Forget the Constitution

Ron Paul is frequently, and correctly, praised as the lone constitutionalist in Congress. But he is truly the exception that proves the rule: our government is no longer bound by anything resembling the written limitations of the Constitution.

I used to share the minarchist view. A small, limited government seemed possible and pragmatic. Even that’s changed since September 11th. Instead of rethinking the foreign policy that contributed to the attacks, the government piled on more of the same. Instead of firing the chiefs of the FAA, CIA, and FBI, those agencies get more funding. The attacks on September 11th have given the federal government an excuse to shear all but the ghostly forms of any remaining constitutionally guaranteed liberties from a sheep-like people. Torture, constant surveillance, seizure upon suspicion, suspension of habeas corpus, abolishment of Posse Comitatus, and warrant-less searches of your person and property are either in effect or under serious debate. Imagine, torture in the United States! The United States has become a police state, all with our precious, written Constitution still moldering under glass in Washington, D.C.

In the span of less than 100 years communism peaked and collapsed in the Soviet Union. Communism failed because it was based on severely flawed assumptions about people, and what motivates them. I think it’s time to admit that the idea of a Constitutionally limited government has failed as well. It, too, is based on flawed assumptions about people. Perhaps not as spectacularly wrong as communism, but wrong, nonetheless. Since it has taken over 200 years to produce our American "Stalinism-lite", and it has not yet collapsed, perhaps we can say constitutionally limited republicanism is at least three times better than communism. Or, to paraphrase Churchill the worst government yet invented, but better than all the rest tried so far.

We can always feel better about our revolutionaries than the Russians do about the Bolsheviks; ours didn’t purges millions after winning the war. Our patriots fought for individual, God given rights, instead of aetheistic utopian groups rights. Still, the men who founded our current Republic by writing and ratifying the Constitution understood the dangerous path they were taking. Students of antiquity, they tried to avoid following the Roman path of Kingdom, then Republic, then Empire, by writing everything down. It turns out in practice that the "social contract" cannot bind the politician or the entrenched bureaucrat, any more than the Soviet Union could make the New Soviet Man. In hindsight we can see that a piece of paper is no match for the linguistic gymnastics of our permanent caste of lawyer kings.

When things do change in this country, it will not be because the bureaucrats, professional liars, and assorted utopians come to work one day and say "Gee, we failed in our job. The private market would be so much better at this." It will be because the people have finally figured out that Ben Franklin was right all along, liberty can’t be traded for security, and it looks like Rothbard, Spooner, and Patrick Henry were right about the Constitution.

It’s time for we the people to let go of our sentimental attachment to the Constitution; our politicians broke their allegiance to it long ago. Like communism, it may sound like a good idea on paper, but it hasn’t worked in practice. It just took longer to fail. I’ve made the journey from skeptical Republican to minarchist Libertarian to anarcho-capitalist in a few short years. Thankfully, I had the Internet to help me stand on the libertarian shoulders of free-market and freedom minder thinkers. Forget the Constitution. It didn’t work. It’s time to start thinking about a government-free future.

Torture, constant surveillance, seizure upon suspicion, suspension of habeas corpus, abolishment of Posse Comitatus, and warrant-less searches of your person and property are either in effect or under serious debate.

Isn't the police state, ala GOP, much nicer than the one envisioned by the Dems? Bring out the statists to tell us that this is just fine, because be have to beat the boogie-man du jour.

As we said when the UNIBANGER was selling nuke secrets to the Chicoms and no one cared, "at least the economy is good."

Re your # 1 THIS ARTICLE IS PURE NONESENSE

"... Military tribunals and the associated activities of our government are entirely within the American Constitution as related to the war scenario now underway.

I suggest reading yesterday's edition of the Wall Street Journal for explicit detail on why the information posted in this particular article is attention getting hysteria.

The WSJ article is written by Ruth Wingwood, a former federal prosecutor and professor of Law at Yale and Johns Hopkins and is on page A-18. Today's editorial page also elicits the facts of constituionality and is worthy of consideration.

Yes, there are mostly liberal democratic whinners and illogical self serving politicians who disagree.

I've been pondering the same questions, though maybe not with such anti-war, anti-American zeal as Lew Rockwell's site. Still, I agree with the basic premise of the article. Constitutionalism failed, but not because "everything was written down". The reason it failed was that there was no enforcement mechanism for the Constitution. Everything was based on "checks and balances" which in the long run don't really check and balance. If the government is the judge of its own powers, how can you have a limited government? In any case, that's the "republic" part of the Constitution. The democratic aspect is even worse. It should be clear by now that democracy is NOT the "will of the people", but is only a facade to legitimate certain actions of elite authority. If democracy is ultimately the protector of individual rights, I am not satisfied - what if 51% say the other 49% don't have a right to free speech or bear arms? Anyway, I don't think the answer is anarchism. I have to go to class now, so I'll post stuff later, but I'd like to start a discussion going on this.

re your # 5 ....The problem, as I see it, is to many, yourself included, give credence to the utterances of those of Ivy-League education. They, and their followers, are the word twisters in power, where they have been for the past 70+ years.

Nice sophistry. But I for one have little if any regard for the Ivy league or the value of an Ivy league education over many other schools. That singular point we agree on.

I do not, however, discard out of hand as you do, the logical presentations of people just because of the their work experience, the schools they have attended, or where they now teach.

Nonetheless, I still suggest you read the referenced work indicated even though you may find it personally distastful to do so bacause the writer teaches at schools which have your personal disapproval.

Have a very nice day.

