The Constitutional Usurpation of Power
Many a time I have tried to explain how the Constitution was a usurpation of power away from the people. Of course, I get all sorts of flack when presenting the theory. I am amazed at how often I get arguments from sophisticated Libertarians who fight for the Constitutional government formed by our forefathers. The very idea that we were supposed to be free and yet they still created a coercive government seems to be lost on even the most die-hard libertarians around me.
OK, so let’s make the premise clear. I believe that any government is, by nature, coercive. I challenge anyone from any place in the entire world to prove otherwise.
Don’t get me wrong here. I think the creators of our Constitution did the very best job they could possibly do with what little they had to work with. The completed document was the finest ever created in its time. It was designed to make the government minimal at best… but… none-the-less… it STILL created a coercive government. Why people do not see this is beyond my comprehension.
The Constitution was the effort of a committee that met for many months to dispute, parley & compromise. 
The Declaration was undoubtedly the work of the comprehensive belief of a single individual. It does NOT contain any compromising lingo. It unmistakably stated not only that the colonies should be independent of British rule, but also that people were sovereign as well and were independent of rulers, endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.
Now, THAT was the real American Revolution.
The Constitution (a political document) in fact, reversed the entire philosophy of the Declaration of Independence (an ideological document) … even though it was the best such document ever written to date and STILL created a coercive government.
Since moving here to California I have come to find out there will be a freedom conference in Hollywood. I encourage everyone who can make it to attend. The ideas of liberty will be heavily discussed. I am hoping to meet more like-minded individuals there who will see that in order to turn things around we need to be OUTSIDE the government not INSIDE it. Please visit www.libertopia.org for more information on the conference. If you can make the conference – look for me, I would be interested in meeting you.
On May 14, 2010 Robert Ringer wrote an article that explained this phenomenon fairly well. I have included it here for your enjoyment. You may see of Robert’s work by visiting his web site http://www.robertringer.com/
Yours in Liberty
The Coming Sedition Act?
By Robert Ringer
The gangster government now in control in our nation’s capitol is a grim and repugnant reminder that freedom, at best, is ephemeral. At worst, it’s a myth. In fact, true freedom – like true capitalism – has never existed anywhere on this planet. Rest assured that those with an insatiable lust for power will never allow either to occur.
The boldest experiment in doing away with dictatorial government was the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and perhaps the most important words in that document are:
… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This was the way that the Colonialists chose to tell their English rulers: ”Enough! We hereby declare ourselves to be free.” Unfortunately, from that point forward, the apparently uncontrollable urge of some of the revolutionists to govern their fellow Colonists led to the creation of another document – the Constitution – that, in turn, created that most dreaded of all human inventions: the nation-state.
Never mind that only a handful of men signed the Constitution. This was a new declaration, but not a declaration of independence. Rather, is was a declaration that proclaimed that all persons living within a certain geographical area were, in fact, not free … a declaration that proclaimed them to be bound by The United States Constitution.
Keep in mind that those who were bound by this new document were not asked if they agreed to it, let alone asked to sign it. They were simply told that they would have new rules to abide by – and new rulers to enforce those rules.
Don’t get me wrong. The Constitution is a brilliant document and, I believe, well-intended. With the exception of black slaves and Native Americans, it seems clear that most of the signers saw it as a document that would protect the rights and freedom of the inhabitants of the Colonies.
But human nature being what it is, a democracy or democratic republic is destined – through an ”excess of democracy” – to move toward an all-powerful central government that tyrannizes its citizens. In their writing of the Constitution, the Founders worked hard to protect against such an eventuality, but no document can be a foolproof deterrent to tyranny.
That quickly became evident when, after the Constitution went into effect in the summer of 1788, it took only a decade for Congress, under John Adams, to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government ”through writing or any other shape, form, or fashion.”
Specifically, criticizing the president, Congress, the military, or the flag was made illegal. This by a group of men who themselves had escaped bondage only twenty-two years earlier!
