Guest Post: Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog

Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?

The Constitution of the United States is an undeniably powerful document.  So powerful in fact, that it took establishment elitists with aspirations of globalized governance over a century to diminish the American people’s connection to it.  It’s been a long time coming, but in the new millennium, there is now indeed a subsection of the masses that not only have no relationship to our founding roots, they actually despise those of us who do!

There are a number of reasons for this dangerous development in our culture:  A public school system that rarely if ever teaches children about the revolution, the founders, constitutional liberty, or the virtues of individualism in general.  A mainstream media apparatus that has regurgitated endless anti-constitutional shlock for decades, attacking any person or group that presents a freedom oriented view.  And a governmental structure that has become so corrupt, so openly criminal, that they ignore all aspects of constitutional law without regard, rarely feeling the need to explain themselves.  As a people, we are surrounded daily by the low droning wash-talk of denigration and disdain for our principled foundations.  The wretched ghosts of collectivism and tyranny mumble in our ears from birth to death.  It’s truly a miracle that every man and woman in this nation has not succumbed to the mind numbing hypnotism…

However, our propaganda soaked environment is not the ONLY cause of our self destructive society; many people are themselves to blame.  Severe character flaws and psychological imbalances have left some open to suggestion, manipulation, and fraud.  Their hatred, though fueled in part by the socialization of the establishment, is still theirs to own.

The brutal ignorance on display in mainstream circles against the liberty-minded needs to be addressed.  In my view, the American public is being conditioned to see us as a convenient “enemy” which they can use to project all their internal grief and woe.  Our country is on the verge of collapse, economically, politically, and philosophically.  Corporatized elements of our government and the financial high priests of the international banking sector are behind this calamity, and of course, they don’t plan to take responsibility.  Who better to demonize as the catalyst for all the pain that is coming than the only people who have the awareness and the means to stand against the catastrophe?    

There is no doubt in my mind that a great conflict is near, between those of us who value liberty and constitutional protections, and those who would destroy them.  This battle is unlikely to be solved with words.  The anti-constitutionalist rhetoric is becoming so ruthless, so malicious, that it can only lead to a hardening of our own hearts, and an equally forceful response.

Most of us have seen all the mainstream magazines with front page headlines calling for the retirement of the Constitution.  Most of us know about the suggestions by media entities and political opportunists (including Joe Biden) for Barack Obama to bypass congress and the Constitution, implementing possible gun restriction, registration, and confiscation through “executive order” like a common dictator.  There is an obviously brash and violent effort amongst political players today to mold our government into a godlike entity.  But, this is not what concerns me most.  What concerns me is the subversive boiling poison that is leaking into our culture at the local level, creating freedom hating zombies.  Take, for instance, the anti-constitutionalist crusade by a New Hampshire representative against the New Hampshire Free State Project:


What causes someone to hate freedom-loving people so much that they would destroy their own liberties just to drive us away?  Is this not cutting off their own nose just to spite OUR face?  Or, do they even see the loss of freedom for themselves as a bad thing?

And how about Marine Corporal Joshua Boston, who after sending a letter to Dianne Feinstein stating he would not comply with unconstitutional gun restrictions, is now receiving death threats because of his membership in the NRA:

What is the source of the hatred towards constitutionalists?  Where does it originate?  Here are just some of the personal triggers and methodologies within the mind of the anti-freedom advocate which I believe have sullied them beyond repair…

The Anti-Constitutionalist Suffers From An Inferiority Complex

I have found in my role as a Liberty Movement analyst and through literally tens of thousands of debates that anti-constitution advocates are, for the most part, of limited intelligence.  These are the average useful idiots who know little of history, politics, economics, etc., but feel the desperate need to appear as though they are experts on everything.  This usually results in constant attempts to show off for anyone who will pay attention, usually with sound-bites they heard on the nightly news coupled with remedial attacks against the character of those who dare to step outside the mainstream. 

The problem is that deep down, they know they are not very bright.  And so, they seek to always travel with the herd on every issue, for if they cannot be smart, they can at least be accepted.  Ironically, if constitutionalism was being pushed by the mainstream, they would automatically change their tune. 

