ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Should we give up on the Constitution?

Report this
Created by: darmokattanagra

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 397

Report this Jan. 06 2013, 12:43 pm

And if you cannot state what is wrong with it, other than "it's outdated," just stop it until you get a real argument.


I never said it was outdated although I do feel that way. Pretty much everything you said in that last paragraph proves that. The Constitution was written by the minority for the minority. It set up a republic (oligarchy) and was never intended to be applied to anyone but "property owners" of a certain race, gender and faith.


I could go on but I think those are pretty good reasons for giving up and starting anew.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Jan. 07 2013, 1:35 pm

For those interested - someone passed me a link to an interview with Georgetown University Professor Louis Michael Seidman: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/megyn-kelly-challenges-professor-who-wants-america-to-give-up-u-s-constitution-plus-judge-napolitano-reacts/


 


IMO, the only logical thing he said was saying we shouldn't accept the Constitution just because the Founding Fathers wrote it.  I agree - most people don't take the time to understand WHY it was written the way it was.  If they do, then they have a choice - support freedom under the US Constitution or knowlingly support tyranny.


 


 


There was also a response from Judge Napolitano in a separate interview.  Both of these are there on that page.


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 397

Report this Jan. 07 2013, 2:39 pm

Yeah, anybody interested in hearing the Fox/Blaze/doublethink version of this?


Me neither. Thanks anyways, SpamSpam.

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 14 2013, 1:50 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Jan. 06 2013, 12:43 pm

>

>And if you cannot state what is wrong with it, other than "it's outdated," just stop it until you get a real argument.

>I never said it was outdated although I do feel that way. Pretty much everything you said in that last paragraph proves that. The Constitution was written by the minority for the minority. It set up a republic (oligarchy) and was never intended to be applied to anyone but "property owners" of a certain race, gender and faith.

>I could go on but I think those are pretty good reasons for giving up and starting anew.

>


What part IS outdated? The majority of people back then were landowners. It was written for the minority? Only people of a certain race, gender and faith?


May I point out: Actually some states did allow women to vote. It was banned in the early 1800s in those places, but the constitution did allow it.


As for race, white people were the majority. Most black people were slaves. But the free ones could vote.


As for religon, how is it biased toward any? Christianity was the main religon, but there were aethiests, like Thomas Paine, a few muslims here and there, and a few jews. Mormonism wasn't around yet, and there were not immigrents from Asia. But if there were, you think that they would be banned from having rights? Of course not! I really don't see how it was written to disclude anyone. It just works for the population.


Isn't it strange that 25 years ago people stuck to the constitution, and now it's considered outdated? Back when people remembered how horrible socialism was for the Russians, when people escaped from the commusist countries to get to America for freedom. But now, we want to be more like the very countries they escaped from? Ronald Reagan was right: freedom is always one generation from extinction.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 397

Report this Jan. 14 2013, 7:25 pm

Isn't it strange that 25 years ago people stuck to the constitution, and now it's considered outdated?


Isn't it strange that 25 years ago Obama would have run and won as a Republican?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Jan. 14 2013, 8:37 pm

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Jan. 14 2013, 1:50 pm

>Isn't it strange that 25 years ago people stuck to the constitution, and now it's considered outdated? Back when people remembered how horrible socialism was for the Russians, when people escaped from the commusist countries to get to America for freedom. But now, we want to be more like the very countries they escaped from? Ronald Reagan was right: freedom is always one generation from extinction.
The hatred of the Constitution has been taught by our gubmunt edewkayshyun & indocktrunayshun cystduuhhmm.  And with citizenship and liberty being just "given" out, so many people have no clue how valuable it is and what it really costs (just as long as it costs someone else) nor their responsibilities.  So they're free to ignore / usurp / and do their very best to destroy the Constitution.


Since they love socialism/communism/progressivisim/tyranny so much (which means they've ignored history,) I'd much rather them move to one of those countries that already has their desired form of government instead of trying to destroy our freedom.  They think they'd be happier without individual rights and being controlled by government and the rest of us will be much happier without anti-Constitutionalists here trying to destroy the Constitution.


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 397

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 8:40 am

Again, how is it possible that so many Star Trek fans have such an irrational fear of democracy, socialism and progress?


What is the appeal for them?

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 9:19 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Jan. 15 2013, 8:40 am

>

>Again, how is it possible that so many Star Trek fans have such an irrational fear of democracy, socialism and progress?

>What is the appeal for them?

