This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Constitution Failed
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via Mises Economic blog,
If you’re still wondering if the US Constitution of 1787 failed to protect liberty, then just look around you. That scrap of parchment is an obvious failure. The US government is the hugest government in the world and meddles in the lives of its citizens (and people worldwide) in every way imaginable. The government accepts no limits on its power whatsoever. The president rules by decree.
This isn’t done under some new constitution. This is all done under the 1787 one. Lots of liberty activists argue that the Supreme Court is just reading the document incorrectly, but one simply cannot deny that virtually everyone in government, as well as most of the general population, is perfectly fine with most of what government does today, and thinks it’s constitutional. If one can plausibly claim that the constitution authorizes most of what the US government does today, then the document’s language is obviously feeble, ineffective, and useless for the purposes of preserving liberty.
Even among those “constitutionalist” types, many of whom are militarists, you’ll find plenty of support for unconstitutional measures such as a standing army, drug prohibition, and other government programs beloved by conservatives, but which are obviously not authorized by the enumerated powers of the constitution.
Rothbard had this figured out a long time ago:
From any libertarian, or even conservative, point of view, it has failed and failed abysmally; for let us never forget that every one of the despotic incursions on man’s rights in this century, before, during and after the New Deal, have received the official stamp of Constitutional blessing.
At a recent meeting of Students for Liberty, John Stossel spoke to some students of Rothbard:
Kelly Kidwell, a sophomore from Tulane University, said, “Regardless of what its intent was, we still have the (big) government that we have now — so the Constitution has either provided for that government, or failed to prevent it.”
Stossel went on:
That’s an argument that libertarian economist Murray Rothbard used to make. He took the pessimistic view that the Constitution’s “limited government” was an experiment that had already failed, since 200 years later, government was barely limited at all. He concluded that libertarians should be not just constitutionalists, but anarchists — get rid of government completely.
That idea sounds extreme to me, and to some libertarians at the conference — not to mention the few pro-big-government speakers, like movie director Oliver Stone. But I’m happy that students ask those sorts of questions rather than wondering which regulations to pass, what to tax and whom to censor for “insensitive” speech.
UPDATE: A reader points out this statement from 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.
»
- 23566 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You're suggesting that those who have the most interest in maintaining the political landscape dissolve the system they manipulate and gain from so well -- that is if you are suggesting legal means of doing so. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting a forced elimination of political parties, by the governed/oppressed, that's a whole 'nother matter....
I suggest selecting a government the same way a court selects a jury to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused. Select a pool of eligible candidates based on some criteria, then hold a lottery for positions. Consider it public service. It couldn't get any worse than it is now.
Criteria would include passing drug and psychological tests.
We might randomly get a majority of which ideology?
We would all be prisoners of fate,
or a rigged jury pool.
You're funny. You're already a victim of fate. God can call you home any time he wants.
Replacing one constitution with another is not the solution, but that will not stop some from proposing it. You do so at your own risk.
Oliver Jones
At the beginning we were more alike in our thinking. Now we're not due to being 238 years older as a country and with "the melting pot". Diverse candles melted together make a large mess of wax. "Enrich?" For some it may seem that way but the ideals of the beginnings are sacrificed.
"My personal feeling is that this his how any further improvement of the world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and that's all. God, I don't want to have any more enthusiasm for big programs full of social planning for big masses of people that leave individual Quality out. These can be left alone for a while. There's a place for them but they've got to be built on a foundation of Quality wihtin the individuals involved. We've had that individual Quality in the past, exploited it as a natural resource without knowing it, and now it's just about depleted. Everyone's just about out of gumption. And I thnk it's about time a return to the rebuilding of this American resourse - individual worth. There are political reactionaries who've been saying something close to this for years. I' not one of the, but to the extent they're talking about real individual worth and not just and excuse for giving more moeny to the rich, they're right. We do need a return to individual integrity, self-reliance and old-fashioned gumption."
Robert M. Pirisg - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Nm
No political system or document is a substitute for a rational population.
The US Constitution was a product of the most rational period in human history, the 18th Century Enlightenment and its philosophical legacy: reason and individual rights. As the influence of that philosophy has waned, the influence of the Constitution has waned.
The collapses we see around us are collapses of the religious and socialistic substitutes that have emerged in the place of Enlightenment ideas.
Not failures of the Constitution.
One doesn't blame the body for being murdered.
Did you really believe a piece of paper could prevent greed and fear to play their natural role ?
Similarly, I have proven that diets don't work. I have a diet plan to eat green vegetables and fruit along with lean meat and plenty of water and exercise.
And yet, despite watching lots of TV while eating chips and ice cream, and even going so far as to eat lunch at Burger King, I have not lost a thing. In fact, I have grown in size!
Thus proving my diet plan has failed. Damn these "doctors" and their nutrition hocus-pocus.
You are correct. The plan is solid. The problem is the weaknesses of the people we elect and the people who elect them--a perfect display of the power of the path of least resistance.
A most excellent analogy. Something like a family having a budget for spending and saving. The whole of the family has to participate and act with regard to the budget particulars for it to work. One errant black sheep can foul up the plan. To expand the example: Add a couple thousand typical politicians who can exercise their "craft" in the Constitutional interpretation and you have the formula for disaster. Welcome to the asylum.
Remember, the "Constitution" was written to fix the "Articles of the Confederation". Supposedly, the Articles weren't working. Well, turns out the Articles "were" working and that was a problem ... to the power brokers at least.
Quite right. That's why the whole thing had to be drafted in secret, by delegates who were authorized only to amend the Articles, not to replace them.
Violation of trust and abuse of power were the original sins which accompanied the constitution's ill-begotten birth.
One of my biggest concerns about the NSA spying on Americans how much was being spent, because if we are spending a lot of money on this consider it a big red flag. It recently came out thanks to information leaked by Edward Snowden that the "black budget" last year was a massive 52 billion dollars.
This is the money used in "secret" spy operations, and it is enough to send shivers down the back of those that have read about the totalitarian society of Oceania described in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In Orwell's novel, all citizens of Oceania are monitored by cameras and are fed fabricated news stories by the government. The article below delves deeper into this subjct,
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-we-creating-orwellian-society...
Orwell's novel has been popular for one main reason, it has the truth on its side.
One of the most spine-tingling photos I've seen:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bf4xv1kCAAAlyd_.jpg
www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/chp1_p3.html
Scumbag Federists won.
Weekend reading pursuant to the topic at hand:
Gary North, Conspiracy in Philidelphia
http://garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf
Mencius Moldbug, The Iron Polygon
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/iron-polygon-power-...
Everyone please, it is a process of human nature.
There are those who will keep the light. Show others how to respect themselves and their neighbors. That is you.
Americans will learn soon about the evil their government has produced when they can't find food or shelter. Be there for them.
Arm yourselves for your own protection. It's going to fail soon.
So mote it be.
Evil Government aided and produced by Freemasonry.
Most of the Founders were Freemasons.
Freemasonry has corrupted the Government almost since the very beginning,
and continued for two centuries.
Fortunately now, Freemasonry is in terminal decline.
So mote it be.
Don't let your blindness of reality form the misunderstandings of fact.
The founding fathers had knowledge of human nature. They knew just as you and I; One day people would manipulate, lie, and mislead. It is those that spread lies through fear of the unknown that are at risk.
Concepts that Freemasons are evil are completely mistaken. Agreed, some have done things that can not be understood; nor accepted.
The Bill of Rights gives you the right of a free human being. It is not them to blame. It is ourselves for allowing the people with money to once again tell us we are not our own kings.
Imagine, the last real freemasonic president was eisenhower; He warned us about the monster of human corruption (military industrial state) could not be controlled by a little boy and his family. He apologized that he could not have done more to end the madness that was about to come. He tried to warn the American people and Kennedy was shot.