It is probable that they have run into a Liberty Movement proponent (most of whom are well versed in history, politics, and economics) at least once in their lives, went in for an attack, and were utterly destroyed.  Their inferiority exposed, they learn to detest anything associated with constitutionalism.         

The Anti-Constitutionalist Does Not Like The Idea Of A Law He Cannot Use To His Advantage

Not all anti-constitutionalists are dense.  A limited few are very intelligent, but morally bankrupt.  The Constitution is not just a legal document; it is also an emotional and spiritual document.  If one does not have a relationship with his own conscience and the concept of natural law, then he will discover little in the founding ideals of America that he agrees with.  Some people (usually corrupt politicians and judges) see the law as a weapon to be used against their ideological opponents, whereas constitutionalists see the law as a shield to protect us from such despots.  The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are both designed to protect our Absolute Freedoms.  That is, freedoms that are inborn and which no person or government is qualified to give as a gift, or take as if they are a privilege.

Nothing angers those who seek power more than a legal framework which they are not allowed to touch, or shift, or “tweak” to suit their private ambitions.      

Constitutional protections are not meant to be subject to the “buts” and “what ifs” common in the lesser legal world.  They are not open to debate.  Our rights are not subject to the demands of the so-called “majority”.  Our rights are eternal, and unchangeable.  Anti-constitutionalists attempt to work around the absolutes of the document by implementing subversive law backed by flawed logic.  But, a law which destroys previous constitutional rights is not a law which any individual American is required to follow.  Even an amendment that undermines our civil liberties is not legally binding.  The freedoms put forth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are SET IN STONE (and this includes the right to bear arms in common use of the military of our day).  They cannot be undone without destroying the very fabric of the republic.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Hates Those Who Go Against The Tide, Even If The Tide Is Drowning Us All

Some people are predisposed to be followers.  They do not want to take responsibility for their futures or even their own actions.  They do not like questions.  They do not like dilemmas.  They want to be left to wallow in their own private prisons, where they are comfortably enslaved.

I remember participating in an End The Fed rally in Pittsburgh in early 2008 which was, like most activist rallies, meant to expose the uneducated public to ideas they may not have heard before.  I found it interesting that around a quarter of the people who strolled by our picket line automatically sneered, as if by reflex, even though they had probably never heard our position, or even heard of the Fed.  It dawned on me that they were not angered by our political or economic views.  Instead they were angered by the mere fact that we were there.  We were vocal, and defiant, and a disruption to their daily robot-like routine.  They hated us because we were ruining their fantasy of disconnectedness. 

Constitutionalists are predominantly individualists.  We do not cater to collectivist fairy tales.  We do not seek to roll with the tide just for the sake of finding our “place” within the machine.  We do not care about “fitting in” with the mainstream.  This is often confounding and infuriating to those who have labored their whole lives to please “the group”.  They accuse us of being “isolationists” in response.  What they do not comprehend is that illusion and delusion have isolated THEM, while the truth has brought constitutionalists together. 

Constitutionalists Are Not Politically Correct

For the past few decades our society has become engrossed with the idea of “proper language and behavior”.  Of course, their idea of “proper” usually involves ignoring the reality of a thing.  For a Constitutionalist, a spade is a spade, and we tend to call it like we see it.  We don’t bother ourselves with superficial niceties that get in the way of legitimate debate or legitimate change.  We are not “pleasant” and tolerant with those who would kill our freedoms.   We do not pull punches.

We are direct, and sometimes, brutal in our analysis. 