It was an audacious move by the Federalist-controlled Congress to silence the Republicans, particularly regarding their support of the French Revolution. It was, of course, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, which clearly states, in the First Amendment, that ”Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.”
A little more than a hundred years after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Congress, at the urging of Scoundrel in Chief Woodrow Wilson, acted again and passed the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918. Among other things, the act made it a crime to ”willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States.”
Segue to 2010. Led by the ultra-statist Cass Sunstein, the Criminal Corps in Washington is heating up talk about infiltrating ”conspiracy groups” (read, tea parties) in an effort to undermine them. A conspiracy group is, of course, any group of people that consists of individuals who disagree with the socialist policies of the current administration.
Power has a corrupting influence on those who achieve it, which is why many honorable individuals refuse to run for office. The very nature of a democratic republic makes it virtually impossible for a politician to adhere to the principles of true liberty and still manage to stay in office.
I believe that some people come to Washington with sincere intentions to roll back big government, eliminate federal handout programs, and abolish anti-freedom laws and regulations. But once in power, they become convinced of the need to buy votes, lest they find themselves out of the club and having to – gasp! – seek employment in the private sector.
Which means it’s up to you and me to do the job. We should not allow ourselves to become emotionally engrossed in oil spills, riots in Greece, and foiled terrorist plots. Instead, we should relentlessly focus on our loss of liberty. Any of these and a thousand-and-one other ”crises” could be used as an excuse for BHO to invoke an Obomination Sedition Act that, in turn, could be used as excuse to ”postpone” elections in 2010 or 2012 for ”security reasons.”
Warning: Be on the alert for one crisis after another between now and November – and take the time to study the facts about each of them carefully. Some will be trumped up, some will be real but overblown by both the government and the media. But none will be an honest justification for BHO’s taking yet more freedoms away from Americans.
Don’t allow yourself to become distracted. Stay focused on the real issue: our loss of freedom!
Don,
In a different article we were talking about some of the things you can do to prepare and protect your family. Guns were in the list but it wasn’t my first choice.
See articles
http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=2391#more-2391
and
http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=2347#comments
These give a more in depth look on that subject, the possible outcomes and the possible “what can we do” about it scenarios. I just hope its not too late for those that are not already prepared to get ready in time. If you have not begun your preparations I highly recommend doing so. Even if none of it comes about, you at least have a solid portfolio of investments secured for the future and a free food supply.
We now rent a place in Burbank. California is nice weather and all but the prices are a killer already. 9% income tax and 9.6% sales tax. Damn, thats 12.5% more money going to taxes once I begin working again. Talk about the theft of a nations economy. Sheesh.
Don,
Congrats, you were the first person to make the 100th comment on any article ever written to this blog.
JimK,
Yes, you say “on March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations”…and you also say, “The Bill of Rights were introduced to the First United States Congress 1789 as a series of articles. There was no amendments process for introducing new articles to the constitution so they were then changed to amendments. Although originally there were 12 articles, only 10 of them got introduced as amendmens for ratification. They were subsequently ratified and came into effect on Dec 15, 1791.”
The point being, the founders realized the need for changes in 1789, right when the application was to begin. The time frame argument is ridiculous as we both no the founders were pressed for time, and the fact their motives were never to negatively impact we the people.
Jonathan,
The timing and what was done is VERY important and the basis of the article. I never said it negated anything. I never said it was against what the founding fathers wanted to do etc. I gave you the history lesson because you have some misguided notions and you need to know what really happened. YOU brought up the idea of timing (not me) when you said they were approved simultaneously. They were NOT. The fact that they were done separately indicates certain things – things you, as of yet, refuse to admit.
Admit that the original constitution did not protect us from a coercive government and that’s why the bill of rights was created and added to the constitution.
JimK,
Objections by anti-federalists were always made for a Bill of Rights at the birth of the Constitution – this proves nothing of inherent coercion by the Constitution or the founders. In fact, an agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of the Bill of Rights from the get go.
