The US Constitution: Tool of the Man?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by SillyWabbit, Jun 22, 2011.

  1. SillyWabbit
    Offline

    SillyWabbit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,483
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Yep
    Ratings:
    +360
    I hadn't thought of the US Constitution in this manner before. Is the US Constitution a shining example of the protection of liberty or a tool for the empowerment of a domineering, oppressive central government?

    Still Fed Up With Constitution Worship

    "Instead, after 224 years, we now have exactly what the original ruling class desired, an all-powerful central government ruling over the lower classes. This is a rule by the few over the many. As Aristotle said: “rule by the few is aristocracy in its ideal form and oligarchy in its perverted form.” The elite class holds all the cards, while the rest of us now struggle under the thumb of tyranny!

    Regards,

    Gary D. Barnett

    Gary D. Barnett is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana."
     
  2. amhealy
    Offline

    amhealy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Ratings:
    +3
    The all-powerful central government isn't because of the Constitution. It's because of the federal reserve, imo.
     
  3. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    Haven't you noticed that the all-powerful, ultra-intrusive federal government has come about in violation of the Constitution, not by the power of the Constitution?
     
  4. SillyWabbit
    Offline

    SillyWabbit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,483
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Yep
    Ratings:
    +360
    Well, what about this:

    "The people did not establish our constitution, nor was it inspired by divine intervention as so many suggest. It would be difficult for me to imagine that God would have a hand in the destruction of our inherent and natural rights. No, this flagrantly flawed document was designed and implemented by a few corrupt men led by Alexander Hamilton. Their agenda was guided not by any desire to achieve liberty for all, but by a grand lust for power and control. Had that not been the case, the Declaration of Independence would have been the guide for any new set of rules, and our original constitution would have been even more scrutinized instead of being replaced."

    The Founding of the Fed - Federal Reserve Bank of New York ?
     
  5. SillyWabbit
    Offline

    SillyWabbit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,483
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Yep
    Ratings:
    +360
    How did people come to be in a position to violate the very laws they purport to uphold, simultaneously using these laws to maintain--and expand--their power?
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2011
  6. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    Human nature is frequently not very admirable, so of course some people will violate and pervert the law - often while claiming to uphold and protect it - to benefit themselves if they're allowed to.

    On the other hand, people will also be lazy and apathetic and allow others to get away with murder - sometimes literally.

    So whichever side of the equation you were asking about, the dark side of human nature is your answer. Nevertheless, the Constitution is not responsible for too-powerful government. It doesn't create it OR enable it. If it were actually followed, it would inhibit it.
     
  7. amhealy
    Offline

    amhealy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Ratings:
    +3
    I disagree with the author of the first article you posted. The "people" did not establish the constitution, but some of the "people" did. I don't see how it is flawed. There was a lot of blood shed for the independence sought by the early colonists.

    The Federal Reserve is the problem here. When the Federal Reserve was created, it took power out of the hands of the people. I don't know how it was done, but I have been reading lately and it makes sense.

    "He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation." James A. Garfield
     
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Hence the fallacy of ‘originalism.’

    And in spite of this the crucible of the rule of law forged the judicial foundation upon which our civil rights stand:

    "Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas (2003)

    Men of good faith may disagree on issues of politics and faith, one may even lose the contest; but in the context of the rule of law one need not fear the loss of his liberty.
     
  9. SillyWabbit
    Offline

    SillyWabbit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,483
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Yep
    Ratings:
    +360
    The rule of law implies impartiality.
    If one designs the game for one's own end, and one ends, as it were, why must others be compelled to follow the rules of said game? The names of the game players have changed many times in our history. The game remains the same. We give of ourselves and receive more game time--and war and death--in return.
    Where is the protection supposedly provided by the constitution in all this?
    Who decides for whom?
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2011
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Hence the idiocy of rejecting originalism.


    The Volokh Conspiracy » The Seventh and Thirteenth Amendments, and Ambiguous Constitutional Text

    What you are doing is confusing textualism and originalism. Textualism is about what the words say, originalism is about what the text means. Both the left and the right resort to textualism when it suits them. Examples are the right when it argues that the Constitution does not include a right to privacy, the left when it argues that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias.

    Kennedy was right that the framers were not specific, but that was by intent, not neglect or lack of vision. The original intent of the Constitution was to protect the liberty of the individual, and I am an originalist to my core because I believe the individual is paramount when discussing liberty.

    Raise any of the founders, including Alexander Hamilton, from the grave and he would agree with that sentiment. He would debate me hotly about the method, because he believed a strong government was the way to guarantee that liberty, but the intent is clear.
     

Share This Page