In some parts of the Western world (especially the UK) language has become a game, a game of self censorship and deceit.  This game has made its way to the United States in recent years, and Constitutionalists don’t play.  We know that every overtly collectivist society begins with the fear of open expression.  And so, our blunt honesty rattles those invested in the PC culture.  Their ultimate and ideal revenge would be to see us painted as social malcontents; like people who smoke in public, or wear a mullet…

Constitutionalists Are Passionate In Their Beliefs

A large percentage of men and women in this world have never been truly passionate about anything.  They simply eat, breath, and defecate their way through life, scrounging about the squalor of a broken system for whatever brief moments of comfort they can find.  They have never explored their inner workings or suffered the hardship of individuation.  They have never been forced to seek out an inner strength, a personal treasure, which guides them to a greater purpose.  Everything they think they believe in has been conditioned into them.  Their uniqueness is suppressed, and their characters shallow.  They have never loved an idea, or a principle.

Constitutionalists LOVE liberty and the mechanics of freedom.  We love the values of a sovereign republic and the opportunities that such a system provides when collectivists are removed from the picture.  There is no question or doubt in our minds; we would fight and die to protect the pillars of the Constitution. 

When confronted with this kind of passion, the average person is shocked and sometimes appalled.  The idea of unshakable will is frightening to them.  They are so used to compromising in every aspect of their lives that when they run into an uncompromising man, they reel in horror. 

That which they see as “fanaticism” is instead an excitement, a boundless joy, a fervent desire to protect something universal and precious.  What they see as “extreme”, we see as essential.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Thinks He Knows What’s Best For All Of Us

Most people who seek to deny and destroy constitutional liberties tend to lean towards a collectivist philosophy.  They are usually socialist, or a variation (Marxist, Fascist), and can be professed members of either major political party.  They believe that their vision of a perfect cultural system is the “correct” vision.  They see the Constitution as “archaic” or “outdated”.  They see it as nothing more than an obstacle to progress which must be toppled.

The “perfect world” that the collectivist strives for functions on centralization: the removal of options until there are no choices left for the common man except those which the collectivist wants him to have.  This world usually suffers from limited free speech, limited civic participation, zero tolerance for dissent, near zero privacy from government eyes, a completely disarmed populous, unaccountable leadership, and the encouragement of informer networks and betrayal for profit.  The goal is to intimidate the whole of a nation into dependence on the system, until every necessity from food to self defense is parceled out by the state.  

Collectivists understand one thing very clearly; an America without the Constitution is destined to become a centralized country. 

They will, of course, claim this is a gross exaggeration.  They will claim that this time will be different.  That the collectivist experiments of the past, which produced nothing but destruction and genocide of their own populations, are nothing similar to what they are espousing.  They will pretend as if their vision is new, progressive, and far more practical than the vision of the Founding Fathers.   In the end though, all they are promoting is a system as old as history; the feudal kingdom.  The mercantile oligarchy.  The militarized state.

At the height of their vicious sabotage of the republic, they will demonize our very heritage, claiming that it was a sham.  That we were never able to “live up to our beliefs anyway”.  That we are “hypocrites”, and this somehow negates the reverence we give to the Constitution.  Unfortunately for them, we know better.  We understand that the principles of the Constitution are not something we grasp at all times, but rather, something to which we aspire to, and grow into as our nation matures.  They require patience, and wisdom.  They force us to question our own “brilliance”, and our own egos.  They anchor us, preventing us from being swept away in the storms of fear.

There has never been and there will never be a better method of law and governance than that method which defends the individualism and freedom of the people.  The most fantastic of human accomplishments, in technology as well as in philosophy, spring from the nurturing waters of liberty.  Free minds and hearts create.  They refuse to be contained, and the Constitution gives us license to ensure that they will never be contained, even to the point of revolution. 

To deny constitutionalism, is to endorse oppression.  May we forever rebel against the agents of “progress”.  May we forever give them something to hate.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
F. Bastiat's picture

To answer that, in part, understand "The Socialist Phenomenon", by Igor Shafarevich:

mikla's picture

It is very tempting to abdicate all personal responsibility, and to want to blame someone else when you find that your supper dish is empty (or not as full as you would like).

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

The anti-constitutionalists are on the side of the occupational government in Vichy DC.

The Alarmist's picture

Not sure where it originated, but I got my first taste of it in High School Civics Class.

fourchan's picture

out standing disection of the rot that is the socialist mind.

I am more equal than others's picture

It comes from Blazing Saddles....

