The Constitution protects nothing, in of itself, anymore than the Bible (or the Torah or Koran or Bhagavad Gita) magically connects one to the divine. Its power lies in those who have faith in it, and their willingness to protect the principles therein.
And we have failed. Miserably.
From the passage of Amendments 16 and 17, to sitting on our hands while courts raped civil liberties, to continuing to support politicians (either by choice or through apathy) who have done nothing but attain power for themselves, we have failed.
We have almost completely converted from a Constitutional Republic to a Democracy, and we have done so through apathy, laziness, and a desire for comfort. The Constitution, with the Bill-Of-Rights, were the TOOLS for us to protect our liberties for ourselves - we can hardly say it failed when we have seldom bothered to even pick up those tools.
And before you mention me using the 'Republic vs Democracy' duality, yes, I read your other post this morning, had not had to respond to it as yet. If I may speak as 'one of those in the back' to whom your referred, I can say with absolute confidence that making the distinction between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy is more than valid; suggesting they are not that different is like saying a dolphin and a mouse are the same because they are each mammals. Yeah, they share some base similarities, but still very different animals.
So no, there is no one thing in Constitution which can save our liberties by itself, and there never has been. We still have to put in the work, and if continue to choose to blow it off as worthless then yes... that is exactly what it will become. Worthless.
Because of us.
Sorry so rambling, at work and cannot spend time polishing structure and grammar like I normally would. Great topic, by the way - thanks for opening it up.
Your question made me think of a conversation I just had with a neighbor I have in New Hampshire. We were talking about squatters and he said the best way to take care of that is with a 9 mm. Let’s face it, when our government forces this inevitable collapse the second amendment, in certain states, is the only part of the constitution that will help to keep us from certain death. Hopefully you will have enough ammunition.
At its core, to me, it's putting my faith in a piece of paper by individuals I did not know personally and cannot vouch for, both historically and, certaintly, not today, for any real or imagined protection of freedom. How can people "ACTing" in power, unable to rule themselves and take any accountability for their own actions govern another's best interest (assuming they know what that is for someone else). Putting faith in anyone to do what is right and honorable is a fallacy...if it's not happening on the indvidual level, it's definitely not happening on a larger scale. When men and women are held accountable by one another and to themselves from a place of reason, not propaganda induced fear, not political correctness, then maybe people can communicate with directness and honesty again and resolve things amongst one another. From what I have witnessed the past 4 years, neither the constitution, nor bill of rights, is of any concern when consent is given by the people to give up their freedoms at the expense of "thinking they are free" and not becoming free by their own actions... mind, body and soul. Ultimately, most people do not want freedom, because it is easier to put trust in the illusion of it and sing patriotic songs that sound true....and then mask up because big brother told them to.
To follow the suit and not bury the lede, the answer is absolutely nothing. It seems to me after over a few decades of consideration, including going through the likes of Spooner... whatever protections the constitution "could" have provided, were evaporated by Marbury V. Madison. The constitution should have been a brick that was grouted in - rather in 1803 it became permanently malleable by judicial review. Then it became whatever the ruling class wanted it to mean, as well as being reduced to a mere platitude for electioneering. With all of that being said, I am not sure it had any authority prior to then, I have debated that within myself, but it certainly does not in 2024.
Excellent breakdown Chris. I had a good friend some years ago who enlighted me on the Truth of the Constitution and I subsequently researched it and he was on target. A Few main points:
The Constitution without the Bill of Rights is mostly awful. The Constitution made slavery legal and it had to stay legal until I believe 1808.
Jefferson went wild when he got a draft of the Constitution, he was in France, from Madison. Jefferson pushed the Bill of Rights through working through Madison.
It is the Bill of Rights which gives us some protection!
It doesn't and was a coup against the government put in by the people, primarily the sovereign currency called scrip, for which the war was fought: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup. The Bill of Rights was promised as a trick to get the Constitution ratified. Hamilton described it as 'his nauseous project.' The states submitted very strong lists of their proposals, notably including the right to issue their own currency. The so-called anti-Federalists, who were FOR a truly federal gov't, drafted them. What ended up adopted was toothless and useless.
All that the Constitution gave the people was post offices, postal roads and patent protection--something used against us to prevent innovation and create monopolies. Thanks for asking this important question, Christopher!