Actually, in defense of the Constitution without the bill of rights, was offered by, the idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a “Bill of Rights,” asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and, therefore, that protections were unnecessary: “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.” Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:
“Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was “Magna Charta”, obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.”
Jonathan,
You are a dork. You have just made a case for my argument and against yourself. You state here “In fact, an agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of the Bill of Rights from the get go. “ that because the bill of rights was going to be introduce it help make the passage of the constitution successful.
In other words, based on what you are saying, our forefathers KNEW that the original constitution was NOT good enough because it DID set up a coercive and that IS the exact reason why they created the Bill of Rights.
Admit that the original constitution did not protect us from a coercive government and that’s why the bill of rights was created and added to the constitution.
JimK,
Amendments to the Constitution still are the Constitution!!! The Constitution with it’s bill of rights is the ONLY constitution this country has seen. The statement you are trying to get to me agree with does not make sense.
Jonathan,
I did not say that amendments were not the constitution.
I did not say we had more then one constitution.
When amendments are added it is no longer the exact same constitution as the original one. If it were EXACTLY the same there would be no amendments. STOP BEING STUPID.
The statement I am trying to get you to admit is about the ORIGINAL – i.e. the very first one without the amendments in it. We already went over the meaning of changing and amendments etc. Do we really have to go back and do it again?
Yes, what I want you to admit DOES make sense.
The fact that you refuse to accept the truth when you know it staring straight at you in the face says volumes about how obstinate you wish to be. Your adding words and going off on tangents bringing in arguments I never made doesn’t change anything and only goes to prove hw much you enjoy arguing for arguing sakes instead of admitting when you are wrong.
Admit that the original constitution did not protect us from a coercive government and that’s why the bill of rights was created and added to the constitution.
Jonathan,
The ORIGINAL constitution…this means the one that set up our government. You already admitted that the constitution set up our government so that should not be an argument for you.
The ORGINAL constitution was the one written and ratified BEFORE our government even came into existence.
Is there STILL any doubt in your mind as to what constitution I am referring to?
If so, this conversation is over and any hope of you learning the truth is out the window because your brain cannot handle it.
For all readers here,
Are any of you having any doubt in you minds which constitution I am referring to here or are you just as lost as Jonathan wants us all to believe him to be?
Wow JimK,
My brain can’t handle your obscure observation about the constitution? I hope I can sleep tonight.
READERS: The fact of the matter is, at the point we ALL recognize the constitution as tool FOR liberty – in all its forms and stages – JimK’s arguments are based in a word not of our own. JimK wants us to believe just because at one point the Constitution didn’t have the bill of rights within a ridiculously small time frame relative to it’s original inception – the Constitution MUST have set up a coercive government. HA HA.
JimK,
Your version of “the truth” is perhaps better not understood.
Jonathan,
Again – you are still being an A$$ here.
The time frame argument was NOT brought up me you brought it. I showed you where you were wrong with that argument. The fact that you refused to recognize such is beyond me. One simply needs to go back in the comments and see it.
I brought up the amendments and changing the constitution arguments. Time frame is irrelevant. The fact that the amendments change the constitution, even if it was done on the same exact day, does not negate the fact that amendments changed the constitution from what it was to what it is.
You are grabbing at straws here.
Nor am I saying that the constitution is an anti libertarian framework. I never said that. If you as a sovereign citizens use it properly in the context meant to be used in it would be an extremely effective tool for liberty.
The problem with you and almost everyone like you is that you do NOT know what that context is. That’s why you have such a hard time grasping the ideas here. I am not asking for much from you or any one reading this. You are just being an idiot.
There is no obscuring of facts. You are just being too pig brained to admit what you already know. Like all people trying to defend their lies and misnomers, you attempt to circumvent the question by going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the statement.
Answer this for everyone:
Why was the Bill of Rights added to the constitution?
