• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

No treason: The constitution of no authority!!!!

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Thanks for the wonderful discussion. :)

As I understand No Treason, Spooner's point was not just to argue the underpinnings regarding prosecution of CSA officials. I believe his deeper point was that any individual may secede from any agreement to which he is not a party. Government certainly fits that description.

It's been said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch, while a constitutional republic is a well-armed sheep saying, "I don't think so!"

I would argue instead that a constitutional republic is two wolves and a sheep declaring (by a two-thirds majority, naturally) that the majority have the right to decide what's for lunch, and that anyone not submitting to the will of the majority is in rebellion and without the protection of Law.

The Constitution was not "unanimous consent", of course: only 39 of the 55 delegates to the Philadelphia Convention signed the document. Jefferson called the convention a collection of "demi-gods"; Henry "smelt a rat in Philadelphia". The convention, which was ostensibly to correct flaws in the Articles of Confederation, instead usurped that goal completely, and passed an entirely new document.

The Constitution, as understood at that time, created a new, tighter coalition -"confederacy", if you will- of the several sovereign states that comprised the former 13 Colonies. Four score and nine years later, that document was unilaterally altered yet again, without a vote, at Appomattox, so that the several states became a single United State (not plural).

By the way, I describe myself as a "pessimistic voluntaryist": I don't believe government is necessary, but I fear it is inevitable. Too many people simply can't comprehend any other way of getting along other than by force.
 

wolfeinstein

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
146
Location
Aliso Viejo, ,
Happy B-day Spooner!

Ok, Let me ask you guys this, since, i assume we were all born here in the U.S. and cannot opt out of this system whether you consent to it or not. Could anyone opt out before or after of the ratification?

What I'm trying to say is, if we had lived in 1788 or (when ever they ratified the Constitution, there is no set date because the states ratified it at different times) and did not approve of the ratification of the Constitution what were your choices? Could you have opted out? If not, Why not? for the same reasons why we can't opt out?
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Maybe if you watch this guy he will put a little sense back in you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOTqRb5nvg
Stefan Molyneux

So I'm easily amused; the best part of the video for me is when he says "the violence inherent in the system" I imediately thought of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Later, during the Q&A exercise, an audience member called him on it too. I've got to dig that DVD out and watch it again.

King Arthur: Old woman.
Dennis: Man.
King Arthur: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I'm 37.
King Arthur: What?
Dennis: I'm 37. I'm not old.
King Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man".
Dennis: Well you could say "Dennis".
King Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.
Dennis: Well you didn't bother to find out did you?
King Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind you looked...
Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.
King Arthur: Well I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Again, I submit that the US Constitution is not a contract which restricts The People or us individually. It is a document which restrains government, not one which empowers it without our ability to modify it. While it does set out a structure of government, we are free to change it by a legislative and/or voting process.

The document, as a contract, allows unilateral modification only by the electorate, and does not allow the government to alter the terms without our consent.

It applies to the government, and does not place requirements upon the People. It does allow for certain restrictions of freedom, in an effort to perpetuate the society of free men. Maybe you look on it as an unnecessary restriction of freedom, but if one accepts that some restriction is beneficial, where do we draw the line? On the other hand, if no restriction or compromise is acceptable, then no law or constitution will be acceptable and you are an anarchist (not judging, just observing)
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Again, I submit that the US Constitution is not a contract which restricts The People or us individually. It is a document which restrains government, not one which empowers it without our ability to modify it. While it does set out a structure of government, we are free to change it by a legislative and/or voting process.

The document, as a contract, allows unilateral modification only by the electorate, and does not allow the government to alter the terms without our consent.

It applies to the government, and does not place requirements upon the People. It does allow for certain restrictions of freedom, in an effort to perpetuate the society of free men. Maybe you look on it as an unnecessary restriction of freedom, but if one accepts that some restriction is beneficial, where do we draw the line? On the other hand, if no restriction or compromise is acceptable, then no law or constitution will be acceptable and you are an anarchist (not judging, just observing)

I maintain that this is what I've been saying literally this whole time.

The problem isn't the Constitution, which allows the people to change or abandon it as needed. The problem is the insistence, by Federal tyrants, that the Constitution's mere existence binds all too it in perpetuity. See the secession of the Southern states.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
From usconstitution.net:
"There have been many proposals for substantial change to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years. James Madison, Jefferson's contemporary, found comfort in knowing that the populace would not be thrust into political turmoil every 20 years, and noted that the way the Constitution is now structured, it implies an acceptance of the status quo unless explicitly changed."

And from the document itself:
Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

--
Which would allow a complete rewrite, should we decide it was needed.
 
Top