We’re supposed to revere – and follow – the Constitution. But if they don’t, why should we?
By they, I mean the people who lord it over us. Our rulers. I choose the word deliberately, in the interests of editorial accuracy. We’re certainly not ruled by the Constitution.
And neither are they.
Consider, for instance, this business of judicial review. The power claimed by the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution. It is a power you will find nowhere in the Constitution itself, or even hinted at. It was simply asserted by the first chief justice, John Marshall (who was a cousin of but also – unsurprisingly – a great enemy of Thomas Jefferson’s) in a kind of lawyerly Beer Hall Putsch. The court, under Marshall, defined and decreed its own power. It has been the final arbiter of what the Constitution “really” means ever since.
Even when the court’s interpretation is obviously at odds with the plain meaning of what is actually written in the Constitution.
This is the mechanism by which we are halted and searched randomly – the very definition of unreasonable, which is the language you will find in the Constitution. But the Court has repeatedly asserted its own fluid definition, Humpty Dumpty-style, contrary to what is written and simply because it can. The Fourth (and other amendments) mean whatever the Court says they mean, which means they mean nothing at all.
Here’s another:
The Constitution defines the president as a mere administrator. It is not his job (under the Constitution) to “create jobs” or start wars yet he does both (or tries to) as a matter of routine. So routine has this become that it’s now expected – even demanded – by the electorate.
Making war – and “creating jobs” – are two of the chief themes of modern presidential debates and the basis for judging the merits (the greatness) of a given president. Check Shoprite Specials and Spar Specials. Yet they have no lawful power to do either thing – under the Constitution.
Presidents are great to the extent they ignore the Constitution. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR. Whether you regard the actions of these men as meritorious is beside the point. Their actions were patently not constitutional.
Since the time of Lincoln, at least, American presidents have become elected monarchs, who rule to a great extent by a decree called the executive order, which is another thing you will find nowhere in the Constitution. It is another made-up power seized by those who wield power.
Perhaps you have noticed a pattern.
This power is being used more and more promiscuously – as recently by President Obama with regard to “controlling” guns (that is, controlling people who wish to exercise their right, which is in the Constitution, to keep and bear arms). The president was not able to get what he wanted through the constitutional legislative process, so he simply issued an executive order. It is the American version of a Fuhrerbefehl. That is, an order issued from the leader.
Expect more such to be issued in the coming years.
Congress is supposed to issue the nation’s currency – not a cartel of private banks. The Constitution is pretty clear on this point, too. Yet our money is under the control of private banks styling themselves the “Federal” Reserve in a pre-Clintonian (and clearly not-constitutional) contortion of the plain meaning of words.
There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing a tax on income or property – yet we are afflicted with both.
How did a man from, say, Pennsylvania acquire the power to dictate to parents in Kentucky how their children will be educated, what they will be taught? Scrutinize the yellowed document till the cows come home and you will find no such power awarded to senators or representatives under the Constitution. Yet they have this power – and many others besides.
Where is it written in the Constitution that anyone has a right to health care? Or the obligation – enforceable – to purchase a health insurance policy? And if the government has the power to confer a right to health care (to be provided by others) and to require that people purchase health insurance, it logically follows that the government has the power to confer a right to food and housing (also provided by others) and to require that people purchase life and home and maybe gun insurance, too. If we’re allowed to retain our guns, of course.
What would be the constitutional objection?
Instead, it would be hashed out by the Court – which might decide it is (or isn’t) “constitutional”… according to its own reasoning but never referencing the actual document.
If the Constitution were, as we’re often told, the law of the land then it would have the force of law. It doesn’t. The clear prohibitions described therein are ignored as routinely and contemptuously as the speed limit; the carefully delineated processes and protocols respected less than the virtue of a $20 Vegas streetwalker.
Which brings up an important question. If the law is not respected (much less obeyed) by those who rule us, why should it be respected or obeyed by us?
EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.
Will you help us?
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 or more monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
When I came across these amazing words by the late, great Lysander Spooner, I realized I had been a fool for having believed in the sanctity of the “constitution.” This beautifully sums up why this so-called sacred document is garbage.
This should be required reading in all high school civics classes as it will begin the erosion of the blind devotion gullible Americans have for that fraudulent document.
“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.” Lysander Spooner
Indeed, Spock!
Spooner helped awaken me (as did Mencken) by being precise with word dissection; I do my best to emulate them in this regard. It is very important to not assumptions stand, to allow a word to pass undefined. Be specific. Demand to know exactly what is meant. That greasy capon Alexander Hamilton understood the power of letting people believe they heard what wasn’t said. Trump – in his clumsy way – uses the same technique.
The way back is to be careful and exact with language.
compared to many places we’re better off. i can say the holocaust was a lie (which it was) but trying doing that in Germany or Russia. I can say our president sucks (which he does) but trying do that in Thailand to the king. Hello prison! However the rights in the constitution were considered God given that the government cant interfere with. Not a right to someone elses labor like health care or housing. All in all we’ve turned into the most destructive malevolent force on the planet and if i dont pay for it off to prison i go.
As the Bill of Rights excises certain areas from governmental control, it is then most certainly NOT the role of any government agency to determine the beginning, breadth or scope of those pre-existing rights. As in “reasonable”, only the person whose rights are potentially encroached upon is in the position to ascertain reasonableness, whether with regard to eminent domain, searches or any other such area.
Yet, the CONstitution has long been a fraud. From the getgo, and long has it been recognized as such. Conceived in iniquity and malice aforethought to bind a people while loosing the predator class.
Tragically each new generation must discover that for themselves – impeded along the way by the government run childhood indoctrination centers.
The anti-federalists were so prescient, every infringement warned against in the CONstitution has come forth, despite the blithe assurances of those pimping the new order.
“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.”
(Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority)
itor, prescient words…..words to judge history by….and live by
Here’s an article by Alan Stang from ’07 which lays out some history that all readers here may not know. Stang supported Ron Paul’s first bid for the GOP nomination for president. He wasn’t alive to see the second one.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm
Ed, I noticed an ad for Devvy Kidd’s CD. A couple years after 911 I called Devvy since she lives about 100 miles from me(Big Spring) and she sent me a CD wherein she describes the federal situation. She’s extremely smart and very easy on the eyes too. I drive through Big Spring frequently(Devvy? Devvy? ha ha)and wonder how she tolerates such a statist town.
“wonder how she tolerates such a statist town.”
Yeah, all towns/cities seem statist to me. That’s why I live out in the sticks.
Yep, but it’s one of those that virtually exists for government with the exception of oil…..but then again……..
I’m not familiar with Big Spring. What kind of town is it?
Big Spring is 50+miles east of Midland. It’s at the edge of the desert where the land breaks and gets rough. It was the source of a big spring, one of the few places to find cattle water on the way N to railroads. 90 miles south of it is the location of the Santa Rita, the first well to hit oil, the actual start of the Permian Basin. It used to be a combination of ranch and oil when I was a teen but it’s also the way from Mexico north to the plains and I-20. It’s not a large town but the county seat of a big, taxable base county(Howard). There’s still not many people there since it’s all big ranches but some of the largest RV camps I’ve seen anywhere and “man camps” N and S of it. RanchRoad 33 intersects US 87 just south of town and goes through Garden City(Glasscock county), then Big Lake(Reagan county) about 50 miles further south. The Santa Rita is about 10 miles NW of Big Lake. I haul to the Santa Rita area frequently, occasionally with legal loads.
I see. Sounds like a county seat of a county easily controlled by a small group. Kind of like the “farming counties” here in Southside, where the largest landowners make up a minority of the population with a majority of the influence in county government affairs.
That’s pretty much it….except the state must have decided to move a great deal of its various offices there. It’s hard to get down the roads without colliding with a head up butt statist of some sort, generally with “exempt” tags.
Thanks for posting that link Ed. Thanks to the book “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas DiLorenzo ( http://store.mises.org/Real-Lincoln-The-P172.aspx ), I was already aware of the fact that the republican party was founded by evil men, but I learned quite a few new things by reading Alan Stangs article. I do remember reading some good things about “the old right” in articles at Lew Rockwells site which I am sure can still be found in the archives. I wonder how the republicans went from evil to considerably less evil back to evil? There is nothing that could possibly transform me back into being a statist; but I remain curious about such things.
There are other little-known facts about this ‘beacon on the hill’ aka ‘American Exceptionalism’ aka ‘peaceful people’ country: (Note: Word Press keeps rejecting this post because it mistakenly thinks my links look like spam’ Perhaps I can make another post with just the links. It has worked before)
1. U.S. government has been bombing other countries nearly every year since WW2:
2. U.S. government has invaded 70 countries since 1776:
3. America has been at war 223 years out of 240, or 93% of the time:
4. The U.S. government is responsible for the death of 20,000,000 – 30,000,000 people since WW2:
WordPress needs to fix their software:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US_Bombing_campaigns_since_1945
http://www.globalresearch.ca/list-of-countries-the-usa-has-bombed-since-the-end-of-world-war-ii/24626
Here are hopefully the rest of them:
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/us-foreign-policy-is-responsible-for-20-30-million-deaths-since-ww2_112015
I should have included a recommendation to read the Anti-Federalist Papers earlier because the authors of them correctly predicted the outcome of what would happen if the constitution were ratified:
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers .
Here is a great article to read about the ineffectiveness of constitutionalists:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/02/james-ostrowski/defeated-progressives/
Hi Brian,
I almost bought the Anti-Federalist Papers the other day when I was lurking at Barnes & Noble. They are on my list for the next trip!
The trouble with the Constitution is that even early on, and already on the heels of enacting the so-called “Bill of Rights” (which are restrictions on the Government’s ability to infringe on PRE-EXISTING rights, not a conferment of same), the Government disregarded the Constitution when it was expedient to do so, as in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. They weren’t overturned by a Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional; they so unpopular that it led to the so-called “Revolution of 1800”, which swept the Federalists under Adams out of power in favor of Thomas Jefferson (with Aaron Burr as Veep, but that’s another story…) and the Seventh Congress quickly repealed them. This was ironically the beginnings of the Democratic Party (then called the Democrat-Republican, of all things), which grew out of this anti-Federalist sentiment. It wasn’t so much that the Union was being ‘dissolved’, just simply rendered, at least for awhile, the servant of the several states and the people.
This would change over time, and even Old Hickory himself, a veteran of the Revolutionary War as a teenager and famed officer in the War of 1812 (“In a Eighteen-Fourteen we took a little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the might Mississipp…”), whom caused the Charter of the First Bank of the United States to expire, couldn’t ultimately stem the tide of statism and tyranny that mushroomed under “Dishonest Abe”.
Let’s face it…we’re all too ‘comfortable’ to march on the “District of Criminals” with pitchforks and torches, with plenty of lengths of rope.
“WordPress needs to fix their software:”
Brian, you can’t polish a turd.
Yep, and if you try, it just gets messier. I gave up posting a good article from feedblitz and won’t try again as I realized I had never been able to post a feedblitz article. Word Press sees this as spam via a new page. KMAWP.
“I do remember reading some good things about “the old right” in articles at Lew Rockwells site”
Yeah, there were some solid contributors there back then who stopped being included (for whatever reason) once Clinton was out of office. Clyde Wilson, Michael Pierce, Al Benson, the Kennedy brothers and some others are names to look for in the archives. They were all non-GOP “old right” writers.
The US is the greatest warmonger since the roman empire.
Here is a great book on how Uncle Sam has been meddling in the affairs of other countries since WWII. (Its amazing the caterwauling that went on when the evil Ruskies were accused of meddling in US election…I hope they did because Americans need a taste of their own medicine.)
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=130AEF1531746AAD6AC03EF59F91E1A1
I agree with you, Spock –
And, I submit the warmongering you mention is a function of the fact that the U.S. has had a standing army for generations. No surprise, we have been waging wars for generations – almost all of them without the formality of a declaration!
If “Healthcare is a right” means that everyone gets free/subsidized healthcare. . .
Keeping and bearing arms is a right – so everyone gets free/subsidized guns.
Consistency, people – consistency.
“Keeping and bearing arms is a right – so everyone gets free/subsidized guns.”
No, keeping and bearing arms is a right, not obtaining them.
Healthcare must be provided by someone, therefore it cannot be a right, as it is someone else’s property.
Breathing is a right – eating is not.
Hi Rev,
I know you were only joking…:)
OK, I get it know.
And so I’ll leave you with this, the anniversary of Eisenhower’s Jan. 17, 1961 speech:
http://whowhatwhy.us9.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=a9c27247b8a9046ea939df8ca&id=8e3245255a&e=b7f164fc35
My ancestors arrived to this land mass long before 1776 or 1787. They were not asked if they wanted to be governed, and were not invited to partake in the establishment of a government. They did not vote for the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, nor did they vote for the ratification of the Constitution. So much for the “consent of the governed” clause in the Declaration of Independence! But even if they had done those things; their choices would not obligate me in any way to continue doing so.
The non-property owning white men, along with women, blacks, Indians, and children, did not vote to disempower themselves to the minority wealthy land owning white men who “founded” the criminal mafia aka government.
The Constitution violates the Non Aggression Principle in so many ways! For one example: It empowers congress to lay and collect taxes. That is implied armed robbery!
The Declaration of Independence states that it is our right and duty to overthrow a tyrannical government. Why then, pray tell, did those traitors to the English government put into place wording into the constitution authorizing the government to put down insurrections and to kill people who have committed treason? Why did they not include similar language concerning politicians who violated the so-called ‘supreme law of the land.’?
Here is an article about the self-contradictory Constitution: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/04/scott-lazarowitz/the-self-contradictory-us-constitution/
I cannot recommend reading the works of Lysander Spooner highly enough! First paragraph below from wiki:
Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist, political philosopher, Unitarian, Christian abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, legal theorist, and entrepreneur of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which closed after legal problems with the federal government.
Lysander Spooner ( http://www.lysanderspooner.org/works/ ) has answered the question this article asks long ago when he penned: No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55a3c833e4b07c31913e6eae/t/55a90c38e4b0865180f14a45/1437142072769/NO+TREASON.n6.pdf
Lysander Spooner’s No Treason and other works of his woke me up to the fact that the constitution is a fraud. Up to that time I had revered the constitution as some sacred document – no more.
Spooner’s works will demolish any notions you may have on the constitution.
I recommend that everyone read No Treason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason
Dear Brian,
Exactly right.
I Used to be a Constitutionalist, Before I Knew Better
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
December 30, 2015
I used to be a constitutionalist. I used to believe in “limited government”, in the “night watchman state”.
But eventually I started thinking about the concept of government “authority” and “legitimacy” without preconceptions, and began to realize that all governments, including those based on constitutions, are plain and simple scams.
Think about it.
A bunch of strangers you don’t know from Adam hold a meeting. They call their meeting a “constitutional convention”. They make up a bunch of rules, jot them down on a piece of paper, and call the paper a “constitution”.
Then, and here’s the kicker, they come to your front door and claim that the “constitution” they “drafted” up without consulting you, mean that you must obey their rules, which they call “laws”, and pay them money, which they call “taxes”.
Or else.
Or else they will come back with guns drawn, kidnap you and lock you in a cage, or if you resist their aggression with armed force, murder you in a hail of gunfire.
My question is: “By what right???”
Why couldn’t I do the exact same thing they did, knock on their front door, and demand their obedience and money?
This, when you clear away all the mental baggage about “convening constitutional conventions”, “drafting constitutions”, and “ratifying constitutions”, is the plain and simple, and ugly truth.
Constitutions are meaningless.
https://anenemyofthestate.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/i-used-to-be-a-constitutionalist/
Hello, Bevin,
I of course agree with you, but my conversion began differently. I was never “normal”, but since I grew up in an abusive home; I honestly used to think that I was a defective person. I worked very hard to pretend that I was normal as a child and young man. Government school and church propagandized me about this nations glorious founding, and I was taught that nearly all of our early presidents were great moral godly christian heroic men.
I even spent 8 years in the Army during the Reagan/Bush years. The cold war was still going on back then, so I was there to help deter the Russians from invading the US and its allies. I just barely got out before Gulf War 1 began.
A few years later congress voted itself a pay raise effective immediately which was illegal for it to do. I fully expected an uproar from the citizens in this country, but nothing at all happened. A HUGE red flag then went up in my mind. It occurred to me that we no longer had a constitutional government. It would take a few more years for me to get my first computer, but once I did: My previously mentioned research began as soon as I trained myself how to use Windows 98 and the Internet.
My massive transformation began during that time. I am now happy as hell that I have always been “different”!
In my experience, people are either an Eloi or a Morlock. Eloi being superficial and secondhanders, worried about what others think. Morlocks being about substance, and dealing with the blunt truth of matters.
One isn’t necessarily better than the other. They each fill a different niche. I mean, do you want your mate to care about her appearance and making things seem nice, or do you want her to know her way around a bunker and an AK-47. To each his own, I guess.
Are You An Eloi Or a Morlock?
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/04/30/are-you-an-eloi-or-a-morlock/
Some people, Eric for instance, have too much personality or individuality to really fit into one category or the other. Which is a good thing, not being easily reduced to a label, I’d suppose.
Ever take one of those personality inventories? I’m an INFJ; we’re rare ducks, apparently.
Yeah can’t remover will take and see. Love letters by any rand is on TCM right now.
Member not mover
“any rand”? That’s gotta be spell check – our worst enema.
Probably auto-complete. Auto-complete is a life-saver on my cell phone since it allows me to not insert punctuation. It can also drive me bonkers for the same reason when it insists. There should be a button to easily turn it on and off.
