Publishing Company Puts Warning Label on US Constitution

imported post

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/publishing-company-putting-warning-label-constitution/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g4:r1:c0.000000:b34805952:z6

This exemplifies everything that is wrong with America today:

A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.
Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”
The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."
Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don't pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.
"Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other," Olson told FoxNews.com. "…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you're wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history."
The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.
Amazon.com’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”
Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher, sarcastically pointing out the "dangerous ideas" it’s trying to protect children from: "limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy."
And though warning labels are usually posted to protect a company from potential lawsuits, constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says this disclaimer has no legal benefits.
"Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told FoxNews.com. "The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document."
As for the idea that this warning label might help keep these works from being yanked off bookshelves, Francisco says it is more likely to have the opposite effect: people not carrying the book because it has the disclaimer.
"By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence," he said.
Amazon customers appear to agree. Almost all of the reviews discussing the disclaimer end with the same thought: don't buy from this publisher.
Efforts to reach the publisher were unsuccessful.

imported post

*Shakes head*

That's it, people. That's where it officially starts. The very nature of a disclaimer is to keep people who discredit the disclaimed work from being upset at the people who produced orreproduced it.

This publishing company believes that some people discredit the Constitution, among other things. Sadly, they're probably right.

I'm glad to see some political backlash here, but this is a very slippery slope. I hope this doesn't get any support. I can just see some crazy left group picking up the disclaimer and defending it from 'intolerant right-wing extremists'.

Uncle Sam walks on thin ice when the Constitution itself isthe subject of controversy.

imported post

i find it even more deplorable that out of 149 reads (as of this post) that no one has bothered to even comment on this. we won't even discuss the outright rage i feel about this! i posted this on another board with far fewer members and at least got 5 responses out of it.

i guess Americans, including so-called patriotic gun owners, have become utterly complacent with the sad state of affairs in this country.

or maybe Dancing with the Stars is on?

:X:cuss::X

imported post

Broondog wrote:

i find it even more deplorable that out of 149 reads (as of this post) that no one has bothered to even comment on this.

Click to expand...

OK. I'll comment.

I agree with the publisher--the Constitution should come with a warning label. I agree that it was a product of its times. However, I would increase the strength of the warning--a real black box, with lots of capital letters. Below are my warnings; but, first let me give some context.

Lysander Spooner wrote in his essay, No Treason (1870), "[The Constitution] has either given us the government we have...or has failed to prevent it." And he was already thinking the federal government was a big problem140 years ago!!

In his book, Hologram of Liberty, Kenneth Royce aka Boston T. Party suggests we need to abandon our "parchment idolatry" of the Constitution. He points out that if you keep losing at a game, sooner or later you have to wonder if the rules are rigged against you. The Constitution is the rules. And we keep losing. We are taught from elementary school forward that the Constitution is one of the greatest political documents of all time. This may be true, but it does not take a lot, given the political history of Man, to achieve that status. If we are blinded by our patriotism against a discerning and critical analysis of the Constitution, we will never see its faults, if any.

WARNING--DANGER--WARNING

The document you are about to read was written by politicians. The Framerswere almost to a man politicians. Many were lawyers. There were committees involved in its writing. Secret committees. In fact, the entire document was done in secret. The attendees to the convention were sworn to secrecy and were not allowed to keep notes.

The Constitutional Conventionstarted fraudulently. Originally called as aconvention to strengthen the Articles of Confederation, it morphed without authorityinto a meeting to write a new constitution for a national government. The convention met in the summer of 1787. There is at least one letter from Alexander Hamilton to Geo. Washington that reveals the morphing was planned--the letter was sent in the Spring of 1787. A small number of the conventioneers quit in protest, saying their state legislatures had not authorized them to write a constitution, only to improve the Articles.

Remember, there was no national government under the Articles. Just a federation of independent countries.

Alexander Hamilton, an avowed monarchist, wrote that mere parchment guarantees could never protect the freedom of the people. Often presented or viewed as a slice of wisdom, this remark takes on new meaning in light of Hamilton's extensive support for the Constitution,his erection of a financial system that shackled the American people, and his successful efforts to establish a central bankas Geo. Washington's Secretary of the Treasury. In light of his activities, was Hamilton's remark about parchment guarantees perhaps a confession? A declaration that there was a green light for government infringement of public Liberty?