'badges? badges?, we dont need no stinkin badges'

Contempt for authority instilled by humor. 

Flakmeister's picture

The line is from "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"....

Lost My Shorts's picture

Does the constitution protect whites only?

I couldn't actually blame a black, or mehican, or muzzie for thinking the constitution was unimportant if not a joke because it never protected their rights.  How do you, as a high school civics teacher, stand in front of a racially mixed audience with a straight face and sing the virtues of the constitution or the (slave-owning) founders?

Maybe if you constitutionalists want to expand the range of support for the constitution, you should make some effort to make sure the constitution works for more people regardless of their wealth, race, or religion.  That might work better than just continuously insulting your fellow citizens.  Make a donation to the ACLU.  (Did I hear gagging?)

perchprism's picture

Hey, cocksucking faggot Marxist, the Constitution never said anything about slavery, and "mehicans" are not Americans.


Blow me now.

Lost My Shorts's picture

Oh gosh, I stand corrected.  By the way, I think you have major issues with your sexuality.  Is that you, Larry Craig?

Karlus's picture

A common tactic of a marxist is to make it about race. No one mentioned race until you did.

Its about freedom, child. The founders in this country freed themselves from ownership from a monarch. A remarkable event.

Washington could have been the American king, but instead with others framed a government that protected freedoms.

You and your kind would seek to ruin that for my children and their's. While I will protect your freedom of speech, i will also eliminate your ability to threaten that freedom. Read into that any way you want.

My brothers and I have no desire to return to servitude, be it Obama or any man.

Arm up and be ready....we are

Lost My Shorts's picture

A common tactic of idiots is to attack a straw man and dodge the actual argument.  I am not a Marxist.  Nothing I wrote is remotely Marxist.  It was just common sense.  One reason the constitution gets no particular enthusiasm from large (brown) sections of the population is that they never fully enjoyed its protections or freedoms.  The ACLU represents an alternate strategy to defend the constitution by making it work for everyone equally.  I am guessing you hate that.  I am guessing you hate most of the American people, because in your own closed mind you have labeled them takers, Marxists, etc. never mind the reality.  Do you really think you are doing any favor to the constitution?  I think people like you, spouting labels and death threats, are a dead albatross hanging on the constitution.

It tells a lot about the evolution of the ZH audience that my reasonable and insult-free post was heavily voted down, and the closet-gay troll with personality still stuck in junior high school was heavily voted up.  Says a lot about the "Freedom" movement too.  (I wouldn't be surprised if the troll was truly a troll, posting juvenile bullshit to discredit "constitutionalists", but still he's heavily voted up.)


jwoop66's picture

Dumbass. How does the Constitution work against minorities?    Does the Constitution need to directly address specific minority groups by name for them to see its value?  If so, fuck 'em.   That is an education problem.  That is caused by propaganda and propaganda alone.   It is a self-defeating philosophy.   If you truly believe this, you are incredibly foolish.

Raymond K Hessel's picture

I think the ACLU, like many progressive NGOs, work towards the opposite of what the name of their organization implies.

I don't think the ACLU is behind the 2nd Amendment.  I don't think the ACLU is interested in fighting tax slavery.  I think the ACLU is about social justice (code word for socialism).  They hate religion.  I don't think we should be so hung up on religion, as a people.  

What about the MERS/robosigning scandal?  They could have helped millions of people with a few lawsuits in California, New York and Illinois.  Instead, they ignore it. By undermining the sham of austerity, they could of liberated so many people from paying down notes and kept their homes.

Instead they help perpetuate the status quo, importance of government over rights, and support social justice schemes. 

Flakmeister's picture

The above might just be the single greatest non-seqitur and followup I have ever seen...

Flakmeister's picture

And where do you think the inspiration for BzSd came from????

WarriorClass's picture

Public schools are prisons for kids where bullies get away with anything and victims are punished, classrooms are turned into laboratories of compulsory leftist social engineering, the more kids hated it—some to the point of homicide.

Abolishing the public-education system has no downside. A few million obese, incompetent, corrupt, vicious teachers and parasitical bureaucrats will finally be fired.