It is not the Freemasons you should fear. They are patient, loving, people just like you, I hope. It is the fuking Rockefellers and Rothschilds you should worry about. Arm yourselves like the Freemasons gave you the right.
Don't spread bullshit on a nice piece of bread; you can't eat it that way.
Freemasons as individuals may be good or evil.
Freemasonry as a system may have been initiated with good intentions,
and perhaps even with some idealism for the good of society,
at least idealism by some of the Freemasons,
but the system sowed the seeds of its own corruption.
I have read many books and "exposures" of the history of Freemasonry.
Corruption in Freemasonry promoted corruption in Government.
Same problem of how to reform any system that is corrupted, whether it be the Church, or Freemasonry, or the Government.
Various conspiracy theories about Freemasonry, and I have read many of those history theories, offer different theories about who or what is at the top of the pyramid.
I don't know which conspiracy theory is correct,
but one theory says it was the Roth-schilds that corrupted Freemasonry.
A few JFK historians blame some Freemasons as being at the corrupt core of the JFK assassination conspiracy.
Including first degree Freemason Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Was it 32nd or 33rd degree Freemason Harry Truman who gave us the corrupt CIA ?
Some historians describe the criminal Mafia as the offspring of Freemasonry.
Freemasons fill the corrupt British Government even more than in their Masonic colony, the US,
the UK evidently still stuck in their feudal system, less than democratic government.
Well, all you have to do is look at the Mormons as an example.
The base of the religion is a lie; ideals of truth and self respect, all of which, originating concepts that were taken from symbolic concepts through time and memorial. Mr. Smith was himself a mason, until, rightfully so, he had his throat cut from ear to ear - it was not a general mob. He took tools used for the growth of man and made a religion.
Your theories of fear are based on fear. What I say above is an example of how humans take truth and turn it into a lie through fear.
Again, it is not freemasons you need to worry about, create, feed, or read theories in regards to; it is the powers that are in man that allow you to be manipulated.
We are in this mess because we did not stand by our ground. If it were not for freemasons, you probably wouldn't even have that gun.
Arm yourselves. Help others with kindness, food, and dignity. When it fails, know no self respecting American Military man or woman will do what they did in Ukraine. The orders will not come from the top; Fuk the war pigs. It will come from the people, willing to change and create a new.
Maybe you should read about the symbolism of this bird, the bennu.
Joseph Smith the Mormon prophet is an interesting example, considering that more than one of the original leaders of Mormonism were Freemasons, and that some Masonic ceremonies were incorporated into secret Mormon ceremonies.
So there is Christian myth, and Freemasonry myth, and Mormon myth, jumbled together.
But Mormonism, as splinter group separated from Christianity, was founded upon a lie created by Joseph Smith, and corrupted by polygamy, until Mormon polygamy was mostly abandoned under pressure from a Christianity based government.
But now the perversion of US law seeks the destruction of current Christianity based religious laws and the establishment of polygamy, as part of the New World Order destruction of Christianity.
The New World Order promoted by Jews and Freemasons.
It seems to me that most current Mormons are good people, even if somewhat Masonic, although many religious Christians consider Mormonism to be a cult and a distortion of Christianity.
Joseph Smith was killed in a dispute with local government authorities, presumably as reported, by gunshots while a prisoner in jail.
If his throat was cut from ear to ear, I presume by Freemasons as symbolic retribution according to Masonic oath, because Joseph Smith broke his oath of Masonic secrecy.
Similar to Mafia retribution for breaking Mafia oaths.
And where do you think the mofioso stole their methods and ideals. Oh yes, hitler too. And yes, marching juice and Masonic initiation rituals were used. So blame the masons for everything.
And to top it off, the illuminati. Wait, they.. We're just a bunch of scientists wanting the freedom of speech...
The fight is much deeper than you think it is my friend.
Don't listen to the hype.
Our average citizen today does not have the moral conviction that the average American had 100 (or 200) years ago. Then, the Christian doctrine was a much larger part of the morality definition than it is today. America is becoming a Godless nation, and independent of the value of this shift, the impact on the definition of morality is outsized. Without strong moral conviction, a number of actions become much more difficult, including the overthrow of tyranny. Looking to the future, I would like to see a group of similarly-minded Americans with moral conviction start a new nation that more faithfully adheres to the same values which this US Constitution was meant to embody, embrace, and protect.
Truer words cannot be spoken as long as Christianity is understood in the way that the first Christians understood it and not in the twisted ways that recent leaders have embraced it and strangled it.
"Truer words cannot be spoken" should be enough to make any student of history nervous.
And for the record, those "first Christians" and those "recent Christians" obviously don't include the two millennia of Christians "in between."
From centuries of "just war theory", the endorsement of slavery, colonialism, the Inquisition, witch trials, the Crusades, war and persecutions between its own sects, or simply the outright use of Christianity to justify violence to others...
Not to mention Christianity's unbroken record of stimulating little in scientific achievement (quite the opposite), or its complete failure to address war, genocide, slavery, prejudice, overpopulation, and environmental disasters.
If problems such as these are to be solved it will have to done as it has been done in the past... Despite Christianity.
Christianity is like the Government.
Evil leaders with control over good people.
"Morallity" has been pared down to what is legal. Of course, the two are not the same.
i never wanted anything to do with your "god". the shit was crammed down my throat like the rest of the populous.
whats everyone fighting about? fractured religious sects. my god can beat up your god.
People on this website are fighting against Government growth and intrusions into Liberties.
And as for your rejection of God and the consequential morality...well that is okay with me.
Personally I will choose the Kingdom of God but you are free to serve the Animal Kingdom if you so shall choose.
Of course the only Law of the Animal Kingdom is "Survival of the Fittest". And since the Elitists are more fit then you can expect no remorse or sympathy from them when they crush the life out of you.
After all...it is just the Animal Kingdom and Humans are just animals...right?
And the elite are smarter than you because they understood that they needed to collect wealth for their survival at any cost. You did not thus you are WEAK MINDED...WEAK...UNFIT.
Those are just the consequences of living in the Animal Kingdom. It is, after all, the Natural Order.
So what do you expect?
Enjoy your enslavement.
oh, so only godlike persons are moral. your statement seems to suggest the absence of religion is an absolute absence of morals. i guess you are ignoring all the corruption over the past few decades in the church.
im short-circuiting and cant formulate an intelligent response.
Glad to see these comments.
Provocative and inane title. The Constitution provides rules. no more or less. It established a limited government of enumerated powers, and ever since, politicians of all persuasions, and activist judges on both sides of any issue have played fast and loose with language to get around barriers.
Read the first amendment - if you don't know the precise language, take a second and read it. Then some rainy day read all about the Citizens United case.
Does the 1st Amendment allow the government to fine or jail people for making a political documentary?
What "failed" was the idea that words have meanings. If the Congress can pass a law like that at issue in Citizens, then the 1st Amendment simply has no meaning. And it was a stupid law ideologically as well.
The Crusades did not comport with the sermon on the mount. The 10 commandments has commanded virtually no one.
Documents don't fail. People do.
" If one can plausibly claim that the constitution authorizes most of what the US government does today, then the document’s language is obviously feeble, ineffective, and useless for the purposes of preserving liberty."
See example above - no, it can not be plausibly claimed, but it is implausibly claimed. Most people have not read the Constitution - their opinion on what is and isn't is irrelevant. Rothbard commits a category mistake in assigning agency to what amounts to a concept - an agreement between The People, and the Government, whose legitimacy hinges, absolutely, on the Will and Consent of the government, as mediated by said agreement.