There really was no need for a “bill of Rights” since all the state constitutions had a bill of rights. Remember that the States had all the power. All the power. So much so that the new central government was weak in the extreme. No power to tax (hard to pay for that army), no executive branch (hard to speak to other governments and lead), no enforcement of any decisions so that congress was a joke, and then of course no power to regulate commerce. These were the perceived weaknesses of the time. They actually sound pretty good today. lol.
As everyone reading this knows, the Federalists promised that, if the Constitution was ratified, the first act of Congress would be to draft and propose a bill of rights for amendment. There were no Pelosi’s, Reid’s, and Obama’s in the group. The Constitution received approval from all the states after that. The First Congress wrote the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789, and it was ratified a little over two years later on December 15, 1791. Two years without phones, internet, and TV is not really a long time to get this thing ratified. Ever since then, the Constitution has defended the rights of citizens from the ravages of the federal government. Except that it hasn’t done that in a long time. But that was the argument of the time. In retrospect, we may have been better off to not have a Bill of Rights, at least we could have had a more local control of the states.
JimW,
Like Jonathan, you have the wrong concept of the constitution. Unlike Jonathan, you are at least willing to admit the truth. Here you indicate the original was NOT good enough and the promise of the Bill of Rights helps pass the constitution. Since you recognize that our forefathers saw it was NOT good enough, then you must admit they KNEW it and that is why they added the Bill of Rights.
You also made mention of the states HAD all the power. That WAS true then and IS true now. That is, if people used the constitution properly. They don’t and so we have a coercive government that is unfettered with its wanton acts of destruction against our freedoms.
Your estimation of what would have happened had we not received the Bill of Rights is without warrant and could be argued. But alas, that’s not for this topic. Suffice it to say, you at least got the history part of it correct if not the opinion part.
Since you took the stand that you did. It indicates prior knowledge on the parts of our forefathers.
Admit that the ORIGINAL constitution did not protect us from a coercive government and that’s why the Bill of Rights was created and added to the constitution.
If you do not admit it then tell us WHY was the Bill of Rights created and WHY was it added as part of the constitution. When I say WHY it means I want the REASON for the action.
Furthermore, if you do not admit it, make sure the REASON you supply does not prove the admit statement correct. If it does you are contradicting yourself and it would be easier to just admit it to begin with.
JimK
You wrote,”Admit that the ORIGINAL constitution did not protect us from a coercive government and that’s why the Bill of Rights was created and added to the constitution.”
Enough of the founding fathers would agree with your simple statement. That is why the Bill of Rights was promised to be the FIRST action of the new Congress. Without this Bill, the States, FEARING the central government, would not have ratified the “original” Constitution. That is the reason I wrote that at that time, in that room, there were no Pelosi’s, Reid’s, or Obama’s. There were only people of integrity.
But the curious thing for me is when you use the word “admit” since it is like saying “Admit you have a nose on your face” ………. Of course! And so many of the founders judged the Constitution to be insufficient to protect against tyranny, or better said, many knew it to be coercive. Or best said, many knew it could be coercive in the hands of men without integrity. Now Admit It!…lol
JimW,
To your latest comment when you say:
“JimK,
You wrote,”Admit that the ORIGINAL constitution did not protect us from a coercive government and that’s why the Bill of Rights was created and added to the constitution.”
Enough of the founding fathers would agree with your simple statement. That is why the Bill of Rights was promised to be the FIRST action of the new Congress. Without this Bill, the States, FEARING the central government, would not have ratified the “original” Constitution. That is the reason I wrote that at that time, in that room, there were no Pelosi’s, Reid’s, or Obama’s. There were only people of integrity.
But the curious thing for me is when you use the word “admit” since it is like saying “Admit you have a nose on your face” ………. Of course! And so many of the founders judged the Constitution to be insufficient to protect against tyranny, or better said, many knew it to be coercive. Or best said, many knew it could be coercive in the hands of men without integrity. Now Admit It!…lol”
AMEN!