The ratification process was filled with political manuvering, a partof which was the publication of the Federalist Papers, essays printed in newspapers in battleground states in support of the constitution. The Federalist Papers contain more than one contradiction. One whopper was Hamiltons declaration that the new congress would be restrained in the use of power because they would be subject to the laws themselves. Ha! Used even today as a guide as to the intentions of the Framers, the essaysareat their core a PR job.

The losers in the ratification process were named Anti-Federalists. Their writings and opposition publications are still with us today. Their chief concern was that the new central government would have power to trample the people and the states and grow. One does not have to look far to see if they were right.

The Framers generously protected our rights by adding a Bill of Rights. Or, did they? If they were so generous and concerned about protecting our rights, why was theconstitutionsubmitted to the states without rights? James Madison was the father of the Bill of Rights. Or, was he? If he was, he was the sort of father who would need to be forced to pay child support. Initially, he did not want toadd a Bill of Rights, calling the need for it an odious business. But the Federalists, of who Madison was one, were pressured into it by men like Patrick Henry and George Mason. Madison was definitely a reluctant father. Eventually he saw the need for it to shut up the arguments against the constitution that threatened to wreck the ratification process.

The Anti-Federalists miscalculated. Their biggest concern was over-reaching government,a colossus being authorizedthe constitution. Their main avenue of obtaining public support for their position was to decry the lack of a Bill of Rights. The Federalists finally gave them one, undermining the Anti-Federalists' primary argument. But, political miscalculation does not equate with philosophical weakness. After reading the document contained in this book, seek out the Anti-Federalist Papers and decide for yourself whoactually supported freedom, the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.

The ratification process was tainted.Only one state actually submitted the constitution to public referendum--Rhode Island. The people of Rhode Island rejected the constitution by about 11-1. Eventually, Rhode Island had to submit andratify after being treated as a pariah by the new United States.

Your freedoms depend on your understanding of the document you are about to read. Accept the constitutionat face value andyou may be lulled into thinking it does more to protect you than it does, that it does more to protect you than it was meant to.

Learn more about it by researching the history of the convention andthe history of the ratification process.Read the Anti-Federalist papers.

Read up onthe activities of the Federalists after ratification. A particularly revealing activity was the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts--an action Thomas Jefferson described as nothing more than attempt on the minds of Americans to see if a bald-faced violation of the 1st Amendment would be tolerated. Think about that for a minute.

I've saved the best for last. Read Benjamin Franklin's closing address to the constitutional convention. Wise old Ben Franklin. Revered Founder, patriot, diplomat, scientist, and inventor. Even old Benwas convincedthe constitution was doomed to fail, going along with it because he felt nothing better could be obtained, and thinking there would at least be some benefit from it for a time.

After doing this research, re-read the constitution, asking yourself if this or that passage could have been written differently to provide better protection. For example, ask yourself if Article 1 really limits congress as much as needed? Could Article III (courts) been stronger by expressly denying constitutional questionsto the Supreme Court, transfering such questions to another body, for example a court composed of the Chief Justices of the state supreme courts?

imported post

Well guys, I don't think that this is a sign that the skies are falling. Remember, this is just a PUBLISHING company. They have the right to market their product as they deem fit. They have been doing so for several years. It's their choice and I doubt it's due to some nefarious mastermind scheme of the NWO. However, I won't be giving them any of my money.

Citizen raises a lot of good points. I just did a google search of some of his suggested reading. All I can say is WOW...Our country had power hunger a-holes from the get go. I guess I should have known, after all, people are people. However, our indoctirnation by public schools growing up instills a sense of infalibility on the part of our fore fathers. I will definately be making a trip to the book store for more reading.

Ihave decidedthat when I have children I am definately going to help them round out their education by showing them the anti-federalist papers, and not just to show dissent, but the others points of view and core philosophies on which the formation of this country was based. At least in spiritby a lot of those that fought and died to make it so.

Anyway, I do find it slightly annoying that people look at the marketing strategy of any given company and start spouting off rhetoric about some left wing agenda. Remember, one of the great things about this country is freedom of speech. If it seriously bothers you, start your own publishing company and come up with your own slogan as a retort. That's another great thing about this country. If you work hard enough, you can do just that. Making demands that they change their marketing is just like those soccer mom do gooder types that force fed us all this political correctness that is choking the life out ofAmerica.It's just like saying"screw you" to people that hate the fact that we're armed. "No one has the right to not be offended" goes both ways. But, my feelings be damned, people are free to say what they please, and I freaking love it!

