UPDATE : What is the true genius of the US constitution?
Submitted by ThePatriot on Tue, 08/25/2009 - 23:19
I have my own theory of this topic but I really wanted to hear other views on this topic.
Please keep it civil.
What is the true genius of the US constitution?
UPDATED :
There have been many interesting answer as well as a few idiotic ones.
My thought is :
The genius of the constitution is that it can always be changed, the genius is that the constitution makes no permanent rule other than the faith in the wisdom of ordinary citizens to govern themselves.
The founding fathers were a bunch of farmers but they were also great men because they knew the one thing that all great men should know, that they didn't know everything. They knew they were going to make mistakes but they made sure they left a way to correct those mistakes.
They didn't look at themselves as leaders, they wanted a government of citizens NOT royalty, they wanted a government of listeners NOT lecturers, they wanted a government that could change and not stand still.
Woh woh woh
what? Aren't some truths immutable, unalienable? Doesn't McManus give a good explanation of this in his explanation of governments?
I mean...do you ever think it would be a good idea to prohibit speech freedom?
...I suppose both ideas can exist, as long as those immutable truths always remain.
☁ ◯ ◎ #
The genius of the
The genius of the constitution is that it can always be changed, the genius is that the constitution makes no permanent rule other than the faith in the wisdom of ordinary citizens to govern themselves.
The founding fathers were a bunch of farmers but they were also great men because they knew the one thing that all great men should know, that they didn't know everything. They knew they were going to make mistakes but they made sure they left a way to correct those mistakes.
They didn't look at themselves as leaders, they wanted a government of citizens NOT royalty, they wanted a government of listeners NOT lecturers, they wanted a government that could change and not stand still.
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
checks and balances
The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin - Mark Twain
On the "genius" of the Constitution
Can be reduced to the ease of which corporatism, mercantilism, democracy, socialism or fascism (take your pick) can be forced upon us, the supposed "sovereign" masses (for the greater good!), while we worship the lofty words enshrined in a document which can do nothing for us, other than exist in our favor when we choose to do something for ourselves as sovereign individuals.
Thank you, Mr. Hamilton (not!).
=======
"The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
- Robert E. Lee, 1866
=======
"The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
- Robert E. Lee, 1866
Actually, the US
Actually, the US Constitution has provided for more liberty and economic prosperity than any document in history, the separation of powers between states, and federal branches is a great burden on the NWO.
The Aritcles of Confederation were tailor made for the NWO. To corrupt them, they only need to get rid of the unaminous vote rule. That would have come quickly, and certainly when the next war came along. As things were not settled with France or Britian, that would have been soon.
A military dictator could have occupied Rhode Island if they didn;t get in line. How long do you really think Rhode Island would have been able to stop the rest fo the States? Unless you are an idiot, not long.
Once the AoC could vote by majority, they could set up a court sytem and executive leader, without modifying the charter. The executive leader would have become a dictator with emergency powers. Regional alliances with Georgia favoring Spain, the rest of the South favoring France, and NE favoring Britian would have formed quickly, and almost formed anyway. Then regional civil wars would start. Petty little states like Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Georgia would get gobbled up.
Eventually an bogus governemt would have been formed within 20 years.
Thanks to the Constitution, that didn't happen.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
We The People Of The "United" States....
Key word United !
Please think about this, right in the Constitution's it is mandated that every person elected or appointed to any government office takes an oath { Verbal Contract } to uphold the "Laws" of the Constitution which is supposed to unite all who take the oath to one purpose;
Protect, defend and "Obey" the Constitution's laws !
Now, from what I've read, in the 1700's an oath was considered a sacred pledge of personal honor,,,,however, anyone who does not want to take this oath is not punished but is free to go about their own business as long as they don't break any local laws.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anybody that is convicted of breaking their Constitutional oath of office is committing the act of treason the only crime mentioned in the Constitution.