A document's words do not define themselves. A concept can not fail. But a government can break a contract.
Anarchists are idealists to the point of abject stupidity. Anarchism is the swiftest road to unadulterated fascism. It is a philosophy of theory in which an idealized society has no flaws, no ambiguity, and no violence, theft, or dishonesty. Every theoretical answer to every real problem depends, in turn, on a theoretical person who will behave as the anarchist thinks they should. Violence and greed would impose a state whether they wanted it or not, and one in which entropy would burn like a match dropped on a dry forest floor.
When lawyers and judges rob words of their meaning, when "progressives" shreik that the 1st Amendment provides for jail terms for speech and "conservatives" shreik that it commends the union of government and Scripture, it is not the Constitution which fails, but people's honesty.
Indeed, while not perfect, by any means, most of our problems stem from failing to abide by the Constitution. Calls to toss it aside is a case of the poor workman - the poor citizen - blaming his tools.
I like alot of what you say, but I disagree with the anarchist definition. I think anarchist are usually fed up and hungry, not idealists. They are the beginnings of revolution that is necessary for them to get out of poverty in a system that has become dichomitised between the very wealthy and the very poor; when working hard and smart is not enough anymore because of crony elitism.
Anarchism is idealist folly. The problem with anarchocapitalism, which I have previously pointed out, is that it does not deal with any reality.
Humans are Herd Animals which are Genetically Programmed to follow an Alpha Male.
Most will willingly choose enslavement. It is rather evidential because we are where we are at today. The Masses are satiated. As long as they are fed they will not revolt against their masters. It has been this way for Thousands of Years. IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE asit is ENCODED into the collective DNA.
Humans begin to evade RESPONSIBILITY at a very early age. When someone else is making the decisions it is far too easy to place the blame upon those when things don't turn out.
Sorry. People choose enslavement. Awareness will not make any more apt to reject the choice. It is safer to travel with the Herd. It improves the odds of survival after all.
Anarchism is an ideal. But idealism and realism seldom meet.
THERE ARE NO POLITICAL SOLUTIONS.
You had best wake up to that fact because the elite plan to harvest you.
I guess its all in definitions and semanticcs. I doin't agree with your defiinition of anarchism. Words are meaningless, action speaks volumes. Its what you do that makes you free
Colective conscous change is a form of group thought anrachy. This is the way things begin.
Harvest?Is it just me? I imagine some will be immune like...the elitette
Let's ask Dinesh D'Sousa or the guy who made the video Hillary blamed for the spontaneous Benghazi attack on 9-11 that the military called coordinated and planned within 15 minutes, to the White House.
+1
Well said Johnny C...
We are a band of brothers
And native to the soil,
Fighting for the property
We gained by honest toil;
And when our rights were threatened,
The cry rose near and far--
"Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag
That bears a single star!"
As long as the Union
Was faithful to her trust,
Like friends and like brothers
Both kind were we and just;
But now, when Federal treachery
Attempts our rights to mar,
We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag
That bears a single star.
The American people seem to have, as a class, become inured to the rampant corruption and legalized bribery that now runs the country under the name of "lobbying." I might propose a solution that certain Italian city-states used in the Medieval period - appointment of representatives by lottery, rather than by election. I don't see any other way of permanently preventing the ensconcement of sycophantic sociopaths to a life of congressional sinecure such as we have now.
I don't have time to give this bullshit article the proper rebuttal it deserves. I don't even think this guy deserves to have such a weak and ill-thought out piece of garbage like this posted on ZeroHedge. WTF is that all about? It's totally ridiculous. But I'll just quickly say I completely disagree with this guy and his entire premise about the Consitution having "failed". We all know the human factor that has put us in this position after so many years and most of it is because of ignorance, greed, and treason.
This guy seems to conveniently dismiss everything in just a few paragraphs of generalizing and summing up all our problems because it's the Constitution's fault? Give me a fucking break.
So, okay A-hole, why don't you put your bullshit where your mouth is and go ahead and call up Mark Levin on air some night and try to debate your thesis with him about how the Constitution is a failure.
I'd love to hear him rip you to shreds over that topic and give you the intellectual and Constitutional lesson you deserve, because clearly you're either completely ignorant or a subversive traitor of some kind who is trying to corrupt the idea of freedom, liberty, and the Constitution.
And now that I'm just plain pissed off after writing this much I'll also just tell you to fuck off and if you don't like it then move to North Korea, douche bag.
Its obvious that certain aspects of the constitution have been usurped by the words "in the name of national security.
One question for you. Do you think Snowden should be prosecuted? Just trying to have areasonable discussion.
No, I don't believe he should be prosecuted for what he came out with. He didn't do anything wrong, and he really didn't expose anything that most of us who have been awake for quite a while now didn't already know about.
If all this shit keeps up, one day the internet is going to be shut down or so severly constricted and restricted that people like Snowden will never have the same impact to wake others up ever again.
There have been plenty of other whistleblowers in the past before the proliferation of the internet, and they weren't as effective because the government and media squashed them.
That can't happen anymore, which is why Snowden's revelations, while being widely known already for years, were so much more effective world-wide.
It's obvious that the powers that be were infuriated by his success and they immediately went to work even harder at shutting down the freedom of the internet. They can't refute the truth, and it's been comical to watch them lie and feably attempt to dance around these revelations and explain away their criminal acts as somehow being necessary for our protection.
But rest assured they will never stop their encroachment on our freedom and liberty.
What the dumbshit who wrote this article seems to fail to realize is that it's because of the Constitution that we've even made it this far without massive failure and another civil war. Or WWIII or who knows what other catastrophe.
The Constitution is not the cause of our problems...it's the solution, and it is what will save us if we as a Constitutional Republic can go back to it's original text and intent without the treasonous amendments added in the 20th century and the constant barage of tweaks and case-law that have been built around the Constitution that have been created in order to subvert it over the last 150 years.
Wipe out all that bullshit and go back to the original intent and STICK TO IT, and then we'll be back on track. Until it's slowly eroded and suberverted again over a length of time...then the process once again must be reversed if at all possible. That's the cyclical nature of fighting for freedom on this planet, and the Constitution up to this brief moment in time is the best thing we've got going as long as we stick to it and don't abandon it.
Okay, I see where your coming from.
I didn't look at this article as being againt the constitution in a literal sense; more like trying to incite the reader to be pissed off about the interpretations of the constituion being made so broad that it allows those seeking more power to bend the law, like the patriot act. Are they going to make that an amendment? I thought it was supposed to be temporary.
Tyranny is never temporary.
Those laws were written and ready to put in place specifically due to something like 9/11 happening. Many would say 9/11 was created in order to put laws like the so-called "Patriot" Act in place.
I would be one of those many who believe that because it's well documented now due to FOIA and proliferation of the internet that that was exactly what criminal elements within the government conspired to do in order to create more tyrannical laws in this country and to take us in the direction of a new world order.
9/11 enabled The "Patriot" Act which then spawned futher militarization of law enforcement, regional wars around the world, the NDAA, etc., etc....it goes on and on and on....never stops...always grinding away at the Constitution and our freedom and liberties.
Tyranny is never temporary...and all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
I have read most of the comments in this post, however, people don't want to get down to the root of the problems that the Constitution did fail...why? It was able to be changed under our system of law.....if we went back to the original Constitution do you think would would be experiencing these problems today? Please comment with your explanations why/why not? This is very interesting indeed (shows what the citizens of the country really think thus helping to repair or build a new system in the future that can't be changed/modified)......
Jerry, see Vidar's comment
Far more has been usurped in the name of regulating interstate commerce, which now means "all commerce anywhere(back as far as FDR) PLUS non commerce too if we call the penalty for failure to engage in commerce a tax.