I must say that this country is not perfect like a lot of people would have you believe. However, seeing the other forms of government out there, I say it's pretty damned close to being perfect. Guys, embrace the core ideas of our country, i.e. freedoms, and do your best to instill the same in your children. Most of all, insure that you teach them critical thinking skills. God knows they aren't getting that in our schools. Always question, never obey, God bless the USA.

I'll get off my soapbox now.



-Gruu

imported post

Yeah, after all, we wouldn't want the schoolchildren today to think that silly things like blacks, women, and non-property-owners voting was something good, now would we...

Or that owning slaves is a bad idea...

Settle down, ladies. I think any rational, liberty-minded person would honestly admit there ARE some parts of the constitution that are out-dated.

What's sad isn't that a publisher needs to tell people that the Constitution had some issues, and that it has been changed and modified over the years.

And what's even more sad is that there are people who are so short-sighted in their understanding of the Law that they can't see past their own specific amendment of choice, and think ANY negative comment about the attitudes of the Founding Fathers is a direct attack on their Cause du-jour...

imported post

TehGruu wrote:

Citizen raises a lot of good points. I just did a google search of some of his suggested reading. All I can say is WOW...Our country had power hunger a-holes from the get go. I guess I should have known, after all, people are people. However, our indoctirnation by public schools growing up instills a sense of infalibility on the part of our fore fathers. I will definately be making a trip to the book store for more reading.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment.

More suggested avenues of research:

1. Article III of the Constitution (supreme court). Notice that Article I (congress) and Article II (president) are quite extensive. Yet, Article III is very, very short, and almost bare-bones by comparison. I have read at least one scholar's comment that the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 was actually a constitutional amendment filling in the rest of Article III. In fact Article III establishes the supreme court and such other inferior federal courts as congress shall decide. The doggone conventioneers expressly left Article III incomplete. And don't you know that the first session of the first congress went ahead and completed it by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Now, why did the convention leave Article III incomplete? Why did they leave it to the first congress? Why was an amendment to the constitution not put through the regular amendment process? Or, rather, why was the amendmentprocess deliberately avoided by Article III's, "...such other courts as congress shall decide"? What have been the effects of that omission, the effects of letting congress set up the courts free of the amendment process? What opportunities for greater protections were missed (or deliberately subverted by the Federalists)?

2. A Disquisition on Government, an essay by John C. Calhoun, senator and US War Secretary in the first half of the 1800's (he died in 1850). A disquisition is a formal treatment or discussion of a subject. Basically just another word for a treatise or thesis. This one will knock your socks loose. I had readthat Calhoun was a life-long student of government, and decided a life-long student of government might know what he was talking about, and might have something to say worth listening to.

I was right. One huge point he makes that really stands the shortcomings of the school version in stark relief is that voting is the foundation of a constitution. Notice I said a constitution, not the constitution. In school we learned about voting's relationship to consent of the governedand how it is supposed to help prevent tyranny. But, nobody ever said it was the first building block of the very foundation. Here is my summary of what Calhoun had to say.

The sole purpose of a constitutionis to prevent tyranny. For example (my example), if you are not interested in protecting against tyranny, there is no point in writing a constitution, just elect a king or emporer or sit out the revolution. The whole point of a constitution is to protect against tyranny. The desired effect of a constitution is to create a government structure such that competing internal interests will nullify power grabs, or creating personal advantage, or executing tyrannical laws. In other words, to deliberately create a counter-tension so the majority is stopped from grabbing or accumulating too much power. This is done because ambitious men would find ways and excuses to ignore mere written restrictions on paper if there existed no counter-poised interestthat was itself as strong as the interests of the would-be power grabbers.

And the first counter-poised interest is the vote. The interests and power of the ruled counter-poised against the interests and power of the rulers. Note that voting comes into the picture even before the structure of the government is fleshed out by a written constitution. Thus, the vote is the very foundation upon which a constitution is erected, a constitution which is itself also designed to counter-poise the grabber's interests.

This puts voting into a whole new light, doesn't it?

I had been taught that voting was important because the people could vote out the rulers if the rulers acted contrary to their interests. But, nobody ever told me exactly where it fit into the framework, and exactly why it was there. I am now convinced more than ever that the first duty of a voter is to restrain government. Not play some game of my interests vs your interests and whoever has the most same-interests gets the biggest piece of pie or political advantage.