>


and evolution.  That one has always boggled my mind. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 2:08 pm

And as I've explained many times before, even Congress doesn't understand the Constitution...


www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/14/defenders-of-constitution-dont-always-use-it-for-l/?page=all

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 4:03 pm

The article, which was posted by the NY Times on page 1 of this thread, is utter inane bunk. How can one practice "obedience to the Constitution" while also engaging in "flagrant disregard of the Constitution" or "Constitutional infidelity"? That's like saying, "I'm obsessively loyal to my wife, but I occasionally cheat on her."


If we were adhering to the Constitution, we would: be on a free market gold standard, not the government mandated fiat system of Federal Reserve notes; we would not be engaged in unconstitutional wars (drug wars, the war of terror, etc.); no legislating by executive orders; no submission to the U.N.; no foreign or domestic aid; no government favoritism or internal improvement programs; no EPA; no FDA; ETC., ETC...


The article also goes onto cite how presidents, like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, violated the Constitution, as if  their actions settled the debate and justify disowning the Constitution. But that's no different than forwarding the argument that John Wilkes Booth settled the matter of political assassination. In any case, the argument is morally reprehensible, because it ignores the wrongdoing of a party. As it applies to the presidents... first, violating the law of the land and then compounding such wrongdoing by violating his oath of office, particularly his pledge to defend the Constitution. Why should a politician be exempt from the law? 


The article also notes, "Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored." Many abolitionists, including William Lloyd Garrison, advocated repealing the Constitution in their particular States and seceding from the United States. A Nation? I think not. In fact, a call for Northern secession by abolitionists formed the basis for Southern Secession a decade later. 


I could comment on every paragraph of this inane article, but I'll wind it down to a critique of this final quote, "Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper." Quite the contrary. Our flagrant disregard for the Constitution has created the Federal Reserve... an unconstitutional entity that inflates and deflates the money supply to create artificial booms and busts  in the economy for the purpose of shifting purchasing power to the political elite. As a direct consequence, the government has grown into an impractical parasite that spends us into endless debt and slavery... for as John Adams said, "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt."


 


 

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14340

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 4:24 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Jan. 15 2013, 8:40 am

>

>Again, how is it possible that so many Star Trek fans have such an irrational fear of democracy, socialism and progress?

>What is the appeal for them?

>


Being British I've had the misfortune to live through both democracy and socialism. Democracy without constraint gives birth to tyranny of the majority and that leads to the most important minority of them all - the individual - being subjugated.


Go back 250 years and Americans and Brits had the same rights. Today? Forget about it. Americans went down the road of limited government and limited democracy, Brits down the road of absolute democracy.


The result is Americans can still legally stand outside a church or mosque and do the most offensive thing possible - burn a holy book in protest. Brits can go to prison if they go to Twitter and name a sports star who cheated on his wife. And that's just one lost liberty among many.


And socialism... I remember that. That's when the government owned power companies and power cuts were a weekly event. It was when government owned the phone company and if you wanted an engineer they put you on a 6-12 week waiting list. It was when government sent inspectors to every business in the land, and if you were paying your staff too much, forced you give them a pay cut. It was when we were a economic laughing stock known as "the Sick Man of Europe".


If "progress" means going back to that, I'll take "regression" towards liberty and the free market.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 4:42 pm

I don't think it's the document itself that is the problem.  I think it's this recent development of people who look at it as some sort of religious document with the founding fathers as it's prophets is the problem.  If it is seen as a historical document with relevence to modern times, but limitations because of the period it was written in then it can be very usefull. - Wissa


The problem is that politicians don't adhere to the Constitution and have legislated unconstitutional laws, such as the Patriot Act or the NDAA, without properly amending the Constitution first. The FDA, EPA, FBI, etc... are all unconstitutional agencies that unnecessarily eat away the budget and grow deficit spending. Furthermore, there is nothing Constitutional about the Federal Reserve and its "monetary notes", as the Constitution specifies legal tender to be gold and silver. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve destablizes the economy through the corrupt practice of fractional reserve banking and then the politicians wrongfully blame the free market and capitalism to gain more power and aggrandize government.


To put it another way, the Constitution created a limited Federal Government to prevent intervention in the free market economy. The Free Market, when left alone, works by common law and voluntary associations, person-to-person interaction. But when the government intervenes, it acts as a middleman, person-government-person, and jacks up prices, diverting resources and labor to fund its own needless costs.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 397

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 5:44 pm

Quote: wissa @ Jan. 15 2013, 9:19 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Jan. 15 2013, 8:40 am

>

>

>Again, how is it possible that so many Star Trek fans have such an irrational fear of democracy, socialism and progress?

>What is the appeal for them?

>

and evolution.  That one has always boggled my mind. 