There's an amendment that lets congress tax you individually and thanks to Roberts et al they can coerce you to do anything that way, and enforce it with extremely intrusive, guilty till proven innocent processes of the IRS with all attendant power to freeze ands seize assets and persons and deprive persons of assets needed to defend themselves. So we need to delete the amendment that authorizes the federal government to levy taxes on income of any entity, not just persons.
Unfortunately, I don't think the goverment /bank elite would mind at all if the currency collapses. They will try amnd institute total digital, no money exchanges hands. taxes would be automatically takenout of employees digital deposits by their employers. It will be done in the name of "keeping green by going paperless, and creating an honest system of work and taxation" Of course its bull shit, but theywould love to outlaw any other means of exchange for work, such as gold, silver fiat,,,etc.. The new bank goverme nt merger BKGT centers wil handle all transactions.
Really? You are going to hold up the neocon Mark LEH-vin as your model of a constitutional scholar and exemplary of limited government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers?
As Anonymous would say, make me laugh.
As for your disputing the self-evident assertion that the US Constitution has clearly failed in its intent to rein in government --- well, here we are.
Liberal fascists like Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and Obama ratcheted up the tyranny little by little, while the education industrial complex and entertainment-media complex worked on normalizing deviancy, family breakdown, and stilted views of who we are and how we got here.
You know that it is really kind of funny, akak. I posted a response similar to what the article states in response to a post about another article..
It has been an abject failure. It is evidential because we are living under more tyranny than was happening at the time of King George.
But they continue to misplace their Faith into Government??? That is kind or irrational, isn't it?
Do not get angry about the response to reporting what is evidential. I know that some are still deep into denial and they hold out hope for some miracle...which is not going to happen.
But both you and I know that there is just no political solution. Nothing is going to work until there is a profound attitude change in the Masses.
And that just is not on any horizon in the near term or the far reaching term.
You cannot change them akak.
They may be able to deny the reality. But they will not be able to escape the consequences thereof. It is sad.
Tom: Nice breakdown of the real "reality" these days. Should be required reading for school children ages 6-14... but that will never happen when they can watch a TV commercial of some buck-toothed white girl singing the praises of Obarecrack.
as for understanding and defending the letter of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, yeah you're damn right I'll hold up Mark Levin in that debate. Damn right I will.
As I also would Ron Paul. And even if Mark Levin and Ron Paul don't see eye to eye they're still fundamentally on the same side. And I'll even say that over the last several years I've heard Mark Levin sound even more Libertarian-minded and come closer to Ron Paul than ever before.
So, okay...I could also have stated Ron Paul in my post, but Mark Levin came to mind quicker because he has a massive radio program and is more legally suited in his experience to defend the Constitution, which was why I'd love to hear the author of this article debate Levin on his radio show. Ron Paul, unfortunately, does not have the same radio exposure, but I'd still love to hear Ron Paul dismantle someone like this guy or even the Marxist in Chief, obama, straight up in a debate.
obama would get shreaded as well. It wouldn't even be a debate...it'd be an old fasioned ass kicking because Marxists can't debate in favor of the Constitution, so obama wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
And yes...here we are. No doubt about that. And it's my expectation that things are going to get much worse before they get better too. But I would assert that it's because of the Constitution and the power of it and it's intent that it's taken America so long to get to this lowly point. Otherwise we wouldn't even have become the Republic that we were and would not have made it this far. We would never have been at all.
And after the shit hits the fan and everything collapses, I sure hope we crush all tyranny and win the day. Then hopefully we start over again with the original Constitution.
It's because of it that we've been able to hold off all out despotic tyranny for so long. It hasn't failed us...it's given us valuable time to fight for what it stands for once again and to return back to the original intent. And then inevitably the cycle starts all over again. That's life.
And I sure don't hear you, the author, or anyone else stating anything meaningful on how they would improve on such a "failure" of a document. But common sense and freedom don't need much improving upon. We've seen the example of what happens when we let scumbag, treasonous politicians "improve" the original document. We end up where we are today.
We're alive because of that document, no doubt about that. And we're communicating because of that document. All other countries would be like North Korea if it wasn't for that document. This world would still be back in the Dark Ages if not for that document.
We were given a road-map with the best instructions known to man on how to stay the course of freedom. And it's taken over 230 years of letting usurpers and traitors drive us off course to get us to where we are now. Only we can put us back on course again as long as we stick to the original road-map.
Stating it has failed is for small-minded quitters and losers. So go ahead and laugh...I'm sure there were plenty of those types who laughed and scoffed at those who put their names on the Constitution and contributed to it's creation.
I know that I would have never been on that side of freedom. While you're laughing, try to take a second to thank them for their wisdom and sacrifice which allows you to be able to laugh and scoff at what they stood up for. You have that freedom because of them and their "failed" document.
Go try that in the muslim or communist world and see how long it takes you to get your head chopped off or a bullet between the eyes.
THERE ARE NO POLITICAL SOLUTIONS.
I am sorry.
Even Dr. Paul was robbed from being heard at the Republican National Convention. He was CENSORED.
Look. I have taught Math. The number of problems without solution far out numbers those which have solutions. And if we stumble onto solving previously unsolvable problems, in turn, that makes the number of unsolvable problems grow. We discover even more unsolvable problems, sometimes, as a result of discovering the solution to one of them.
Dr. Paul will tell you that as he is a Christian.
You are placing your faith in flawed humans whom are tempted to corruption by the office that they occupy.
It is evidential that they are not willing to abide by the letter of the law, and, even much more demanding, to abide by the spirit of the law.
George W. Bush declared that it was "...a God Damned piece of paper." Supposedly he is a Christian. That is what he declares. (Duality intended.)
I am sorry but it is the reality.
-1
For...
THERE ARE NO POLITICAL SOLUTIONS. -- Tall Tom
Perhaps it might be more accurate to say there are no red team / blue team, twin party political solutions?
Irony is that Obama is a consitutional lawyer if I remember correctly. Like George W was only MBA president, the irony is so telling.
deflation is not Yellen
Spot on...and Bernanke was the expert on the causes of the Great Depression. But this should not surprise anyone that what is anecdotally believed is generally just the opposite of truth especially in the realm of economics such as fiction being spread about so called 'productive class.' Bankers also do 'God's work', at least that's what bankers wish you to believe.
The failure is the judicial branch.
Let's hope the more originaiist and dare I say patriotic justices surivive three more years, and that the people will have backlashed from this sick infatuation with Obama and his Chicago cronies.
The failure is in all three branches of Government.
There was no balance of power among the three branches,
only a balance of law,
and the Executive branch took the balance of power,
and overturned the law.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. (Alexander Hamilton)
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. (Thomas Jefferson)
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt. (John Curran)
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. (Voltairine de Cleyre)
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. (Frederick Douglass)
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it! (Abraham Lincoln)
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. (Alexander Hamilton)
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. (George Washington)
The last Washington quote is spurious -- but I like it anyway!
The constitution is fine if you replace the progressive politicians (both parties) and jurists that have been busy dismantling The Constitution for 100 years. That can be done, in fact the effort is already under way in various quarters. It will be a prolonged hard fought battle. Right now the progressive crony faction of the GOP is busy attacking the libertarians and the Tea Party to stop that effort. The Dems are a hopeless case wedded to cultural Marxism and socialism.
The Constitution did not fail at all.
It, like any document, is only as good as the people that serve to protect it.
I find the whole article idiotic actually.
And chasing a straw dog.
The Constitution was not about limiting the 'size' of government. It was about protecting individual rights.
A democracy (or democratic republic) is about the most inefficient form of rule. It is also about the most vulnerable to attack of its foundation ideals. It is also the best so far for trying to provide equal law for every person.
