Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause for Freedom
Submitted by atrickpay on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 00:01Manuel Lora writes:
"Libertarians err when they use the Constitution to further their philosophy for freedom. While some say they want to "return to the Constitution" and see a proper role for a limited federal government on the basis of it being an ultimate guarantor of liberty, they nonetheless argue that some constitutional functions (like eminent domain and taxation), violate individual freedom. So which one is it? Is it possible to both support some government laws and not others? On what grounds?"
Click here to read the rest of this hard-hitting article.
»
Federalist No. 45
James Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html
The Articles of the Constitution list the specific delegated powers that the people and the states grant to the federal government. The fed does not have any power that is not specifically granted in the Articles.
The Bill of Rights are clauses which further restrict the fed's power. The BOR do not grant anything to anybody. (Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights -- Google it).
So why is the federal government ignoring the Constitution? Why does the federal government currently possess an enormous amount of legal power?
The answer is that the fed has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution and the law. Throughout the years, they have been broadly interpreting their delegated powers and narrowly interpreting our natural rights.
The solution? Read Marlow's post here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/78381#comment-848039
Well, maybe Manuel Lora was talking to a Bob Barr Libertarian,
but that is why I AM Libertarian philosophically, because I KNOW taxation and eminent domain are illegal as far as the Constitution is concerned period!
The only way I can see eminent domain used infrequently would be if a person died and had absolutely no one to leave their property to, then yes, it goes back to common pot I guess. Fee for usage is far more transparent and workable otherwise they would have to raise bond money for huge capital outlays and then this is easy to see how the money is spent.
The results of taxing people gets so incredibly muddled as far as the books are concerned and usually there is so much money collected they just 'spend' it on whatever their cronies and family businesses can handle. I am so sick of these unethical methods to pay for things we all use.
Its the best the world has
Its the best the world has ever had so lets restore it and then we can quibble about its flaws and the merits of a true libertarian world.
That's the problem with libertarianism.
It quibbles.
It deconstructs.
It engages in sophomoric arguments over pure philosophy.
It makes spectacularly naive assumptions about human nature. The absence of rules does not create freedom. The absence of rules creates chaos that is easily subverted by people with a hidden agenda--who, in turn, wish to rule over others...or take advantage of them.
It proposes a untested social system that is impractical in the way of an alternative--anarcho-capitalism--and then fiercely defends the impracticality as if it had been time-tested for ten thousand years.
This article is why, day-in, day-out, I cannot decide whether I'm a "conservative", a "constitutionalist", or a "libertarian".
Conservatism sounds good on a platform level, but is a dead letter in actual political terms.
Libertarianism appeals to me most on a gut level, but strikes me, politically, as the weakest of the three. Of course I am overgeneralizing, because I'm describing the old school, and there are as many different kinds of "libertarians" as there are flavors of ice cream--and they're all about as nutritious in content. (There are even, apparently, "libertarians" who vote for the Patriot Act--and then are nominated to run for president.)
Constitutionalism appeals me as a constructionist, but the US Constitution does have serious problems that need to be addressed in amendments or rewrites.
Or in a reboot, because nothing will work as long as we are fleas on the back of a federal Leviathan.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
As confused as a baby in a topless bar.
Wow Kevin, when I read your post I thought I was reading something back to myself. Constitutionalist, Libertarian, Conservative, Constructionist or Republican? I can't put my finger on it.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson
I am
A constitutional moderate. I didn't think you could think outside your third party box there puma. A new party is a dead party. Its nice you recognize that the weakest part of the three is libertarianism. Why do you think RP gathered all the third parties to agree on issues. For the reasons you just stated.
Ron Paul talked about this tension
Ron Paul talked about this tension between the constitution and libertarianism, and basically it came down to his constituents didn't react to him when he tried to explain Austrian economics or libertarian theory (which took a long time to explain and was hard to understand) but when he talked about the Constitution (which is semi-libertarian) he got lots of support. So it was a short-hand method to promote libertarianism to the masses.
Register as Republican and Vote for Ron Paul
Article author is a fool.
