Constitutionalism Equals Socialism!!

First, it should be said that the supposition that you have presented is just that, a supposition without fully documenting the position you are taking on the Constitution. It is necessary therefore, to delve deeper into the historical thinking that went into the crafting of the Constitution, the influences of history and philosophy upon which the principles of the Constitution would rest.

It should be noted that recently there are numerous attempts to either compare the principles found within the Constitution with either “enslavement” or, as in this case, with “socialism”, both comparisons, as far as I have read, are arguments that are weak in both concept and execution. Such attempts must, or should, make everyone wonder what is actually behind such attempts, is it simply the workings of inquisitive minds or something a bit more insidious, such as the co-opting of the rEVOLution by those with motives and goals other than that of Dr. Paul. I would like to think it is simply a matter of inquisitive minds seeking healthy debate, but I take nothing for granted.

We must all recognize that each of us have a mental model of the world, our own model also includes the models of the views of others, these are influences that are inescapable; the same was true with the Founders and they were influenced by the mental models found within the writings of many notable thinkers throughout history. The Founders were well aware that the congruency of the mental models found within the writings of several historic figures would allow a proper communication of principles that they recognized as accurate and valid in respect to the type of governmental system they sought to provide to the People of this country. The Founders, when issuing the principles found within the Constitution, also realized that they would rely upon those in the future to both understand and remain faithful to those principles. They also recognized that words provide a very imperfect means of conveying actual intent or meaning; indeed they were very aware that the document they crafted was neither prefect nor was the government it created.

We do find some very interesting construction within the Constitution when the Founders used very specific and concrete words to convey broader principles, repeating at times the same principles throughout the document through the use of different specific and concrete words. This was a common practice when dealing with such vital principles in regard to individual liberty.

The principles behind the Constitution, at least as far as I have read, are unambiguous and are based, in a large part, upon centuries of writings, historical events and the political analysis of those events in relationship to the societies that rose and fell over the course of history from antiquity to the contemporary times of the Founders themselves. The majority of the Founders, except for a very few monarchist, were completely opposed to the ideals of absolutism that flourished in most of Europe and the world. Based upon their writings and letters, it is evident that they held the firm belief that government is formed to simply preserve the right to property and the rights that arise from that right, all of which were viewed as inalienable and not granted by either men or the governments they form. Locke would provide many of the greatest influences on the ideals and principles upon which the Founders used as a foundation for building this Republic; one such influence was the Lockean ideal that if any government abused the natural rights of the People instead of protecting those rights then it was the right of the People to either alter or abolish that government.

There is also evidence that several of the Founders were familiar with the essay written by Étienne de la Boétie entitled “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude”. The Founders were well aware of the principles behind the Magna Charter, not only that, but they were readers of the writings of those such as Cato, Dante Alighieri, Thomas Gordon, Algernon Sidney, Thomas Hobbs, James Harrington, James Tyrrell, Johannes Althusius, Andrew Fletcher, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Edmund Burke, Jacques Turgot and numerous others. Thomas Jefferson’s favorite political philosopher was undoubtedly Marcus Tullius Cicero, He read the works of Alexander Pope, Publius Virgilius Maro, Publius Ovidius Naso, Titus Livius. Two of his favorite authors were Henry Saint-John, Viscount of Bolingbroke and David Hume.

Thus to propose that the Constitution can be equated with a type of socialism or collectivism must be based on supposition rather than factual information provided to us by history and the influences upon the Founders. It is only possible to make such suppositions if one has not read or either ignores the various historical writings and commentaries held in very high esteem by the Founders.

Based on the thoughts of both the Founders and those whose writings influenced them, it becomes evident that the primary principles dealing with government power and authority, at least as documented in the writings of the Founders, was: “Potestas stricte interpretatur in dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia”, or that a power is strictly interpreted and in cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power. Now, this one principle not only provides a great deal of information about the mind of the Founders in their crafting of the Constitution, but it also denotes a very “non-collectivist” view of how American society should govern itself. Not only that, but considering that the Founders viewed this country as a Republic of Republics, all independent, free and sovereign completely negates any supposition that the Constitution was crafted in any other manner than one to promote the most individualistic society possible with the least degree of government power.