Well stated. However the reason there is no 'check and balance' is that nasty little war we had way back in 1861-1865. You see, them good ole Southeron boys and girls living in them 13 states had this same problem with the administration residing in Washington, DC back then...except they had the idea that the Constitution actually meant what it said about states rights and such. Prior to the war, the State stood between you and the Feds. Bad law or unconstitutional actions? No problem, the respective state would stand between you and the Fed and could take whatever action was necessary including nullification of the offending statute. But that quaint idea sorta died in that Courthouse in April, 1865. Since then, the Fed has become the superior, the states inferior, and now there is no check on the Fed. But that's OK. Lincoln knew what was best for America-big central government empire always trumps that old fashioned constitutional republic thingy. It's far too cumbersome to always have to follow that Constitution and all its entanglements about rights and freedoms and those nasty controls on government.

You're right, the war did have an impact on the future of government and society, some negative. That was pretty much inevitable. But I think the constitutional republic issue is quite separate from the separation/nullification issue. During that time, the southern states were arguing that states retained some sort of original sovereignty and could therefore withdraw from the Constitution. I don't think that's the case, because the authority of the post-Revolutionary states was derived only from the Constitution. Any pre-Revolutionary sovereignty was under royal charter, and the revolution dissolved that sovereignty. Basically, at the time of the revolution, the states agreed to form a political institution that was binding on the states - that means states can't withdraw.
Let's go back to the Constitution to clear up this mess. Article 1, Section 10, clause 1:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...
Article 6, clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I think it's pretty clear what the intended form of government was. The union was truly a union of states and not simply an alliance.

Aroused populace? We've got Viagra now - long live the republic!
Anyway, I was going to say before, anarchism is essentially flawed. Especially "anarcho-capitalism", whatever that means. A market, by definition, consists of transfers of property. Therefore, property must be defined in terms which stand apart from, or transcend the market. That is what law is for. Law defines what property is, how it is acquired, how it can be transferred, what the punishments are for its violation, etc., etc. This law must come into existence prior to the market. The fundamental problem is: how do you enforce the law. That's where the state comes in. The state, by definition, holds a monopoly over the legal use of force in a given territory.
So I'm not really sure what anarcho-capitalists advocate. I've heard "get rid of the state". Ok, then you get rid of the market, because there is no longer any law and therefore, no property. I've also heard "multiple states competing in same territory". Ok, this isn't anarchism. But even so, competing states over the same territory would mean applying different standards and definitions of property to the same territorial property (do you see the problem?). Thus, a market is precluded. No transfer of property can occur, because the buyer and seller have no objective definition of what constitutes property.
I've yet to hear any anarchist or "anarcho-capitalist" defend against these pretty obvious facts.

Well the one thing we have yet to solve effectively on this earth is the consolidation of power. I think the original federal republic was a pretty good idea. But maybe even better would be if the government had an experation date. That is on a certain date the government would expire and a completely new one would have to be constituted. Jefferson spoke of revolution every 20 years, and this would just be one that is gauranteed and allowed to happen under the established rules. So every 20 years we could have a big fight, get all the bad blood out and start fresh. I should note that the Icelandic government had an ultimate appeal mechanism which was battle. They had a type of jury system where if you didn't like the outcome you could declare a rumble. So, they did not grant to the government a monopoly of force.

But the whole point of government should be to prevent violence. I don't think "trial by ordeal" is the best judicial system.
You're right that a main problem is consolidation of power, but what's to prevent the power structures set up in the previous government from reasserting themselves in the new one? Coalitions of interest don't just fade away because the law says "fade away". As for a law legitimating violence, that's just a contradiction. If you're going to overthrow the government, why do you need a law? Why not simply up and do it?
My general idea would be to have a stable, long-lasting government that prevents corruption of power continuously. The main issue, as I see it, is how to make institutions that prevent usurpations of power and uphold the law at the same time. The problem with our current Constitution is that it was written under the assumption that it would be followed as written. But what if it isn't? No institutional arrangement exists that allows for an independent critique of government power, except democracy. And we all know how efficient and just democracy is. Ultimately though, the judge of government power isn't the people, it's the government itself, by means of the judiciary. And who appoints the judiciary? The other branches of government. So therein lies the conundrum.

I do agree with you, though, that we should start anew every once in a while. I just don't think it makes sense to have an expiration date on government. The parties that hold power under the existing government will be most likely the winners in the revolution. I think starting anew should be in the form of separation, not revolution. This was the model that the early Americans established this country on, and I think it's the best one. The American Revolution wasn't really a revolution - it was the end point of a process of separation that had begun 150 years beforehand.

Are we assuming there is an answer? I forget the Latin, but there is a phrase "who will watch the watchers." I guess it is like "if a tree falls in the woods..." I think power consolidation is inevitable. All institutions must be destroyed eventually, that includes government, business, political parties, churches, everything.

I think there's an answer, if not a perfect one, then a better one. The watchers must the the watched.
Another reason I don't like revolution is that it is almost always driven by a desire for utopia, a perfect state. The existing system is held to an impossible standard, thus giving moral justification to the revolution. I think our mentality should be not "Let's get it right this time.", but "We can do better." That was essentially the attitude of the American founders. They knew the corruption and usurpation that could happen under the system they designed, and they warned us about it. And they also said that the system isn't sacred and we should give it another go if we end up feeling unsatisfied with it. I think that's the attitude we need to have.
As to specific solutions, I don't know. I have my ideas, and others have theirs. But there isn't really a meaningful debate going on right now, on this level. I wish there were. We need to have this kind of debate, about the fundamental flaws of the system, not just the "reform" debates that you find in essentially every forum.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.