It's been understood for some time that governments like to grow, for the simple reason that the people attracted to government are people who like to push other people around. I don't think that any shortcomings in the wording of the Constitution are to blame for our current condition; instead, my view is that it is the courts which are primarily responsible for the massive violations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, along with pretty much all the rest of the Bill of Rights. Wickard v. Filburn is a great example, but unfortunately one of a blizzard of examples of twisted logic used to justify what is clearly unjustifiable under the Constitution.
We the People have to lead the way back to a limited government, using whatever means prove necessary.
The Constitution does not protect our freedom. In my opinion, you have the premise backwards, my friend.
WE protect our freedom.
The Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights added to simply put to paper what the government can and should do and how to do it; and then the things it cannot do, especially to us. But its an idea, and a document. Only those 2 things.
Once it was written, it was in OUR hands to protect our freedom.
Ben Franklin famously said after he was asked what kind of government had been created, he said: "A Republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT"
WE, all of US, protect our freedom by protecting the Constitution.
And it is up to US to protect the Constitution by voting for those who will protect IT from those who would violate IT. By only voting for those who would honor their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.
It's not complicated at all, it's rather simple actually.
And everytime we voted for men and policies, with their attendant appointments, and watched AND ALLOWED THEM to build bureaus and add regulations and start or go to war and tax us without votes or input from us etc, and anything that infringed on our freedom, it was our own fault.
Because It has always been up to us to decide who to vote for and THEN also what to tolerate **and ask for** from them once we give them power.
The Constitution was a wonderful gift, the best system of government mankind has ever devised.
But it has always been up to us to protect it and be sure it was followed and used properly and not ignored, via all of our own and prior citizens votes, going back to 1789.
And everything shitty people would lay at the feet of the Constitution, again, they are backwards.
The Contitution never fails us. We failed it.
We didnt always KEEP IT, as we were so directly warned we had to do on the day of its birth.
***I want to add this to address one of your points: the inefficiencies are deliberate, intentional, simply to get the politicians to build a consensus before proceeding with something. If no consensus can be found, it should not be done at that time.
GK, I had the same issue for years until my friend pointed it out to me. I learned the hard way many things like the Constitution and many laws are written this way on purpose.
Politics is downstream of culture. Remember Benjamin Franklin's response to a women inquiring if the U.S. was now a democracy: "A Republic, if we can keep it". In other words; freedom, once obtained, must be continuously maintained. That's also true of other things like prosperity and peace.
But they were also "new-world, new-money colonizers" who then, along with the rest, claimed land, resources and everything else from the native population whom they proceeded to murder and oppress without regard. Gee, I wonder why the Gaza situation seems so familiar?
I have no more regard for these men, brilliant as they may have been at the time, from 250 years ago informing me as to what is best for me now, than I do for the God of the Bible, "giving" the lands of Israel to the Jewish people over 2000 years ago.
Time for a new "Declaration of Independence," and it isn't to establish a "new company" from the "old company," but to establish that NO-ONE has the right to impose their laws upon us, any of us.
While some may think this child-like and naive, I refuse to bow to any agency because of ancient historic texts.
Then the question becomes, what do we do now? And THAT is all I am interested in. Not fixing what is broken established by people who have long turned to dust, but establishing what is important now.
And what is that?
Freedom and claiming our own Authority over ourselves.
Well Sanders certainly raised awareness big-time about a lot of things you complain of. But I doubt very much he'll run again. He's far more invested in getting people onboard with his program into Congress - without which, as he said during his campaigns, you can't do much anyway.
I fear for RFK Jr too. I like everything he says (except re Gaza) and it sure looks like they're coming after him on both sides now. And this Gallup poll from Jan is probably why. (Ignore the chicken headline and scroll down to the 5th paragraph. Or the 2nd graph. He was leading BOTH Trump and Biden by 10 points. https://news.gallup.com/poll/548138/american-presidential-candidates-2024-election-favorable-ratings.aspx
According to Michael Huemer, democracy is better than dictatorship. Apparently, there are many other factors that affect how much freedom the inhabitants of a country enjoy. The 2023 Cato Institute Human Freedom Index ranks 165 countries according to 86 indicators of personal and economic freedom. The top three freest countries are (1) Switzerland, (2) New Zealand, and (3) Denmark. The three most oppressive countries listed are (163) Sudan, (164) Yemen, and (165) Syria. The countries listed include 98.8% of the world's population. Some countries (e.g., North Korea and Cuba) aren't listed due to insufficient data. The US is tied for 17th place with Lithuania and the UK.
