Can anyone tell me what a constitution is? Is there anyone out there that can offer HARD-Evidence that we still have a Constitution in effect?
You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
The Constitution
Can anyone tell me what a constitution is? Is there anyone out there that can offer HARD-Evidence that we still have a Constitution in effect?
What is the matter is this too scarey a subject to discuss?
It is nothing but an excuse by men to lay dominion over others. A false claim of legality to enslave masses in the name of their own freedom and prosperity. It is purely ruse. Nothing more and nothing less. No matter what state posses one and what it says.
A Constitution is a CONTRACT. Someone “offered” someone “accepted” and there was supposed to be a value for a consideration. How does this enslave anyone? Who are the parties to the “slavery”?
It isn’t a contract that I agreed to sign. It enslaves all those that buy into its legitimacy and do not wield authority.
<p>I reject all forms of government. The constitution is a piece of paper. The only value it has is the historical lessons it teaches, that you cannot limit man’s insatiable thirst for power with a piece of paper.</p>
All is a really big word. Does your ALL include the government of the self, or do you advocate no restraint at all?
I reject the idea that any man can rightfully rule over another, and that all forms of coercion are morally wrong. I see government as an institution of men, built on coercion. If you consider self governance, to me the natural state of humanity and the only state of freedom, government, then I might revise the all. But then we would just disagree on semantics. I view self rule as natural and the proper path of humanity. I myself, wouldn’t taint such a beautiful idea as to associate it with such a vile term as government.
A constitution is a slave contract that none of us ever signed.
The two concepts can never go together. In any contract one has the volition for the consent or rejection of any or all of the terms and there is always a value. There is no volition or consent in slavery
I am curious as to how anyone came to have such a jaded view of the the term constitution. Through out the history of the World the fact is that 3% lead and 97% follow. Are you saying that constitutions are responsible for the NATURE of MAN?
Constitutions are associated with governments and tyranny. It is easy to see why they are not held in high esteem on liberty oriented sight. Constitutions have nothing to do with the nature of man. I have no idea how you arrived at that.
Virtually every transaction that man has with other men or women is a form of contract. An individual “offers” some text, speech, or some signs another individual can agree, disagree, ignore, or counter offer. the Value is established by further conversation. I kinda sorta doubt that you have even read the Constitution or any of the History concerning the process of putting it down on paper. Constitution have everything to do with the preservation of the NATURE of man.
I have read quite a bit on the subject. Including the document several times. I don’t recall it discussing the nature of man and it’s preservation. But I have obviously polluted my thoughts on this subject by reading too much Spooner and Tom Woods. I think Mr. Woods courses on history might have had a profound effect on my bias against this document. Please by all means help enlighten me. How does it have everything to do with the preservation of the nature of man?
I Can tell you one thing that the drafters knew about the nature of man that they tried to prevent. They divided the government into three branches to try to prevent what we have NOW, A TYRANT. That happened because we don’t have a Constitution anymore rather than because we had a faulty one. While ultimately the construction of the Language in the main body of the Constitution fails to do so, I think that the Bill of rights at least expressed some of the concepts of the nature of man that the people wanted preserved. If you can write a better Constitution with true, correct, and certain statements concerning the nature of man that you think should be preserved no one is stopping you from doing so.
Stick around Frank there is a lot of knowledge you can glean from here. If the drafters better knew the nature of men they wouldn’t have created government in the first place. Unless they were hell bent to be tyrants themselves. I think some like Patrick Henry, generally knew how destructive that document was and tried their best to prevent it. Once they knew the battle was lost, and the federalist were going to win through force and fraud, they proceeded to get the BOR slid in their as a condition of ratification.Thus giving generations to come a fighting chance. That document has us given many tyrants. The one we have now is not doing anything that his predecessors haven’t done before him. And there isn’t strong enough language you could put on a piece of paper to hold back the will’s of men
The “will” of a mind IS the criminal-intent. You are “right” about one thing. Words on paper have never restrained a criminal-mind. Just like locked doors have never prevented a thief from stealing. I believe that one of the founders said: A Constitution only works in a society made up of moral and just-people. There is no knowledge that I can glean from this site only the evidence of ignorance. If we don’t need “rules” or “rulers” how can you blame the negative actions of people on the words on a piece of paper?