JimK,
Everything in JimW’s comment, please cross apply here.
Jonathan, JimW,
Yes admit both of you recognize this as beig similar to having a nose on your face – and yet – you refuse to admit it to my statement – why?
If someone asked you to admit you had “a nose on your face” would you go through so much trouble to not admitting it as you guys are going through here about not admitting my statement or would you just come right out and admit?
If you see this as the same – then why not do the same?
To admit means to concede as valid. Democrats hate to admit anything. By admitting something it means they must take responsibility for their knowledge and can no longer use plausible deniability to protect themselves. It is there defense mechanism to circumvent the truth. You guys apply it well here. Libertarians usually take responsibility for them selves which means they also have responsibility for their knowledge and act accordingly. You claim to be Libertarian and yet you act so much like a democrat here.
Quit dancing around the statement.
Admit that the ORIGINAL constitution did not protect us from a coercive government and that’s why the Bill of Rights was created and added to the constitution.
JimK,
You say:
“Admit that the ORIGINAL constitution did not protect us from a coercive government and that’s why the Bill of Rights was created and added to the constitution.”
No. The framework of what you call the “original constitution” still was created in the name to prevent a coercive government.
JimK
The “original” constitution, even without the Bill of Rights, was not recognized by many founders, like Hamilton, as insufficient to protect us from a coercive government.
Why would I try to take myself back in time some 225 years to “admit” what only some at that time suspected? I grant that enough thought the document was indeed insufficient and that fact led directly to a “bill of Rights. But that was some not all, albeit just enough to insure failure of the ratification of the original.
You make it sound like “those pesky critters knew they were settin’ up a fraud” but I do not think so. They did not believe they were setting up a coercive government, …just the opposite. With or without the Bill of Rights their intention was to protect the people from tyranny. Admit it!
Perhaps you should channel Hamilton and demand that he admit his faulty thinking in your opinion. Better yet, he just may give you the logic of his reasoning at that time, not in your centuries old twenty – twenty hindsite retrospective.
As it turned out, the constitution does not NOW protect us from a coercive government so ALL WERE WRONG. Bill of Rights or not made little difference in the end because men are inherently evil. Admit it! lol…………JimW
Jonathan,
OK, I give up – you really are being a stupid idiot here and there is no sense in going on about this any longer. I understand the ‘intent” of the constitution was to create a set of parameters to stop government coercion. I never claimed otherwise, I said in my article it was the best that they could do with what they had, none the less, it was not good enough, it still set up a coercive government that they wanted to avoid.
The original constitution may have been created in that name but it never reached that goal, thus the Bill of Rights. You already admitted that if government were not coercive the Bill of Rights would not even be necessary. Why you wish to continue your flip-flop ways befuddles me. Why you don’t admit what you already know scares me.
Our forefathers knew it, that’s why the Bill of Rights was added. They KNEW the original was not good enough. They even tried to fix it with the promise of the Bill of Rights. And they fulfilled that promised. You yourself pointed out the very fact that their making that promise was significant in getting the constitution ratified. The idea that you know this and yet refuse to admit what it means is really a sobering thought as to how much your government lead education as screwed up your head and your thought processes.
In today’s society, most people do not see what our forefathers did. They do not know what the constitution is or how to properly use it to protect them selves form that coercive government. Perhaps they went through the same government re-education style camps you did. For, if they saw it, you and I wouldn’t be down this argumentative path because you would know I was right.
Your steadfast refusal to admit our forefathers knew what they were doing astounds me. I hope you have a wonderful life living in naivety. When they come for you, don’t come looking to me for protection. It will be too late by then. You have the opportunity to learn now but refuse to accept the knowledge. May you live long and stay well, even if in ignorant bliss.
JimW,
You would need to admit they KNEW what they were doing in order to follow what they did. Otherwise, you will not see and understand what has happened. They did set stuff up in a particular way, for a particular reason. They wanted to protect individual rights from infringement by the government. It WAS their entire intent. I admit they wanted to protect us from tyranny. Now, you admit that you don’t know didily about the constitutions jurisdiction, for, if you did, we would not be arguing here.