In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower.

But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

The immortal PJ O’Rourke once declared: “Anybody who doesn’t know what’s wrong with America’s educational system never screwed an el-ed major.”

F. Bastiat's picture

It's certainly easier to plunder when it's less burdensome than working. Until plunder is more burdensome than work, expect it to continue.

BoNeSxxx's picture

True story:

I have a website dedicated to calling a Constitutional Convention by the legislatures of the states.  I figure 50 Governors can accomplish more before lunch than CONgress can in a year.

Anyway, one of the first troll strikes I get is: "You all should be tried and shot for Treason"

At least he allowed for trial first -- lol.  You can't make this shit up.  People exercising their first amendment rights in support of an article of the Constitution are now considered treasonous by the unwashed masses.

mikla's picture

The issue would relate to, "who decides the constitution?"

For example, if a few statists merely decide that the government can do whatever it wants, some may see it as an illegitimate "seizing" of the nation.  We had rules, and then your convention changed the rules illegitimately.

A response could be, "but we agreed the rules could be changed" (e.g., we could have a "Constitutional Convention").

The response would be that your "convention" is invalid because you're assuming government can seize authority that fundamentally cannot be seized:  The US is purported to be a nation where the "tyranny of the majority" (e.g., "Mob Rule") is held-in-check.

If your convention is merely to establish "Mob Rule", then it is both illegitimate, and against the current rules, regardless of whether you think you followed the correct process.  The Constitution is merely a written recognition of what was understood:  That people are not required to abide by tyranny, no matter what the rule makers think of themselves.

It might be nice to attempt to "revert" to an earlier version of the Constitution, before people got all the free stuff, and before individuals lost all sovereignty.  However, we now have "mob rule", and it is unlikely any "convention" would result in anything positive.

The Alarmist's picture

If you can't even win the WH and control of the Senate, how would you expect to keep a Constitutional Convention on the right track?  

We would end up with something like the old Soviet Constitution, with all sorts of rights and no practical chance to exercise them.

mikla's picture

Agreed.  A "convention" would likely result in the complete oppression of the individual.

seek's picture

Yes. A convention isn't transparent at all. If we need changes, the normal amendment processor via the states is fine, and far more transparent. With a convention we could lose the entire bill of rights literally overnight.

August's picture

What the US government needs is an asteroid strike.

Ask Paul Krugman, he'll tell you.

DosZap's picture

Unless I have grown daft,38 states could call a Con Con, and elect their OWN delegates.

And 38 Red States could Amend the Const and change all the powers delegated to the Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS.

And it would be a done deal, and there is nothing that could be done by ANY branch to overturn them.

Am I goofy, or has my history of old slipped due to age?.

RockyRacoon's picture

You could be goofy and old, just like me.  But, having a successful Convention and making the changes that would be appropriate would be just more paper hanging.  TPTB don't abide by the laws we already have -- why would a few more laws or Constitutional changes make any difference?  The only good thing I could see coming from a Convention would be the further division of the various and sordid factions which already exist.  And I'm not saying that's a bad thing!  Whatever brings this thing to its explosive conclusion could be a good result.

nmewn's picture

Unfortunately (for us) I think Rockys right on this.

The answer is not more laws or amendments. No one (well, very few anymore) respect the law and what its supposed to stand for or do...from CEO to welfare brood mare...we are surrounded by thieves. 

You cannot convict or even have a reasonable investigation or discussion of criminal activity when the crimes were & are sanctioned by THE LAW in the first place.

Karlus's picture

There are remedies that exisit outside and above that "law."

Government should work for us and fear us....not the other way around.

Raymond K Hessel's picture

Too many Red politicians are really progressives.  It's Welfare or Warfare.  They're called Neo-Cons and they love a strong Presidency when the President is a Republican.

There is no hope for a real positive change towards liberty.  I was skimming Jefferson Mack, linked from another post in ZH. I'm reposting so click here if you want to read it.

If Government feared us, would we be on this site?  Sometimes I think there's ten of us and 4 are Cass Sunstein-employed trolls.