Why did you pay money to join a site that obviously know so little about? I have studied the Constitution, something you were so quick to assume I haven’t, and your answers suggest you could use a little more thorough education. I think that is your issue, you assume. You don’t like what you have read so far, so you assume people in here don’t know anything. You want quick answers, instant gratification, but you are not finding that. Am I assuming too? You bet.
I don’t “assume” I look at the evidence. The claim that the Constitution created or enabled tyrants just doesn’t fit with the construction of the form of government set out by that Constitution. You would have to be a lot more specific about a particular clause or paragraph and the harm that you think that clause or paragraph caused before your claim would any merit. I have an instructor who discovered THE FLAW in the way individuals throw words together for the expression of their thinking. The Language-Technology disqualifies EVERY Treaty, Trust, Contract, Constitution, Dictionary, Encyclopedia, Law, Code, Statute, Ordinance, Text Book, or Manual ever written by anyone for the last 8500 years. Much of the rest of the world is getting up to speed on this technology, but the good citizens of America are not. I thought I would find bright open minds on a site made up of individuals who claim to love liberty, but I was wrong.
Do constitutions exist? Absolutely. What is it? Something like a charter. Does it actually have authority or protect our liberty? Absolutely not. But people act as though it does have authority, since people with badges will show up and kill you if you act too far on your beliefs.
Hi Frank, I wrote an article that relates to your question: https://bananas.liberty.me/judge-agrees-the-constitution-is-a-sham/
I will give you one clue as to why the Constitution doesn’t work, but I have to warn you that it is so simple that most people will just ignore it. If you see a sign in a tavern that says “The beer is free tomorrow” when will you get your “free” beer? The answer is never because we LIVE IN “NOW TIME” we do not live in the future or the past. The Constitution was written with the word SHALL in all but a few paragraphs. SHALL is future tense (future time), so the whole Constitution is a wonderful dream that could “happen” tomorrow, not withstanding the rest of the flaws in the syntax of the document. The sign in the tavern could also say the beer was free yesterday, but most individuals would understand that they missed the free beer because the “free” beer is in the past. Most of us perceive “concepts” of rights and duties set out by the words of the Constitution, however when the strings of words are parsed and the rules of syntax applied the document makes no sense. If you are a good “obedient” citizen and see a sign placed at the side of a street by the local government, you take it as a command that you must “perform”the command on the sign. So how do you NO PARK? in contrast if the sign said “For the parking of the car is with the towing and crushing. Would you take a chance on parking your car in that spot? The long and short is that WE ALL have been taught the writing of fiction. I am betting that there is a whole crowd of individuals who will jump on this and try to discredit the technology, however if you met and talked with the Author you would not be one of them.
Hi Frank,
I don’t believe the tense of the Constitution lends any weight to the idea that it’s a valid legal document that applies to us or a contract that we implicitly consented to just by being alive. I agree with what Lysander Spooner wrote in 1867:
“The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:
- ‘We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.”
Some call the Constitution a “living” Document because they wanted to be able to mess with language and twist that language into something that isn’t there for a questionable purpose. What made (past tense) the Constitution binding was that each time that a living, breathing “Officer” stood and took an oath “to support and defend” the Constitution that individual “gave life” to the Constitution. We appreciate that Lysander Spooner had an opinion, but that is all that it is. The Constitution is a FRAUD because it is written in FICTION-LANGUAGE. When you learn the difference between Correct-Language-Structure and Fiction-Language you will be able to see that for yourself and you won’t need a Lysander Spooner opinion to make your argument.