It is a journey, not a goal.
haha, protecting the individual rights of rich men who owned property (people included).
the american revolution (or the british-continental european proxy war) is about as mythic as world religions.
see also:
http://global.oup.com/academic/product/americas-revolution-9780199754809
https://archive.org/details/truehistoryamer02fishgoog
are you into monarchy?
Give us this day our daily beer.
Failed Constitution?
It all falls back on the coinage system and the removal of precious metals in the content.
However, it is going to be much more fun to watch the failure of the money system than they failure of the Constitution.
Doesn't matter if it is Rome or Constantinople or Warshington, District of Stupid Shitheads.
A little history lesson: Christopher Columbus was a navigator and also somewhat of an astronomer, probably a better astronomer because he thought he had found a new route to India, the blind fool.
Anyway, he landed on the Caribbean and he along with all the crew of the ships were captured by the Caribs. Probably to be worked and eaten because the Caribs were cannibals, another problem presented with a grim future for Columbus and the crew. Columbus had to solve a very serious grave problem.
He knew the stars and convinced the leaders of the tribe that an eclipse of the moon would take place in 3 days. Columbus must have studied records to use at a future date. When the lunar eclipse occurred the Caribs considered Columbus a god and all were set free. You can thank God that the Caribs were stupid enough to believe in earthly gods. har
Whether fact or apocrypha, Columbus apparently knew how to save his ass.
Those not beholden to the Constitution may not be able to save theirs.
Give me Liberty or give me beer.
So we need an Eclipse...
When's the next eclipse?
"We the People' failed the Constitution.
There is but a single hope for the Constitution, and suprisingly, it is the Democrats that have opened the door by destroying the filibuster rules in the Senate. What must happen is a conservative two-term President who has a majority in the Senate so that young conservative Constitutionists can be appointed to the Supreme Court. There is no other hope.
Unfortunately, every strong conservative candidate is relentlessly attacked by daggers from the Democrats, the liberal media, and even from the RINOS...
Spare us the R vs D wrassling match.
Eff 'em all.
THERE IS NO HOPE THAT THIS GOVERNMENT CAN BE SAVED. THERE ARE NO POLITICAL SOLUTIONS.
When this Nation's Currency dies then the Government will die. Currency is the Lifeblood of the Government.
The Currency has been corrupted. It has been POISONED.
It is a case of Blood Poisoning. Septicemia. The prognosis is terminal as there has been far too much Organ Failure.
It is Fatal.
Roll back the whack...
state and federal judges should simply ignore stare decisis if and when it conflicts with the plain language of the Constitution under the "touchstone rule" - the touchstone of Constitutionality is the Constitution, not case law interpreting it... where caselaw conflicts, it is null and void.
Start with Wickard v. Filburn. If you're not familiar... arguably, it is what really got the party started.
Basically, "progressives" fucked all of us. They did some good in the short term, but fucked us in the long term.
Which seems to be what Keynesianism does as well... hmmm.
Yes! Also, let's recall the Roberts court argument that says non commerce can be punished by congress if is done in the form of a tax, authorized by
The amendment that authorizes the federal income tax, combined with Wagner act unionism, gave us a politically weaponized IRS where 95% of the employees are statists who support democrat activism with money and in their selective enforcement of the tax codes. Same at the federal election commission and so many other permajob unionized fedgov agencies.
Keep the constitution Get rid of the failures
There are a gang of globalist traitors that have entered the countr. Just because nobody has picked up the constitution and began enforcing it doesn't mean they won't once the SHTF.
Anyhow Open Source software is a much better solution than a constitution for running a nation. There is n no need for people to be in government positions and expecially not presidents and Senators and congressmen. That is what doesn't work--people. You have to have nations run by software and decisions made by everyone.
Otherwise those that make the decisions will eventually try to kill everyone else.
Everyone bow down to Satoshi. Satoshi and Open Source are here to save you!
If you thought the current Govt is difficult to deal with... just wait until the Linux programmers are running things.
cat - | grep Liberty
We have a supreme court that "re-interprets" the Constitution and Bill Of Rights to suit a socialist agenda - with no repurcussion.
future uses of the constitution
It is impossible for people to stay vigilant and good forever. Even if that were the case, you don't need the Constitution if everyone acted good and rational.
Here's more from Rothbard:
"The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in “limited government” who is the truly impractical utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
I have said this multiple times, but Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard were right about the Constitution. Both of them knew that the state would laugh in the face of a sheet of parchment. As much as the constitutional conservatives around here don't want to admit it, limited government always devolves into despotism.
Not only that, but you cannot expect the state to protect individual rights. The state will always turn around to do the exact opposite. It's like trusting a bank robber to take care of your bank account, or a thief to take care of your house.
Excellent points.
I think it bears repeating that the US Constitution failed because EVERY such attempt to limit government is going to fail, because by such means one is putting the onus of limiting the power of government on the government itself.
Limited government via constitutions is an inherenty doomed and idealistic dream. Only when individuals are willing to stand up for their rights will those rights be respected.
720+ years grasshopper... a long enough timeline of vigilance for you?
http://www.lexilogos.com/declaration/suisse_pacte_tableau.htm
"Einer für alle, alle für einen"
http://www.admin.ch/org/polit/00056/index.html?lang=en
The Old Swiss Confederacy, however, was far less significant in the late middle ages, and it was not unique either. It constituted a peaceful alliance of a type also found elsewhere at the time. The Charter certainly did not amount to a revolutionary act of self-determination by the peasantry, but rather secured the status quo in the interests of the local elites.
For centuries, this alliance of the valleys of Central Switzerland from 1291 received practically no mention, the document itself only being rediscovered in 1758 in the Schwyz archives. In the constitutional tradition of the Old Confederacy prior to 1798, the alliance of 1291, in contrast to the Federal Charter of 1315 (Pact of Brunnen), played no role. Nor is there any indication that it served as a model for subsequent federal alliances. Unanswerable questions relating to its historical provenance and interpretation also suggest that the contemporary importance of this document in more recent times has been considerably overestimated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution
The groundwork for today's Swiss Constitution was laid with the promulgation of the Constitution of 12 September 1848, which was influenced by the ideas of the constitution of the United States of America and the French Revolution. This constitution provided for the cantons' sovereignty, as long as this did not impinge on the Federal Constitution. This constitution was created in response to a 27-day civil war in Switzerland, the Sonderbundskrieg.
The Constitution of 1848 was partly revised in 1866, and wholly revised in 1874. This latter constitutional change introduced thereferendum at the federal level. Beginning in 1891, the constitution contained the "right of initiative", under which a certain number of voters could make a request to amend a constitutional article, or even to introduce a new article into the constitution. This mechanism is called federal popular initiative. Thus, partial revisions of the constitution could be made any time.
The Federal Constitution was wholly revised for the second time in the 1990s, and the new version was approved by popular and cantonal vote on 18 April 1999. It replaces the constitution of 29 May 1874, and it contains nine fundamental rights which up until then had only been discussed and debated in the Federal Court. It came into force on 1 January 2000.
Owing to constitutional initiatives and counterproposals, the Swiss Constitution is subject to continual changes.
They finally got around to reasonably authenticating the 1291 Charter document in Schwyz a while back -- after all the forgeries that showed up after it was first mentioned in the Chronicles of 15th century were discredited. So while they didn't have a contemporary stamped copy, the content was well known, in terms of the evolution of Swiss political organs the Pact of Brunnen was more significant (even though it the text is remarkably similar -- see below), but in terms of national ethos the Rütlischwur is more significant (except to the extent that the Eidgenossenschaft grew out of the victory at Battle of Morgarten - which was a wholesale slaughter of Hapsburg knights by peasants with sticks and stones and laid the foundation for a reputation for mercenary ferocity). However, it wasn't the Pact of Brunnen but rather the Rütlischwur that immortalized by Wilhelm Tell and then re-enacted as propaganda preparations in the preparations for WW2.