Lets putCalhoun's info on votinginto modern perspective. Does it apply to today's federal government? Lets see. We know Congress has for some time been writing laws in general terms, leaving it up to regulatory agencies (bureaucrats) to write regulations. Federal regulations carry penalties for violations, so they are actually laws.So, on one hand, we have Congress writing what are actually amendments (framework laws written broadlyand giving authority tosomeone else towrite the actual laws [regulations]),and thenexecutive branch bureaucrats writing the laws [regulations] andthat same agency then enforcing those"laws" by fines. Thus we have at least two violations of the protective structure of counter-poised interests: first, the same branch gets to write the laws and enforce them (no separation of powers); second, congress gets to write what are essentially mini amendments, leaving the electorate out of the counter-poised amendment process. Sounds bad doesn't it?It gets worse. Here is where Calhoun's info about the vote comes into play: we can't vote out the bureaucrats who make the regulations that areactually laws! By this sneaky little device, abetted by the courts, Congress has undermined the very foundation upon which a constitution is built, the foundation upon which the Constitution was built! Literally!

And, having ripped off the electorate's counter-poised amendment process, is it any wonder Congress just keeps reaching beyond its authority, over and over again? According to the structure (constitution) congress only has the powers granted in the constitution, right? It takes an amendment to give congress more power, right? Not if congress usurps the amendment process and removes a separation of power. It would beone thing if congress exceeded its power by writing a law for which it had no authority. It is something else entirely for congress to knock out entirechunks ofthe protective structure itself. Aided and abetted by the executive branchand the courts, of course.

Another littlepoint that Calhoun just drops in there is that (my summary) a constitution is not guaranteed to work. If it does not skillfully arrange the competing interests of the advantage seekers, it can fail. Without looking to be sure, the multiple French republics come to mind. Whoa!! The whole thing can fall apart if the structure is not skillfully arranged? Omigod!! Of course, Calhoun is totally correct; but, I had never thought of it in those terms! Here I've been grumbling and steaming over congress and the federal courts not adhering to the constitution,blaming the cheats, liars, and criminals we have for rulers. It never occurred to me from a technical viewpoint on government structure that the structure itself might fail just because it was not skillfully arranged to thwart exactly what the federal bozos have been doing.

ADisquisition on Government is available on-line for free. Oh, and all that I just mentioned about it is on the first three or fourpages.

3. John Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1690). Want to know where Jefferson got his ideas for the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."? You will findit all rightthere in Second Treatise. Among Jefferson's personal papers still exists a bill of sale for a copy of Second Treatise he ordered from England. Can you imagine holding in your hand Jefferson's copy of Second Treatise? Can you imagine holding in your hand Jefferson's rough draft of the Declaration of Independence--the one with Ben Franklin's suggested edits in Ben's own handwriting!?!

Caution:Second Treatise can be a laborious read. One early sentencehas about 130 words before the period.Not all thetext is thatdifficult; buthe does give lots of discussion to individual points, discussion that you have to kinda wade through and scratch your head thinking, "yeah, he already said that, he's just saying the same thing again from another angle." Nonetheless, it is well worth rolling up your sleeves anddigging in.Second Treatise is available on-line for free.

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

Yeah, after all, we wouldn't want the schoolchildren today to think that silly things like blacks, women, and non-property-owners voting was something good, now would we...

Or that owning slaves is a bad idea...

Settle down, ladies. I think any rational, liberty-minded person would honestly admit there ARE some parts of the constitution that are out-dated.

What's sad isn't that a publisher needs to tell people that the Constitution had some issues, and that it has been changed and modified over the years.

And what's even more sad is that there are people who are so short-sighted in their understanding of the Law that they can't see past their own specific amendment of choice, and think ANY negative comment about the attitudes of the Founding Fathers is a direct attack on their Cause du-jour...

Click to expand...

Barf-o-rama, Dreamer. Those "out-dated" parts have largely been taken care of by periodic updates called "amendments".

Your comment made blood shoot out my eyes, because it reminded me of an annotated copy of the Constitution I obtained from the Senate back in 1992 while working as a courier. That handout - distributed to the public - commented on the SECOND AMENDMENT and called it "OBSOLETE".