So are INTJ’s, of which I am one. Other people may be wondering what we are talking about Eric.
There are a variety of tests that one may choose from:
http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm
http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/register.aspx
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
Eric,
That is quite rare. I’m an INTJ.
That’s about 1% of the populace.
About your article above: its all about jurisdiction I think. The statutory fiction called the United States is lord over the well defined area of the District of Columbia.
Within these walls statutes rule and the Constitution can and will be ignored at will.
The Constitutional Republic, which are the 50 individual states, are supposed to be governed by the Constitution. Unfortunately for us the average person unknowingly gives up sovereign authority to the DC based corporate entity.
The folks in DC use words that, although they are spelled the same and sound the same, are used only to ensnare the unwary. Not to mention the use of brute force.
Ever wonder why a human would be considered a Resident Alien? Or a Non Resident Alien Individual?
Love your articles and the definition and examples of Clover….I try to share this information every day.
Keep it up sir.
Thee.
It’s Meyers Briggs…..I like to think of that as pop psych lite…..back in another life, we used the MMPI when testing inmates at the state pen in MS. Those were some scary mo-fos…..
BTW, my recent posts have failed…don’t know why.
another piece of paper…
Code of Thug Life
http://mutulushakur.com/site/1992/08/code-of-thug-life/
In 1992, at a cease fire agreement and gang ‘Truce Barbecue’ in Watts, California, Tupac Amaru Shakur was instrumental in getting rival members of the Crips and Bloods to sign a code of ethics, that which is called The Code of Thug Life. He and Dr. Mutulu Shakur had helped write up The ‘Code,’ with other ‘O.G’s’ who came together to bring order to the violence on the street.
Code of THUG LIFE:
All new Jacks to the game must know: a) He’s going to get rich. b) He’s going to jail. c) He’s going to die.
Crew Leaders: You are responsible for legal/financial payment commitments to crew members; your word must be your bond.
One crew’s rat is every crew’s rat. Rats are now like a disease; sooner or later we all get it; and they should too.
Crew leader and posse should select a diplomat, and should work ways to settle disputes. In unity, there is strength!
Car jacking in our Hood is against the Code.
Slinging to children is against the Code.
Having children slinging is against the Code.
No slinging in schools.
Since the rat Nicky Barnes opened his mouth; ratting has become accepted by some. We’re not having it.
Snitches is outta here.
The Boys in Blue don’t run nothing; we do. Control the hood, and make it safe for squares.
No slinging to pregnant Sisters. That’s baby killing; that’s genocide!
Know your target, who’s the real enemy.
Civilians are not a target and should be spared.
Harm to children will not be forgiven.
Attacking someone’s home where their family is known to reside, must be altered or checked.
Senseless brutality and rape must stop.
Our old folks must not be abused.
Respect our Sisters. Respect our Brothers.
Sisters in the Life must be respected if they respect themselves.
Military disputes concerning business areas within the community must be handled professionally and not on the block.
No shooting at parties.
Concerts and parties are neutral territories; no shooting!
Know the Code; it’s for everyone.
Be a real ruff neck. Be down with the code of the Thug Life.
Protect yourself at all times.
“I didn’t create T.H.U.G. L.I.F.E., I diagnosed it.”
– Tupac Shakur
Hmmm, well Tupac ain’t said shit. What about Tookie Williams? Ever heard of him? Here’s a quote from his writing:
“An idea that isn’t dangerous doesn’t deserve to be called an idea.”
History has proven that government never is limited. It always seeks to expand. Always. Look at local governments. They continually annex adjacent areas. Typically they annex areas where valuable property has been developed. These annexations are only to increase their tax base often at the objection of those whose property is being annexed. Fundamentally this is no different than being conquered by a foreign power.
A government’s power can never truly be limited. A piece of paper certainly will not limit government. The best thing that can be done is to limit a government’s territorial jurisdiction. That’s why I’m a Articles of Confederation kind of guy. Establishing the Federal Government was a mistake.
Yes, creating a federal/centralized government was a huge mistake. I think that probably ANY government is a mistake, at least a government that can tax.
I concur, the more I read, the more I’m convinced that the Constitution is the result of a coup d’eat by the likes of Al Hamilton and his cronies. The Anti-Federalists (as I read them) envisioned an America with zillions of self-governing communities, not one lorded over by a megalithic centralized State.
Hi Glenn,
Agreed. Hamilton openly admired the British system and worked all his life to establish it here. To the extent of colluding with the British government. His actions were arguably treasonable.
But ultimately, I blame Washington for Hamilton. Without the doting old man, who advanced and protected Hamilton, that “bastard son of a Scotch peddlar” (as Adams styled him) would have been at most a footnote in history.
Exactly! Some Lysander Spooner would be in order.
Great piece Eric ,as usual.
I Love these cold shower,reality,and grandma naked pieces. Bitch
slap things as they are. Not as they wish they were.
Thanks!!
The Constitution was ratified by the States. They consented to it. But who consented to the various States? Generally speaking, with some variation, the States were granted sovereignty over a given geographic area by the assorted European heads of state, who were ‘colonizing’ them. But who gave these kings, queens, etc., the right to do that? Here we come to the sticking point. It certainly does not align with the libertarian view of property ownership by homesteading.
Hi Phillip,
What’s needed, I submit, is a clean slate.
We can’t undo the past. We have control over the future. Or at least, how we choose to interact with one another in the future. If we each decided to not be the one who initiates violence, including by proxy (voting for others to do it on our behalf) then real progress could be made.
Almost anything is possible. Certainly, that is!
Whatever the other failings on his part, Aaron Burr did a great public service when he challenged Alexander Hamilton to a duel and lit his ass up. Better late than never, I suppose.
A friend has a little fit when I diss the shrub, says he’s gone, don’t dwell on it, etc. as if it’s my failing. Then he goes on to invite is to his confederate re-enactments and rails against the great liar.
What president’s do, as well as other high ranking people, but esp. presidents, go on to plague the country for at least decades if not forever.
Had someone offed GW before he went on the killing spree known as the Whiskey Wars we might be able to legally distill as do most other people in other countries. It might have served as an overall object lesson too.
The Chimp – more so than any modern president – normalized Fear and enshrined the Security State. It was he who gave us the “Homeland” and the TSA. For this I will always burn with a desire to piss down his throat.
I’ll gladly be there with my can of brake cleaner.
Great ideas and discussion from all. Thanks. Spread the words.
1798 Alien and Sedition Acts authorized president John Adams to jail critics of the government. My point is that the consolidation of federal power started long before the War of Northern Aggression; Lincoln accelerated the process and set the example for every president thereafter, and in the process birthed the welfare/warfare state.
The current generation of young voters, say under 35 years old, has been sedated by the proliferation of cellular communications and internet access to the point of apathy, thereby facilitating the emergence of the police state.
I think the way to preserve a republican government would be to restrict voting rights to those people with an awareness of the issues and ‘skin in the game’. Employed, literate, engaged citizens are more likely to make the right choices, as opposed to voting oneself a share of the treasury.
One can observe alarming parallels when comparing post-Civil War USA to Roman decline, and perhaps that’s why public ed no longer examines classical Roman/Greek subject matter in the curriculum. Interventionist foreign policy and generous social welfare policy requires the revenue generated by the income tax and the IRS. In the long run, honest people of integrity and moral righteousness are screwed.
Thanks for the posts, people. It’s great to know there are many other people out there with their eyes open and working grey matter between their ears!!
Well-said, Foggy.
And welcome to EPautos!
“My point is that the consolidation of federal power started long before the War of Northern Aggression”
I agree. In my view, the consolidation started with the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation, in favor of a vaguely worded Constitution.
The 15th Amendment, which failed ratification but was enacted anyway, established the franchise of the vote as a right. If there exists a right to vote, then anyone, from anywhere on earth who happens to be in the area of a polling place has the inalienable human right to cast a vote.
Ridiculous, ain’t it?
ED, “In my view, the consolidation started with the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation, in favor of a vaguely worded Constitution.”
Absolutely. I highly recommend the book Hologram of Liberty by Ken Royce. It spells put how the Constitution Convention and the resulting document was/is a fraud.
skunk, my cousin sent this very informative article by a federal judge. After reading it many things made more sense. I’d hope everyone would give this a read.
http://thepetesantillishow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AVR095-openlettertosheriffward.pdf
Good stuff 8, how much more do I need to get WP to post?
PtB, word press wants, no, demands, verbosity. No “no shits” or “good one” nor any of those two word answers. Just toe the line and you’ll be ok. Seems like I’ve heard that somewhere else.
I told my wife about this and she finally asked what WP is and I explained it to her. Why? she asks. I could only reply “I suppose to establish it’s “authoritah”. Screw you spellcheck. I’ll be damned, it didn’t trip on spellcheck. First time for everything I guess. I’ve cussed SC for decades. Could it be learning? shirley not.
