The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: You are trying to use weird legalistic

(See in situ)

You are trying to use weird legalistic

explanation for the freedom of speech.

I'm the one saying principals are important.

First off original intent is interesting, and I agree that we've strayed far from that, and I agree we'd be better off if we returned to that.

But from a moral perspective, who cares about original intent? If the intent was evil, would that mean we have to abide evil?

Clearly not. You did not sign the Constitution. You were not a party to the deal. I can't sign a contract for you nor vice versa.

The only legitimacy the Constitution has is based in the government obeying it. Essentially you are born into a ruled by a small number of thieves, murderers, and rapists, and they say:

We aren't going to entertain any questions about why we get to rule you, but we do promise only to rule you in these restricted areas, and not steal too much, and only engage in mass murder if we follow a specific procedure, etc.

So long as they obey these promises, the Constitution has 'de facto' legitimacy, if not real legitimacy. It never was real legitimacy.

The Constitution itself is an illegal document. The Articles of the Confederation explicitly claimed to be a perpetual union.

The Constitution at least has the courtesy not to do that same thing.