The nauseating reverence for the Constitution and Founding Fathers prevents modern people, in our present time, from thinking rationally about this "great experiment" in governance called the USA.

The premise of our founding documents is that people create governments "to secure liberty." This premise is a contradiction from the start. Governments have never been created by consent. They have been imposed by conquerers on enslaved people in order to extract wealth from them. Governments differ only in their brutality.

The only difference our Founders made was to dupe different factions into thinking that they would manipulate the levers of power to their own selfish advantage. Such a widespread belief merely transfers power to the political class, as special interests bribe, beg, and plead for scraps of special favors--from the treasury and legislature.

With that, I present the following paper from the Independent Institute. It also has a paper that supports the Constitution after it.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/arti....

Some important quotes:

Quote:

If a general reduction in trade restrictions was what the nationalists were really after, this would hardly have justified a central government with the power to tax. In reality, American merchants were after uniform navigation laws, because they wanted some coercive means of monopolizing the American carrying trade. And American artisans wanted uniform protective tariffs to stop their customers from buying the cheap foreign goods flooding American markets at the end of the war. The unique economic fortunes of these two groups and their quest for special privileges contributed much to the exaggerated impression of postwar depression.

Quote:

The Federalists were able to ram the Constitution through the first five state conventions in rapid succession. But by the time the Constitution was under consideration in the key states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, they were in trouble. To secure ratification, they had to promise to amend the Constitution. Overall, five states coupled their ratifications with proposed amendments, while in two others, the minority issued amendments. The North Carolina convention refused to ratify at all without a bill of rights similar to the one it drew up, and Rhode Island would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution.

The proposed amendments often went far beyond a simple bill of rights. In particular, a curb on the national government’s taxation power found unanimous support. The near-addition of a taxing power to the Articles of Confederation indicates that even many Anti-Federalists had been willing to permit the central government to collect import duties. They insisted that all internal taxes, however, be at the discretion of the state governments.

Unable to defeat the Constitution in the ratifying process, the Anti-Federalists hoped to enact these drastic amendments, stripping the central government of many of its new powers, through a convention to be called by two-thirds of the states. Thus they pinned their hopes on a second constitutional convention that would undo the work of the first. New York, Virginia. North Carolina, and Rhode Island all promptly called for such a convention. However, because North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution, their endorsements did not count toward the requisite total. Having made the tactical decision to work within the legal framework of the new Constitution, the Anti-Federalists discovered that the legitimacy they had conferred on the new government worked against them.

At the other end of the political spectrum, many ardent Federalists were quite prepared to renege on their solemn promises to amend the Constitution now that their new national government was in operation. Only the politically astute Madison seemed to realize that the popular demand for a bill of rights must be fulfilled. While privately complaining about “the nauseous project of amendments,” Madison culled through the more than 200 state proposals, eliminating any that, in his words, might “endanger the beauty of the Government.” He successfully steered the resulting Bill of Rights through Congress. Although these widely publicized amendments would not be ratified for several years, they mollified many opponents of the new government.

The lesson is clear. Once you grant someone authority, any contract that limits their authority is meaningless because they will interpret it to mean anything they want.

Some more for you "Constitutionalists" on the uselessness of the Constitution;

Who's Your Nanny:
The USeless Constitution
http://bothwell.typepad.com/whos_your_na....

The Constitution Revisited (audio)
http://mises.org/media/1184

Antifederalist paper #9 Consolidated Government is a Tyranny
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp09.....

Quote:

And finally we shall entrench ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals of the commonalty. A few regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad that they are absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and then a legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built, still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of our revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a bill of rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as a lock chain to the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have not insisted on rotation in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill. We have for some time considered the freedom of the press as a great evil-it spreads information, and begets a licentiousness in the people which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a daring printer may expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of our president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said nothing with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish their sentiments" or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff. We do not much like that sturdy privilege of the people-the right to demand the writ of habeas corpus. We have therefore reserved the power of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you know we are the judges of what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other-are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination--which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS-to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people-we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit.

Minarchist's Dilemma
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/gregory....

More than anything else, they wanted to stop the states from issuing funny money.