8, thanks, I read that link a few days ago.
It adds to my belief that there is no legitimate “authority”.
We must all not only question authority we must all first question the claim of “authority”.
Larken Rose is right, there is no legitimate authority. Humanity will advance tremendously when we all figure that out.
skunk, I’d be remiss if I didn’t include the way in which the federal govt. “seized” the individual states, merely by writing in federalese that it was so.
http://usa-the-republic.com/emergency%20powers/buck%20act.html
“restrict voting rights to those people with an awareness of the issues and ‘skin in the game’”
Voting in the colonies was originally limited to property owners, those who would be paying any taxes assessed.
The American Constitution has been a dead letter for decades. It has been superseded by the Administrative State. The Constitution has many murderers that you can point your finger at,but probably the biggest one of all is a voting majority of Americans who have traded in their birthright of liberty in exchange for security. Gradually over time the first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) has been whittled away and replaced,instead,by the 10 Planks to the Communist Manifesto (albeit in modified form).
The Progressives,lead mainly by Wilson,FDR and LBJ and the Left Wing of the Democrat Party has with the aiding and abetting of a corrupt judicial system and “me too” Republicans changed the original fabric of America,as envisioned by the Founders,into a centralized welfare/warfare state that has bankrupted our nation with unsustainable debt,confiscatory taxes and draconian laws and regulations.
What is happening to America is nothing new in history as it is the fate of most free nations that become lazy and complacent. The citizens of these nations pave the way for the megalomaniacs,sociopaths and their cronies to centralize power and thus rule those that wish to be free and independent. The Roman Empire of 2000 years ago is a perfect example.
The American Constitutional Republic,although far from perfect,was a system basically designed for honest men to live under. The problem in America today is that honest men are a distinct voting minority. Instead we have become a nation of sheep who vote for a living instead of working for a living.
In the long history of mankind,sorry to say,America will be just a footnote on what might have been.
Wow, Libertarian Jerry, I just cannot understand how you can enter into such a frothing polemic against the usurpers and degraders of our now, long dead, Constitution, and leave out, with conspicuous alacrity, the demon seed and mass murderer who was the “founder of the feast,” so to speak, and the first to use our beloved Constitution as just so much toilet paper. Of course, I am speaking of the, now burning in hell, 16th “president” of the united States, Abraham Lincoln. If there has ever been a man who has trodden the dust of this earth that deserves the eternal torment of the seventh circle of hell, it is he. He set the “style” for every other “presidential” demagogue and despot that came after him, and did it by bathing in the blood of nearly 350,000 innocent Southerners, and another 300,000 immigrant mercenaries, conscripted dissenters and large amount of brainwashed and lied to northerners who made their deal with the devil and paid for it with their lives. He was the first to usurp the authority of Congress, to unlawfully appropriate money, to suspend the right of habeas corpus, which is a right expressly delegated to congress alone. He was the first to silence dissent by rounding up over 30,000 people, many of which were leading writers and news editors of their day and clapping them into prison for four long years, and for many, they were never to be heard from again. He actually banished a sitting congressman, and ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because he didn’t like what one had to say about him and couldn’t get the other to do his bidding! He also unlawfully dismissed State legislatures and actually arrested and imprisoned members of Maryland legislature to prevent them from assembling in order to vote themselves out of the union. But, above all these crimes, his worst was the inauguration of “total war” against the women, children, old and infirm of the Southern States. What he and his generals did was considered a war crime all around the world, yet this megalomaniac is not only lauded as a hero, but is this country’s first unofficial, “uncannonized” saint. If you want to know what happened to our Constitution, it is Lincoln and his murderous war against the Southern people you need to look to, not Wilson, FDR or Johnson. They’re mere amateurs when compared to the evils of this devil.
Karl Marx was a supporter of the Lincolnites. A big all-powerful government was his wet dream.
The Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution are the four founding documents of the American Republic. They should all be read together.
Jury nullification: everyone who wants to be considered an American should find out what these words mean.
Police officers who act ultra vires to the Constitution should be arrested and if they resist arrest; well, what cops do unto others can also be done unto them.
“Karl Marx was a supporter of the Lincolnites.”
Adolph Hitler was also a great admirer of Dishonest Abe. And the phrase ‘final solution’ was taken from a letter to Abe from one of his generals (Sheridan IIRC) regarding to Indians.
“Jury nullification: everyone who wants to be considered an American should find out what these words mean.”
“The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think,
to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various
laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from the tyrannical abuses
of power by government.” http://www.fija.org
Right on brother. Let’s not forget that he was also a racist and white supremacist.
Cleophus….What you say is true. There is much blame to go around on the shoulders of past politicians,including Lincoln, for our now current troubles. However,the main thrust of my comment was that most of the blame for the decline and fall of the American Republic can be lain at the feet of the majority of Americans who have been dishonest in their quest for largess by either being employed by or living off of the fruits of the labors of their fellow citizens and thus have ensconced themselves on the government gravy train. In essence,we have socialism in America because the average American voter wants socialism.
“the main thrust of my comment was that most of the blame for the decline and fall of the American Republic can be lain at the feet of the majority of Americans ”
I don’t see how blame can be laid at the feet of a majority of Americans, when the majority of us don’t waste time voting. You’re advancing the fallacious argument that “we did this to ourselves” by voting for the wrong assholes. Bullshit. “We”, had nothing to do with any of this. This shit is done TO us, not BY us.
” In essence,we have socialism in America because the average American voter wants socialism.”
Now we get the myth of the voter, voting for all this shit that the PTB want to inflict upon us. Explain to me how casting an uncounted vote for one or the other of two indistinguishable candidates amounts to voting for whatever Congress and/or the unelected army of bureaucrats has done.
Wake up. It’s bad enough to buy into such nonsense, but it’s worse to try to foist it off on people who know better.
Ed, you hit that one so squarely it’s STILL flying. Should anyone really want more understanding read the entirety of this piece by Peter Dale Scott. Don’t just haphazardly peruse it or get through it s quickly as possible, read every bit of it and the idea voters have much to do with our government will be laid to rest in anyone’s mind with decent reading comprehension. And there’s more to be said on this subject for sure but this is a good start:
http://whowhatwhy.org/2014/10/05/the-hidden-government-group-linking-jfk-watergate-iran-contra-and-911/
Hi Ed, and Eight.
Excellent points. Democracy and voting are intended to lend legitimacy to an inherently illegitimate institution. As Ed points out, most of us don’t vote at all. Those who do, mostly do so out of tribal loyalty, feel good emotionalism and a sense of responsibility, rather than perceived self interest. There is no such thing as a rational voter; and being “knowledgeable” matters not one whit. You could study, in detail, the policy proposals and voting records of each presidential candidate and, at election time, you would still be left with a choice between two lying, thieving sociopaths or casting a meaningless “protest” vote. If you spent no time becoming “knowledgeable”, you would face exactly the same choice.
This cartoon is good:
http://rall.com/comic/we-get-the-politicians-we-deserve
Jeremy
Great cartoon Jeremy, and I agree with you.
I was scanning through movie stream horror flicks just now when I remembered that there was some episode of the old T.V. series Twilight Zone that I had wanted to look up. I searched wiki first and encountered something relevant to this thread immediately:
Throughout the 1950s, Serling established himself as one of the most popular names in television. He was as famous for writing televised drama as he was for criticizing the medium’s limitations. His most vocal complaints concerned censorship, which was frequently practiced by sponsors and networks. “I was not permitted to have my senators discuss any current or pressing problem,” he said of his 1957 production The Arena, intended to be an involving look into contemporary politics. “To talk of tariff was to align oneself with the Republicans; to talk of labor was to suggest control by the Democrats. To say a single thing germane to the current political scene was absolutely prohibited.”
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_Zone )
Things in that arena sure haven’t changed very much in the last 60+ years, have they?
There never has been any such thing as a limited government for very long.
No shit Brian and no such thing as an open media. With the exception of very few type journalists, the MSM has always been the spawn of someone with power, regardless of local all the way to international and their message depended on that person(s).
I agree with you Eightsouthman, but the people among the masses who are pro-constitution seem to think that the possibility of a limited government is plausible if they just elect the right person. They only seem to half consider the fact that the congress and the senate will likely over-ride any issue that the president may strongly endorse. In other words: the masses still believe in the ‘Great Man’ theory. This ‘great man’ they believe would be able to garner sufficient support from the legislative branch to do what he promised to his supporters. Reason and facts do not matter to most Statists presently. It is my hope that once the state shakes them off of its tits they will finally be open to persuasion. For now; they think that genuine self-government is a utopian dream. They do not realize that every form of known statism has been tried repeatedly in over a hundred countries for the past 10,000+ years, and has had a daily 100% failure rate in respecting and allowing individual liberty and freedom to its common people.
Statists like to toss the question: “Where has anarchy ever worked?” at us while ignoring how bad their system as a whole is working. They also tend to pretend that our societies present solutions to problems such as crime are already working satisfactorily.