Ron Paul Is My President ! He has upheld his oath of office with honor !
beesting
Jefferson and Madison on Constitutional Interpretation
Jefferson and Madison on Constitutional Interpretation
Some controversy has arisen in our comments section, charging "Machiavellianism" in the federalist and "textual" approaches to judicial philosophy. The names of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came up. And so, let go to the horses' mouths:
“The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs...”
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
---Jefferson
Which is OK, but I like Madison even better:
"It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State -- the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act."
"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Institutions, & as a source perhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."
Machiavellianism has nothing atall to do with it. In fact, it's those who substitute their interpretations of the Constitution over its meaning when it was ratified who are guilty of it.
Posted by Tom Van Dyke at 12:17 PM
25 comments:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/09/jefferson-and-m...
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
IN ORDER* It provides for
IN ORDER
* It provides for fair representation in the government, including state representation, elections, and proportional representation.
* It divides power between the national and local interests in a rational way based on the study of history.
* It divides power, making usurpation much more difficult.
* It it filled with roadblocks to usurpation, including the Bill-of-Rights, but also rights in the original Constitution.
* It provides for a method on amendement that is not too easy, but not impossible, with all ultimate power retained by the states and the people.
* It reflects the brilliance of James Madison, the most profound political thinker who has ever lived.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
It deaclares our unalienable rights
No other Constitution in the world does that as far as I know.
Originally Norwegian I was in Norway in May. I read the Norwegian Constitution. Or part of it. Well it declares all the power that the King has, that he is like God and can't be accused of any wrong.
The people have the rights that he decides.
i fixed your spelling errors.
Ron Paul is my President
Ron Paul is My President
Credit the collective minds
Not enough credit is given to George Mason, who wrote the Virginia Constitution. It was later used as a model for the U.S. Constitution, with re-writes from Madison initially, and then later Jefferson, Franklin and the gang. They made each other better and wiser in their discussions; also compromise was essential - give some, take some. Wasn't easy.
Most of the founding fathers owned slaves, but omitted any reference to slavery in the original draft. That later came in the form of an amendment.
John - thanks for the points of correction. One of the reason Mason didn't attend was that his wife was sick and, for him, that took priority.
Jefferson took no part in the Constitutional Convention
or the Virginia Ratification Convention. He was in France.
George Mason opposed the Constitution
1) He refused to sign it at the Constitutional Convention.
2) He voted against it at the Virginia Ratification Convention.
3) The 3/5 rule implicitly recognizes slavery in the Constitution.
The 3/5th rule provided an
The 3/5th rule provided an incentive to end slavery. Any state that ended slavery would get a boost in their House representation and in the Electoral College.
The 3/5th rule was taken from the Articles of Confederation, which Mason didn't seem to have a problem with.
The original Virginia Plan by Madison said that the states should be represented by either free population or economic impact. Since economic statistics were not readily available back then, population was used. The 3/5th rule was used because a slave was considered to be only 60% as productive as a free person. The Constitution, hence, recognizes that slavery is not as efficient as freedom.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Constitutional Lawyer Edwin Vieira Says:
The two things that make the Constitution powerful are the "Power" of money and the "Power" of the sward in the hands of "We the People"!
The power of the sward is covered in the several references to the militia of the several states because it is their job to "Enforce" all the other "Laws" spelled out in the Constitution that "Limits" the power of government.
The power of the purse references the use of only Gold/Silver money will be the legal tender in payment of debt.
Article I
Section 10.
If these two things were still in effect we would not have the problems America faces today, and I think Ron Paul would agree with this.
beesting
An argument exists that the
An argument exists that the US Constitution is a debt instrument with three parties signed on as surety: the federal government, the States, and We the People. It goes something like this:
In 1782 the Articles of Confederation tried to guarantee the huge revolutionary war debt in Article XII. Unfortunately, it had no "substance", no collateral, no enforceability, and thus did not work as an international commercial instrument to make national contracts.
1782
+ 7 years of intra-national/individual bankruptcy, just like us
------
1789, when the the federal government was incorporated with the Constitution, the States and People added as surety to guarantee the prior debts in Article VI. Unfortunately, history shows no one paid it...