Our forefathers didn’t set up fraud. I never said that. At least I don’t think I did. I am pretty sure I said it was to set up a “minimal government at best…but…none the less…it STILL created a coercive government”. The very fact that you recognize the government today as being coercive (even with the bill of rights in place) proves my point.
It also further proves my point that people have no idea what the constitution does or how it does it. The constitution IF properly used, WOULD protect you from a coercive government. It does not only because people don’t use it properly. People allow the government to trample all over them without even so much as a peep. When people allow that to take place, their freedoms are being usurped right out from underneath their noses.
I admit that most men are inherently evil.
I also admit that government is inherently evil.
I also admit that using the constitution the way it supposed to be used can put that government in check.
I also admit that must people don’t know the truth behind the constitution.
I also admit that when presented with the truth most people will refuse to believe it.
I also admit that Libertarians are “supposed” to be an intelligent bunch – but – based on this conversation I may have to rethink that point.
It is not a problem getting me to admit what I already know. It baffles me why others won’t do the same.
JimK,
I am just focusing on this part:
“Jonathan,
OK, I give up ”
lol
JimK,
I am just focusing on this part:
“I also admit that using the constitution the way it supposed to be used can put that government in check.”
You have just conceded the point. To wit: The framers of the constitution did not set it up to form a coercive government.
Which is all I was saying, ………lol…….JimW
Jonathan,
If that is all you are focusing on then I really feel sorry for you. Like I said, you argue for arguing sake and you don’t have any intention of getting or providing an education. Maybe you should not even bother writing anymore if all you want to hear from people is “I give up”.
Woo Hoo – Jonathan’s closed mind ness as won again and gotten Jim to quit trying to teach him something so that Jonathan can remain living in ignorant bliss. Woo Hoo – if that is all you focus on – congrats – you got it. When you actually grow up and decide to start using that brain of your maybe we can come back to this topic again. Hopefully that will be before it is too late but looking at your current rate of growth I doubt it.
JimW,
If that is all you are focusing on then your are just being a dork. I NEVER claimed otherwise. I NEVER claimed they intended to set up a coercive government, I said that was the result. There is a difference. If you read and understood the article you would have known that. But alas, you falsely claim I conceded a point to an argument I never made.
Too bad you went down this path instead of staying on the right one. You might have learned something as well. Unfortunately you will remain in ignorant bliss like Jonathan. When you wish to learn the truth come back to this subject, maybe we can discuss it in further detail.
there were serious errors that still plague us today
regulate commerce
necessary and proper
federal supremacy
these should have been understood to have been totally trumped by a bill of rights (which if it were possible previous to the ratification of the constitution to be otherwise unnecessary, was clearly necessitated by the inclusion of the noxious issues (in this reply) above .
some of the jurisdictional issues (legitimate or not) undoubtedly have arisen due to these prior and still existent defects.
JimK,
So the founders set up a coercive government unintentionally as a result of trying to not set up a coercive government? That is what you are telling JimW in your latest comment to him.
JimK,
This does not make sense. You speak of teaching us the truth with this?
So the constitution is being called into question for whatever reason ( we want to avoid word games, right?) to teach us basically the constitution unintentionally allows for coercive government?
What is your proof? Where are your examples? Where are ciitations from the anti-constitution literature? If you are trying to teach people your beliefs, you need to provide for these things.
JimK,
Most of these now 128 comments is actually you giving commentary on the discussion rather than hard core cited facts… For example:
“Too bad you went down this path instead of staying on the right one. You might have learned something as well. Unfortunately you will remain in ignorant bliss like Jonathan. When you wish to learn the truth come back to this subject, maybe we can discuss it in further detail.”
Present and cite the facts accordingly if you want to teach us please.
Jonathan,
I did site facts – you refuse to believe them. When asked to admit certain things, you refuse to admit what you already know.