Miles Kendig's picture

And that's the name of that tune

dirtbagger's picture

And us that live in the Donor states can quit subsidizing the Red states and with drink in hand watch them go bankrupt.

nmewn's picture

The so-called donor states will starve to death thinking they are rich.

TrulyBelieving's picture

Agree with all you folks that see a great change of some kind is needed.  What about succession? It could be easily argued that what we have in DC is completely and utterly corrupt. No solution will come from there, only more problems. You don't 'pour new wine into old wineskins.' 

Raymond K Hessel's picture

I agree with change being needed.  

I disagree that anyone will do anything about it.

I'm beginning to think the stories of the Founding Fathers are complete and utter propaganda.

DaddyO's picture


When we quit trying to rationalize the legislation of morality and realize we have already been given the framework for a civil, free and liberty minded society, all that will be required for revival is revolution of the mind.

Unfortunately, the education system, local and state governments and the federal government have been co-opted by the anti-constitutioalists and they're not going to give it back without a fist fight!!


BoNeSxxx's picture

Thoughtful response and quite true in some respects.

I think that a couple things need clarity.  For one, the amendment process in Article 5 as it pertains to the states I think was put there to do exactly the opposite of what you say.  It wasn't put there as a back door entry to 'mob rule' nor is that how I would envision it being used.  To the contrary, I think it was put there as a protective measure that the states would not be streamrolled by a tyrannical and out of control federal government.  This was the serious concern of the day with respect to ratification (Jefferson and Madison in particular but also Frankin and others).  

My hope would be that the states could reclaim SOME of their power, neuter the federal government's (in some areas), perhaps clarify that the Bill of Rights are just that RIGHTS (and not subject to judicial interpretation), etc.  If nothing else, the states could at least band together and end the absurd practice of unfunded federal mandates.

I actually had the occasion to discuss this with G Gordon Liddy once back in my Hill days... he thought the idea was brilliant and scary at the same time.

I see your point that it COULD be dangerous and I am not deluded enough to believe that it could happen easily.  It will be interesting to see who fights it the hardest... Any guesses?

mikla's picture

I hear the "pro-Federalist" and "anti-Federalist" consider the Constitutional Convention as a way to achieve his goal.  Unfortunately, IMHO it can only possibly result in a disempowering of the individual (and the States).

<snip, Article 5>, I think it was put there as a protective measure that the states would not be streamrolled by a tyrannical and out of control federal government. <snip>, 

My hope would be that the states could reclaim SOME of their power, neuter the federal government's (in some areas), perhaps clarify that the Bill of Rights are just that RIGHTS (and not subject to judicial interpretation), etc.  If nothing else, the states could at least band together and end the absurd practice of unfunded federal mandates.

IMHO, that can't happen.

First, the States already have that authority and power.  They don't acknowledge it now, and won't at the convention.  Rather, they would explicitly abdicate their responsibilities.

Second, the Bill of Rights exists, with established understanding of he "limited powers" of the Federal Government.  What you *want*, already *exists*.  The only thing that can happen is the weaking of individual and State powers (expansion of Federal power).  This is because the Federal government is already way-out-of-bounds regarding its authority, but would *love* to claim new explicit authority.

Third, the States will not, and cannot "band together".  The current system is that the Federal Government prints money to "buy-off" the States.  Because the States cannot print money, they are willing participants of this "free largesse" that they could not get through any other means.

In short:  The Nation was founded by Great Men and inherited by Less Great Men that do not understand their role (and I don't think they care), and use their position to usurp for personal gain.  (They have been, "bought-off".)

I see your point that it COULD be dangerous and I am not deluded enough to believe that it could happen easily.  It will be interesting to see who fights it the hardest... Any guesses?

Yes.  It would be mob-rule, and they will be mystified when after, "following the process" a great number of "citizens" will cry "foul" and deny legitimacy to the results.