1789
+ 70 years of an inter-national body in bankruptcy
------
1859, when the second surety party was required to pay the debt. The South, rich in resource-wealth, thought it wiser to form its own country without settling this debt. Civil War ensues; notion of states rights disappears as a result, for the states were incorporated. The (present tense) Union becomes the (past tense) United States, republic gone, military democracy in place. (war decorations began here, too, just ask Smedley Butler!)
1859
+ 70 years of an international body in bankruptcy
------
1929, when the third surety party, We the People, were required to pay the now massive debt. Surely by construction, the People were wholly unaware of such a deal at this time. (Good thing the gold wealth was being take out of the nation as interest to the Federal Reserve, set up prior, just in case) The stock market crashed, which quickly resulted in birth certificates being issued and social security benefits; the People were incorporated.
1929
+ 70 years of international bankruptcy
------
1999, whereupon Bill Clinton was put on trial, for perjury regarding...sexual relations? The lens of time cannot yet focus on what truly happened then...though + 2...
Thoughts?
☁ ◯ ◎ #
US debt was paid down to
US debt was paid down to effectively nothing, about $10,000 if memory serves, during the Jackson administration.
paid down, but panicked up
it was paid down to around $30,000, but the panic of 1837 increased it by 10, and it steadily crept up until the Civil War, at which point it exploded again. Don't know what that does to this argument, but my point is it was never fully paid off.
☁ ◯ ◎ #
Correct!
I too recall that...hm...The only discrepancy may be that debt accumulated from the first and second central bank schemes, not necessarily the war debt.
☁ ◯ ◎ #
Wrong, the war debt
Wrong, the war debt preceeded both banks.
In fact, neither bank would have passed had there not been war debt.
The Founding Fathers passed these banks as short term financial stopgaps, resulting from our two wars for Independence from the British Empire.
These banks were never intended to be permanent, nor were they deemed necessary once the economy got going & all the debt paid off.
If people would pay attention to the principles of the Fopunding Fathers, they would see that we should not have a central bank today.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Interesting. Who holds the debt and where are the contracts?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
"Freedom brings people together." - Ron Paul
Some say England, or France,
Some say England, or France (?!), but European banks of the time were already part of the Rothschild banking empire, prone to enslave nations with war debt. Assuming debt == control. Rockefeller would later say "own nothing, control everything".
Historically, we issued debt certificates as promises to pay anyone who bought them.
But I doubt extant contracts, should any remain, to inarguably prove this will ever see public scrutiny.
I just find it an interesting argument.
☁ ◯ ◎ #
they understood human behavior
they knew power corrupted absolutely. they understood what freedom and liberty meant. not in the catchphrase sense.
Patrick Henry who opposed the Constitution
was the true genius. He saw its faults and where it would lead. It was devised to create a more powerful central government and was successful beyond the wildest dreams of its supporters.
As someone said the Constitution got us here or couldn't stop us from getting here. I'll not worship the thing.
The Constitution is Not What Got Us Here. Not Following it IS.
And the most destructive force against our Constitution is fraudulent money.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
"Freedom brings people together." - Ron Paul
So the problem is a couple of centuries
of bad Presidents, bad Congresses,and bad Supreme Courts, what terrible luck. If so, the Constitution was unable to protect itself and was consequently flawed.
Buddy you're on the wrong site.
To be attacking the constitutions principles.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
The Constitution was not a sacred document that
came down from the right hand of God. It replaced a far superior Articles of Confederation
I'm not saying anything Patrick Henry didn't say. If someone wants to bar the point of view of the Anti-Federalists when history has shown them to be correct, go for it.
Not everyone here acts like a small child worshiping a flawed document.
Those who seek the truth must get beyond what we were all told in elementary school.
Hologram of Liberty
"Hologram of Liberty" by Kenneth W. Royce (http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty-Constitutions-Shockin...) gives a pretty good critique of the Constitution imho, and how the influence of certain founders (especially Hamilton) may have allowed for the eventual centralization of government power we live with today.
