What was the point in setting up a limited federal government, if these same states could put anything they wanted in their own constitutions.
Things that can violate our right to life, liberty and property?
When they created this constitution, was there any thought to limit the powers of the states?
You call yourself "limitgov", you tell us.
limitgov: What was the point in setting up a limited federal government, if these same states could put anything they wanted in their own constitutions. Things that can violate our right to life, liberty and property? When they created this constitution, was there any thought to limit the powers of the states?
Doesn't your question belong in your own, [and current]10th Amendment thread, or am I missing something?
Regards, onebornfree
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
limitgov:What was the point in setting up a limited federal government, if these same states could put anything they wanted in their own constitutions.
You will probably have to ask the signers of the constitution.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
The Federal Government is a pact between the states. It was the states that wanted it to be limited. Of course they did not limit themselves in the process.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: The Federal Government is a pact between the states. It was the states that wanted it to be limited. Of course they did not limit themselves in the process.
i just want someone to tell me:
the states constitution is not valid if it violates someone's life, liberty and property because "x,y and z...."
limitgov: Stranger: The Federal Government is a pact between the states. It was the states that wanted it to be limited. Of course they did not limit themselves in the process. i just want someone to tell me: the states constitution is not valid if it violates someone's life, liberty and property because "x,y and z...."
Sorry, it's just a stupid piece of paper.
Stranger: limitgov: Stranger: The Federal Government is a pact between the states. It was the states that wanted it to be limited. Of course they did not limit themselves in the process. i just want someone to tell me: the states constitution is not valid if it violates someone's life, liberty and property because "x,y and z...." Sorry, it's just a stupid piece of paper.
well that stupid piece of paper has allowed states to intrude on people's liberty and property.
u need to show that piece of paper a little more respect....
States don't have rights they have powers.
limitgov: well that stupid piece of paper has allowed states to intrude on people's liberty and property. u need to show that piece of paper a little more respect....
What will the piece of paper do to me if I don't show it respect?
Stranger: limitgov: well that stupid piece of paper has allowed states to intrude on people's liberty and property. u need to show that piece of paper a little more respect.... What will the piece of paper do to me if I don't show it respect?
kick you in the nuts and take your money.
Stranger: Sorry, it's just a stupid piece of paper.
What about paper contracts people sign? Could you please distinguish what makes the Constitution stupid vis a vis "regular" contracts?
Thanks :-)
yoshimura: Stranger: Sorry, it's just a stupid piece of paper. What about paper contracts people sign? Could you please distinguish what makes the Constitution stupid vis a vis "regular" contracts? Thanks :-)
The constitution is a contract between the states. If they no longer wish to abide by some clause, then it is for all purposes void.
This is one of my favourite topics.It's also one of the important arguments against Minarchism/Constitutionalism.
Constitutionalism is a form of social contract theory so those criticism's apply to it.
Well I'm not expert on American history not being british and all but I'll give it a try.
1. Not binding.There's many theories of contracts.Most Libertarians accept the title transfer theory expounded by Rothbard and others.In this all participants must sign the contract.In terms of the constitution , of those it was held to be binding on all the participants DID NOT SIGN.
2. Outdated.It's generally accepted contracts only apply to those living who signed the contract unless there was a contract signed when living that still applies during death e.g. inheritance etc. The constitution -assuming it was signed by all involved for arguments sake - would only apply to the living at the time, in which case once all involved were death it means nothing. See Lysander spooner Constitution of no authority
3.Represents centralization of government. The Anti-federalists argued this and a recent libertarian poster to Lew rockwell.com has said the same.
Hoppe argues this also and
4.Not accepted or wanted by everyone.The Anti Federalists vehemently opposed the constitution seeing it as a centralization of power and worrying that the president position would become something akin to a monarchy.One poster argues they were correct.
5. The constitution wasn't that great anyway.The government had less powers before the constitution than it did after.Alexander hamilton wanted the central government to have lots of power and while he didn't get all he wanted in the constitution he got enough to be satisfied.
6. It's obvious the constitution did not limit the government(since nothing can) and there were many violations of it very quickly after it's creation particularly Abe lincoln and the 'civil war'. Dilorenzo argues the constitution was futile.
The American revolution while the rhetoric was good and possibly the intentions it wasn't libertarian.
See untold truths about the american revolution
Also see
Some argue Constitutionalism actually undermines liberty
I know this all might seem like hersy when you first read it but it's where reason,history and libertarian principles lead.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
This is an odd collection of sentences. Why would I respect a piece of paper that has done such things? Of course, though, it hasn't. Governments do lots of unconstitutional things, so how exactly can it be claimed that the particular evil things in the constitution would not have been done had they not been there?