The Cato report says this about democracy: “While aspects of liberty associated with democracy—freedom of speech, assembly, and public demonstration—are included in this index, democracy, sometimes called political freedom, is not. Unrestrained democracy can be inconsistent with freedom. Democratic rule is ideally characterized by some combination of the division of power, limited government, decentralization, and structural characteristics designed to control the powers of the majority.”
It"s always far better to read the text itself than to read the wildly different interpretations that show up first all over the internet when googling. The whole Constitution is only 20-some pages long, including all the Amendments, and is definitely worth a read.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Two comments I'd make as a history buff: freedom of religion (or beliefs, including none) needed to be first because without it, there had been no freedom of speech, the press, of expression anywhere in the previous 17 centuries when religion ruled. We had Inquisitions and heretic-burnings instead.
As to the 2nd Amendment, we had no standing army then and a great many people were very wary of them, including some of the founders.
You can see the revolt against 18th century conditions all over Europe (where most colonists came from) in the 3rd & 4th amendment too. No soldier shall be quartered in anyone's home, in times of peace, without the owner's consent, and in war, only in a manner prescribed by law. No unreasonable searches and seizures. All of that had been going on all over Europe for many centuries.
I also have to disagree with dissing separation of powers and checks and balances. They are essential and have always made the difference, however many corrupt or nasty people have made it into office or power for a spell.
Principles of freedom and conflict resolution need to be taught. There needs to be a meeting of the minds and a simple process for removing controversy that can be taught easily.
If these things are done, then it is much easier for any man or woman to pinpoint abuses of power.
Most of our institutions have been subverted.
A tyranny of the majority should have no power to harm (I know you don’t necessarily like that word). Arbitrarily sentencing opposition to death is a bit non sensical and is already, at its base, against the natural rights of others.
The Constitution protects nothing, in of itself, anymore than the Bible (or the Torah or Koran or Bhagavad Gita) magically connects one to the divine. Its power lies in those who have faith in it, and their willingness to protect the principles therein.
And we have failed. Miserably.
From the passage of Amendments 16 and 17, to sitting on our hands while courts raped civil liberties, to continuing to support politicians (either by choice or through apathy) who have done nothing but attain power for themselves, we have failed.
We have almost completely converted from a Constitutional Republic to a Democracy, and we have done so through apathy, laziness, and a desire for comfort. The Constitution, with the Bill-Of-Rights, were the TOOLS for us to protect our liberties for ourselves - we can hardly say it failed when we have seldom bothered to even pick up those tools.
And before you mention me using the 'Republic vs Democracy' duality, yes, I read your other post this morning, had not had to respond to it as yet. If I may speak as 'one of those in the back' to whom your referred, I can say with absolute confidence that making the distinction between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy is more than valid; suggesting they are not that different is like saying a dolphin and a mouse are the same because they are each mammals. Yeah, they share some base similarities, but still very different animals.
So no, there is no one thing in Constitution which can save our liberties by itself, and there never has been. We still have to put in the work, and if continue to choose to blow it off as worthless then yes... that is exactly what it will become. Worthless.
Because of us.
Sorry so rambling, at work and cannot spend time polishing structure and grammar like I normally would. Great topic, by the way - thanks for opening it up.
Your question made me think of a conversation I just had with a neighbor I have in New Hampshire. We were talking about squatters and he said the best way to take care of that is with a 9 mm. Let’s face it, when our government forces this inevitable collapse the second amendment, in certain states, is the only part of the constitution that will help to keep us from certain death. Hopefully you will have enough ammunition.
At its core, to me, it's putting my faith in a piece of paper by individuals I did not know personally and cannot vouch for, both historically and, certaintly, not today, for any real or imagined protection of freedom. How can people "ACTing" in power, unable to rule themselves and take any accountability for their own actions govern another's best interest (assuming they know what that is for someone else). Putting faith in anyone to do what is right and honorable is a fallacy...if it's not happening on the indvidual level, it's definitely not happening on a larger scale. When men and women are held accountable by one another and to themselves from a place of reason, not propaganda induced fear, not political correctness, then maybe people can communicate with directness and honesty again and resolve things amongst one another. From what I have witnessed the past 4 years, neither the constitution, nor bill of rights, is of any concern when consent is given by the people to give up their freedoms at the expense of "thinking they are free" and not becoming free by their own actions... mind, body and soul. Ultimately, most people do not want freedom, because it is easier to put trust in the illusion of it and sing patriotic songs that sound true....and then mask up because big brother told them to.