For instance, you know the constitution set up our government. Yet you refuse to admit that when originally written it set up a coercive government – even though you KNOW our forefathers saw the mistake and tried to fix it. You yourself even stated that it was known and their promise to fix it was what helped get it ratified for without that promise it never would have been done so. YOU said it and yet you refuse to admit the meaning behind what you said.
That is not my doing. That is just you being obstinate. When you are being like that there is no need to site or do anything else. When like that, you are closed minded and not listening no matter what is being said. So why bother?
You are so blinded by your ambition to argue that you don’t even see the proof that you yourself provided. As stated above, the very fact that the Bill of Rights was added to fix the original IS proof.
THINK man THINK
Quit being an A$$ and use your brain. You deserve the outrageous commentary when you keep acting like an idiot and arguing for arguing sake instead of admitting what you know to be true.
“So tell us Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?”
“A non-coercive government, if you can keep It.”, he replied.
Jim, you are trying, and failing, to connect a coercive government outline of years gone by with present time government gone awry. But I may be missing the point here. Let me state what I think you are trying to say to this thick skull.
Are you saying: 1) The original constitution formed a coercive government. 2) The drafters of the proposed constitution knew the newly formed government would be coercive. 3) To offset the known to be coercive form of government, the drafters amended the constitution. 3) The amendments were to insure that the constitution insulated and protected the people from a coercive government. 4) The amended constitution did not form a coercive government.
Either that or you are just trying to run up the numbers……lol……. JimW
JimW,
You have the understanding correctly up to the last part (your item number four).
I didn’t say the amendments did NOT set up a coercive government.
The government was already set up and that government did not change when the amendments were added. The connection of the coercive government from yester-year and the government gone awry today, as described in your first paragraph, is made by virtue of the fact that said government was never changed. All the original articles from the original constitution were still in place after the amendments were added, and remain in place until this day. The government those articles set up still exists until this day.
The amendments themselves were not designed to change the government. They are an attempt put in place by our forefathers to protect us from the coercive force of the government that got set up by the original constitution.
Do you see the difference?
At least you “get it” if you believe what you just said and what the amendments did as explained here.
If so, do you admit that the article was correct in that:
1. the constitution set up a coercive government
2. the constitution reversed the philosophy of individual liberty from the Declaration of Independence by setting up that government and giving it control
Your answer will determine if we move forward or you are still stuck somewhere.
JimK;
You wrote:
“1. the constitution set up a coercive government…”
———To which I have conceded all along. All governments are, by definition, coercive. That was the point of the “nose on your face” comment I made. I am not certain you got my meaning then but now it should be clear.———
Then you wrote:
“2. the constitution reversed the philosophy of individual liberty from the Declaration of Independence by setting up that government and giving it control.”
———See above answer. Same same GI. It is hard for me to fully agree however because so many founders thought that the constitution did indeed protect individual liberties. As I have noted, enough of them disagreed which led to the Bill of Rights. There were two equally valid viewpoints then. I think we can agree to have a minor disagreement here. But YES, I will agree that the original constitution PUT IN JEOPARDY the philosophy of individual rights, but I can’t agree that the constitution “reversed” those rights. Agree?
JimW
JimW,
Either the individual had the rights and control, or government has the control.
By the Declaration – every individual was sovereign and had control of every aspect their life.
By the constitution – government has control of at least SOME aspect of their life.
As such, the constitution reversed the “individual sovereignty and control” philosophy of the Declaration and gave part of that control to the government.
You may disagree but it doesn’t change the facts.
Usurpation is defined as the taking of ones sovereignty without their permission. For instance, if the government does “A” to one of your liberties, AND you do nothing about it, did the government usurp that liberty until you actually do something about it?
Since the constitution put in place the coercive government, which you already agree to, AND you have not done anything about it yet (just like 99% of the rest of the population), will you admit that the constitution was a usurpation of power from the people to the government?