Shays Rebellion scared the Hell out of anyone with real property. Roger Sherman, the only man to sign all the major founding documents, got involved because he and his brother had been ripped off by Rhode Island's junk paper decades before the Revolution.

In A Caveat Against Injustice he wrote:

"And this I would lay down as a Principle that can't be denied that a Debtor ought not to pay any Debts with less Value than was contracted for, without the Consent or against the Will of the Creditor . . ."

"But if what is used as a Medium of Exchange is fluctuating in its Value it is no better than unjust Weights and Measures, both which are condemned by the Laws of GOD and Man, and therefore the longest and most universal Custom could never make the Use of such a Medium either lawful or reasonable . . ."

"So long as we part with our most valuable Commodities for such Bills of Credit as are no Profit; but rather a Cheat, Vexation and Snare to us, and become a Medium whereby we are continually cheating and wronging one another in our Dealings and Commerce."

"And so long as we import so much more foreign Goods than are necessary, and keep so many Merchants and Trader employed to procure and deal them out to us: Great Part of which, we might as well make among ourselves; and another great Part of which, we had much better be without, especially the Spiritous Liquors of which vast Quantities are consumed in this Colony every Year, unnecessarily to the great Destruction of the Estates, Morals, Health and even the Lives of many of the Inhabitants."

"I say so long as these Things are so we shall spend great Part of our Labour and Substance for that which will not profit us."

http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/caveat-....

Yes, History tells us Hamilton, Morris, Wolcott, Ames, Sherman were bad, bad men. Big government guys. Against freedom. But what would have been the result if Shays, Paine and their followers had their way? Jacobinism. People who shoot their mouth off about liberty but pick people's pockets while they do it. People voting to debase the currency to escape debt. People voting to rig the system to enrich themselves....hey...about what we have now, no?

Essex,

You make an excellent point. The debtor class wanted to use the guns of the states to live at the expense of creditors. What we have are 2 classes wrestling for the power to impose their will on the other.

If you are familiar with historian Charles Beard, he argued that while creditors implemented the constitution, by 1800, the debtor class had control.

It took awhile, but ultimately, we have the worst of both worlds--a crony-capitalist, rent seeking business class, with a political class manipulated by the banking cartel who permit the govt an all too easy way to finance their payoffs theough debt expansion and inflation.

We have the worst of both classes, and it is inevitable when you conceede that government "needs" to do something.

After the inital civil unrest and the purging of the leach****s, I think Anarchy would work out ok.

Hadn't read that by Beard but agree. Fisher Ames and many others saw the election of Jefferson as the end of the Republic. A corrupt
aristocracy, supported by an ignorant underclass and a venal media was, Ames, wrote, Jefferson's base. Oliver Wolcott said years before the 1800 election that if Jefferson became President, New England should secede.

Jefferson was the epitome of the debtor class. Big talker. Wrote opinions on everything. Liked to mouth off about liberty but the reason he didn't free his slaves was because he borrowed money on them. He liked the wine, the estate and the trips more than practicing what he preached.

But its always a matter of degree. The Federalists deplored what Jefferson created but it wasn't half bad. Constitutuionalists were alarmed by FDR but life was OK....however they way things are going now...think we've about tapped all our resources out. No where to move to. Everything is mortgaged beyond its worth and the government class is eating the private sector alive.

What's that saying? Even the best Constitution won't matter if the quality of the people is lacking and they lack the spirit of liberty.

Constitutions don't uphold themselves. Yes, ours was a compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. No, it was not perfect. But was it one of the greatest documents written in human history? Yes.

The main problems with the Constitution aren't actually with the Constitution at all. They're with dishonest readings of the original Constitution, either by the executive or Supreme Court, or the lack of willingness of the Courts to strike down Congressional laws and Presidential actions that are unconstitutional.

Then you have all of the Constitutional amendments they gave us later, which are not the fault of the Founders; Prohibition, sixteenth amendment (used to justify an income tax), seventeenth amendment (direct election of Senators), etc. And of course, the biggest mistake of all: the Federal Reserve Act, which was our capitulation, after 150 years of fighting, to the central bankers, in direct violation of the Constitution, which of course says only Congress may issue the currency.