He neglects the obvious: that a return to the limits of the Constitution is the best step in the right direction. Only then can we begin to fix the problems of the Constitution (Amendment 16 and 17, no balanced budget, ED reform, language update, term limits, etc.).
So libertarians aren't in error here. The author of the piece is, because he doesn't understand reverse incrementalism in terms of liberty and politics.
Add the 14th to the list
The outright fraudulantly imposed 14th is what destroyed our true soveriegn citizenship, that of a Soveriegn State, and made us "corporate citizens" of the U.S., to whom we are subjects. Combined with the unconstitutional 16th (theft of rightful ownership of property) and 17th (no more representation for states in DC and destruction of our power in the "House"), we are powerless slaves to that same corporation.
Vote for Liberty...Buy Silver Eagles.
I second
this post
Further: Adhering to the
Further: Adhering to the Constitution is a prerequisite for amending it to achieve a more libertarian version.
If "our leaders" won't stick to the limits in THIS one, how can you expect them to stick to even tighter limits in the future?
= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."
That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.
We have to start
somewhere and that somewhere is by returning to the principles and rules our Founding Fathers gave to us.
My Blog
My Blog
RAISE THE BONNIE BLUE FLAG!!!
So let's restore the Confederate Constitution!
If I understand what Manuel L. is saying correctly.............
His premis about The Constitution is flawed on 3 points.
1) The Constitution does not assume the Fed as the ultimate guarantor of liberty.
2) Emient domain is not a Constitutional function and,
3) Only property tax is Constitutional, not any and all taxations.
Ummmm
1) I'll agree with you on this point-- though the Executive Branch is formally charged with defending the document.
2) You're wrong. Check out the 5th amendment. It clearly states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
3) You're wrong again. The 16th Amendment clearly states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes"
Ummmm?
The 16th Amendment clearly states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes" If that were true Thomas Jefferson would not have said.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson
I don't recognize the 16th Amendment.
It's clearly a violation of original intent, "passed" under extremely dubious circumstances, and it should be abolished or nullified.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I agree. The 16th was never
I agree. The 16th was never ratified. Also income is not defined as compensation for individual labor so even if the 16th was properly ratified it does not justify the taxing scheme in place today the unloawfully enforces a direct tax on individual labor.
-----
Only dead fish go with the flow...
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
What happened to the 13th?
Where did it go?
The issue is integrity
I've never claimed to be a pure libertarian. I don't even like some elements of the Constitution (the "natural born citizen" requirement, for example).
However, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I consider oaths sacred, and I am prepared to back up that oath with action.
No society is better than its citizens, including its office holders, and most of our office holders have no itegrity.
Some form of government is necessary.
A republic is NOT a democracy.
It is also not a dictatorship.
It is a COMPROMISE between the absolute rule of law and rule of the majority.
Compromises are always messy, imperfect, flawed, and unpopular with at least some of the parties involved.
Just because a Libertarian theologian could come up with a better government IN THEORY, does not render our Constitution any less remarkable, desirable, or unique.
And from a pragmatic standpoint, how do you propose getting "there" from "here"?
Military junta?
Armed anarchists?
A constitutional convention?
Are any of you naive enough to think that "we the people" would control the results?
Do you really think that a BETTER form of government would arise out of the ashes?
I will stick with working within the framework of the Constitution as long as possible.
This is not Constitution "worship".
This is cold, calculating pragmatism.
******************************
Money As Debt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
******************************
******************************
Keep the Iowa Caucuses "First in the Nation"!
I don't know many libertarians who "worship" the U.S.