The Swiss Confederation differed from other confederations (such as the Hanseatic League) in that it was a contiguous and persistent imperial immediacy until it gained full independence (not that there weren't a fuck-ton of civil wars between and within the Cantons the based on urban/rural, noble/aristocrat/merchant, or Catholic/Protestant schisms).
The American national identity revolves around Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism, whereas the Swiss could be reduced to "leave us alone or we'll get together and kick your ass"
Notice the similarities to the 1291 pact (I google-translated from French instead of old German)
http://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/History_of_Switzerland:_Primary_Docu...
"In the name of God, Amen As nature is weak and fragile, sometimes what should be durable and perpetual soon easily delivered to oblivion! that is why it is useful and necessary that the things that are made ??for peace, tranquility, the advantage and honor of men, are in writing and made ??public by authentic instruments. So we Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden make known to all who read or hear these presents, that provision and apprehending unfortunate and difficult times, and to better enjoy the peace and rest, defend and preserve our bodies and our property, we promised each other good faith and oath to help us mutually advice, assistance, body and goods, and at our expense, against all those who will or want to insult or violence to us and ours, our people or our fortunes, so that if any damage is dealt to the person or property of one of us, we will support, for only by agreement or justice, restitution or redress is made. More we promise the same oath that none of the three countries and none of us will not recognize anyone for his lord, without the consent and will of others. Each of the rest of us, man or woman, must obey her rightful lord and legitimate power in all that is fair and equitable, except lords who will use violence against one's country, or who want to unfairly dominate us, because no such obedience is due until they have reached an agreement with the Netherlands. We also agree that none of us Country or Confederate not sworn and will honor any country without the consent of other countries and Confederate, Confederate not enter into any negotiations with any foreign whatsoever without permission other Confederates, as long as the country will no lord. If someone betrays our countries interests, violates or infringes any of the items and orders contained in this Act, it shall be declared traitor and perjurer, and his body and his property will be forfeited to the Netherlands. Besides this we also agreed to receive and admit to judge any man who had bought his office with money or otherwise, or that would not be our compatriot. Whether born or rises some dispute or war between the Confederates, the most honest and most prudent men will gather to pacify the dispute or end this war either amicably or by the justice, if one party refuses, the Confederates to assist each other to mutual agreement or by law, the dispute is over at the expense of who has refused the means of conciliation. If between two countries occurs a quarrel or war, and one of them does not want to terminate the agreement or by law, the third country that agreed to support the arrangement and give him relief for the case ends voluntarily or by force. If a Confederate kills another, he shall be put to death, unless he can prove that the judges and say he did it out of necessity, to defend her life. If the murderer fled, anyone in our country will receive, give him shelter in his house and defend, is exiled and will not return to their homeland if there is recalled from the consent of the Confederates. If a Confederate openly or secretly and deliberately set fire to the house of another, he will be banned for life from our territory, and whoever receives in his house, give him asylum and protection shall be required to repair the damage caused by incendiary. Nobody can take pledges that his debtor or its guarantor, and it can not make him without the authority of the judge. Each obey his judge and tell the judge in this country to whom he wishes to appear. If someone refuses to submit to the award and that his disobedience door damage to one of the Confederates, they will force the to compensate. And that insurance and the above conditions remain stable and perpetual, we named above, citizens and Confederates of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden, have affixed our seals this act done in Brunnen, the 1315 year of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the first Tuesday after the feast of St. Nicolas
And just to provide an illustration of how messy the confederation was even in the 18th century, see: http://icp.ge.ch/po/cliotexte/gif/suisse.xviii.couleurs.jpg
And a brief (by Swiss standards) history in English
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/old-swiss-confederacy-1...
it's all good stuff!
it's just unfortunate that these words were not taken seriously by the anabaptists' fellow confederates. so much for murdering someone in self-defense. why not kill people for their beliefs, especially those who don't fight back?
it's history, but relevant to the discussion about how "documents" and the principles therein are conveniently discarded when it doesn't suit certain interests.
a damn shame...
Sorry if what I originally wrote came across as a bit "Happy Happy Joy Joy" classless anarchy, because to this day class is an incredibly complex issue in Switzerland (and one that most Swiss don't like to discuss), just ask Tina Turner (but not her class-less friend Oprah, who can't even get properly dressed and escorted to go shopping).
Historically, each Canton has a different progression, but when Felix Manz was martyred in Zürich before the Anabaptists were driven west to Bern & Jura, the city was ruled by the Council of 200 which was an oligarchical power-sharing agreement between the (primarily silk) guildmasters, merchants, landed aristocracy, and the Canton was for all practical purposes- a Theocracy, with priests being municipal employees (who were not exempt from full combat militia service). Today in Zürich, one has freedom of religion but there are still State sponsored Churches and a Church tax. The Anabaptists are today basically extinct in Bern & Jura, but as result of other "migrations" the Franco-Germanic & Catholic/Protestant conflict over there still persists with its own separatist movement (the PSA - Socialist Autonomous Party), and even a referendum last year (defeated) to repartition the two Cantons. On the bright side, the internal conflicts have gotten a LOT less bloody over the last couple hundred years (except the WW2 plan which was a jihadist martyrdom)- with less than a hundred dying in the last civil war - Sonderbundskrieg (which was largely federalist/anti-federalist Catholic/Protestant).
Analogous to a left/right paradigm in the US and elsewhere, there is an "apologist" wing (and perspective on national history) within the Swiss intelligentsia. What makes the intellectual schism in Switzerland absolutely different than in the US (or Germany) is the whole insider/outsider aspect. In Switzerland, there is a social coalescence that occurs (oddly similar to the liquid ballistic materials they're developing at MIT). Insiders are free to disagree (and do endlessly), but when the outsiders begin to coalescence in opposition, the internal division is dropped very quickly in the interest of mutual defense (which is counter-intuitive given the intellectual foundation underlying the apologist perspective). More importantly, it's is why what the EU is doing is completely counter-productive in terms of achieving their desired ends, but it's also not particularly healthy for national debate and the balance of power within Switzerland. Meanwhile, over in the US- instead of coalescing in opposition the invasion of DC & NY, the Tea Party and OWS trade accusations of astro-turfing. The political elite will always attempt to co-opt any mass movement of people to achieve their ends or defend their turf and will use the money at their disposal to do so, that is their nature, but it's a hell of easier for them to do so, and maintain the spoils of doing so in the US.
i can't disagree with a word you wrote.
what are your thoughts on the country's politics with regards to the economy and implications of looming immigration quotas?
i'm beginning to wonder if it's all going to unravel when everyone leasts expects it, which would be now or very soon...
the last thing the country needs is for ubs or credit suisse to face a cash problem due to more fines:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-24/ubs-figures-immunity-beats-gett...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usa-tax-creditsuisse-idUSL1N0L...
The Constittution didn't fail, it was ignored first, intentionally misread second, and then finally Usurped, by the installation of an illegal non natural born Citizen (Hussein Obama was born British, of a British subject father, thus not a "natural born Citizen", which requires birth in the US to 2 US Citizen parents--- where no foreign allegiance exists) as POTUS.
There is a reason that the NWO installed an illegal POTUS--- to void the US Constitution and US Citizen sovereignty. If the executor of the laws is illegal then there is no "law" and no "Constitution".
It was so important to the NWO to void the US Constitution that they gave US Citizens a choice of 2 illegal non natural born Citizens in the 2008 general election for POTUS. McCain is a traitor who aided and abetted the overthrow of the US Constitution by the election of Barack Obama-- domestic enemy of the US and Usurper of the Oval Office.