When presented with the fact that one nearly anarchist country had lasted successfully for from about 300 – 700+ years depending upon how strict a definition of anarchism one is using (compared to our statist constitutional government lasting only about 70 years), they like to say that this is ancient history.
https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/david-friedman-on-medieval-iceland/
They say that our society is now more complex and therefore requires (political) governing (despite its perfect failure rate). Do they not realize that their theory of necessary state expansion leads to eventual complete slavery? When one points out to them that Indians had leaders, but usually no real government and no prisons, and give other examples of anarchist societies; statist discount them because there is no ‘state’ or ‘country’ with anarchist (non) rule. They do not realize that countries and states are mere lines drawn by governments.
Take, for example, Indian reservations. Each one considers itself to be a separate nation; yet no government endorsed map shows their ‘nation’ as being anything more than a territory within a state or two. The land I own in Missouri is an anarchist territory so far as I, the owner, am concerned. The state ignores my intentions entirely though.
Statists presently believe whatever their real god, the state, tells them to believe. States oftentimes turn against their own during a collapse. Hopefully, the hardcore Statists will then wise up!
Hi Brian,
I agree, most people spend most of their lives in a state of anarchy with respect to other people. If anarchy “didn’t work”, society could not exist.
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy,
This – about anarchy in our individual lives – is an interesting business. People tend to take the glib/superficial view that it implies chaos and disorder but nothing could be further from the truth. There are conventions and rules governing interactions…. just not government.
It’s a monster distinction.
A good article in LRC about the current anarchy in Syria.http://lewrockwell.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6ad24f4cd1574f1f7b8a0a03a&id=0f86db3768&e=62e95e6f13
It’s common to find already among the statists that get printed in MSM the meme that we need a “leader”. I have occasioned to need a leader and generally had one in the tackle box. But mostly when I hear that line I feel bile rise in my throat and the high-pitched sound rise in my ears.
I seem to do well by not being led nor leading. There are times when we all could probably benefit from advice we could take or leave. And we don’t take to having advice given us except when someone rightly sees how he can help with a current problem and often not even then. I admit I’m a stubborn sumbitch and so are most people. So why do they so easily suck up this bs from politicians and bureaucrats? Seriously, they couldn’t make it without “leadership”?
8, “I seem to do well by not being led nor leading.”
I think that that aptly describes most Libertarian minded people. I know it describes me.
I do not presume to tell anyone to follow me and I sure as hell ain’t gonna follow anyone else either.
skunkbear, when I think of people I know i general, I don’t know anyone, no matter how pliable they might seem on the surface who really appreciates being led.
For some reason I just thought of people they get to “throw out the first ball”. Somehow that’s what I think of when I consider pols and bureaucrats, people without skills, just shills dressed in the appropriate attire.
Hi Eric,
Functional anarchy is so pervasive it’s like water to a fish. When I argue that most people choose cooperation over violence I’m often accused of being naive and utopian. When this happens I ask, “how do you behave toward other people? Do you behave decently because you are afraid of the government, or for some other reason? Also, how do your circle of friends and family behave?” To which I almost invariably get some form of this response: “well sure, we behave well but most other people don’t”. “Really, I say. Do you sincerely believe that you and your friends exist in an island of decency surrounded by a sea of depravity? If so, why are you not terrified when you go out, shop, meet new people, etc…? Do you believe that all of those other people are restrained by their fear of the law? Or, perhaps you innately understand that most people are like you and your friends”.
I believe that most human beings are hard wired to cooperate with one another. The religious may posit that we have been created with a moral sense. While this is fine, it is not necessary to explain why most people cooperate. Self interest is enough. Being a human predator is dangerous and difficult. Other people grow to hate you. You always have to fear the arrival of a stronger man. Other people will not voluntarily come to your aid, or protect you from harm. In short, your hold on power and safety will always be tenuous, unless you can convince enough people that you are a “protector”, not a predator.
Therein lies the genius of the architects of the State. Through the magic of “political authority”, predators are transformed into protectors, public servants and guardians of the common weal. The power elite, once terrified of “Democracy”, quickly realized that there exists no greater mechanism for legitimizing political authority among the people.
Predators and truly vicious people exist, But, they are outliers. The most cunning of these people have figured out that the safest and most effective means of achieving their goals is by exploiting the power of the State.
Jeremy
Jeremy, your last comment was nothing short of stunning. I wish I had it memorized. I intend to steal it and use it flagrantly in arguments against anarchy or for govt. Great stuff there.
Hi Eight,
Thank you! Please steal and use fragrantly.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Jeremy – I agree w/8. That was very well stated. Glad you are not claiming copyright over it, because it needs to be widely used.
Hi PTB,
Thank you, I’m glad you guys think it is worth using. What good are ideas if we don’t want to share them?
Kind Regards,
Jeremy
Jeremy, you been looking over my shoulder? I spelled it fragrantly, noticed it and corrected it. I almost changed my mind back to fragrantly, thinking it was a Freudian slip and I’d just stay with it. Kudos…..again.
Hi Eight,
That’s weird. No, I just didn’t catch the mistake until after I submitted the post. In fact, I didn’t notice it until you pointed it out.
Cheers,
Jeremy
“The problem as I see it is that we’ve lost faith in the average citizen to do the right thing.”
John Whitehead up on LRC today – https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/john-w-whitehead/can-tell-government-go-hell/
Hi Phillip,
I’d alter this just slightly to read “some people have lost faith in the average citizen…” Not “we” have lost faith. Some people. Clovers.
I agree, Jerry.
Especially your observation about honest men. I put it this way: Either self-government or… government.
See Doug Casey on ‘Why Government?’
https://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/weekend-edition-doug-casey-why-do-we-need-government
“The Progressives,lead mainly by Wilson,FDR and LBJ and the Left Wing of the Democrat Party has with the aiding and abetting of a corrupt judicial system and “me too” Republicans changed the original fabric of America,as envisioned by the Founders,into a centralized welfare/warfare state that has bankrupted our nation with unsustainable debt,confiscatory taxes and draconian laws and regulations.”
Nonsense, Republican Jerry. The assault of the progressives was LED by republican asshats represented by the sainted Massa Abe Lincoln, aided by some “me too” democrats, before Wilson was old enough to vote. The “Founders” envisioned no such fabric of America as your little myth would have us believe.
The misnamed Civil War was the first republican revolution. Republicans have been trying to sell another revolution ever since the “me too” Democrats became the second socialist party. The only difference between the “two parties” is that the Democrat party was once a force for liberty. The Republican party never has been.
There’s no such thing as democrats and republicans any more than there are bears and packers or andre the giant and hulk hogan. It’s just theater really. Sure there are games and the teams want to win them but the reality is there is only the league at the end of the day.
Through time what is “democrat” and what is “republican” morphs like the drama of professional wrestling. At the very worst it’s a tag team. Neither team actually undoes the progress of the other. Ever. What the democrats called the horrors of the Bush jr years were kept. Every single one of them and then advanced further since Obama has been in office. The same will happen if a republican gets elected. What Obama did will be kept at minimum and probably advanced further. It’s been a century since Woodrow. Has a president of either party reversed what evils came out of his years in office? The only reversals towards more liberty for ordinary people in a century have been prohibition of alcohol and owning gold. Pot may get added to that list eventually. But that’s it.
Arguing which of the parties led and which followed is nonsense. Their league is what is important. Ever watch when someone suggests something that ends the league or even reduces it? Both teams turn to attack that individual. Reform is thus impossible. Only collapse. Which will bring about something worse nine times out of ten. And you can bet fedgov won’t go quietly and peacefully like the USSR.
BRENT, I have been trying to noodle together a unifying way of understanding the only two valid categories of people I have learned exist in my 54 years of living.
Cat one: There are three types of people – the producers, the plunderers, and the parasites.
Cat two: There are two types of people – the busybodies and the leave-us-alones.
While I have yet to successfully combine the two into one coherent principle I am absolutely certain that Rs or Ds, libs or cons, religious or non religious, etc. are all irrelevant categories.
Skunkbear – you are most likely correct.
I think you’ve got it down. I am not sure it can be better refined.
Democrats and republicans only vary on how they prefer to meddle. Slightly. So there will never be a differentiation between them in cat. two. They will always be meddlers, all of them. Now there are fans of the teams and the teams themselves. The fans are often producers the actual team players are almost always parasites. This again applies to both democrats and republicans.
leave-us-alone types are nearly always producers. meddlers are usually plunderers and their support base often parasites and useful idiots. Useful idiots feeling guilty about what they have produced seek redemption from having a plunderer take it from them and give some to a parasite and of course they can’t leave other people alone, they have to have others forced to ‘give’ too.