The publisher in this case made no references to amendments. The inference was that the reader was seeing something like the founding documents of the Ku Klux Klan. This is no other thing than an attempt to prime the youth to accept the Leftist fiction of a "living, breathing" Constitution", which basically means the Constitution says whatever the Left says it does. Their fingers are being hammered off that dangerous fiction after all these years, and this publisher's comment is part and parcel of a desperate effort to hold onto it.

Recently Obama's SCOTUS nominee Kagan thought she had trapped Justice Scalia when she said that since Scalia did not believe in a "living" Constitution, he must be for a "dead" Constitution.

But Scalia, sharp as a razor, turned the tables and said, "NO. I believe in the ENDURING Constitution!"

It is rather sad that the fate of the Republic may hang on witty repartee', but at least some people on the right side are better at it.....

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

Yeah, after all, we wouldn't want the schoolchildren today to think that silly things like blacks, women, and non-property-owners voting was something good, now would we...

Or that owning slaves is a bad idea...

Settle down, ladies. I think any rational, liberty-minded person would honestly admit there ARE some parts of the constitution that are out-dated.

What's sad isn't that a publisher needs to tell people that the Constitution had some issues, and that it has been changed and modified over the years.

And what's even more sad is that there are people who are so short-sighted in their understanding of the Law that they can't see past their own specific amendment of choice, and think ANY negative comment about the attitudes of the Founding Fathers is a direct attack on their Cause du-jour...

Click to expand...

Oh my God, does no-one besides me know that this idiot is a progressive? Is it not plain that he is anti-constitution, and a socialist. Liberty minded? He doesn't realize that the majority of the the founders were abolitionists, and the 3/5th ruling of the constitution was to ensure that the slave states did not gain a majority by slave population, by having more representatives. ANY direct attack on the Founders IS an attack on Liberty, and the cause of freedom. Benjamin Franklin who has been portrayed lately as a libertine and worse was one of the staunchest abolitionists. He invented the Franklin stove for the safety of women who were in many cases burned alive by cooking in what was basically walk in fireplaces. Does no-one know that Benjamin Franklin's wife died while he was in England as representative for the state of Pennsylvania, and that he didn't even hear of her death til he landed back home? Outdated? The Constitution? No, ENDURING as the day it was written. Up dated? only by Amendment process, some of which need to be rethought, like the 17th Amendment.
Dreamer, you make me ill, and +1 for the blood shooting out of my eyes:cuss::cuss::cuss::banghead::banghead:

imported post

Progressive? Of course I am progressive, it has nothing to do with being liberal though.

The problem really is that life changes and evolves. This means societies, technologies and laws, all of which are how people express the change.

Of course women should be voting, citizens should be equal under the law and, yes, the world has gotten more complicated.

While the concepts are USUALLY still true, some do change with time and circumstance. The issues with voting and citizenship needed to be changed and they were, PROPERLY, with Amendments as Americaevolved. The key element is that the change was done properly, over time, despite temporary pain and injustice which served to validate the need for the change.Personally, I believe the Founding Fathers would agree to some changes if they could see how our criminal justice system, treatment of mental disorders, illegal immigration, access to technologyand terrorist threats has evolved. If you don't agree, great, we agree to disagree then.

Is there reason to change the basic concepts?Does the Internet change First Amendment rights when used to broadcast child pornography to anyone with access to a keyboard? Should illegal immigrants be granted the same rights under the Constitution as legal immigrants and citizens? What right to "due process" and freedom from self-incrimination does a terrorist making bombs in his garageenjoy? What is "reasonable" to keep frearms out of the hands of minors, mentally disturbed and felons who have lost their rights as a result of judicial process?

Think long and hard about your answers. Look at your children as you contemplate your beliefs and how they fit with reality. Will you still believe in your right to privacy after someone like Bin Laden uses cell phones to coordinate another round of attacks which may kill members of your family as they are at work, school or play? Are the circumstances faced temporary or permanent? Do proposed measures truly affect possible outcomes?

When I consider these questions, I believe:

George Washington and the boys would be onboard with checking papers in areas where the immigration issue had gotten out of hand and people were enjoying the benefits of being citizens without abiding by our laws and obligations but only as a temporary response to an acknowledged situation or as part of the establishment of who was involved in apossible criminal incident.

They wouldn't have a problem listening to your cell conversations or reading your emailin order to prevent terrorist communications.