Another principle that you must confront, if you are to defend your supposition, is that the Founders fully understood and expounded the fact that delegated powers cannot be subdelegated and all powers delegated to the government, whether it was the federal government or State governments, were narrow, while all rights were broad. Additionally, there is another principle that is completely neglected and overlooked today, even here on the DP. That principle is that while the Constitution did allow certain narrow powers to regulate, that power was not delegated to provide the government with the ability or power to prohibit or regulate all modalities within society. It was little more than a power, delegated by the People in concurrent consent, to issue prescriptions intended to “regulate” or “make regular” in the sense of the good application of law without arbitrary application.

Now, concerning Dr. Paul’s understanding and obvious esteem of the Constitution there is no better place to find that then his writings and speeches on the subject.

“Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system.

Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?

Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy." Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty

Again, Dr. Paul makes it very clear that he is a firm supporter of the Constitution and indeed a “Champion of the Constitution”, the following speech given by the good Dr. should be sufficient to debunk the entire idea that Dr. Paul is simply using the Constitution as a rallying point for a political purpose:

“The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several states, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new Republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the states and the people.
Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches, provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty.

The American Revolutionaries clearly chose liberty over security, for their economic security and their very lives were threatened by undertaking the job of forming a new and limited government. Most would have been a lot richer and safer by sticking with the King. Economic needs or desires were not the driving force behind the early American patriotic effort.

The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man's action: the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not to be simply a cog in a wheel, or a single cell of an organism, or a branch of a tree, but an individual with a free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life's dreams and assume one's responsibilities. If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace, which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man's highest and noblest goals, so should man's mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The Founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind.

Minimizing government authority over the people was critical to this endeavor. Just as the individual was key to salvation, individual effort was the key to worldly endeavors. Little doubt existed that material abundance and sustenance came from work and effort, family, friends, church, and voluntary community action, as long as government did not obstruct.

No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator, and if government could not grant rights to individuals, it surely should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general. Our constitutional Republic, according to our Founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.

It was clearly recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered.

The colonists wanted to be free of the King's oppressive high taxes and burdensome regulations. It annoyed them to no end that even the trees on their own property could not be cut without the King's permission. The King kept the best trees for himself and his shipbuilding industry. This violation of property ownership prompted the colonists to use the pine tree on an early revolutionary flag to symbolize the freedom they sought.

The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive non-violent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America's great achievements. It was a great plan; we should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed. The Founders often spoke of "divine providence" and that God willed us this great nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this nation are understood and maintained. We as Members of Congress have that responsibility.

The transition in the past hundred years from essentially no welfare to an all-encompassing welfare state represents a major change in attitude in the United States. Along with its acceptance, the promoters have dramatically reinterpreted the Constitution from the way it had been for our first 150 years. Where the general welfare clause once had a clear general meaning (which was intended to prohibit special-interest welfare, and was something they detested and revolted against under King George), it is now used to justify any demand of any group, as long as a majority in Congress votes for it.

But the history is clear and the words in the Constitution are precise. Madison and Jefferson in explaining the general welfare clause left no doubt as to its meaning.

Madison said: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators." Madison argued that there would be no purpose whatsoever for the enumeration of the particular powers if the general welfare clause was to be broadly interpreted. The Constitution granted authority to the federal government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefit of the general welfare of all the people. This understanding of the Constitution, as described by the Father of the Constitution, has been lost in this century.

Jefferson was just as clear, writing in 1798, when he said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." Ron Paul

Once again, this thread provides nothing but unsupportable supposition.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

Socialism is the most ideal form of government we could have. However, we as a species have not yet evolved enough for it to work. Until then, capitalism is the fairest/best option.