It's probably counterproductive to bandy that term around.
However, the Constitution self-evidently does not restrain government. Have you looked out the window lately?
Yes. I've read it (dozens of times). I understand the "theory."
But, as GWB said, it's just a "goddamned piece of paper."
You don't think the guys who wrote it knew that?
The theory you should be thinking about is "game theory."
Do you think that the colonies who seceded from the Articles of Confederation and rammed the Constitution through didn't know what they were doing?
It is about "Powers," not about "restraints." Once you had a central government with the power to lay taxes (not intermediated by the States), it was inevitable that it would gather all power to itself. Follow the money was as good a maxim in 1789 as it is today.
You say it had a good run for 125 years? I say it didn't even have a good run for 25 years. The process started immediately, and grew exponentially, with the result we see around us today.
The anti-federalists foresaw very well what the Constitution would lead to. Their foresight was prescient. I believe that it is in this sense that Rockwell is referring to the fact that he does not consent. Nor should anyone, who doesn't have half their brain tied behind their back.
Sure, the Constitution would be great (or at least better) if the government actually followed it. But they don't. And they never have. And that is by design.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise