Topic: Constitutional Issues
Statist View of the Constitution Part 2 If Statists don't like it, what do we recommend in it's place? My personal opinionsby Logical Premise
(Statist)
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
At one point, I wrote an article regaring a statist view of the Constitution. Therein, I made the point that statists see the document as a blueprint, and a basis for building, rather than a restrictive covenant.
A discussion I had with my local Ron Paul supporter here in Fort Worth yesterday lead to an interesting question. We're both firmly convinced the other is completely insane, but it's fascinating to discuss the issues with him. One thing he said yesterday was worth bringing up here, if only to clear up misperceptions.
The idea I wish to correct is that "Statists are against the rights of the people".
When the Constitution was written, we were basically trying to build a nation. The independance had been won, but the Articles of Confederation -- a libertarian document with no real central power -- had proven woefully inaccurate. The resulting constitutional convention produced a more complete document that created a central divided government with strong powers, some of which were given to the states in the name of balance, because of worries about a tyrannical government.
The first divergence point statists have: state power is not neccessarily "good". There is this conception that somehow states rights is "for the people". The reality is that it leads to a patchwork of laws, none of which is uniformly enforced. Some people like that idea. But in reality, what you end up with is another layer of government which is totally unneccessary. I understand the concept that the federal government does not need to "concern itself with local concerns" and the argument that local , ward, and state level powers have such an impact on the quality of life that they need to be reserved to local control.
However, I also understand that state legislatures are just as ineffiecent and prone to manipulation and lobbyist control as national ones, and that state powers are less limited, less controlled, and more open to domination by a single faction. If a "state" was simply a legislative body comprised mostly of representatives from broken down "wards" with no other state authority, and the state was an organizational tool rather than a distinct political entity, then I would agree with the concept. As it stands however, the original constitution had states determining who went to Congress (rather than the "people") and was vunerable to political machinery.
The result, of course, is that "states rights" is basically a code word for "defying national consensus". There are a LOT of people who agree that abortion and gay marriage are wrong. Leaving it up to the states merely ensures the issues will never actually be resolved. Some people think that allows people to "go where they want and do what they want", and I can understand why Libertarians like that thought. But the ugly reality is that it allows allows whackjob hardcore feminists, far left Marxist liberals, and race-baiting, history-rewriting political correctness warriors to overrun our culture. They dominate the popular states, and then using that machinery, build up factions to dominate the nation.
You can say whatever you like, but that's what's happened. It's WEAK government that has allowed the ACLU to bully the Boy Scouts and push God out of the schools. A strong federal goverment that was busy implementing the will of the people would put it to a quick vote and that would be the end of it.
Leading me to the second issue: The Constituion is being abused with rigidity.
How in the world could we have ridiculous garbage such as having to put up with abortions of tiny babies due to a "right to privacy for a woman's body" without this idea that the constituion trumps common sense?
The so-called "limits to the federal government" and all of these elaborate checks and balances made a lot of sense when the document was written. Have they protected you since then? Have they made your government listen to you? Have they ensured the government doesn't "abuse you'? NO. They haven't. Hamilton as much said so to Jefferson, stating that "You may concoct any Measure of security you wish, but the venal nature of man will always rise to the surface". That's what has happened.
A strong government that has a set of principles it's devoted to, where violation of those principles leads to ejection of office. makes a LOT more sense than a system where the foxes are not only supposed to guard then henhouse, but are expected to keep each other from eating the hens! The Congress has failed to keep the President from doing whatever he likes -- in Korea, in Vietnam, in Grenada, Libya, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq -- and yet I keep hearing all this tired old garbage about how without constitution protections we'd live in a tyranny.
You live in a tyranny already. Your method of preventing such a thing from happened failed. The answer is to try the same thing again?
So, that out of the way, what would a statist want?
First, a Consitution that is an operational blueprint, not a binding contract, with frequent constitution conventions to update it every 8 years.
Second, a document similar to the Bill of Rights but separate from the Constitution that WOULD be binding. The government's job would be to enforce those rights, protect the country from external harm, and to regulate the economy so as to prevent globalism from harming the nation. A list of rights is already drawn up , but let's change it up some:
1. The right to free speech without limits. As much as it galls me to say it, even hate speech. 2. The right to own weapons of any kind, as long as they are registered, ballistics tested, and forbidden to anyone with a felony conviction for violent crime. 3. The right to a fair trial by your peers. The right to an appeal to a jury of your peers and elected judges. Appeal judges would be elected every 8 years. 4. The right to own property and the right to recieve fair compensation in case of the need of eminent domain, with no exemptions based on who you know or how rich you are, and the right for common citzens to adjust the amount of reward given for eminent domain claims to those who lose their property. 5. The right to have total freedom of worship. That is not a seperation of church and state, but rather that the STATE shall have no influence on RELIGION. 6. The right to protection against unreasonable government influence on your personal property. That means you can smoke dope in your home, they can't quarter soldiers in your home, they can't search your home without a warrant. 7. NO excessive bail, no cruel punishment, and no limitation of rights without a civl jury approving such. 8. An indepedant judicary, chosen by the people not the president , governor, political parties, etc.
Probably more. The idea is that the government would be limited only in the respect of what it could not do and would be required to protect those rights. Vague and wispy promises would be out, the rights would be extensively detailed and updated with every constitutional convention -- but once a right was given, it could not be taken away or limited.
Third, that citizens PARTICIPATE in government. Civil juries would review political figures and take a larger role in deciding events.
Fourth, that the government would have no other limits on what it could and could not do. If the government needed to take an action for the good of the country and a supermajority of the Congress agreed, it could do so. If a citzen jury objected, it should be put to the people in an immediate nationwide vote. We have the techonology to do this.
Statists don't like the idea of arbitrary limits on government power, especially when they're abused to allow incompetants to run the country while violating our rights. Libertarians are convinced the Consitution works but can't explain how the fuck we got in this mess if it supposedly works so well except to say "well people didn't do what it said to do". Statists believe whenever you have a solution that doesn't solve the problem, you shouldn't call it a solution.
All of the above is my personal opinion.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-27 12:06:59
You make a number of false points. I can't take as much time as I would like to go over them piece by piece, so I'll limit myself to two comments.
First, you wrote, "The independance had been won, but the Articles of Confederation -- a libertarian document with no real central power -- had proven woefully inaccurate."
More precisely, it was inadequate for raising sufficient funds to pay off debts to bankers who intended to get rich off the Revolutionary War. The lower classes put their lives on the line, but the bankers put their money on the line. The soldiers who died got nothing, but the bankers insisted upon repayment, true patriots that they were. Because payment wasn't coming fast enough, they felt that the government wasn't strong enough. Hence the need for a new Constitution.
The other argument made in favor of the new Constitution was that with 13 different states making separate laws and rules regarding commerce and trade, there needed to be a unifying authority to allow that trade. In reality, those former colonies which put up the most trade barriers would have suffered the most (at the level of the lower classes), just as happens today in countries with highly restrictive trade laws. The rich, of course, would have benefitted from either scenario.In retrospect, there was very little that was actually wrong with the Articles of Confederation, other than the fact that those who wished to rule were hampered by it.
The second point I want to discuss is regarding your claim that, "Libertarians are convinced the Consitution works but can't explain how the fuck we got in this mess if it supposedly works so well except to say 'well people didn't do what it said to do.'"
Sorry, but that simply isn't true. I know exactly what's wrong, as do most libertarians. What's wrong is that our government doesn't follow the Constitution. They "expand" it and "grow" it using arguments you statists advocate. In reality, the Constitution has very definite limits on authority that are routinely ignored, and these limits are summed up by the 10th amendment which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if a particular power is not actually listed in the Constitution, the government has no authority to grab it, and grabbing it anyway is, by definition, unconstitutional. If the 10th amendment were actually enforced by the courts (i.e. by the Supreme Court), we wouldn't have the problems we currently have.
Instead, the courts have routinely and consistently betrayed the 10th amendment, denied its applicability in nearly all cases, and basically rendered it powerless.
Now, is that the fault of the Constitution, or is that the fault of the courts? I say it's the fault of the courts and of the people who defend those courts for what they have done.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-02-27 12:41:34
What you fail to comprehend is that changing away from the original document is what got us here to begin with.
The Constituion is not a blueprint, it is the rules.
Like in football, you have 4 downs to more the ball 10 yrds. The 1/4 back cannot throw the ball after crossing the line of scrimage. So can you imagine if during the play offs, San Diego decided they should get 5 downs and only have to more the ball 8 yrds, throw beyond the LOS, drop the ball and pick it up again once tackled. No more would the NFL, the teams and fans would allow it. So why is it that we are crazed for wanting to follow the rules.
This form of government was created to prevent tyranny by anyone. What you propose is total tyrrany. Statism requires direct taxation of the people. THIS IS TYRANNY.
As far as your abortion issue you make the LIBERTARIAN point and discredit your own. In a Constitution government LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY would be protected for all. Secondly it is big govrnment (Roe vs. Wade) that allowed abortions to happen. They could not when it was at the state level, so the Fed illegally usurped its power over the states and LEGALIZED the murder of the unborn. Sir, your "State" is responsible for the million of murdered unborn. No were in the COnstitution does the Fed have the power to regulate Medical Practice. It is relegated to the individual state as per the 10th Amend.
The 10th allows We the People to change government by placing its functions at the lowest level. If I am poor I can still make it to camp out at my local rep. office to get my voice heard. Most cannot afford to drive and wait to "lobby" our reps in DC. The larger the state, the strong the state. The stronger the state the weaker the individual. The beauty of states level laws is it gives you the ability to vote with your feet. I didnt like the high taxes in KY so I moved to TN. But you expect FREEDOM loving Americans to leave OUR country?
At the Federal level that is what you propose giving us. States rights has nothing to do with defying the Federal consensus. It has to do with controlling the size, scope and power of the Federal Government which is much harder to control. I am 100% positive that the people in my community know what is better for us than the gang of 535 in D.C. Plus leave anything to the Fed and you get minimal effectiveness. Like would you go to FEMA for a heart attack, socialized health care will get you that level of efficiency.
Govt departments have no desire to solve problems, b/c they would be disolved after the problem is fixed.
I also noticed you left out the most important amendmant, the 2nd as this insures the other 9, and the true statist doesnt want you to have guns, b/c it threatens the overall power of the state, by giving its dumb evil masses a means of last resort to change the government.
The ammendmant process exists to insure that as things arose they could be dealt with as long as they went through the process, and we the people control that, but most effectively at the local and state level.
In a Democracy, say if the 50 million peole in CA wanted to make it a law that all people have to have green hair (bare with me) then the 2 million people here in TN would have to have green hair. But in a REPUBLIC you are free to have green hair if you want as well as free to have your natural color etc.
Fragmentation of local laws is meant to respect the cultural differences of the individual.
Have your state all you want, but not here. Pick another failing governmental system and move to that country. My LIBERTY is off limits to you and all the other socialists.
OBTW Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Hamilton all imperialistic socialists. Jefferson, Adams, Henry, Franklin, Washington, Madison all LIBERTARIANS, Patriots.
Walt: You are, of course, entitled to your view of why there was a need for a new Consitutional Convention. For the sake of not arguing, I'll even say you're right.
In other words, the bankers -- who put up the money so that the whole thing could happen -- should have simply eaten their losses, and the people who wanted the country to be anything but a loose confederation of city states were evil and not concerned for the country but were simply out for power.
In that case, my answer remains the same. The people clearly weren't satisfied with the Articles, or the Constitution never would have been drawn up. The reason why it happened is that the Articles were ineffective. If you think the ineffectivity was due to not having a strong government that could repay debt, then that's fine with me. A government that can't handle debt would never have lasted very long in the world that came along during the 1800's anyway, and with that little central control would have torn itself apart.
Your second point isn't a point at all, and neither is anything "Patrick Henry" says. is even coming close to the problem.
A constitution that requires people to act counter to their own best interests isn't worth the paper it's printed on. A constitution that limits the power of government and then allows those limits to be used against the people isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
You can't -- or won't -- see that "going back to the way it was" is NEVER a solution to a problem. You need a new solution.
Patrick Henry: Your understanding of "statism" is very badly flawed. Direct taxation , via the IRS, is unneccarry government size. Strong government does not equal ineffeicent. A flat sales tax and additional taxes on various aspects of various goods would provide the goverment with ALL the cash it needs without all the spending and loopholes.
Taxing narcotics would provide more.
Your assertion that the Consitution is the "rules" shows that you don't get the idea of the game. There are two sets of rules football is played by. The first is the rules of physics , and the second is the rules you make up.
Shifting it to baseball, you can't hit a high pop fly to right field in half a second, or make a low line drive to right field take 6 seconds. You can't violate the laws of physics, even if the game rules say something else.
The constitution was written in a different time where different laws of society, of adaptation and viewpoints were the norm. Perhaps it was a more noble time. Certainly differences in commnications technology changed things. Jefferson himself noted that Montiesque's views on republican democracy were outdated due to the spread of printing and publishing. Technology changes the picture. Cultural values change the picture. You can "demand" all you like, but the reality is that most people don't agree, will never agree.
The best you can do is reforge something new, and enforcable, with a better level of control.
As to the second amendment, I said in my piece that you have a right to own ANY weapon as long as it's registered. I see no use for militias. I have never seen one that isn't infested with white supremacists, Luddites, or people more concerned with looking cool than liberty. A militia makes no sense in modern terms, what you need is for there to be National Guard commanders that answer to civlians and not the DoD if you want to protect the people.
A lot of your positions are very simply dogmatic , with the idea that "this is the way it should be in an ideal world."
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-27 18:13:20
Well, LP, you concluded your article by saying that Libertarians don't understand why the Constitution doesn't work. Then, when I showed that we do know, you dismissed my point as being a "non-point." If you won't even look at the reality of my point, then I guess there's nothing I could ever say to dissuade you from leaving your blinders on.
I love this quote of yours: "A constitution that requires people to act counter to their own best interests isn't worth the paper it's printed on." The arrogance of that statement is unbelievable. It basically says that the interests of "the people" (which means whomever happens to be in the majority at the time) is superior to the rights of individuals, which means all your talk about "rights" is really nothing more than a smoke screen. You don't really believe in rights. Instead, your concept of "rights" is where people are permitted to have a "right" so long as they don't get in the way of the current majority.
Well, I've got news for you, LP. Not only is the Constitution supposed to get in the way of the current majority when the majority wants to usurp powers and trample on the rights of individuals, it's a very good thing when it does so!
The desire to insure that the Constitution gets in the way was precisely why the Bill of Rights was passed in the first place. The people demanded it, because they knew that without such limitations, it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
In other words, you have comically managed to reverse the real history of the Constitution and make it appear as if the people of that time wanted to encourage unlimited government by majority rule, which is always...ALWAYS...the outcome when the Constitution isn't permitted to get in the way of the interests of "the people."
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-02-27 19:03:15
"They dominate the popular states, and then using that machinery, build up factions to dominate the nation."
Uhhhh....what are you talking about? The purpose behind states rights with regard to "dominating one state" is so that they can't "dominate" another state. A centralized authority would allow complete domination of all states. That's the point of decentralized authority - one size doesn't fit all!
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-02-28 15:01:38
LP
First, I was talking about the manmade rules of the game not the natural laws. But since you bring up natural laws, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND FREE!!!!!! You propose taking away those natural laws by changing the manmade laws.
Obviously you dont get it. My understanding of statism is crystal clear, it is nicely packaged, innocently named tyrranny. Like the Patriot Act it is pure evil packaged in a non-threatening or even nationalist box.
Second, anyway you coin a direct tax you promote tyrranny. Your promotion of a flat tax and eversion to free markets shows your elementary grasp of economics.
The Constitution is a timeless document because it dealt with human nature and not technology, the internet, tv etc. The founders knew that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is human nature that one tries to assume more power. Lets face it, not everyone has the virtue of George Washington (a notable statesman) so the Constitution was made with human nature and its inherent desire for more power first and foremost in mind.
The only time I have read regret in Jefferson was when he brokered the Assumption Act between Madison and Hamilton, he knew that he had given the Federal Government power it didnt deserve which also hurt the responsible states that had paid their debts back (all the southern colonies minus SC) but he felt something had to be done to break the federalist gridlock in Congress (did this by agreeing to make DC on the Potomac so they could have a home). His regret stemmed from requiring the Fed to allow other IRRESPONSIBLE states to impose financial hardships and RESPONSIBLE STATES (there is that ugly R word socialist hate so much again). This act imposed the interest of the banker at the expense of the individual and this repulsed Jefferson.
Bottom line: in a land of LIBERTY if you don't like LIBERTY you always have the FREEDOM to leave and go elsewhere, but in a land of tyrrany where do LIBERTY loving people go? Tell you what I aint leavin of my own accord, the 2nd Ammend guaruntees it.
Lastly, speaking of Baseball, glad to see the STATE spending our money b/c Roger Clements did HGH a decade ago. In a true REPUBLIC no one would care.
Hamiltons quote used in your article says it all and is the reason all social contracts especially those between more than two individuals always fail.
"You may concoct any Measure of security you wish, but the venal nature of man will always rise to the surface" - Alexander Hamilton -
It is interesting to read what a statist is about. Thank you for that, I always have wondered. The independent judicary sounds interesting. We do it for states, makes sense we should do it for all courts. I also agree that there should be a quicker ejection process in government. Unless its a sex scandal it seems like its impossible to change the face of government for corruption. The people abusing the power stay forever. Of course, if we quit jerrymandering things could get interesting too.
In football the fans watch the game and other team is always yelling at the refs to make sure the game is fair. The problem today is both teams are playing together on the fields and the fans have tuned out the game. The stations are showing highlights of the game but not the game itself. How do we fix that? If it was the NFL they would be bankrupt by now, though the government might not be too far off.
I will attend to your articles in detail later however, I will tell you that your premise has little to do with logic, it ignores vast amounts of history and the events that have brought us to the point we currently find ourselves in this country today.
"Libertarians are convinced the Consitution works but can't explain how the fuck we got in this mess if it supposedly works so well except to say "well people didn't do what it said to do".
Actually, I have given a short, but detailed essay to that very question in an article called The Bloodline of Tyranny. The Constitution has been systematically usurped by the very types of people that you seem to worship, such as Hamilton. I am sure that you also put Mr. Lincoln high on your list of heros also however, if you are complaining about the workings of the Constitution as it was intended, then perhaps you should look to those you hold in high esteem for the answer to why there have been such failures in this country and when those failures began to present. There is a very direct correlation between those who hold the Statist views of a highly Centralized and Nationalized government and the failures that have resulted in such policies.
You now ask that we allow for the implementation of even more Statist polices even though history bears out the fact that such policies have produced the very thing that you claim was faulty in the Constitutional Republic, something we have not seen in this country in its Constitutional form in over 147 years.
Statism is an utter failure, just look around our country and the world to see what Statism has wrought. As far as interventionism, it too has been a Statist policy that began in earnest 110 years ago and after intervening in over 200 countries the results are clear, once again: utter failure.
Take Iraq, our country has, in one way or another, intervened in that country for the last 87 years. Once again, an example of Statism at its finest.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.