BoNeSxxx's picture

I get it now... it's not so much that you think it can't be done... it's that you have become cynical beyond repair.  I am right there with you... but thinking that the states could rise up and re-affirm their power allows me to sleep at night.  Thanks for leading me back to drinking :-)

Seriously, unless I am misreading Article V, the state legislatures have to authoirize the Con Con.  I think that fact alone would keep it from becomming mob rule.  I think it would be limited to 3-4 key provisions only.  Just MHO. Bottom line, it's never been done so there would be legal challenges regarding the process to be sure.

Also, from a romantic point of view, it seems somehow poetic that the bankster fuckshites would have to buy off the legislatures of all 50 states to keep their asses out of the line of fire.  No doubt they would do it but it would cause them some serious chafing...

mikla's picture


I'm merely describing how the system works.  I am quite positive (look forward with optimism) regarding the future.  However, we are experiencing a "step-function" change, and that is uncomfortable.

I get it now... it's not so much that you think it can't be done... it's that you have become cynical beyond repair.  I am right there with you... but thinking that the states could rise up and re-affirm their power allows me to sleep at night.  Thanks for leading me back to drinking :-)

The states *can* rise up.  However, the Convention will give them "zero" ammunition.  They only need to find their balls.  Or, absent that, the checks will stop coming from the Feds, and the States will, "do the right thing" for their people because they will be forced to do so (e.g., manage the pragmatic aspects of what their citizens need after failure in Fed-printing).

Seriously, unless I am misreading Article V, the state legislatures have to authoirize the Con Con.  I think that fact alone would keep it from becomming mob rule.  I think it would be limited to 3-4 key provisions only.  Just MHO. Bottom line, it's never been done so there would be legal challenges regarding the process to be sure.

The state legislatures will rubber-stamp the Feds until the Feds stop sending checks.  (The states are "bought off".)  This is how the system works today, and why all government officials willingly perpetrate the fraud (illegal and unconstitutional behavior).

Also, from a romantic point of view, it seems somehow poetic that the bankster fuckshites would have to buy off the legislatures of all 50 states to keep their asses out of the line of fire.  No doubt they would do it but it would cause them some serious chafing...

They print money for free.  It will cost them nothing.  The more they print, the more power they have.  This exercise will make them stronger than ever.

Cathartes Aura's picture

upvoting your above posts just doesn't satisfy my desire to thank you for them, mikla.

this exchange with BoNeSxxx has provoked a great face-to-face discussion over *here* at my place, and that's the real value in hanging out at the 'Hedge, getting people to talk about what is happening before our eyes. . .

best to you both!

Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

States are allowed to make gold and silver coins a tender in payments of debt. They just aren't allowed to print or issue their own paper currency.

Utah I think is the only state that has a law on the books allowing for gold and silver eagles among other coins issued by the mint to be used as a form of payment. My understanding is by doing this they treat them as U.S. dollars and as such are not subject to capitol gains taxes.

Frankly I only see this whole mess playing out in one of 2 ways. It is a race to the bottom with currency collapse as the hare and a masochistic populace as the turtle. We are going to find out just how masochistic the populace is before this whole thing plays out.

XitSam's picture

Have you noticed that the Constitution says nothing about how delegates to a Convention are selected? Read Article 5 carefully, and think how the enemy could twist the meaning.  For example, 2/3 state legislatures could call the Convention, yet nothing about the Convention delegates. You may say, "Well, they are appointed by the legislature obviously." Not so.  Maybe each constituency, 'the poor', SEIU, AFSCME, AFLCIO, etc send delegates. The Constitution is silent on this matter. 

Now read the part about ratification. By the Legislatures OR by conventions in the several States. Who are the delegates to State conventions? Again the Constitution is silent.  Do you want a state ratification convention run by the state Democrat Party machine?

To your point of limition to 3-4 provisions. Absolutely not. Once the convention is running they will propose any amendment they want. Because once the new constitution is ratified (by coordinated state conventions, not the legislatures) it is the law. The limits you wanted are declared invalid.

Do not think Article 5 will be interpreted the way you think it should. A Constitutional Convention is the worst idea imaginable. I say no, a thousand times NO! 

