0 votes

The Constitution was too weak

Anyone else think the libertarianism of the Constitution has been over-romanticized? Butler Shaffer writes:

"The specific grants of power to Congress are then spelled out in Article I, which include, among others, the "Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

How do such words limit governmental power? What more would any tyrant need to justify his actions than these?"

Comment viewing options

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

It was Federalist intervention

The true freedom minded founding fathers had their own band of neo-cons to contend with.

Thank Alexander Hamilton and his fools for this stuff...The Jeffersons and Franklins had to lighten up the language to get the Federalists on board.

The word "explicitly" in the enumerated powers clause was removed between the Articles of Confederation and The Constitution. This was not an accident...the Federalists weakened the language.

The vague term "general welfare" was also one of those things sacrificed as a partisian politics move.

Yes, we tend to believe that

there was unanimous agreement. However, in reality the Constitution was a compromise.

The "defence and general

The "defence and general welfare of the United States" clearly had a different meaning when States were sovereign. Income tax, and economic regulation, didn't exist. Your attributing more to those words than is there, much as the Executive Branch and later the Supreme Court did.

______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

How do you know that?

How is one to determine the proper interpretation?

Who's

"your?"

The OP, and I'll correct the spelling, thanks.

______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Oops, no can edit, sorry.

______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

better second

Sorry to bring up this old post, but I remembered somebody's post on a more clear version of the second amendment: "Hands off the frickin guns...." And I finally found a more serious version due to Kenneth Royce:

Neither Congress, nor the President, nor any State shall deny, infringe, regulate, or tax the absolute right of the people, in either their individual or collective militia capacities, to own, convey, carry, and use weapons and their accoutrements. Any congressional act, executive order, or State legislative act which would, directly or indirectly, or under any guise or pretense, deny, infringe, regulate or tax this cornerstone right is null and void at the moment of passage, and may lawfully be, without pain of prosecution, ignored, or, if deemed necessary by the people or any of them, forcibly resisted. (Boston's Gun Bible, Chapter 30, verse 14).

No, Americans as a people were too weak

They let greed, gluttony, and lust control their lives and now their reaping what they have sowed.

So long red, white, and blue -- it was nice while it lasted.

============================

Glen Beck -- An Exposed Enemy:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/90198
Glenn Beck Supports NAFTA and taking your job:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86643

Yes, I could write a better

Yes, I could write a better Constitution, and most here probably could too. It was a compromise from the very beginning.

But still, most of our problems would be solved by going back to it.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

we still have the power we are the people

Well said agaiziunas.. WHEW that's a mouthfullof name
Sincerly
says

The constitution was meant to be a living document

"Defence & General Welfare" are fairly broad strokes of a wordsmith's brush, but your example only outlines the taxation of people & entities to pay for such things. It does not grant limitless power to the government, it only grants them the power to use taxes/excises/tarriffs to pay for such endeavors.

As we all learned in primary school, there is a system of "checks and balances" intended to ensure Congress, for example, will not pass a 75% income tax in order to pay their own salaries. Now I know that is an extreme example, and I have no illusions there isn't a big chunk of change flowing into the pockets of our leaders and their friends, but I don't think the Constitution was weak at all in this point.

1) You have the judicial system available to interpret the laws and determine their legality
2) You have the voter base capable of removing people from office if they are passing taxation bills to benefit themselves

The system is a bit flawed today due to MSM being controlled by special interests and the political monopoly held by the Republicrats, a lot of this can be hidden away in the cracks of the bureaucracy so that Congress IS passing bills & legislation to benefit themselves, all the while the President (a member of the Republicrat duopoly) appoints the highest judicial authorities to ensure things are kept "legal", and the MSM keeps voters blinded from the truth, since it servers their interests as well.

But you still have the power to vote, and this is where the Campaign for Liberty's power exists! Talk to everyone, wake them up to the situation, and turn them onto the C4L/CFL so the votes will reflect the will of the people. Luckily the power still resides with the people, they just need to be made aware of the situation.

This opinion is for entertainment purposes. It does not represent the opinions of this website, sources cited, nor my actual beliefs. I do not consent for this post to be duplicated or replicated on any internet/digital/print/other form of media. C4L4EVR

Wow! You have absolutely NO

Wow! You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

Okay...

Let's hear some specifics? I thought this was a DISCUSSION board?

In the spirit of your response, I respond in kind: "That may be so, but you have the most repugnant boils on your face which prohibit you from courting even the most despicable courtesans. You are the son of a Leperous dog and a great-great-great-great-great-great-great uncle-type-relative of the architect of the Lamey Island Massacre!!"

At any rate, I am happy to admit if I am wrong, and in fact would be thankful if you corrected my erroneous knowledge in this matter. How about some specifics, eh?

This opinion is for entertainment purposes. It does not represent the opinions of this website, sources cited, nor my actual beliefs. I do not consent for this post to be duplicated or replicated on any internet/digital/print/other form of media. C4L4EVR

Well, the most obviously

Well, the most obviously thing to say is that what you are suggesting is literally impossible. The Constitution is a legislative IDEA. It is not some living thing that can or does evolve. If you read say...Catcher in the Rye today, does anything about it change if you were to read it again 10 years later. This notion of a living constitution is a perversion of the legislation and an abuse of the fact that it is badly written legislation. But, ya know, if that doesn't do it for you go to pages 48-49 in the book The Revolution by our beloved Ron Paul, specifically the second paragraph on page 49. Do that and then get back to me.