Our Constitution does not
Propaganda (1928)
by Edward Bernays
Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four. In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.
*******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick
*****
Liberty, like Love, is Tolerant
The Genius is Simply That it Was Written by Free People.
That's probably why so many people have trouble understanding it today.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
"Freedom brings people together." - Ron Paul
Established by "free people" who gained wealth from the Crown
off the backs of slaves (directly or indirectly), and stolen lands from the nearly 15,000,000 American Indians killed over the previous 100 years.
So, yes -- in the above regard the Constitution was written by (and for) "free" people.
WASP Huge Land Owning Men -- Not even "wealthy' Irish could "vote"
It was a Voting and Ruling Class based on Constitutional Democracy (the vote) and not on Constitutional Republicanism -- the latter requiring strict limitations of authority and ZERO voting rights.
A "true" Constitutinal Republic would lead towards some form of Anarchism or Mirco-Scopically small Constitutional Minarchism.
It was based on "propertied-individualism" -- which is a misnomer of Economic-Fascist Proportions.
Even Mises was against the Rothbardian idea of individualism -- for Mises and Myself, Individualism means Consumer-Sovereignty and not Property-Owner-Sovereignty.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Your consumer-sovereignty vs
Your consumer-sovereignty vs property-owner sovereignty is not clear to me. I have never seen anyone but you use these catagories. Perhaps you can explain, as I see no real distinction between Mises and Rothbard on the importance of private property/property rights.
"If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization."
~ Ludwig von Mises
"Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand."
~ Murray Rothbard
marlow
marlow
Marlow: There's a huge difference
The most important distinction in ANY political philosophy is how to protect/treat the individual -- especially for the individualist, hahahaha.
The above statement is not an absolute truism, but it is the most logical one and the easiest to argue for; since, our whole interaction with this world is self-centered. We are not a hive mind.
I mean even our most altruistic Christian architecture, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is very clearly an individualist statement.
Mises vs. Rothbard?
Mises views the individual as the Consumer
Rothbard views the individual in terms of Property Rights
For me this is a simple argument -- what do we spend most of our day doing (universally -- all people) and "that" is the aspect of individualism you want to protect the most.
We "consume" 24 hours per day.
Consumption means = to use or to waste (diminish)
We consume (to add on): air, water, knowledge, resources, nutrients, tools, base inputs (at work), etc
We consume (to waste / diminish): air, water, knowledge, resources, nutrients, tools, base inputs (at work), etc
Therefore Consumer-Individualism must be the only thing protected.
Rothbard wants to protect the Owner-Producer-Propertied individual first and foremost -- which is why almost all of his arguments center around property rights.
The logical outcome to "owner / producer" protectionism is work-rebellion.
Anarcho-Communist see the individual as the Worker
Anarcho-Capitalism sees the producer (propertied individual / corporation) as the individual.
It's a perpetual war -- philosophy.
In a Misesian world: the "worker" and the "producer" are both protected -- because to do their jobs they must "consume." When they go home (they consume) -- Commute (is all consumption) -- etc etc.
This was where Mises and Murray beefed all the time. Professors down at Mises beef over this as well -- there are two camps.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Do not both Rothbardian and
Do not both Rothbardian and Misesian thought view private property, production, and voluntary exchange as the ultimate sources of human civilization?
Did not both believe private property is not only legitimate but essential to a flourishing economy? Thus both believed in a rule of law that upholds property rights.