Your system I think is about as good as it can get. It works. out of the five things nearly everyone can be described simply by their leading tendencies, qualifying for one or more of the five.
skunk, by George I think you’ve got it. Kudos to you. It’s a good thing it took two sentences for your summation too or WP wouldn’t have accepted it. Everybody genuflect now…..All Hail WP!
“Arguing which of the parties led and which followed is nonsense.”
Really? If historical accuracy is unimportant to you, fine, but saying that my response to a misstatement of fact by another poster is nonsense was uncalled for.
If you don’t know history well enough to realize that the republican party led the change from republic to socialist democracy, you need to do more reading.
“It’s been a century since Woodrow. Has a president of either party reversed what evils came out of his years in office? ”
Yes, Harding reversed several of Wilson’s evil acts. You’re not going to understand what’s happening now if you don’t know what went before.
What the powers that be want us doing is arguing which of the two parties is better or worse than the other. It’s a trap. It’s nonsense. It’s a tag team. For every historical item for one side there’s another for the other.
I’m sorry you’re offended because of where I placed my reply in this very limited discussion software that effectively has no threading and is best read in date order. Web discussions suck, decades of usenet refinements were tossed out the window for the web. I have to deal with it too.
The simple fact is the parties work together and they switch off depending on which one can better dupe the public. Usually what grows under one is often what the public thinks the other is aiming for. The way progressives and neo-cons and others shift from one team to the other should be a big clue.
Nothing of particular significance from the Wilson years was reversed other than the prohibition of alcohol and that was under FDR in great depression. Fedgov is still using Wilson’s foreign policy, the federal reserve still exists, the income tax still exists, the medical cartel still exists, the direct election of senators still exists. The middle east is still mess because of Sykes-Picot, I can go on and on. The world we live in today was largely shaped by what occurred when Wilson was in the White House and because of things he did and supported. If he hadn’t meddled in Europe’s war alone things today would be much different. Sure Harding calmed a few things Wilson had going but he didn’t put an end to interventionist foreign policy. There were no big reversal’s of Wilson, just some toning down here and there.
I very much know what happened before, I am just not stupid enough to think the letter behind a politician’s at any given time shows that we should have one team or the other in power.
Hi Brent,
They (the politicians) pretend to disagree so we (the people) believe we have a choice.
BTW, the often ambiguous and difficult placing of comments that you describe is why I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to always address the person I am responding to.
Jeremy
“BTW, the often ambiguous and difficult placing of comments that you describe is why I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to always address the person I am responding to.”
That is also why I sometimes cut and paste a quote of what I’m addressing in my response. It’s a tedious, old-school method of posting, but it helps a little to eliminate confusion, as far as that is possible with this shitty siteware.
“What the powers that be want us doing is arguing which of the two parties is better or worse than the other.”
So, you think that’s what I was doing, arguing that one party is better than the other? You didn’t read what I wrote, in that case. I pointed out to republican Jerry that it was his beloved GOP that did what he accused their opposition of doing.
Harding reversed what he could, those things that were Wilson’s doing, not the major changes put in place by Congress, which Wilson couldn’t have done and which Harding couldn’t undo.
” I am just not stupid enough to think the letter behind a politician’s at any given time shows that we should have one team or the other in power.”
Neither am I, though you’re happy to insinuate otherwise. Paint me as someone stupid enough to think that there are two parties, one good and one evil, if you like. Anyone who has been here a few years knows better, and you should as well.
“So, you think that’s what I was doing, arguing that one party is better than the other? ”
Let’s see someone posts democrats are evil then you post, no it’s the republicans, it’s unclear what your point exactly is so I comment placed best I can in this limited situation and you take it personally and in the manner that I am accusing you of being a team fan instead of taking it as an interjection of my views. Then you tell me I don’t know history when I argue there really is no such thing as democrats and republicans, that it is just a show for voters. How am I supposed to take that?
Harding did nothing of lasting relevance with regard to what he could do. Let’s limit it to those things that didn’t need to go through congress. He didn’t reject interventionism, he just made it more mild. If he had rejected it outright, maybe just maybe that could have stopped Wilsonian foreign policy at that time. But instead it was just tweaking edges leaving the principles of intervention, of regime changing other nations, intact.
Ed, seems like few know or ever knew the Democratic party was once the “conservative” party, not ready to spend others money or start wars. I suppose they had to distinguish themselves after the uncivil war and join the Republicans in robbing, making war and creating tyranny in this country. As he just said in Pulp Fiction, the tyranny of evil men(It’s running right now).
We’d feel a great weight lifted from our necks most likely with a monarchy right now. At least we wouldn’t be living the tyranny of the secret government, the CIA within the CIA. And people simply accept this. Pubic education at work.
Andrew Jackson famously made this remark—“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
Charles, Marshall began rendering the Constitution null and void as soon as he took office, in 1800 I believe. Not only that, his family continued in that role for……ever, or at least up till now. Without a male heir they were delegated to use the Dulles as their kit and kin and have continued to “make” law ever since. And we all know what good ole boys John and Foster were. Just ask JFK.
You meant to say John Foster and Allen, correct?
Yep, brain fart, hard week.
Charles, Jackson made that statement in reference to the SC decision which condemned as unconstitutional his forced removal of Cherokee Nationals from their property. That may have been one proper ruling of Marshall’s court since treaties were being violated by the removal.
Just a bit of background on the statement.
“By they, I mean the people who lord it over us. Our rulers.” Close Eric.
I prefer George Carlin’s definition, we have owners.
https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ
I believe Lysander Spooner put it best:
“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.”
NCCLYDE, agreed. That is one of my favorite quotes.
And I believe it was Henry Ford who said that History is just lies agreed upon. And one of Hstory’s biggest lies is the lie that the US Constitution was designed to limit government.
Alexander Hamilton (an asshat for the banksters back then) deliberately designed the USC to put in place the steps towards a large central government.
Hi Eric,
Good post. Constitutions can’t limit government power. Government can’t limit its’ own power. An institution that claims the sole right to judge its’ own actions, relative to the law, exits, by definition, outside of the law. Constitutions, and Democracy exist to obscure this fundamental fact.
Jeremy
Your post reflects my own thinking. We have what I call a self-referential system, and that is what you describe in your post. In other words, we always have to rely on our fellow man to judge our actions. There is no outside ultimate arbiter to resolve disagreements in an objective and fair manner.
Therein lies the rub. I don’t see anyway out of this dilemma. We are caught in a vicious cycle that can only be broken by a few courageous and honest men. Yet, even if such men arise and return us to our Constitutional roots, what is there to prevent this vicious cycle from arising again?
Is it just me or is anybody else having a problem posting this article to Facebook?
Hi M,
I would not be surprised. Zuckerberg is on record saying Facebook is amenable to memory-holing posts it regards as objectionable.
I despise Facebook, but more so the sheep who have made it such a juggernaut by participating.
Zuckerberg is on record saying Facebook is amenable to memory-holing posts it regards as objectionable.
But of course. He didn’t get his billions in operating capital by not playing nice with our overlords.
But ERIC, without facebook and the other social media how would anyone know the idiotic thoughts and inane actions of every narcissistic twit on the planet?
The world needs to know what Debbbie597 is having for lunch and how she feels about it right now!
Luddite!
Fuck Zuck….that toady is a hypocrite of the tenth degree…check out how Glenn Greenwald slams Zuck and Schmidt of Googulag in the Ted Talk on privacy.
https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters?language=en
The Constitution of the United States is working as it was designed to work. To slowly concentrate political power in the federal government through interpretation that allows broad powers. The few political compromises made to get the USC in the first place have nearly all been fully breached and rendered moot.
Combine that with the general decay of any system and we are living with the predictable result.
I had come to a similar conclusion to Lysander Spooner before I read his works twenty years ago. The U.S.C. was a joke from the get go. Even if the individuals involved in the late 18th century all agreed, and they surely did not, such an agreement can in no way be considered binding on anybody born even one second afterwards. The consent of the governed is a frelling joke, and the hoi polloi are so consumed by bread and circuses, think football, that one can never expect them to question the supposed authority of the feral government. On the other hand, the wheels are coming off as we speak and 2016 should be a very interesting year…heh, heh, Trump……it just tickles me the clown show going on right now…pass the popcorn.
“Which brings up an important question. If the law is not respected (much less obeyed) by those who rule us, why should it be respected or obeyed by us?”
Because if we don’t adhere to the document designed to limit the fedgov and protect our liberties, we probably will end up with a new government that is just as tyrannical as the one we have now.
Because if we don’t adhere to the document designed to limit the fedgov and protect our liberties, we probably will end up with a new government that is just as tyrannical as the one we have now.
Which document would that be? Most certainly not the Constitution under discussion, a cursory read of which makes clear was intended to centralize power.
No, the document to which you refer is the Articles of Condederation, which was nullified by the conspiritorial (and unlawful) Constitutional convention that foisted the current travesty upon us.
Articles of Confederation
Damned Smartphone keypads!