Cathartes Aura's picture

I'll agree with you, and up it a notch - MANY things need clarity at this stage.

My hope would be that the states could reclaim SOME of their power, neuter the federal government's (in some areas), perhaps clarify that the Bill of Rights are just that RIGHTS (and not subject to judicial interpretation), etc.

I like this as a baseline - clarify exactly what the Bill of RIGHTS is, who is included, who is excluded and why.  in fact that would be an excellent place to start for all the questionable rules and laws held over people.

as usual, Brandon's heavy on the lofty rhetoric, virtually every paragraph is loaded with "liberty, liberty-minded, Libertarians" all positioned against anyone who "isn't" - I'd like some baseline definitions of exactly what "liberty" is defined as, and who are these capital L Libertarians, what exactly do they stand for, and who is excluded from their ranks.  I've seen many different Libertarian groups, with differing rules, so I'd like to know who I'm dealing with.  I would hope others do too?

it's not enough to just nod to popular memes folks, everything is being questioned now - and that's HEALTHY in my opinion - hopefully those being questioned will step up with some answers, and in doing so, inspire a bit more confidence going forward.

words are not enough now.



tip e. canoe's picture

as someone who once thought that an A5 convention would be the eye through the needle, i understand from where you're coming.    however, upon really considering it in detail, there were a few points that made me believe otherwise:

1) all of the states are dependent on federal money for their survival as governmental entities, thus by calling for a convention in the hopes of limiting federal power, they would be biting the hand that fed them. 

2) Article V is extremely vague in its verbiage (intentionally so?) of how a convention can be called and, more importantly, the procedures by which it would go down if and when it were ever to be called (including the selection of delegates).   obviously, this vagueness is to the distinct advantage of those who hold the reins of power.

3) the state legislatures, by & large, are as corrupted and corruptible as the federal.

some thoughts to consider before putting all your eggs in one basket.


BoNeSxxx's picture

+1 see above.  You read my mind.

Great discussion though I think.

tip e. canoe's picture

indeed, thanks for bringing it up.   too bad it's not being had in civics classes and rotary clubs across the land.  back to drinking ;~)

fyi, John Michael Greer wrote a piece of spec fiction on the end of the Empire that brings in A5 as a plot device.   it's pretty good reading.

goldfish1's picture

That where the second amendment fits in nicely.

Barring that, that's where citizen's ownership of guns fits in nicely.

Raymond K Hessel's picture

I know it's not cool to say, but the 2A was meant to keep citizens armed so we'd have the means to kills soldiers (and several decades later, cops).  That's it.  It's designed for shooting agents of a government gone bad.  

Not turkeys. Not Indians. Not deer.  

Members of government who work to oppress us.  

But no one will fight.  Why fight alone?  Why die alone?  Why die with your friends like those kids did on the barricades in Paris?

No one cares.

Clark Bent's picture

You start out with a nation, the finest nation ever conceived in human experience, and dedicated to the radical notion that mankind is capable of individual liberty, and indeed deserves it. Governments are either utilitarian servants or illegitimate tyrants. Surely if we are to make pretense to being more than beasts, or even a very special type of beast that can conform his conduct to and honorable existence, the nation bequeathed to us is irreplaceable, and we should perish rather than permit it to disappear. Indeed as stewards to the promise of government by the people, for the people and of the people we are obligated to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to preserve it to posterity. We have no other choice if we would call ourselves men. 

The vermin do not understand this, they are "moderns." They suppose that they accidentally "evolved" to equality of character and worth with absolutely no requirement for their own input. They insist that they are as good as anyone, though their moral worth is negative. They despise those who would be men because it exposes the bitter bargain they have made; to ape humanity in exchange for mindless degradation. They adopt the furious hatred of their father, Lucifer. In their nihilistic rage against their own degraded character, they will viciously attack anything that demonstrates their putrid state by comparison. They hate work, they hate productivity, they despise virtue, commitment, responsibility, wisdom, courage. They replace love with their vile sexual paractices and they devour themselves and everyone that comes into their reach. They. Are. Evil.