I think one cure for all of these problems has always been State nullification. The Constitution tells us that it is the States who made the Union, and since the Federal government is usually reluctant to interpret limits on its own powers, the final check must lie with the States.

Anyways, it's quite an incomplete picture indeed to blame our problems on the original document. It's an interesting avenue to explore, certainly, but ultimately it's not the root of the problem. I mean, Christ, how many of our Congress people alone take their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously? You see what I'm saying here?

(By the way, how on Earth is Jefferson the epitome of the debtor overlords? Why would Jefferson, an alleged "agent of the debtor class" kill our first central bank? Do you think Bernanke and Lloyd Blankfein would be comfortable with a Jefferson in office???)

Quote:

What's that saying? Even the best Constitution won't matter if the quality of the people is lacking and they lack the spirit of liberty.

Here is the quote

"Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams

Now, why is that? Take a look at some of the links above for an explanation.

Here is another Adams' quote:

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”

Quote:

Constitutions don't uphold themselves. Yes, ours was a compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. No, it was not perfect. But was it one of the greatest documents written in human history? Yes.

No. It was a political document, like any other political document. It was designed to deceive the masses into obedience, because it is easier and cheaper for leadership to use deception and trickery, than force.

Government is sold as a way of offering protection. Protection from whom?
And if I need a Constitution to limit the power of the protective agency, perhaps this protective agency is a worse threat than what it is supposed to "protect" me from?

Once you grant someone authority to enslave you, by definition you grant legitimacy to anything they want to do. If you wish to withdraw your consent from a one-sided contract, this is by definition -illegitimate--because it goes against the interest of the authorities. This struggle for legitimacy -- where an authority's claims are accepted uncritically by habit, is crucial for government power.

They can only put a tiny portion of the populace under the big black boot of repression. It is best if people police themselves, and remain totally deceived as to their actual interests.

Giz...exactly. Constitutions aren't worth the paper they are written on. Real constitutions are in the hearts and minds of the people--what they will accept. Lawyers, judges and corrupt interests can make words on paper mean anything they want. Patrick Henry warned of this. He said the free exercise clause of the first amendment would be used someday to censor religious speech. Took a long time, until after WWII, but he was right.

Joseph de Maistre ("Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions and other Human Institutions," 1809):

IX. The more we examine the influence of human agency in the formation of political constitutions, the greater will be our conviction that it enters there only in a manner infinitely subordinate, or as a simple instrument; and I do not believe there remains the least doubt of the incontestable truth of the following propositions: -

1. That the fundamental principles of political constitutions exist before all written law.

2. That a constitutional law is, and can only be, the development or sanction of an unwritten pre-existing right.

3. That which is most essential, most intrinsically constitutional, and truly fundamental, is never written, and could not be, without endangering the state.

4. That the weakness and fragility of a constitution are actually in direct proportion to the multiplicity of written constitutional articles.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/h....

This thread challenges things I know have been challenged on TF before, but I'm interested in following the discussion and reading the links you've provided.

Essex, what's your take on Jefferson? I'm not sure whether you think he was ok or whether the bad Federalists ended up deciding he was ok (which might make him bad as well).

Mr. Bill..... I don't like Jefferson. He pulled the same stuff we see the ACLU pulling today. Great defender of liberty. Mouthed off on the yeoman farmer and what a great society he could create. But he wasn't of that class and didn't believe what he preached. He was a slicker Tom Paine is all. He destroyed the Federalist party and they never liked him that I'm aware....

From "The Death of the Federalist Party":

Chapter 3: The Secessionists

Oliver Wolcott was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a delegate to the Continental Congress , and a general during the Revolution. He served as lieutenant-governor and governor of Connecticut.

In 1796, this patriot repeatedly advanced the idea of secession in letters to his son, then Secretary of the
Treasury: "'If,' says he, 'the French arms continue to
preponderate, and a governing influence of this nation shall continue in the southern and western counties, I am confident and indeed hope, that a separation will soon take place.

"Though I am sensible,' he says, 'by our late revolution, of the evils of one, I sincerely declare that I wish the northern states would separate from the southern, the moment that event (the election of Jefferson) shall take
effect.'"

Timothy Dwight, a grandson of Jonathan Edwards, a Congregationalist minister and president of Yale University , wrote thus to a friend in 1793: "A war with Great Britain we, at least in New England, will not enter into. Sooner would ninety-nine out of a hundred separate
from the Union, than plunge into such an abyss of misery."

Such ideas remained latent for nearly ten years. Then around the time of their failure in the national elections of 1804, many of the Federalist leaders in New England adopted them.

Shortly before he was offered the presidency of Harvard, Fisher Ames, an ex-congressman from Massachusetts, said, "Our country is too big for union."

Roger Griswold of Connecticut wrote to Oliver Wolcott, Jr.,
: "The vices of this government are incurable... there can be no safety to the northern states without a separation from the Confederacy."

These men were supported in their views by Pickering, Hillhouse, and Tracy.

According to William Plumer in a letter written to John Quincy Adams on December 20, 1828, in 1804 "...arrangements had been made to have the next autumn, in Boston, a select meeting of the leading Federalists in New England, to consider and recommend the measures necessary to form a system of government for the northern states . . ."

http://jamesgoulding.com/americanhistory....

Yes, the Federalists did shoot themselves in the head with the Alien & Sedition Act. But consider why they passed it. They saw Jacobinism in France. They saw Tom Paine run over there, become a citizen and conspire with the street thugs to steal Spanish property, they saw Jefferson and his crowd siding with Paine and the Jacobins. They saw that what they had created could very easily slip into what France suffered.

Here is a link to an encyclopedia entry regarding Charles A Beard, who is the source of much revisionist history regarding the constitution.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Bea....

There has been a move away from the economic causation thesis in history, but I haven't personally reviewed the evidence for this change.

Here is a more recent link that discusses the issue:
http://www.h-net.org/~shear/thread/beard....

I've commented at length regarding this issue. Search user=Bezzle, message content=constitution.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The purpose of the Constitution is (was) to create a government to protect and maintain the rights of the people.

Cobra, that's a unicorn candy fantasy.

The Bill of Rights was the last part created, an 11th hour addition by Jefferson attempting to constrain what was obviously the hatching of a monster.

-- The real purpose of the Constitution was to create a taxing authority backed by force in order to make the public pay for colonial pigster debts incurred during the war then ten years in the past. I.e., they "extended and pretended" as long as possible, then created a bureaucracy to steal.

Which led to my quiz question for Sushi:

Quote:

Quiz time for Sushi: How many years after the ratification of the Constitution did Congress impose a tax on spirits, leading to a revolt, which was put down by troops?

Answer: less than five years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Reb....

Bumpitty-bump, due to new relevance.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
The U.S. Constitution was a contract was it not?
Just read the thing. Commerce plain and simple.
Then why did the founding fathers sign as "witnesses"?
When 2 or more parties make a contract, they usually have a "witness" sign it.
I have more contradictions in the language of this contract, which I will not go into at the moment.
Enlighten me please.

Robls,

Read Spooner's Constitution of No Authority where he refutes the "Contract" theory of the U.S. Constitution.

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44

Elliot_wave,
I have read Spooner.
My point is "who" are the parties to this piece of s**t?
It sure wasn't me.
Can't believe people worship that piece of trash called the CONstitution.

Just thought I'd update this thread with an interesting find:

Who's Your Nanny: Required Readings
Hologram of Liberty

http://bothwell.typepad.com/whos_your_na....

Some prized quotes from the "Founding Fathers"

George Washington in Letter to John Jay wrote..

We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power.

Many are of the opinion, that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant, humble tone of requisition in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience....If you tell the (State) legislatures they have...invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face. George Washington to John Jay, August 1, 1786 (2/5).

Quote:

This type of insolence infuriate the Nationalists. In a letter dated June 27, 1786, John Jay wrote to Washington, "Private rage for property suppresses public considerations, and personal rather than national interests have become great objects of attention...." Madison wrote to Washington in April 1787 saying, "...the right of coercion should be expressly declared. With the resources of Commerce in hand, the National administration