Lib, better than I am. It would take me an hour to peck, erase and peck some more to post that off my phone. Big fingers, small keys….crap.
And here’s a bit of something that should relate to any legal piece of paper that supposedly protects us with “supposedly” being the key word.
The Internet of Things that Talk About You Behind Your Back
SilverPush is an Indian startup that’s trying to figure out all the
different computing devices you own. It embeds inaudible sounds into the
webpages you read and the television commercials you watch. Software
secretly embedded in your computers, tablets, and smartphones picks up
the signals, and then uses cookies to transmit that information back to
SilverPush. The result is that the company can track you across your
different devices. It can correlate the television commercials you watch
with the web searches you make. It can link the things you do on your
tablet with the things you do on your work computer.
Your computerized things are talking about you behind your back, and for
the most part you can’t stop them — or even learn what they’re saying.
This isn’t new, but it’s getting worse.
Surveillance is the business model of the Internet, and the more these
companies know about the intimate details of your life, the more they
can profit from it. Already there are dozens of companies that secretly
spy on you as you browse the Internet, connecting your behavior on
different sites and using that information to target advertisements. You
know it when you search for something like a Hawaiian vacation, and ads
for similar vacations follow you around the Internet for weeks.
Companies like Google and Facebook make an enormous profit connecting
the things you write about and are interested in with companies trying
to sell you things.
Cross-device tracking is the latest obsession for Internet marketers.
You probably use multiple Internet devices: your computer, your
smartphone, your tablet, maybe your Internet-enabled television — and,
increasingly, “Internet of Things” devices like smart thermostats and
appliances. All of these devices are spying on you, but the different
spies are largely unaware of each other. Start-up companies like
SilverPush, 4Info, Drawbridge, Flurry, and Cross Screen Consultants, as
well as the big players like Google, Facebook, and Yahoo, are all
experimenting with different technologies to “fix” this problem.
Retailers want this information very much. They want to know whether
their television advertising causes people to search for their products
on the Internet. They want to correlate people’s web searching on their
smartphones with their buying behavior on their computers. They want to
track people’s locations using the surveillance capabilities of their
smartphones, and use that information to send geographically targeted
ads to their computers. They want the surveillance data from smart
appliances correlated with everything else.
This is where the Internet of Things makes the problem worse. As
computers get embedded into more of the objects we live with and use,
and permeate more aspects of our lives, more companies want to use them
to spy on us without our knowledge or consent.
Technically, of course, we did consent. The license agreement we didn’t
read but legally agreed to when we unthinkingly clicked “I agree” on a
screen, or opened a package we purchased, gives all of those companies
the legal right to conduct all of this surveillance. And the way US
privacy law is currently written, they own all of that data and don’t
need to allow us to see it.
We accept all of this Internet surveillance because we don’t really
think about it. If there were a dozen people from Internet marketing
companies with pens and clipboards peering over our shoulders as we sent
our Gmails and browsed the Internet, most of us would object
immediately. If the companies that made our smartphone apps actually
followed us around all day, or if the companies that collected our
license plate data could be seen as we drove, we would demand they stop.
And if our televisions, computer, and mobile devices talked about us and
coordinated their behavior in a way we could hear, we would be creeped
out.
The Federal Trade Commission is looking at cross-device tracking
technologies, with an eye to regulating them. But if recent history is a
guide, any regulations will be minor and largely ineffective at
addressing the larger problem.
We need to do better. We need to have a conversation about the privacy
implications of cross-device tracking, but — more importantly — we
need to think about the ethics of our surveillance economy. Do we want
companies knowing the intimate details of our lives, and being able to
store that data forever? Do we truly believe that we have no rights to
see the data that’s collected about us, to correct data that’s wrong, or
to have data deleted that’s personal or embarrassing? At a minimum, we
need limits on the behavioral data that can legally be collected about
us and how long it can be stored, a right to download data collected
about us, and a ban on third-party ad tracking. The last one is vital:
it’s the companies that spy on us from website to website, or from
device to device, that are doing the most damage to our privacy.
The Internet surveillance economy is less than 20 years old, and emerged
because there was no regulation limiting any of this behavior. It’s now
a powerful industry, and it’s expanding past computers and smartphones
into every aspect of our lives. It’s long past time we set limits on
what these computers, and the companies that control them, can say about
us and do to us behind our backs.
This essay previously appeared on Vice Motherboard.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-internet-of-things-that-talk-about-you-behind-your-back
The reader will perhaps be tired of my defenses of the Constitution here, so let me simply state: any arrangement of governance, from anarchy to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, will be unsustainable and highly corruptible without support from the populace. The best we could hope for is that an Articles of Confederation-type government would take longer to be shot through with rot than otherwise.
If we happily accept the utter corruption and distortion of, say, the Commerce clause, what makes you think any other system would fare better?
ROSS, the answer is to decentralize government and restrict it to a human level (anarchy would be best but I opine that that is not possible at this stage of humanity).
it is utterly insane to think that 545 people can and should have the power to dictate to 330 million diverse people living over millions of square miles of diverse geography.
Yet people continue to think that “if we just get the right people in office” everything will be ok.
It is not that the “wrong” people are running things. It is that the system itself is completely dysfunctional (of course it does not help that dysfunctional people aka psychopaths will naturally be drawn to run the damnable thing either).
Hi Ross,
You are correct, scale matters alot. It’s remarkable that even really smart people don’t understand that. Ayn Rand once wrote an essay ridiculing people who argued that “bigness” matters.
Anyway, not only is it “utterly insane to think that 545 people can and should have the power to dictate to 330 million diverse people”, it is insane to believe that the size and power of a government has no effect on the relative corruption of said institution. Public choice theorists promulgated the concept of “concentrated benefits and diffused costs” as a way of explaining how easy it is for GovCo to funnel massive benefits to themselves and their corporate partners. However, few understand that size is perhaps the most important factor.
At a small enough scale, it simply wouldn’t be possible to massively reward the “insiders” at the expense of the “people”. Not because those who aspire to power in a “small” government are more decent or restrained than their “big gov” counterparts, but because they could not sufficiently diffuse the costs to the point where the “people” didn’t really care. Look at it this way, if I’m being fleeced $5.00 a year to pay off ADM, it is not rationally worth it to make much of a fuss. However, if I’m being fleeced $1,000.00 a year to benefit the local crony douchebag, I’m definitely going to make a fuss.
Congress understood this public choice argument long ago when they capped the house of reptiles at 435. Promoted as more efficient and fairer for rural areas, it was really a means of concentrating benefits (power) to themselves.
Another problem with size is that it reduces the cost of corruption to the rent seeker. If ADM had to deal with 50 or more “small” governments to get their special deals, it would cost them alot more time and resources. Make the gov unit small enough, and the corruption would no longer make economic sense. The FedGov has created “one stop shopping” for their corporate partners.
All governments are corrupt. However, the size of any particular government affects the level and destructiveness of the corruption. I suspect that size has an exponential effect on the pervasiveness of corruption. Despite the self-congratulatory studies produced by American “academics”, I believe that the US Federal government is the most corrupt government on earth. In America, corruption on a massive scale, is simply redefined as “policy”. A small time official, in some backwards country, who accepts a bribe to expedite a business license is “dangerously corrupt”. But, appointing Hank Paulsen to fleece the people on behalf of GS and friends, is just good “policy”.
Jeremy
Sorry, the opening should read “Hi Skunkbear”, not “Hi Ross”.
Jeremy
I liked it anyway, a comment with some good points.
Thanks, Also, your main point, “any arrangement of governance, from anarchy to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, will be unsustainable and highly corruptible without support from the populace”, deserves alot of consideration.
Jeremy
Technically 537 people. (pres and vice pres, 100 senate, 435 house)
Add the council of 9 since they make law too now and we get 546
435 congresscritters, 100 senators, nine supremes and 1 prez is my way of counting. I do not include the VP because they do not have much power and will just do what the prez tells him to do.
VP is the deciding vote on ties in the senate.
Yes, but the VP will just vote the way the prez wants him to.
But it would make for great political theater if a VP ever did cast a deciding vote against the president’s side of an issue.
I think that we are just as ready for anarchy as the slaves were ready for freedom once they became (sort of) free. Abolitionists like myself oppose slavery in all of its present forms. It will indeed take some time for us to adjust, but so what? This reminds me of my aunt who told her son that he couldn’t go swimming because he didn’t know how to swim yet. We already live as anarchists in our daily lives while dealing with other people. We just need to educate enough people to reach a critical mass. I do not know what number of people it would take to reach said critical mass; but it would be far below 50%. Elections are won by less than 25% of eligible voters, many of whom are only voting for the lesser of two evils.
Brian, ask anyone who has even the remotest idea of anarchy is and they’ll say what they’ve been programmed with, it’s chaos. It will be difficult to even keep their attention to explain to them what anarchy is. Of course it’s not often anyone even understands the word, just the way politicians like it.