To follow the suit and not bury the lede, the answer is absolutely nothing. It seems to me after over a few decades of consideration, including going through the likes of Spooner... whatever protections the constitution "could" have provided, were evaporated by Marbury V. Madison. The constitution should have been a brick that was grouted in - rather in 1803 it became permanently malleable by judicial review. Then it became whatever the ruling class wanted it to mean, as well as being reduced to a mere platitude for electioneering. With all of that being said, I am not sure it had any authority prior to then, I have debated that within myself, but it certainly does not in 2024.
Excellent breakdown Chris. I had a good friend some years ago who enlighted me on the Truth of the Constitution and I subsequently researched it and he was on target. A Few main points:
The Constitution without the Bill of Rights is mostly awful. The Constitution made slavery legal and it had to stay legal until I believe 1808.
Jefferson went wild when he got a draft of the Constitution, he was in France, from Madison. Jefferson pushed the Bill of Rights through working through Madison.
It is the Bill of Rights which gives us some protection!
It doesn't and was a coup against the government put in by the people, primarily the sovereign currency called scrip, for which the war was fought: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup. The Bill of Rights was promised as a trick to get the Constitution ratified. Hamilton described it as 'his nauseous project.' The states submitted very strong lists of their proposals, notably including the right to issue their own currency. The so-called anti-Federalists, who were FOR a truly federal gov't, drafted them. What ended up adopted was toothless and useless.
All that the Constitution gave the people was post offices, postal roads and patent protection--something used against us to prevent innovation and create monopolies. Thanks for asking this important question, Christopher!
It's been understood for some time that governments like to grow, for the simple reason that the people attracted to government are people who like to push other people around. I don't think that any shortcomings in the wording of the Constitution are to blame for our current condition; instead, my view is that it is the courts which are primarily responsible for the massive violations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, along with pretty much all the rest of the Bill of Rights. Wickard v. Filburn is a great example, but unfortunately one of a blizzard of examples of twisted logic used to justify what is clearly unjustifiable under the Constitution.
We the People have to lead the way back to a limited government, using whatever means prove necessary.
The Constitution does not protect our freedom. In my opinion, you have the premise backwards, my friend.
WE protect our freedom.
The Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights added to simply put to paper what the government can and should do and how to do it; and then the things it cannot do, especially to us. But its an idea, and a document. Only those 2 things.
Once it was written, it was in OUR hands to protect our freedom.
Ben Franklin famously said after he was asked what kind of government had been created, he said: "A Republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT"
WE, all of US, protect our freedom by protecting the Constitution.
And it is up to US to protect the Constitution by voting for those who will protect IT from those who would violate IT. By only voting for those who would honor their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.
It's not complicated at all, it's rather simple actually.
And everytime we voted for men and policies, with their attendant appointments, and watched AND ALLOWED THEM to build bureaus and add regulations and start or go to war and tax us without votes or input from us etc, and anything that infringed on our freedom, it was our own fault.
Because It has always been up to us to decide who to vote for and THEN also what to tolerate **and ask for** from them once we give them power.
The Constitution was a wonderful gift, the best system of government mankind has ever devised.
But it has always been up to us to protect it and be sure it was followed and used properly and not ignored, via all of our own and prior citizens votes, going back to 1789.
And everything shitty people would lay at the feet of the Constitution, again, they are backwards.
The Contitution never fails us. We failed it.
We didnt always KEEP IT, as we were so directly warned we had to do on the day of its birth.
***I want to add this to address one of your points: the inefficiencies are deliberate, intentional, simply to get the politicians to build a consensus before proceeding with something. If no consensus can be found, it should not be done at that time.
GK, I had the same issue for years until my friend pointed it out to me. I learned the hard way many things like the Constitution and many laws are written this way on purpose.
Politics is downstream of culture. Remember Benjamin Franklin's response to a women inquiring if the U.S. was now a democracy: "A Republic, if we can keep it". In other words; freedom, once obtained, must be continuously maintained. That's also true of other things like prosperity and peace.
Listen up! Remember ...
The CONSTITUTION AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS!
Natural Rights, Freedom and Sovereignty IS ALL INHERENT!