That while George could have cared less if you carried a gun into the White House if meeting him for dinner, he'd have considered it a bit vulgar if you were OC'ing (but your sword was probably okay) and would have maintained SA while keeping his hand close to his own weapons of choice.

That if the prisons couldn't house all the criminals until they were "rehabilitated", "paid their debt" or whatever, that they'd be okay with removing your rights with due process under accepted laws.

That any weapon short of nuclear is perfectly fine for an individual citizen to own if they can afford to buy and maintain it. That means machine guns, howitzers, mortars, fighter planes, tanks, warships, mines, etc. If you were stupid enough to deploy these for use against indiscrimnate and casualtargets it is a crime and should be dealt with by application of the death penalty.

That, like criminals, mentally disturbed people should be able to have their rights taken away under due process and by competent authority if they are that dangerous.

If Thomas Jefferson and Sam Adams dropped by and theindividual didn't want firearms or swords in his or her home (along with theirbusiness, shipor automobile) that is their right. I think they would leave them at the door or out in their carriages but if it bothered them they would go eat or do businesselsewhere.

That if the Founding Fathers saw what was made available to children on the Internet today that they would hunt down the (ir)responsibleindividuals enabling this and shoot them in thestreet like the dogs they are.

That Congress understood you may occasionally take out debt for specific situations like war, disaster and long-term infrastructure projects but that continually funding operational expenses and foreign aid are an insanity. You cannot take out a loan which will get you out of debt.

That's what I think and I'm pretty sure I am pro-Constitution and darned conservative compared to most fellow citizens.

imported post

What you describe is not what most people who call themselves "progressive" would call "progressive."

imported post

TehGruu wrote:

All I can say is WOW...Our country had power hunger a-holes from the get go. I guess I should have known, after all, people are people.

Click to expand...

Either that, or these a-holes were the only ones smart enough to realize that if the states did not hang together they would surely hang separately.

Imagine what might have happened if North Carolina had done something to piss off Spain bad enough that the Spanish came over to kick their butt. Because we were a mere confederation many of the other states might have felt that since it was NC's own dang fault they shouldn't be obligated to intervene. Next thing you know the whole confederation has broken apart and turned on each other and Spain has overrun NC, SC, and Georgia. It is actually not that far-fetched an idea.


As to whether they had the right to create a constitution, I would suggest that the fact that one was created and accepted indicates they did in fact have the right to create it. If they didn't then it wouldn't have worked. It is not like it was presented as a fait-accompli. It still had to be approved by all the states to actually become valid.

imported post

arentol wrote:

TehGruu wrote:

All I can say is WOW...Our country had power hunger a-holes from the get go. I guess I should have known, after all, people are people.

Click to expand...

Either that, or these a-holes were the only ones smart enough to realize that if the states did not hang together they would surely hang separately.

Imagine what might have happened if North Carolina had done something to piss off Spain bad enough that the Spanish came over to kick their butt. Because we were a mere confederation many of the other states might have felt that since it was NC's own dang fault they shouldn't be obligated to intervene. Next thing you know the whole confederation has broken apart and turned on each other and Spain has overrun NC, SC, and Georgia. It is actually not that far-fetched an idea.


As to whether they had the right to create a constitution, I would suggest that the fact that one was created and accepted indicates they did in fact have the right to create it. If they didn't then it wouldn't have worked. It is not like it was presented as a fait-accompli. It still had to be approved by all the states to actually become valid.

Click to expand...

One of the most fundamental rights it the one to enter into a contract, even if it means agreeing to terminate an earlier contract. That right is not just an individual right, but one that groups enjoy. A group of people (a State) is free to enter into contracts with other groups of people (other States)--which is essentially what the Constitution is: a pact between the States that created and limited a federal government.

imported post

arentol wrote:

TehGruu wrote:

All I can say is WOW...Our country had power hunger a-holes from the get go. I guess I should have known, after all, people are people.

Click to expand...

SNIP Either that, or these a-holes were the only ones smart enough to realize that if the states did not hang together they would surely hang separately.

Imagine what might have happened if North Carolina had done something to piss off Spain bad enough that the Spanish came over to kick their butt. Because we were a mere confederation many of the other states might have felt that since it was NC's own dang fault they shouldn't be obligated to intervene. Next thing you know the whole confederation has broken apart and turned on each other and Spain has overrun NC, SC, and Georgia. It is actually not that far-fetched an idea.

Click to expand...