As long as one's own life and legitimately acquired property are protected by law what problem could you possibly have with whether any given person is deemed a producer or consumer. In fact, unless totally incapacitated almost everyone is both a consumer and a producer. Despite your characterization of Rothbard, his conception of property rights would equally serve to protect both workers and producers; "workers" because they have justly acquired property interests in seeing to it that employment contracts are enforceable and "producers" (do you mean entrepreneurs since workers also produce?) and entrepreneurs as they have justly acquired property interests
You say, "Rothbard wants to protect the Owner-Producer-Propertied individual first and foremost..." I consider that only partially true. As Rothbard considered all rights to be property rights he would view any infringement of anyone's life or justly acquired property to equally entitled to legal protection - whether the interest to be protected has to do with consumption or protection of property. Rothbard would see the protection of consumption to be protection of one's property rights in consumption goods.. And I see no reason to believe Mises would differ. I would appreciate any cite you can provide proving "Mises views the individual as the Consumer", as opposed to being concerned with individual property rights.
marlow
marlow
Marlow: The Rothbard vs Mises "arguments" are well sited
You are correct -- both wanted to protect property rights.
However, Mises protected "property rights" as an act of consumption and not as an act of production -- given that economically speaking the consumer pays all debts (and WE ALL are consumers -- including the worker).
If only the consumer is protected than all people are protected.
If you protect first the property owner (which Rothbard's model illustrates) then the worker, bum, student -- all come last; thus creating perpetual war.
If you study all the arguments that fly back and forth between Anarcho-Communist (Voluntary Communists), Straight Anarchist, and Anarcho-Syndicalist you'll clearly see the impossibility of people EVER uniting over Anarcho-Capitalism (Rothbard's model) which Mises himself was opposed to.
Mises model did not require Gov't Intervention. Rothbard's model would require intervention (and I can prove this if the phrase "property law" does not spell it out enough).
Thanks for giving me a chance to perfect my own debate.
Gunning's Support of Misesian Logic and Consumer Sovereignty:
http://it.stlawu.edu/sdae/aelistpapers/Consumer%20Sovereignt...
Gunning's Critique of Rothbard's critique of Mises:
http://it.stlawu.edu/sdae/aelistpapers/Gunning_Rothbard_on_M...
Use google to ferrit out more articles -- I'm very thouroughly versed in this and would love to educate you on it. Doesn't mean I'm right, just topic-specific research over years-and-years might save you time.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Please accept my apology for
Please accept my apology for this late response but it took a while for me to wade through your recommended article, "Rothbard on Consumer Sovereignty and His Implicit Rejection of Mises’s Economics", by Patrick Gunning, addressing the differences in approach to economics between Mises and Rothbard.
This is not the forum for dissecting Gunning's dense 40 page article. Further, a proper analysis would require more than a single reading. Having said that I am not certain it addresses my concern in this thread which is what politcal structure, if any, is warrented for society.
I say this as Gunnings article, interesting as it is, is an analysis of these two economists approach to economics, not politics. Much of his critique of Rothbard, I believe, rests on Rothbard's ethical approach (the private property rights ideal), which Rothbard relies on for his political positions, whereas Mises Principles of the Harmony of Rightly Understood Interests (PHRUI) does not delve into the issue of rights. As Gunning admits regarding Mises, "The legal right to control the resource in question is not yet certain. Yet if the property is owned,
its exclusive control would benefit consumers, no matter who owned it."
Gunning states without citing a source that "Mises regarded the use of coercion as a requirement for the enforcement and also largely for the
establishment of private property rights and control of fraud. Whereas Rothbard’s view suggests that a viable market economy is possible without coercion, Mises’s view denies the possibility of a viable market
economy without coercion." Other than Mises minarchist support for protective services I'd like to know how Gunning backs up this claim regarding Mises. If he is insisting that each policy issue must be independently weighed againt PHRUI then perhaps coercion is required if such analysis weighs in favor of intervention. But such a conclusion seems wildly inconsistent with Mises own insistence on the desireabilty of an unhampered market. And, is there not an ethical premise behind the use of PHRUI as well. That is, how is it to be determined whether or not an intervention is desireable without an ethic governing desireability?
I also suspect Gunning is unfair towards Rothbard in proclaiming his economics rests on his property rights ethics. Certainly Rothbard does use a property rights analysis, but not exclusively. I would counter that his economic masterwork, "Man, Economy and State", is a strict value free analysis, and that his ethics only come in to its appended "Power and Market". I find it difficult to believe Mises would have provided the hearty endorsement to "Man, Economy and State" that he did if Mises felt Rothbard had rejected his (Mises) methodology.