NO LAW (MAN MADE LAWS) CANNOT TAKE ANY FREEDOM, RIGHTS OR SOVEREIGNTY FROM YOU AND CANNOT BE GIVEN BY MAN.
But can be given away willingly or stolen by threat, coercion and even death!
NATURAL Rights, Freedoms and Sovereignty MUST BE defended at ALL costs, at ALL times!
Love, love, love this.
And you're right, they tried.
But they were also "new-world, new-money colonizers" who then, along with the rest, claimed land, resources and everything else from the native population whom they proceeded to murder and oppress without regard. Gee, I wonder why the Gaza situation seems so familiar?
I have no more regard for these men, brilliant as they may have been at the time, from 250 years ago informing me as to what is best for me now, than I do for the God of the Bible, "giving" the lands of Israel to the Jewish people over 2000 years ago.
Time for a new "Declaration of Independence," and it isn't to establish a "new company" from the "old company," but to establish that NO-ONE has the right to impose their laws upon us, any of us.
While some may think this child-like and naive, I refuse to bow to any agency because of ancient historic texts.
Then the question becomes, what do we do now? And THAT is all I am interested in. Not fixing what is broken established by people who have long turned to dust, but establishing what is important now.
And what is that?
Freedom and claiming our own Authority over ourselves.
Well Sanders certainly raised awareness big-time about a lot of things you complain of. But I doubt very much he'll run again. He's far more invested in getting people onboard with his program into Congress - without which, as he said during his campaigns, you can't do much anyway.
I fear for RFK Jr too. I like everything he says (except re Gaza) and it sure looks like they're coming after him on both sides now. And this Gallup poll from Jan is probably why. (Ignore the chicken headline and scroll down to the 5th paragraph. Or the 2nd graph. He was leading BOTH Trump and Biden by 10 points. https://news.gallup.com/poll/548138/american-presidential-candidates-2024-election-favorable-ratings.aspx
Not much on that in the media either, eh?
According to Michael Huemer, democracy is better than dictatorship. Apparently, there are many other factors that affect how much freedom the inhabitants of a country enjoy. The 2023 Cato Institute Human Freedom Index ranks 165 countries according to 86 indicators of personal and economic freedom. The top three freest countries are (1) Switzerland, (2) New Zealand, and (3) Denmark. The three most oppressive countries listed are (163) Sudan, (164) Yemen, and (165) Syria. The countries listed include 98.8% of the world's population. Some countries (e.g., North Korea and Cuba) aren't listed due to insufficient data. The US is tied for 17th place with Lithuania and the UK.
The Cato report says this about democracy: “While aspects of liberty associated with democracy—freedom of speech, assembly, and public demonstration—are included in this index, democracy, sometimes called political freedom, is not. Unrestrained democracy can be inconsistent with freedom. Democratic rule is ideally characterized by some combination of the division of power, limited government, decentralization, and structural characteristics designed to control the powers of the majority.”
It"s always far better to read the text itself than to read the wildly different interpretations that show up first all over the internet when googling. The whole Constitution is only 20-some pages long, including all the Amendments, and is definitely worth a read.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Two comments I'd make as a history buff: freedom of religion (or beliefs, including none) needed to be first because without it, there had been no freedom of speech, the press, of expression anywhere in the previous 17 centuries when religion ruled. We had Inquisitions and heretic-burnings instead.
As to the 2nd Amendment, we had no standing army then and a great many people were very wary of them, including some of the founders.
You can see the revolt against 18th century conditions all over Europe (where most colonists came from) in the 3rd & 4th amendment too. No soldier shall be quartered in anyone's home, in times of peace, without the owner's consent, and in war, only in a manner prescribed by law. No unreasonable searches and seizures. All of that had been going on all over Europe for many centuries.
I also have to disagree with dissing separation of powers and checks and balances. They are essential and have always made the difference, however many corrupt or nasty people have made it into office or power for a spell.
Principles of freedom and conflict resolution need to be taught. There needs to be a meeting of the minds and a simple process for removing controversy that can be taught easily.
If these things are done, then it is much easier for any man or woman to pinpoint abuses of power.
Most of our institutions have been subverted.
A tyranny of the majority should have no power to harm (I know you don’t necessarily like that word). Arbitrarily sentencing opposition to death is a bit non sensical and is already, at its base, against the natural rights of others.