The Articles of Confederation had that point covered already.


Article III of The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. (emphasis added by Citizen)

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article3

imported post

arentol wrote:

SNIP As to whether they had the right to create a constitution, I would suggest that the fact that one was created and accepted indicates they did in fact have the right to create it. If they didn't then it wouldn't have worked. It is not like it was presented as a fait-accompli. It still had to be approved by all the states to actually become valid.

Click to expand...

I will argue the Framers had no right to create the Constitution, and base my argument on historical, well known fact---facts I mention above, easily verified facts.

In the Spring of 1787 there were calls for a convention to tune up and improve the Articles of Confederation. Once the convention got under way it self-mutated into a Constitutional Convention, doing so without the authority of the state legislatures. In fact a number of conventioneers quit the convention in protest, expressly citing the lack of authority to write a new constitution.

The Framers may have had an inherent right to create a new constitution, same as anybody else had the right to draft and propose one. But, they certainly did not have the right to create the one they did in the way they accomplished it.

We have been told over and over since elementary school how the Constitution is the greatest advancement in human political science. Praise the Constitution and the wisdom of the Framers who wrote it! Yeah, yeah, yeah. That is all well and good. Now lets get some perspective and learn what scholars have known since right after ratification.

The fight over the Bill of Rights tells the tale. So, do some of the whoppers contained in the Federalist Papers.

imported post

arentol wrote:

SNIPIt [the constitution] still had to be approved by all the states to actually become valid.

Click to expand...

Therein lies another rub. One would be making a mistake to think the constitution was ratified by the states and let it go at that.

There was political shenanigans to obtain ratification. In some, perhaps many, states, the state legislature did not vote on ratification; a state ratification convention was held. Guess who worked diligently to pack those conventions. Yep, the Federalists. Weigh this against the option of requiring ratification votes by each state legislature. Or, weigh it in light of what would be required for a more or less genuine government of "We the People": apublic referendum in each state after a two year public debate. (Keep in mind that Rhode Island was the only state to submit ratification to public referendum, whereupon is was rejected by the residents 11-1.)

Even the name"Federalists" was a sneaky machination.At that time, "federation" and "confederation" were synonymous. Both words meant the same thing. Literally, the unionalready had a federal government under the Articles. The game for the Constitution was to reduce the power of the individual members of the federation (states) and create a more powerful central government, nearly the opposite of a federation. Yet, the proponents of the new constitution had the chutzpah to call themselves "federalists". Leaving the poor freedom advocates to be called anti-Federalists, implying an opposition to the very thing they supported--a genuine federation.

imported post

Nice history. Care to sue the federal govenment and tell it that for some 230 years it has been operating under an assumed constituion which really has no value and that all the law written under that authority has no force?

The real problem we have today is the same that has always been faced, how do honest humans keep dishonest humans honest. As with all things political, he who weilds the power rules. the constitution can be made better. It can also be made worse.

I do think that educating people so that they understand more of the whole story of the founding of this nation is a good thing. People should questin the government and they should realize that through in chooing to vote or not, they create the government they get. I am convinced that the single greatest threat to my freedom is not the government, but my neighbor who neither votes nor is willing to take a stand on the political issues that affect our lives.

imported post

JohnH wrote:

SNIP The real problem we have today is the same that has always been faced, how do honest humans keep dishonest humans honest.

Click to expand...

John Calhoun in Disquisition points out that it is a question of self-interest. As do other political thinkers. The problem is how to keep the majority from acting so much in their own interests that they trod upon and tyrannize the minority's interest, gathering to themselves all the advantages and compensations made possible by being in power.

He cites two constitutions that he considered particularly successful. I have not researched them, but offer them here for anyone who cares to look into it: Poland and the ancient Roman Republic.

imported post

You obviously have no Idea as to the meaning of "Progessives" which I referred to. Google the Progressive Party of the early 20th century and find out what kind of monsters we're dealing with.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

John Calhoun in Disquisition points out that it is a question of self-interest.

Click to expand...

John C. Calhoun of the Great State of South Carolina, "All societies, Calhoun claimed, are ruled by an elite group which enjoys the fruits of the labor of a less-privileged group." Still true, a concise statement of the impending culture wars. If the Founding Fathers had been a bit more foresightful then they would have enslaved the ignorant rather than merely people of color.

As to 'progressives', read and understand The Science of Liberty by Timothy Ferris.