Constitution, if I correctly understand the use of the word "worship". That is to say, an attitude of religious devotion or perhaps a substitution of faith, to one degree or another, for the absence of objective evidence. In those libertarian circles that I normally traverse, the Constitution is usually regarded as, at best, only a fair attempt to establish governmental boundaries that would do the least harm to human liberty. The faults lie in the "leakage" of tyranny allowed by compromised language, interpretation and enforcement. The U.S. Constitution itself was a compromise and the dubious effects of that compromise continue to this day. There have been (and continue to be) many posts on this forum which identify weaknesses in the document that have been interpretively exploited over the years to the point where the document itself offers no significant burden to those who seek to operate our so-called "modern ordered society". Pointing out the continuing violations of the Constitution, which all government elements have sworn to uphold, as well as the interpretive devices by which this or that section of the document is (or has been) essentially rendered useless, is not what I would refer to as "worship". While there are, no doubt, some self-identified libertarians, who choose to focus solely on making the U.S. Constitution "work", I don't personally identify with a philosophy which treats the document as some kind of perfect compact or contract which, if only interpreted and applied correctly, would constitute some kind of unbreachable fortress against those forces aligned against the concept of human liberty. The establishment and the maintenance of human liberty must exist in those individuals who believe that people should live in an environment of freedom. No piece of paper, by itself, can protect liberty from those elements who would erase it.
The author's references to those who aim for a "return to the Constitution" sound more to me like utterances I would expect to hear from some of the conversatives who, admittedly, were able to assert their attitudes within the libertarian party, especially during this last election cycle.
_________________________________________
"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."
Why worship "states' rights"?
From the article:
"
I'd like to ask why should Libertarians favor the power of states as opposed to states whose powers are limited and checked by another power?
The states aren't that concerned with liberty these days either. It's all a cultural thing. For example, why are health insurance rates so high? There are strict regulations on insurance companies, placed on them by the states (and the feds) telling them what they can and can't do. What's the answer? In some states, like California and Massachusetts, the answer is to give the state government a monopoly over the health care industry or to force their residents to buy health insurance.
That's just one example.
I don't know why people think that states' "rights" will somehow translate into more individual freedom. I think these people are living in some kind of fantasy world, or they are quite unaware that 90% of their fellow Americans want (or think they want) a socialist society and that having empowered state governments will allow a quicker transition to full blown socialism.
You are correct
In our time "states' rights" means way too much power to way too few individuals. Unfortunately, we have strayed from the following concept:
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
All that power can only come from the "consent of the governed", and by virtue of our silence or support, we have consented to the mess we're in.
We the People dropped the ball, and allowed every level of government, from local to national, to gain way too much power. While some of us are waking up, I am not optimistic that we will be able to affect positive change.
--------------------------------
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
-James Madison
...let it not be said that we did nothing.
-Ron Paul
People don't get this very much, so I'll explain.
First, states do not have "rights". They never have. They only have powers. Only people have rights. Governments have powers enumerated through the right of consent of the people. The people can also exercise the right to revoke that consent. Hence the powers of government are subordinate and inferior to the rights of the people.
Many people fail to understand that very basic foundation of our republic.
As for transferring power from the federal to state level, it is very simple. Laws work best when applied closest to the people they are supposed to affect. The federal power was enumerated and limited for this very reason. You don't see a federal law regarding air conditioning because Arizona is far different than Montana, for example. That principle moves down from state to local levels as well, but critics of it (statists who tend to favor federal control of everything) conveniently neglect to mention it because it doesn't suit their agenda.
The author of the article is a fool who doesn't understand libertarianism at all, and usually those critics are the ones who never got past short pants and short buses.
Ben Franlin said
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
Even the people who helped create the Constitution never revered it, they knew that freedom would always be in danger from any government.
Well said.
Well said.
Worship undermines Respect
Emotional wish fulfillment fantasies substitute for sober reflection and analysis.
The Constitution is not perfect, nor are we.
To elevate it to supernatural status is to denigrate its authors.
The Freedom Formula: Au + Ag + Cu + Pb
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr
It is sad that we
It is sad that we libertarians have to fight to get the mere freedoms afforded in the Constitution. But it has come to that. I believe some day we will be looking back to the freedoms we once had in 2009.
It's like we're on a road headed away from the Constitution moving toward tyranny and socialism.
I'm all for working to turn us all around and move back toward the Constitution.
If we somehow do get to the point where we have a Constitutional government again, then we can discuss the various aspects that are non-libertarian.
Until then, it'll be hard enough just to turn this beast around.
http://NoOneButPaul.com
I apologize for getting offensive…
That’s exactly what I try to never do.
--Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
---------------------------------
January's song: That's the Way of the World by Nelson Rangell
On Facebook:
♦ Personal Profile
♦ Political Group
♦ Political Page