Comment: nope...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I suppose then (see in situ)


While we all agree that it would be a good first step to get back to some kind of limitations on government supposedly imposed by the Constitution, some points should be taken into consideration:

1. We the PEOPLE did not write nor ratify the constitution. It was an elitist document from beginning to end.

2. The Bill of Rights is a collection of *amendments* to the Constitution. They are not any part of its primary purpose. Its purpose was to legitimize the use of force and coercion for the collection of revenue for the use of the central government, i.e., tyranny---fundamentally the same tyranny that many (most?) of those committed to liberty had just fought and died to throw off.

3. The Constitution is not among our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence is.

4. The Constitution is not "the baby." As pointed out by Lysander Spooner:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

On the other hand, I agree that groups of people thinking (and acting) cooperatively might not always be bad. We just don't have any good examples. It is (apparently) complicated. My suggestion is that for it to be good the following aspects must be present, prominent, and practiced:

(a) Group action must be voluntary. (Voluntarism has not been a result of the Constitution. Whether it was intended is a matter of debate.)
(b) Group action must be in the context of self-government. (Self-government is a large topic on its own, but definitely antithetical to the Constitution at some level.)
(c) Group action must be based on "correct" principles in the sense of natural law. (Natural law is another topic worth looking into.)

Pick up "Hologram of Liberty" by Kenneth Royce. The Constitution is really and should be viewed as a hologram of liberty.