(McCain was born in the PCZ--- military bases are not US territory-- see FAM7--- and needed 8 US Code 1403 to be designated as US Citizen--- "natural born Citizens " need no such statute-- they are born in the US of US Citizen parents--- they are NATURALLY US Citizens-- and thus natural born Citizens ).
Now more NON NATURAL BORN citizen political animals are waiting in the wings to further cement over the grave of the US Republic (Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are all born of foreign parentage, and not eligible--- they are aiding and abetting the overthrow of the Republic). Apparently it is important to the NWO crimials to operate in a lawless, post Republic atmosphere while they finish the rape and pillage of a once moral and christian nation. We are now being taken apart by the Cloward Piven attack on all facets of US society--- the family unit, masculinity, our money, our armed forces, and our schools-- all infiltrated and under attack by the Progressives, and Globalists.
It is up to we the people to yank the Usurper out of our house, and to hang the criminals in government, and media that pushed for it to happen--- only then can we begin to restore the Republic.
Actually Obama resembles Frank Marshall Davis very well, and his nominal Kenyan father hardly at all. Probably we don't get to see the long form birth certificate because the thing is embarrassing to his narrative, as would be his academic records. The black American communist activist saw Obama's mother at the right time to have fathered our current president, and remained an important figure to him throughout his childhood, at the insistence of obama's mother and grand parents. Chances are Obama's real father was this American born communist. Valerie Jarret's parents also had very close ties with that fuckhead. This is not foreign at all to her efforts to bring the Obamas into the fold of Chicago power politics.
That is merely speculation. The tale told out of the Usurper's own mouth is that Obama Sr. is his father. If that is not true then he has other problems.
I wonder how Obama would have been born in Kenya if Davis was his father.
It seems Obama the son was born in Kenya,
and the Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery.
In any case, a Natural Born Citizen is a legal requirement,
requiring two US citizens as parents,
and Obama Senior, a British citizen, was evidently the legal father,
although not legal as a US citizen.
The Constitution has not failed. It is merely a document that expresses ideas of governance for a "moral and just people." It is the people who have failed the document.
If a document sounds "too good to be true"
That document is "too good to be true"
Humans cannot live up to such ideals.
This is a great article. But the constitution is not the only founding document: the Declaration of Independence says, "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
So they knew that it would become a shit show. And they told us to man up and abolish it when it becomes problematic. So let's get to work.
The fault, dear sheeple, lies not in your leaders or your Constitution, but in your craving an elite and king to think for you.
Lerned Hand:
“The Spirit of Liberty” - speech at “I Am an American Day” ceremony, Central Park, New York City (21 May 1944).
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it… What is this liberty that must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not the freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few — as we have learned to our sorrow.
What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.
Reread the Declaration of Independence y'all. .338 Lapua.
The author of the article is a dumb ass moron shill. Although ZH is usually somewhat interesting I am disappointed in Tyler for publishing this one. Must we question your true colors?
Though I too disagree with the author, I applaud Tyler for posting the article. Provocative ideas debated in the public forum are an excellent method of clarifying our thoughts, and exposing our enemies.
My concern centers on the voluntary proliferation of Mark Levin style propaganda. There are more than enough traitors out there preaching this crap so I hate to see the smarter ones such as a usual on cue ZH jump in the cess pool encouraging our brethen to take swim alongside just for the experience. When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, we must stand firm.
Maybe the author of this article needs a refresher:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
And it didn't take thousands upon thousands upon thousands of ridiculous pages of worthless words and legaleze mumbo-jumbo bullshit to explain what our inalienable rights were either. It's plain and simple.
Yet it's taken over 230 years and countless scumbags thousands of pages of bullshit laws to contruct walls of lies around the Constitution and to create a massive prison-like infrastructure of tyranny around the rest of our nation and people in order to marginalize and demonize this document and the Founding Fathers who sacrificed so much to give it to us.
And let's not forget those who have fought and given their lives to defend these basic human rights and principles, and those who still fight and give their lives so that others can live on and pass this on to the rest of us. So that those who will be born in this country aren't born into complete tyranny and slavery.
And the joker who wrote this article wants to say that it "failed"????????? That's a loser among countless other losers throughout history who just doesn't get it at all.
And I sure hope he's reading every comment posted here today from people who know what freedom and liberty is and means and who will stand up for it and not trash and discard it like some used up piece of toilet paper by the small-minded ignorant quitters and haters. I hope this guy uses what he reads on this forum to wake the fuck up and shake off his mental chains.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Who exactly are "those who have fought and given their lives to defend these basic human rights and principles, and those who still fight and give their lives so that others can live on and pass this on to the rest of us"? The costumed thugs in the police and military who spread the will of the bankster elite at home and abroad? No one has ever fought for "basic human rights and principles" while wearing the uniform of any state: states by their very nature are the complete opposite of these principles. They are systems of organized violent coercion designed to perpetuate the rule of an elite. The American founders were an elite class that was willing to use force to ensure their continued rule, and they designed the Constitution to do just that. You need to learn some real history and give up on the grade-school mythology. These lectures by Robert Higgs might get you started in the right direction:
http://www.independent.org/multimedia/?person=489
If any of the so-called "veterans" that the neo-cons are constantly glorifying really wanted to fight and give their lives for freedom they would be fighting against the state, not for it. The only act of violence that advances the cause of liberty is one that results in the death of a politician.
Sic semper tyrannis!
I don't agree. Your tone, your understanding of real history all twisted. You are spewing progressive pseudo intellectual, pseudo-history.
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." - Samuel Adams
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Ronald Reagan
The sheeple have failed, especially those who continue to reelect career politicians whose only allegience is to being reelected. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, cannot fail without the aquiescence of the sheeple and their elected masters.
The author of this ZH guest post is either a complete idiot provocateur or someone who is unaware of the extent of their ignorance and disrespect for the great leaders of America's founding struggles.
Right wing blog, funded by Eric Sprott, gold promoter.
Gold is a good store of wealth, so they got that right--but they are severely lacking in knowledge, a richer form of wealth.
Instead of dwelling and expending your energy on pointing out the failures of the Constitution to keep big government in check, do something about it!!
http://conventionofstates.com/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
http://offnow.org/
Otherwise, shut up and lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!
Instead of dwelling and expending your energy on pointing out the failures of the Constitution to keep big government in check, do something about it!!
http://conventionofstates.com/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
http://offnow.org/
Otherwise, shut up and lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!
To your point "The Constitution Failed", I have to agree. The larger question though is, "Can any document restrain the concentration of power in a government?". In other words, the tendency of those who seek power is to amass greater and greater amounts of power in fewer and fewer hands. This consolidation of power is assisted by many who then ride on the coattails of this power. This "riding on the coattails" extends almost all the way down to the least powerful in a society. Can any single document, or law restrain this, apparently, natural tendency of humans?
I don't know, of course, but I think not.
So, yes, the Constitution, as crafted has failed, but, it would have failed no matter how crafted.
the psychopaths will always bubble to the top.
Because the psychopaths will do anything and everything to climb the ladder.
Good People will complain about that after watching it happen.
Soon the Good People take up arms and kill off the psychopaths. (They call this a "Revolution".)
Then new psychos bubble to the top again... rinse... repeat...
No piece of paper can prevent this cycle.
What if your revolution is lead by psychopaths as most are? Psycopaths will always look for any opportunity to rise to the top and they lack fear or any idea of consequences they will willingly spill your blood to get there.