I was using "progress" as a catchall for science, evolution, logic, rational thinking, etc.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 5:47 pm

The Constitutionalists keep saying we can and should amend the Constitution but it can only be amended by a majority vote. And not just a 51/49 majority, 2/3rds of Congress have to agree (HA!) to put the amendment on the ballot and then 3/4ths of the people have to vote to ratify it. This contradicts their argument that majority rule (democracy) is bad because it leads to tyranny. For example, what if the majority voted to repeal the 1st Amendment? Or the 2nd Amendment? That would be tyrannical and Constitutional, right?


Even from their perspective, there are more flaws in the Constitution than they want to admit. Which takes us back to the main point of the article and that is that Constitutionalists see the Founders as prophets and the Constitution as a "divinely inspired" epilogue to the Bible. They are incapable of separating faith from logic. - darmokattanagra


And from a previous thread on the same subject...


I'm not saying we have the super majority needed to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I'm saying what if we did? Would those who consider majority rule to be tyranny go along with it? Why is a 51% majority considered tyranny but a 75% majority is considered Constitutional? Why don't all politicians have to win by a supermajority? - darmokattanagra
If the supermajority repealed the 2nd Amendment, I would commend those for actually having followed the proper procedure for amending the Constitution. Would I follow it? Seeing as how I would be in opposition, probably not, because giving up my firearms would be an involuntary act on my part. It's analogous to a supermajority amending the Constitution to mandate the use of meth for every citizen... does refusing to participate in such a scenario make the individual wrong?


Most legislation defies common sense and practicality due to its abstract nature whereas common law is born from the practicality of voluntary associations and is thus superior in all manners to legislative law. So, what would be the results, in a practical context, of a 2nd Amendment repeal? Productive individuals would either: leave the gun-free zoned country for a country that welcomed an armed citizenry (and this would have the secondary consequence of decreasing economic productivity and growth of the gun-free zoned country); or the productive citizens would band together in a State or States to repeal the newly amended Constitution, secede from the Union, and restore their self-defense capability. I personally favor the option of secession, as it would diminish the central government's power.


As to the question regarding a supermajority, the founding fathers were once again wise in understanding economics. They recognized that if a supermajority (2/3 or 3/4) lived off the productivity of a minority (1/3 or 1/4)  than that type of system would be unsustainable and soon collapse. The system would reset via the free market and common law whereby each individual would once again bear responsibility for his/herself.


Politicians don't need a supermajority, because they most likely won't have a supermajority. Sometimes, candidates don't even have opponents, as was the case with George Washington. If a supermajority were needed in all cases to elect politicians, then many offices would go vacant. I'm actually not opposed to this, as vacant offices might be an impediment to government operations and result in truly limited government.


But another point to consider is that in the days of the Founding Fathers, the Federal Union was a voluntary union. The Founding Fathers believed States could secede if they so desired. If a supermajority amended the Constitution, and a State opposed the Amendment, the belief was that a State could secede from the Union and reassert its sovereignty in full. However, Lincoln changed this view when he led a war to end voluntary participation in favor of involuntary assocation and servitude to the central government.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 6:07 pm

Do you guys see what I mean about these Constitutionalists denouncing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution when it suits their argument? If our rights are truly "God given" and can't be taken away by government, why are they so afraid? Why do we need a Constitution to tell us what our rights are? Maybe because they're not actually rights but privileges? - darmokattanagra


The above is a generalization, as I do not denounce the Bill of Rights. However, to understand people's objections to the BofR requires an understanding of English Law and Tradition. Traditionally, when powers are enumerated, a given party was held to these enumerated powers. Many feared that the BofR would restrict liberties to only those listed in the BofR, hence the objection. The 9th and 10th Amendments were introduced to settle the ojection and assure that all liberties, even those born of future economic innovations (like cars or the internet), would be retained by the people. The 9th and 10th Amendments clearly buck with tradition to expliciity limit the Federal Government's power by stating: even though we have listed liberties for ourselves, we are not bound to only these liberties and the federal government is not impliciity authorized to infringe or restrict other unenumerated rights (as nationalists would later claim). 


I love the BofR, because it does not give the government the benefit of the doubt and has acted as a buffer for some time. Liberties are the result of the free market and the economic advancements afforded to the participants therein. For example, the invention of the car expanded an individual's liberty to travel; the invention of the internet expanded an individual's liberty to communicate. Government is nothing more than a service made available by the free market, specifically voluntary associations and private contracts, for purposes of practicality. As such, the government has no real authority to assume the power of granting rights/liberties. We don't need a Constitution to tell us our rights (as said by those arguing against the Bill of Rights), but specifically to limit government so that ambitious politicians can't assume and exercise injust powers at the expense of others.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: alfamav

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum