out as well as the central bank, which by the way, is unconstitutional

BULL BULL BULL

BULL SHIT