We are slaves. Since our bankruptcy as a nation we are little more than economic batteries for the owners. Our banking system is a tape worm in humanity's gut, sapping our creative energy. Work'n for a liv'n so I'm tak'n what they're giv'n. Start your own medium of exchange. End usury. Do not participate in their syndicate. They need you more than you need them.
Can be no surprise when Artile 1 Section 8 is written to sound more like it authorizes the federal govt to do whatever it wants for what they deem is for the general good. There is other language that leaves room for improvement and which Obama admin is trying to milk for loopholes.
The intent was to limit govt, but the language failed to tie the govts wrists clearly. Had it been written clearly it would have succeeded and we'd be living in nirvana.
Well, the actual document lays out the intent, which was as follows:
1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Ensure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general welfare
6. Secure the blessings of liberty.
Note that promoting the general welfare was the intent. It is also instructive to think about what is meant by "securing" the "blessings of liberty". One might think liberty is an end in itself, but the Constitution wants to "secure the blessings of liberty", which evidently takes some foundation, organization, and central government.
@One World Mafia - You're wanting an idea to act like a magic wand and force people to behave. Ideas are guidelines. People do what they choose.
The President doesn't "rule by decree." What nonsense!
decree ~= executive order
The President is authorized to issue all the executive orders he wants as long as they are consistent with statutes. In fact, he has a duty to do so if required for faithful execution of the laws.
If the people aren't virtuous, it doesn't matter what construct you have on paper.
Sorry to see so many on ZH still in thrall to the grade school mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and the Constitution. The founders had the chance to set up a stateless society, but they didn't, because they, just like the so-called leaders today, wanted power over their fellow man. It is telling that one of the biggest issues that led the upper classes to support the revolution, the Quebec Act which stood in the way of their land claims in the west, is not mentioned anywhere in the Declaration. Perhaps that's because they didn't want the common people to realize they were fighting in just another banker's war.
The Constitution is a failure for the exact reason stated here: either it authorized the current system, or it was powerless to prevent it. I have seen nothing in the comments from all the neo-con patriots to refute this. The United States is not special. It is just another state, and states are humanity's biggest problem. Until enough people realize that no system of violent control is justified, and are willing to live and let live without any system of violent control to enforce the preferences of either the majority or the elites, the same cycle of blood, death, and tyranny will continue to repeat.
Human nature being what it is, there will always be government. The only question is what kind of government. The Constitution was a compromise among people who wanted different things from a federal government. We debate that compromise every day. It's not perfect. In fact, it's the worst form of government ever devised, except for all the other forms.
MickV ---- No, much longer ago, when Articles of Confederation failed: http://americanhistory.about.com/od/governmentandpolitics/f/articles_of_confederation_fails.htm
We have laws against bank robbery and murder, I guess those have failed too. Not to mention some preexisting commandments.
Maroon, laws don't prevent behaviors but they provide a baseline. People will follow the laws or break them and if broken other people will do something about it or not.
Nothing much wrong with the constitution that reading it and following it wouldn't fix.
No matter how full of wisdom and spirit, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
American people have failed, not the Constitution.
looks like I have just repeated what was already stated by half of the posts written before me
People > system, for all systems.
A Constitution is only as effective as can be enforced by the people ! The fact that it's not enforced, means the people have grown fat and happy to accept their working neighbors handouts as legitimately theirs. Sad. Bread and circuses for all !
NTSB calls for wireless technology to let all vehicles 'talk' to each other
"In a summary report (.pdf), the board recommended that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration develop standards for 'connected-vehicle technology' — wireless components that would let vehicles communicate on the road."
The US government wants to place transceivers into all personal vehicles, so they can be remotely controlled.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - 2014-2018 Strategic Plan
NHTSA will be accepting public comments through tomorrow. Let them know what you think about their plan to have your own car spy on you.
Chupacabra-322 ??? http://theunjustmedia.com/Banking%20&%20Federal%20Reserve/The%20united%20states%20Of%20America%20%20is%20a%20corporation%20owned%20by%20fore.htm
and http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2011/02/the-u-s-corporation-and-the-maritime-flag-406269.html?currentSplittedPage=0
Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
~Ron Paul
Strange how democracy of the majority has been perverted into rule by a minority.
Or at least it was a Christianity based majority,
until the worshipers of Satan obtained control of the Government and the Establishment News and Entertainment Media.
If they took sports away or the internet and the American People were backed into a corner with no groceries on the shelves. The people will make a stand and we are armed unlike the Ukranians. We will not be throwing as many rocks. The police that are beating the civilians will not be excused for their actions in this country. God Help US All. We are many the oligarcs are few. They had better figure that out. Let them crawl into their holes and we will seal them in.
They have nukes you don't, you take a city they turn it to ash. I'm sure they have other nasty's prepared as well. Go for it they have no empathy.
You can call "The Constitution" anything you want but its legacy and results have provided the globe with the greatest wealth and health it has ever witnessed.
This fair and equal game plan was devised and instituted by a group of the most intellectual people the world has ever known and were so happened by the fate of God to be brought together in a moment of time to produce something great.
This road map for treating people with dignity and honor no matter where you came from or who your family was and is one of the greatest sacred documents ever devised.
No- it is not the Constitution it is the corrupt minded people that want to see it destroyed. Look around you it's everywhere?
"There are some men of the world who derive as stern an exultation from the proximity to disaster and ruin and others from success." Winston Churchill
It sounds like Lysander Spooner is on a war against any history and success.
America First!
I thankfully realize I will only be joining the chorus here. The Consitution did not fail & the founders were well aware of the fragile state of the Republic from it's inception. The Consitution was intended to be weak (how else could we have liberty?) and it was from the start dependent upon a well informed and self governed and responsible citizenry.
Why else would Jefferson have said what he did about our duty to revolt when (not if) government becomes oppressive.
Why else when asked upon leaving the Constitutional Covention "what have you wrought Mr. Franklin?" would he have replied "a Republic Madam, if you can keep it"
Why else would Adams have warned how foolish it was to rely on the 'goodness of men" (in power) and insisted on codifying limitations to their power.
there are dozens more..
The Constitution does not grant power or rights, on the contrary, it limits power (that of the Federation Government) and simply enumerates rights already possesed by the people.
The Constitution did not fail; we were warned but as is the case most often with men, we failed to take responsibility for that which was ours and nature filled the vacuum.
the question now is; how to fix the problem..
We have the privilage of voting the political bastards that did this to our country for their own benefit out of office.
The Constitution didn't fail. "We the People" failed.
I enjoy MIses and they are dead nuts on, most times.
This is not one of them.
Quibbling about ridiculous ‘angels on heads of pins’ pedantic arguments is useless and serves nothing.
The answer is simply this:
The constitution does not allow for these behaviours: Our lack of observance of the articles of the constitution does this.
It’s that simple.
If you had EVERY bill or act be vetted through the constitution, through a committee, you would find a vastly different country that we live in, now.
It will take a revolution, another civil war to make this stick.
It’s the only way to save the country, to fix it.
It won’t happen.
•?•
V-V
If anyone is interested, Randy Barnett has some great writings on this topic.
Has it failed? Really?, or has what was predicted by it's authors come to fruition due to the lack of vigilance to protect our rights and liberties in order to procure 'safety' and 'protection' from the state?
Say what? THE CONSTITUTION failed? NO FUCKIN way pal, the traitorcrats perverted it, while the gutless republicunts bent over and let them do it. Those that were SUPPOSED to uphold and defend the Constitution failed. If it were followed, it would never fail. I cant believe you guys actually wrote this.
The Constitution did not fail. The people failed.
It's like saying a recipe failed because the cook ignored it.
While I'm glad that people are finally catching on, we anarchists are anti-capitalists. We're against all oppressive power structures, not just the state.
You all had a meeting on that?