8, this is why I mentioned educating people in my post. We have got to counteract that programming! The alternative is to accept our perpetual slavery on a prison planet as governments with increasing technological tools become ever more powerful and tyrannical.
“It is not that the “wrong” people are running things. It is that the system itself is completely dysfunctional”
True, that. The system itself is illegitimate. The very idea that any group of people smaller than the total population of a given area are “running things” is repugnant to me.
Okay, I just had to interject here.
Mindset is essential to the system involved. The Articles of Confederation did not spring into existence overnight. That document was based on 800 years of a peaceful confederation of six Indian nations known as the Iroquois Confederacy. However, Celts being Celts, their mindset was not of the Iroquois. You can’t take a system of Anarchy and impose in it onto functional thugs. Never works.
As for the coup d’etat called the U.S. Constipation? No Man living today signed up for that she it. As noted legal scholar and right thinking individual Lysander Spooner stated.
David Ward
Guitarman6052
Memphis, Tennessee
As an aside, thanks to a link to Glenn Greenwald’s Ted session that I recently watched, I noted the question that was not ask. And what was that you say?
Greenwald spoke of why people would not want to be free of surveillance. Some replied, “they have nothing to hide”. What Greenwald didn’t address is the fact that what today, yesterday, 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago, 50 years ago, ad infinitum was legal but now it isn’t.
So what was innocent in 1950 is now criminal behaviour today. As little as 20 years ago what you did was not illegal now it is. That is what the surveillance state wants. Ex Post Facto criminality.
So while you were a dutiful slave.
Well, I didn’t worry about the state when they came for the artist for i wasn’t an artist.
I didn’t worry about the state when they came for the musicians for I wasn’t an musician.
I didn’t worry about the state when they came for the designers for i wasn’t a designer.
i didn’t worry about the state when they came for the religionist for I didn’t have a religion.
but when the state came for me? I died and killed as many bastards as i could because they deserved every round to the head they received.
Dayum! I think I’m channeling Jean here! LOL!
David Ward
Guitarman6052
Memphis, Tennessee
Crap, I wanna give a TED talk! LOL!
Morning, David!
Few adults would willingly give let us say their parents enforceable control over their affairs, the power to dictate what they’ll do and not do.
Yet they do exactly the same thing when they vote.
And at least their parents are actually people they know personally and who probably at least mean well.
I’m no fan of Trump, but immigration is a primary driver for the abandonment of the Constitution. In the years leading up to and during the Civil war, immigration from central Europe skyrocketed. That’s when my ancestors made the trip from German and western France.
Immigrants were generally thought of poorly by the “natural born” Americans, in fact Jefferson wanted very restrictive limits on immigrants.
The abolitionist agenda wasn’t really a factor in the Civil war until it got recruits for the north:
One immigrant mother gave testimony in 1863 to an antislavery convention as to why her 17-year-old son was fighting for the Union. “I am from Germany where my brothers all fought against the Government and tried to make us free, but were unsuccessful,” she said. “We foreigners know the preciousness of that great, noble gift a great deal better than you, because you never were in slavery, but we are born in it.”
http://time.com/3940428/civil-war-immigrant-soldiers/
We all know that the Civil war was the primary event that fundamentally changed the United States from a loose confederation of weak governmental entities into a centralized all-powerful authoritarian government. I believe this was more to do with technology (the telegraph, railroad and steamship) than population, but there’s a lot of evidence that the mass migration escaping European tyranny set free on an unprepared weak government helped set the stage for “strong leadership.” In the 1860 census the immigrant population was nearly 13% of the total, easily enough to swing an election.
You also have to consider how unpopular that war would have been had northerners been forced to participate. The Potato Famine(hope I spelled that right, don’t have Dan Quayle’s phone number)sent a great percentage of the Northern Army via starving young men who could either get back on a boat….starving as it were…..and return to Ireland where they could finish the starvation cycle. I sometimes wonder how many did that.
But the huge amount of Germans and Irish in Mexico is testament to their unwillingness to fight for a “foreign power”. The Irish took their Union issue bs with them across the border and no one ever came after them. I’m afraid the Union Army might have met its match there.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is pretty good on a lot of things, has a post on LRC today. He is writing about Hitlary’s ‘crime’ of endangering state secrets by using an unsecured email server. But this is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, because the whole concept of gunvermin secrets flies in the face of “the consent of the governed.” No one can consent to secret acts, therefore the gunvermin, if it was truly by consent, can have no secrets.
“Congress is supposed to issue the nation’s currency”
Actually the Constitution makes no mention of ‘currency.’ It says that Congress has the right to ‘coin money.’ Money meaning gold or silver and coining meaning to make standardized units thereof.
Currency originated as warehouse receipts for precious metals stored in a bank for convenience. If the gunvermin did not protect the banks’ ‘right’ to issue more currency than the value of the real money it held in reserve, there would be no problem with it, except the possibility of counterfeit.
Hi PTB,
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”
Given that only gold and silver are mentioned in the constitution as legitimate money and that the clause about money also includes the practical concern of being able to weigh the stuff correctly, I agree with your interpretation.
However, I am no longer interested in debates over what the constitution means. Because, what it “means” quite obviously doesn’t matter to those who wield the power of government. Getting people to endlessly debate the intent or meaning of the constitution is immensely beneficial to those in power, but dangerous to those who value liberty. First of all, the endless debating promulgates the notion that the constitution is an immensely nuanced and difficult document to understand. Therefore, the average person is not qualified to have an opinion on it. Thus, “we” should defer to the experts. And who are the most qualified experts? Why, the supreme court jesters, of course.
Second, implicit in the “adhere to the constitution” argument is the demonstrably false belief that “proving” that the GovCo interpretation is wrong will somehow constrain GovCo to limit itself.
Finally, debating the meaning of the constitution prevents most people from asking the much more important questions. Why is government power legitimate? Why does the constitution bind us? Have any of us actually given meaningful consent,
etc…?
Kind Regards,
Jeremy
“Have any of us actually given meaningful consent?”
Thank you sir, that is the whole thing right there.
No, I haven’t given consent, and I explicitly do not consent to any of it. To all those people who force me to pay people to force me to obey all those “laws”, you’re fired. And I want my money back.
Excellent! I have said this for years. That’s why the coining of money is in the same clause as standard weights and measures. It was about standardizing what was already being used as money.
It is also interesting to note that the coinage clause does not preclude the use of other monies. The clause simply states that Congress has the power to standardize coinage, for its own purposes. It doesn’t say that other coins can’t circulate and be used as money by whoever wants to use it.
This article, and the comments on it, has been one of the most profound that I’ve found on this site. It’s a damned good question to ask (If they aren’t bound by the Constitution, why should we obey it?). The whole construct is fraudulent. No one can have power over anybody else unless the ruler is given explicit consent by the ruled. I don’t see that as ever to have happened, not in the case of the Constitution, nor at any other time in recorded human history.
Allusions to Spooner and other anarchists show that many posters have done their homework on this subject. Thanks to Eric and all of his subscribers for a stimulating and encouraging discussion.
“Thanks to Eric and all of his subscribers for a stimulating and encouraging discussion.”
While I don’t say this every day, I certainly think it. Early this morn even before I began stirring around I thought the same thing. If I won that powerball lotto(not much chance since I don’t buy lotto tickets), EPA would become a household phrase…..and everyone could continue to wonder who those officers of that corporation were. Meanwhile I’d be looking for a country I could buy lock, stock and barrel. I’d rename it “Freedom”. The constitution would read “Citizens of Freedom are free. They can bite off all they can chew.” Post It notes would be their passports…..or TP(360 tickets to world travel, easily renewed anywhere TP is sold), whichever was handiest when they decided to venture forth.
Respect and obedience are two different things.
Life and liberty aren’t respected by “them” either.
The 10 commandments were literally written in stone as wall as IIRC the 12 table(t)s of Rome.
They don’t respect the NAP.
No words, principles, or anything else can overcome evil will – even and especially coupled with good intent.
There is probably a certification in paper about VW diesels too. The paper says what emissions should be, not what they actually are.
The Constitution is not descriptive but prescriptive. Speed Limit 186,000 MPSec is descriptive. Curves ahead, 50MPH is pr’escriptive. We have crashed and still are crashing because the Constitution is being ignored and violated. You won’t always crash if you ignore caution signs, but will eventually.
The NAP (I prefer the silver and golden rule) is also prescriptive. You can find numerous examples of men initiating force.
People have the free will to respect or disrespect something that is worthy of respect or disrespect. A wrong choice of this type is caused by a defect in the person, not the state of the thing which is being given the wrong respect.
We know what the original intent of the Constitution was – and we could go back to that and limit further (e.g. repeal 16 and 17). That is what I respect. The living dead letter monster is an abomination that needs to be destroyed.
tz, you obviously have not read the comments above before you made this nonsense post! The “original intent of the Constitution” was a coupe d’ tat!