A Constitutional Anniversary To Forget

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Antonius Aquinas,

While not a jubilee year, last week marked the 230th anniversary of the US Constitution.

Naturally, most of its devotees enthusiastically praised the document which by now is seen on a par with Holy Writ itself.  An editorial from Investor’s Business Daily provides an example of such hagiography:

The Constitution’s beauty is that it not only delineates our rights as Americans, but expressly limits and defines government’s ability to interfere in our private lives.   This equipoise between citizens’ duties, responsibilities and rights makes it the defining document or our nation’s glorious freedom.

 

But America is wonderful largely because of the Constitution and those who framed it . . . . What we have is too precious to squander . . . .

Most of the piece laments about the widespread ignorance of its sacred contents among the denizens in which it rules over and encourages the unlearned “to bone up a bit on your constitutional heritage . . . .” 

The editorial fails, as do most others on the Right, to understand that it is not a lack of knowledge of the Constitution’s contents among the populace which lies at the heart of America’s social, economic, and political problems, but the very document itself.

One of the main reasons why the Constitution continues to be so widely venerated is due to the deliberate distortion of history that its “founders” promoted and that generations of its sycophants have continued to perpetuate to this very day. 

The official narrative runs that the Constitution was enacted because of widespread popular support for a change to the supposed inadequacies and deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation.

This is a myth.

Instead, the Constitution was a coup deliberately schemed by the leading political and mercantile classes to set up a powerful central government where ultimate authority rested in the national state. 

The use of the term “federal” to describe what was created in Philadelphia in those fateful days was a ruse much like the banksters and politicos used “Federal Reserve” to describe the central bank created in 1913.  It was neither “federal” – a decentralized monetary order – nor a “reserve” of gold, but a monetary institution which could create money out of thin air and eventually eliminate the gold standard.

It was a similar political maneuver 230 years ago as a new American national state was established and touted as a decentralized form of government where power was evenly divided between state and national levels and between the different branches of the government itself  – “separation of powers.”  In actuality, however, the “federal system” was the elevation of central power at the expense of local authority which had previously existed.  Section VI of the Constitution says it all:

The Constitution and the laws of the United States  . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Elementary political science has shown and plain common sense knows that any person or institution given “supreme authority” will misuse and abuse such power.  Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely is an undeniable dictum of human nature.  A truly decentralized system of governance would not contain a plank as “supreme law of the land” as part of its foundation.  Instead, real federalism would be dispersed, as it existed in the past in such political arrangements as confederacies, leagues, and, certainly, under the much maligned feudal social order.

Even the Constitution’s celebrated Bill of Rights is flawed and has proven to be ineffective in protecting basic human freedoms.  It is the federal government which enumerates and interprets what freedom individuals should possess.  Thus, the meaning and extent of individual liberties will be in the hands of federal jurists and courts who will invariably rule on cases in favor of the state.  The ensnaring of individual rights within the central government’s authority did away with the venerable common law which was a far greater defender of liberty than federal courts.

Just as important, the enactment of the Constitution, which brought all the individual states under it suzerainty, did away with one of the most significant checks on state power – “voting with one’s feet.”  When there are multiple governing authorities, if one jurisdiction becomes too oppressive, its subjects can move to freer domains.  This still happens on a local level as high tax and regulatory states such as California and New York have lost demographically to freer places like Nevada and Texas.  Yet, from the Federal Leviathan there is no escape, except expatriation.

Unless and until Americans and all the other peoples of the Western world who live under constitutional rule recognize that it is the type of government which is the cause of most of the political turmoil, social unrest, and economic malaise  which they face, there is no hope of turning things around.

Comment viewing options

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

Kneel before the Constitution! And continue to kneel as long as it is routinely violated and trampled upon. Just like Kaepernick said he would continue to protest until he feels like "[the American flag] represents what it's supposed to represent."

SafelyGraze's picture

congress should pass a law requiring every household to watch nfl

something like a medical-insurance mandate

something to support the players and show unity

congress should pass a law requiring every household to kneel

kneel before the tv

kneel before the nfl

a kneeling mandate to foster unity

 

spqrusa's picture

Kneel before teh US Murder Corporation you rat bastards!

Rjh's picture

I bet the vast majority of you libtards would argue that your wife should be allowed to vote because she's "smarter" and "different" than the rest of the bitches out there. You fucking cucks make me sick.

"Libtard" can be used interchangeably between libertarian and liberal. Same thing with "faggot libtard".

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

It appears I am smarter than you considering I have long given up voting as a pointless action in today's world. As many here have pointed out if it were effectual it would have long been outlawed.

Those who use bold text are just compensating for lacking in other areas. Perhaps lift inserts in your shoes will help.

Miffed

Rjh's picture

I haven't voted since 2004, so suck a dick, libtard. Nice try though!

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Then why do you care if women vote or not? Logic appears not to be your forte. Time to exit mommy's basement and live in the real world instead of being a ranting gasbag.

Miffed

detached.amusement's picture

the only reason I vote is to ensure that someone else doesnt vote for me, I know my vote is useless in this state of captured electoral fraud

lincolnsteffens's picture

I'm with you JungleCat. I call bull shit on the article.

It is corruption in Government, fraud, bribery, intimidation, selective law enforcement, poor education, mind control, and disinformation causing the usurpation of the People's Rights that is the problem, not the Constitution.

detached.amusement's picture

ever heard of the concept of a camel's head under the tent?

koan's picture

This is worth reading, notice the date? 1984, it is even more true today.
#congressistheenemy.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-charley-reese-545-people-19...

"One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of 238 million- are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country."

TBT or not TBT's picture

You left out a few million unfireable unionized civil "servants".   They can't even be voted out. 

koan's picture

I didn't leave out shit, it's not my article.

NoDebt's picture

Yeah, the Constitution sucks monkey balls.  Name a better one.

No, wait a minute, he does!  "Instead, real federalism would be dispersed, as it existed in the past in such political arrangements as confederacies, leagues, and, certainly, under the much maligned feudal social order."

Ah, feudalism.  Wonderful but deeply misunderstood feudalism.  And it was staring us in the face the whole time.  Why didn't we pay attention?

 

spqrusa's picture

It's called a Confederacy, and the Crown realized it had limited options under that system.

Blue Steel 309's picture

The anti-federalists were the ones proved right, or at least more correct than the aspiring Oligarchs in the Federalist movement.

Winston Churchill's picture

The Swiss one.

Next question.

MATA HAIRY's picture

the constitution was written by the rich, for the rich...

quotes from the founding fathers:

An "excess of democracy" was the reason the aristocratic american elites of the 1700s discarded the Articles of Confederation and installed our current constitution. In fact, founding father elbridge gerry used that exact phrase --excess of democracy--when stating why the articles of confederation had to be junked.

Under the articles, the people were able to control the levers of government. 

James Madison designed a governmental framework as outlined in the constitution that would prevent the majority from uniting against the elite. To quote madison, "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

Just what 'minority' was madison and the rest of the founding fathers so concerned about? The minority of the elite, the upper one percent. As madison wrote, the purpose of the governmental structure embodied in the constitution was to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. " Opulent meaning rich of course.

 

Madison's solution was to weaken local democracy and replace local democracy to a great degree with federal democracy. The federal politiicans were to be elected from larger voting districts that politicians elected at the local level. Because the pool of voters in federal districts was so large, the voters found it hard to unite and come together so they could control their federal politicians. Madison wrote to jefferson recommending this sort of federal govt structure, saying that it would "divide et impera" the majority electorate so that the elite could control the nation. Divide et impera meaning divide and conquer.

 

So what is happening today with the elites seeking to destroy Trump is that they fear that trump represents a revolution of the majority against the minority of the opulent (and a revolution by the majority against the cheap labor army of nonwhites that the elite use against the majority.).

 

 

TBT or not TBT's picture

Sigh.   The founders knew democracy would end in tyranny, exactly as it has.    That's why the safeguards for liberty were made inviolable by mere democratic means.    Those safeguards were and still are on the edge of disappearing.  

NoDebt's picture

Name the system of governance used by any country past or present that was NOT written "by the rich, for the rich."  Go on, I'll wait.

Can't do it, can you?

Let me hit you with one:  anarchy.  Never been tried as an organizing system of governance to run a country that I know of.  Probably because you can't game it.  But I want to see somebody grow a set of ball big enough to try.  You man enough to give that one a try, sport?

 

spqrusa's picture

Archy is effective at killing "anarchy".

libertyanyday's picture

i dont want a burger flipper writing a contract...............rich people who are rich make pretty good employers too.

spqrusa's picture

So few truely undertstand the perfidy of the 1989 Constitution of the USA...

NoDebt's picture

Clearly I don't.  The 80s were good to me but I don't recall passing a new Constitution round these here parts in 1989.

 

WTFUD's picture

Let me issue and control a nation's money and i care not who writes its laws.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild 

NoDebt's picture

Oh, shit, that happened WAY before 1989.

 

WTFUD's picture

Ain't nothing new under the sun bro!

I'm reading through 1932, and the handover of Power ( well not the real power ) from Hoover to Roosevelt and the same shenanigans and questions are being played out.

lincolnsteffens's picture

" To quote Madison, "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Madison didn't mean the Constitution should only protect his wealthy class from the masses but to protect everyone from the tyranny of government and the majority.

Madison was absolutely correct as he was identifying the tyranny of the masses. This is why they chose a Republic with fundamental rights reserved for everyone ( well, not blacks or natives ). This Republic is supposed to protect the minority's basic human rights which could only be taken away by a super majority changing the Constitution.

Blue Steel 309's picture

BS. If that was so important why did it take so long to pass the Bill of Rights, and why was Article IV never completed?

libertyanyday's picture

Everyone knew the constitution was and is  a Negative Authority contract between the states and the new Federal gov.

The bill of rights were considered to be unnecessary non of the gurantees iinterfered with any iof the limited powers of the fed gov.  Summary ; there could have been an almost infinite list.. Jefferson would not compromise, he did not trust men in power at all............and put 10 of the most important rights that the FED would be in charge of insuring, probably the second most important thing the drafters ever did.

gogobuffalo's picture

The critical flaws in the Constitution as pointed out on this piece are reasons why we must consider the Constitution as a "living, breathing document."
Politicians like Bernie Sanders - who truly care for the people, will be able to act in ways to safeguard the people from the elite. The strict originalist approach keeps us under the irons chains of capitalist exploitation.

Proctologist's picture

Truly care for the people?

Now perhaps he’s better than Hitlery in that regard, but let’s not jump the shark, eh?

At this point any further modification of the Constitution is by the elite and for the elite. Of course they’ll put the bern up front to make it look like it’s for the average folks.....,

JLee2027's picture

gogobuffalo

Bernie was only 1 Beachhouse away from being captured, remember?

Utopia Planitia's picture

Interesting that you consider BS (Bern Sanders) to be someone who "truly cares for people".  All BS has done his entire life is steal from Person A so he can "give" to person B (so person B will vote for him - thereby giving him P-O-W-E-R!!!).  So I say your idea of "caring for people" is a truly repugnant one.

The cliche of "living, breathing document" is nothing but an excuse so a person can do whatever the Hell they want with no accountability.

I hope someone in your family beside you is responsible for your wellbeing.

TRM's picture

Wasn't he the guy who gutted the "Audit the Fed" bill? Oh yea that was him. Care? Only for his masters and that isn't "the people".

lincolnsteffens's picture

Please stop trying to feed us hopium instead of truth. It is for the People to reign in government abuse and indifference along with abuse of Capitalism. We are all sitting around waiting for a savior in government to set things right but governments never do until the People demand it by action not pleading.

Sanders isn't going to save this country because he is part of the problem.  Government has become part of a Mafia type organization. Government are the soldiers but the mob bosses stay behind the curtain

Blue Steel 309's picture

You people never quit with your lies and subversions. You are incapable of honest discourse.

hoytmonger's picture

Bernie is a moron... and a hypocrite. Who else can make a million dollars from selling a book on why you should hate millionaires?

Capitalism, with all it's flaws, it still the best economic system ever devised in the hustory of humans... socialism, and all it's derivatives have caused nothing but suffering and despair.

Anyone that promotes socialism is evil.

serotonindumptruck's picture

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.” -- Alexander Fraser Tytler

Rebelrebel7's picture

Iceland which has had the longest running democracy of 1200 years must somehow be exrmpt from that  "rationale." 

NoDebt's picture

I'm guessing everything in Iceland decays slower because it's so fucking cold.

 

Laughing.Man's picture

Their small population size is the reason.

Rebelrebel7's picture

If their size is the issue,  then all countries which are the same size or smaller should have a similar history.

libertyanyday's picture

iceland ....no borders to protect, freeloading is known and impossible to hide ( 350k total populatoion)

Rebelrebel7's picture

Actually, Germany intended to seize Iceland during world war 2 and was occupied by England and the U.S. in order to prevent German invasion and occupation. 

lincolnsteffens's picture

The only thing in the Public Treasury is a pile of unpayable debt obligations made possible though a fiat system of a central bank. This is in conflict with the Constitution which identifies gold and silver as the only allowable payment for  accounts of the Government. Bankers and Government conspired to get around the debt limitations of gold and silver for payments and receipts by allowing a private corporation to create currency from thin air.

The Constitutional clause about payment in gold has not been repealed by the people nor the states. This might make one ask the question "Do we still have the Constitutional form of government required by the Constitution or a sham counterfeit kept hidden by obfuscation.

libertyanyday's picture

the states are prohibited from creating their own currency, they are charged with using gold and silver if they issue their own.  There is no limit or stipulation for the Fed gov...........founders must have thought that any common sensed person would only accetp gold and silver............boy were they wrong.

Attitude_Check's picture

So the author thinks a confederation of States without a Constitution would be better?   Like the wonderful EU I suppose.  This whole article is bullshit.