Nevermind then..

been a few hours, no response, so I'm going to sleep.

I'll check back in the next couple of days to see if you've actually substantiated your opinion though...

This opinion is for entertainment purposes. It does not represent the opinions of this website, sources cited, nor my actual beliefs. I do not consent for this post to be duplicated or replicated on any internet/digital/print/other form of media. C4L4EVR

This is quite the learning process

I agree, that we are told the Constitution is a living and breathing document. That is very misleading and alterations to the Supreme Law of the Land are in fact very difficult. The process is located in Article V.

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which , in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

To make changes even more challenging we also have Article VI (3):

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is also a flaw in your understanding of the original intent of the judicial system. The design of a Jury of Peers is specifically in place to be the most powerful force in the court room. It is the Jury alone who determines guilt and innocence. Regardless of judicial interpretation of the law the jury determines the legality, by applying reasonable doubt or they can set their fellow peer free if they think the law violates the Constitution or the moral standards of a free society.

Your vote as a member of the Jury is the most powerful vote you have. The law is meaningless if no one is convicted. =)

Here is a link the Citizen's Rule Book:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/rulebook.html

P.S. I took me a lot of time to figure all this stuff out and I'm still learning. So I'm offering a tool, I found to be helpful. I too agree that the statement above is far too limited and general welfare is not applicable as a overall weakness. The articles in the Constitution are very specific to the limitation placed on each governmental branch. The Constitution has strength but only if the people understand read and enforce it.... This is after all our government, it only has what we permit it to take - anything to the contrary notwithstanding!

What yo say, weak

PLEASE people ; a piece of paper does nothing but translate &/or communicate, It cannot defend. IT's a freakin piece of paper. The framers knew this "The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of the PATRIOTS".
They had the BALLS. We are to blame . I don't know how far back to go but WE are the complacent ones ,for years. There is nothing new to know of man's evil nature. those founders certainly knew of man's tendancies or they would not have written the CONSTITUTION. WE the people must keep it alive within every AMERICAN . America has been invaded by peple looking for money not to belong to it's ideals. IT's all around you now. People come here make some money & go back home with their pockets full. We have a revolving pot of GOLD not a melting pot. This is why a PRESIDENT needs to be born & raised here . They knew that. Those men were far more intelligent than what we have become today, & a lot more gutsy for sure. They foresaw a need for amendments We are the people who make that document say what we want it to say.
SO say it . WE make it weak or strong.
says

The Constitution is not

Libertarian. If you are looking for that, the closest you'll get is the Articles of Confederation. But I would say the most libertarian of our founding documents would have to be the Declaration of Independence. There is a legitimate question of the authority of the States, or the People directly in giving any power to any government other than the States.

I agree

that the Constitution was way too weak.

The only freedoms it really grants me is freedom to move between the states and the freedom to pretty much say whatever I want. That is it. Otherwise, the Constitution is garbage, so it is pretty much garbage. It setup a Republic that would be ruled by the elite. The idea that my phony vote means anything is a joke. Just like William Wallace never swore loyalty to the throne of England, I have never sworn loyalty to the throne of the United States. I have never agreed to the laws or the rulers that rule me, yet I am forced to live by them.

Liberty does not

come from the Constitution. And for the record, those liberties you list were in existence BEFORE the Constitution was written.

Oops

I am sorry. I should have said the only freedoms it really protects. You are correct, they existed before the Constitution.

Jewish vs Zionist

As you know during Christ's time there were two types of JEWS looking for the Messiah. The John the baptist type & the Barrabis type. The Simion type & the Judis type. One type looked for a spiritual & the other looked for a warrior. So akaskaron has the right idea.
says

religion

Well spoken alaskaron.
says

I agree that the document is

I agree that the document is too weak--but inasmuch as we have never lived under constitutional government during our lifetimes, how sure of its flaws can we be..?

The overall weakness of the Constitution is that it is self-policing. As John Adams pointed out, it is only made for moral and decent people, and the corrupt and ambitious can tear through it "like a whale through a net".

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

To Sarah Palin

God doesn't need anybody to fight his wars for him....

It has been an ongoing complaint or criticism of the

U.S. Constitution that it was written with too many places where it can (and does) "leak" tyranny. Article I powers have indeed been abused, with the help of a compliant (some would say: complicit) Supreme Court. There exists other amendments (9th and 10th for example) that were supposed to act as positive statements regarding the limitations of powers granted to the federal government. However, we know that both of those amendments have been "interpreted" into a non-functional status. One could certainly make similar arguments regarding the diminished efficacy of other provisions in the Constitution that were intended to secure certain rights against government intrusion......and yet, today, they lie either in ruins or dreadfully wounded and dying.
_________________________________________
"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."

Do you.

Hell you were defending trolls today, and now you're insinuating that the Constitution was too weak.

Well I want to know.. Was it too weak in your eyes?

Or are we too weak as a country to stand up for the principles it stood for.

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

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

Both

A constitution that allows politicians the power to lay and collect taxes is doomed to failure in my opinion. I think this is well corroborated with the history of governments.

ps. I've seen a lot of Treg's posts. I do not consider him a troll at all.

It's the Commander in Chief

It's the Commander in Chief power and the bloated Executive Branch departments that are out of balance.

When Patrick Henry said, "Away with your President! We shall have a King!" he was not being sarcastic. He saw the Presidency as more powerful than a Kingship. After seven years of Bush, I think I agree.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States