JimK,
The meaning behind everything I said was to defend that the United States Constitution is inherent to a non-coercive government. You insist on playing word games to somehow negate the reality of this situation…that is, the constitution is we the people’s tool, in which we the people created, for the purpose of ensuring a non-coercive government.
NO Jonathan,
It does NOT ensure a non-coercive government.
If it is used properly it PROTECTS you from a coercive government – THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
That difference is what you are REFUSING to admit to, see and do something about.
YOU yourself stated that when the Bill of Rights was added it DID NOT change the government – AND – you were right – IT DID NOT CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT
YOU said it when you wrote “The amendments themselves added to the constitution, sure, yet the amendments did not negate anything in the original constitution.”
THAT IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT BEFORE THE BILL OF RIGHTS GOVERNMENT WAS COERCIVE AND THAT IT REMAINS SO EVEN TODAY.
The Bill of Rights did NOT change the government, it changed the constitution to give people PROTECTION from the government.
Once again – YOU made the statements and YOU are not understanding what those statements means
THINK man THINK
I am not the one playing words games and trying to flip flop on what was said or anything like that – YOU have steadfastly refused to accept the meaning behind the words you use – I can only presume because you want to argue about it for some reason – your refusal does NOT change any of the facts. Facts that you KNOW but REFUSE to ACCEPT that YOU know.
JimK,
The constitution is not perfect, nor are it’s interpretors. The bottom line is the constitution WAS MADE…WITH THE INTENTION TO…prevent a coercive government. Remember….”In order to form a MORE perfect Union….”
Jonathan,
My article did NOT argue what the intent of the founding fathers was. It stated the fact that the constitution DID set up a coercive government. Whether that was the intent or not does not matter – it IS WHAT HAPPENED.
Our founding fathers also KNEW that it was setting up a coercive government because they argued over the Bill of Rights. The promise to add them in was what got the constitution passed in the first place. YOU YOURSELF already noted this.
Why will you deny what you already stated as fact? Other then to be opposite and argumentative there is no reason.
YOU have proven what I have been saying all along; you just wont admit it. Since you will not admit the facts that you know then do yourself a favor. PROVE me wrong.
PROVE the founding fathers did NOT know they were setting up a coercive government. You already admitted they were arguing over it and that was why they made the promise to include a Bill of Rights; yet you refuse to admit the government set up was coercive.
PROVE they did NOT add the Bill of Rights to protect from a coercive government. You already admitted that they did; yet you refuse to admit the government that was set up was coercive.
PROVE that the Bill of Rights was NOT instrumental in getting the constitution ratified and without it we would not have a coercive government. You already admitted it was, yet you refuse admit the government that was set up was coercive.
PROVE that the Bill of Rights changed the coercive government set up by the original constitution. You already admitted it did not change the government, yet you refuse to admit the government that was set up was coercive.
PROVE the government set up was NOT coercive.
If you cannot,
ADMIT that the government set up by the original constitution was coercive.
ADMIT that the government set up by the original constitution is still the one we have today.
ADMIT that today’s government is coercive just as the original was.
ADMIT that when government is coercive AND people do nothing about it; that they have usurped power away from the people.
To do otherwise is simply to live in denial of facts. Regardless of what you version of “truth” is, that FACTS still remain.
To deny them shows the depth of your ignorance as to how much power you wield against the government.
To deny them and not use your power shows that deciding to live in ignorance is really bliss. For, once knowing and accepting the facts, you cannot go backwards. Your denial and refusal of the facts you know to exist will keep you enslaved. YOU will NEVER be free until you KNOW where YOUR power lies.
THINK man THINK or you will be doomed to a life of slavery.
BTW – your idea of a “more perfect union” is taken out of context – different subject, different post, different argument.
Right now, we are arguing over whether or not the government set up was coercive, whether our forefathers knew it was and whether the government usurped power away from the people. In general we are arguing over your stupidity to refuse to admit facts that you know to exist.