The upshot of all this, for me, is that both these men in fact agree on policy - that government should not interfere with the economy at all, but for in Mises case, the area of protective services. So, whether or not either focuses on consumer sovereignty or property rights, these differences in economic approach (to the degree Rothbard actually relies solely on property rights, which I question) do not influence their position with respect to the proper function and limits of law - to enforce contracts and protect against invasions of people's person and property.
marlow
marlow
Marlow: Good Work
Mises might have gave Rothbard praise up to a certain point (where their philosophies overlaped), however, they never reconciled over "who" the individual was in a society.
Mises and Rothbard's models were / are Individualist models (in theory).
Therefore determining who the individual is - is tantamount. It's the very root of the feasibility of self-rule.
Mises was a transitionary Minarchist (as is Ron Paul). Consumer Minarchism into Consumer-Individualism. In fact for Ron Paul there's a transition into Consumer-Minarchism (according to the order of cuts he proposed for all Gov't Departments -- which were first which could stay for a longer transition: Soc Sec, Welfare for Women and Children, Border and Costal Water Patrol, Search - Rescue, Bridges, Roads, and Highways).
Rothbard did not want a transition -- his philosophy is a fast bandaid rip that the private markets can handle everything (right now). Though I agree with the latter statement (as an eventuality) the "real" reasons you can't head into a Propertarian-Anarchy (which is what Rothbard call's Anarcho-Capitalism) cold turkey, is un-resolved property disputes (currently in the courts there are millions of claims - literally) and a Rothbardian World there is no consolidation of court powers (no Title Departments).
I know the logical reasons.
#1 All Property Disputes must be settled before you step into a Consumer-Minarchism let alone the absurd reality of what would happen if we stepped into a Rothbardian world.
#2 You must keep the Naval, Army, and Air Force Arsenal out of the hands of the recently booted wealthy bankers or wealthy corporatists. Rothbard says all "protection" (thus weaponry) goes into the private markets. The only people that could afford those weapons are the billionairs. My argument is most Billionairs / Millionairs would lose their shirts in a free-market where the only profit drivers are entrepreneurialism / intrapreneurialism.
I'll end there to encourage debate and set the stone for shorter and shorter arguments, smile.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
very true
very true
----------------------
Free yourself.
Simple
They were the Constitution!
The clarity with which it was written and the thought that.....
went into this document is truly amazing.
The Founders were men inspired by the Almighty, brought together to set aside their differences and construct the foundation of law for this country, should it only be followed.
I was always taught,
checks and balances.
But the executive has become much too powerful.
In part-
I believe the Constitution recognizes
1) each individual as a representational body in consensual government (thereby practically limiting authority over actual personhood)
2) policy as an expression of public ideals by which we are free to either fail or succeed in realizing
One of my favorite aspects
is that it provides for a "rule of law" which prohibits tyranny of the majority from infringing on inalienable rights of individuals, in a basically otherwise democratic system.
Not a perfect system, but a very workable one if the people are vigilant.
Something which our people haven't been for many years, and our system sadly slipped away due to corruption.
The Federalist Papers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
It instituted the concept of
It instituted the concept of limited government. Other constitutions protect rights, but rarely(never?) limit the scope of government.
Ventura 2012
Yes, its done quite a job of
Yes, its done quite a job of limiting the power of the Fed Gov't.
marlow
marlow
It worked better than the
It worked better than the Weimar Republic.
The Constitution is very short and clear, and along with the Federalist Papers, is easy to understand.
If the Constitution isn't being followed, that is the fault of the politicians and the people.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
get some perspective please.
get some perspective please. K Thanks.
Ventura 2012
Also
it was written in such a way as to have control of the coining of money taking that control away from central banks.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Apparently our congress hasn't been following that "goddamed piece of paper".. as Bush kindly stated.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/