• 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.

yet another display of cops abusing their power

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Gunslinger, the problem is that when you say neo-conservative, most will take the early 2000s meaning, which is the Rumsfelds, Wolfowitz, and that gang. A lot of what these modern neo-conservatives advocate runs counter your thinking.

I'm not in any saying in any way that you are using the term incorrectly, just that its meaning has shifted and people (like me) may think of the more modern meaning.

Here is a definition from Wikipedia. Granted, this is not an authoritative source, but it gets my point across:

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in other countries. The movement emerged during the early 1970s among Democrats who disagreed with the party's growing opposition to the Vietnam War and had become skeptical of the Great Society's welfare programs.

Although neoconservatives generally endorse free-market economics, they often believe cultural and moral issues to be more significant, and so have tended to be less thoroughgoing in opposition to government intervention in society than more traditionally conservative and libertarian members of the Republican Party.

We are on the same track. Neo-conservative, as originally posited by Buckley in the early '60s, has morphed into Constitutionalist, which is what I am. Some of those claiming NC status have indeed led it off track. Hence, the new name, like classical liberal, is the accurate label for those of us who have remained loyal to the original precepts. Some believe, as you do, NC has been stolen and bastardized by the wrong people. Constitutionalism renders the argument moot. With respect of opposition to government intervention in any way marginalizing the Bill of Rights, there isn't a hair's difference between a Constitutionalist and a Libertarian. "Conservatives" are the 'law and order' drones these days. In other areas, Consts and Libs differ significantly, of course. But as I have noted on the AL forum, there is plenty of room at the table of liberty for both.
 

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
I like that term: "Law and order drones".

patronizing and descriptive at the same time.

So what are the differences in your mind between constitutionalists and libertarians? I'm not challenging, I just can't see any real difference.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
So what are the differences in your mind between constitutionalists and libertarians? I'm not challenging, I just can't see any real difference.

I think you guys share mostly the same ideals, but you are just arguing semantics at this point.

We are all on the same page, all on the same side.

Carry on.
 

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
We're not arguing. We came to an agreement a couple of posts ago.

I honestly don't know the difference between a constitutionalist and a libertarian.
We're about one step away from joining hands and singing cumbaya.

Don
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
LOL..... sounds like Rich and I agreeing, but beating around the semantics!

Good discussion though.

Jonathan
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP So what are the differences in your mind between constitutionalists and libertarians?

I'm not terribly well qualified to answer, but from what I can tell, libertarians will tend to recognize the flaws built into the constitution, and the shenanigans behind the constitutional convention.

If you want a real eye-opening critique of the constitution, read Hologram of Liberty by Boston T. Party aka Kenneth Royce.

In short, the constitution was rigged to give us the government we've got today. Federal supremacy and continual federal expansion were guaranteed. The anti-Federalists saw it coming, among them Patrick Henry.

If you really want your world view of the constitution turned upside down, just look at which party gave us the rights-violating Alien and Sedition Acts: the Federalists. The very guys who worked so hard to give us the wonderful constitution.
 

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
Citizen,

You've just gone way over my head. I'm going to have to do a couple of evenings of history reading just to really understand your point. I don't even remember the dominant parties in when the Constitution was written, much less what each stood for.

Thanks for the enlightenment. Ignorance is curable.

Don
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Citizen,

You've just gone way over my head. I'm going to have to do a couple of evenings of history reading just to really understand your point. I don't even remember the dominant parties in when the Constitution was written, much less what each stood for.

Thanks for the enlightenment. Ignorance is curable.

Don

Lemme hit a few points.

First, we're trained/indoctrinated from kindergarten into what Kenneth Royce calls parchment idolatry. As long as we idolize the constitution, we miss the flaws. We're not taught in school all the sneakiness that went on.

Here's one you can read on-line. No Treason (1870?) by Lysander Spooner. Among other things, Spooner points out that the constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it.

The constitutional convention was supposedly called to update/improve the Articles of Confederation, yet it immediately morphed into a convention to re-write the entire plan of government. Hmmm. Sounds like somebody lied about why they wanted a convention.

Several delegates resigned in protest, saying they had no authority from their state legislature to write a new plan of national government, only authority to improve the existing Articles.

We (the public) have a letter from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington in the winter of 1787, months before the convention, mentioning plan(s) to morph the convention or some such.

Speaking of sneakiness, the pro-constitution bunch called themselves Federalists. Ha! What a bunch of sneaky bastards. First, we already had a federal system under the Articles of Confederation. At the time of the Framing, confederacy and federation meant the same thing--a group of independent sovereign states leagued together. So, they called themselves Federalists, yet completely scrapped the actual federal plan that already existed, and substituted a government that was not federal in nature. They created a central government. A national government. A non-federal government that over the years has usurped the powers of the formerly independent states. Oh, and look up how many of the oh-so public-spirited delegates ended up in the new "federal" government.

The Federalists actually bought two newspapers in (PA?) to prevent those papers printing arguments against the adoption of the new constitution.

You won't find much on this in the usual history books. What I have seen of it, is colored to gloss over the sins of the Federalists.

What you have to realize is that the constitution was a close-run thing. There was a lot of hostility to it. Lots of people saw that it created a national government and gave it worrisome powers. The only state to submit the constitution to a popular vote--Rhode Island--saw the voters defeat it by a margin of something like 11-1.

The constitution as written by the secret convention omitted a Bill of Rights. We only got a Bill of Rights because men like Patrick Henry nearly derailed ratification of the constitution. James Madison, we are taught, is the so-called father of the Bill of Rights. But, he was a very reluctant father. Very reluctant. He did not want a Bill of Rights. He only caved in and drafted a Bill of Rights to help overcome resistance that was literally threatening to prevent ratification of the constitution.

The convention itself nearly fell apart a couple times.

The constitution very nearly didn't occur. But, it wasn't because people were too dumb to know a good thing when they saw it. Lots of people were deeply suspicious of it.

Turns out, they were right.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
On this day of Independence I think I'll take the word of someone who was actually there. Someone with a proven track record. Someone who's opinion actually has weight.

Call me crazy.


Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that whereever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right"--Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good--I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad--Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die--If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends. on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility--and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument."--He then moved that the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th. of Sepr. &c--In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."



Address to the Federal Convention
Benjamin Franklin
1787

From Sea to shining sea.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Lemme hit a few points.

First, we're trained/indoctrinated from kindergarten into what Kenneth Royce calls parchment idolatry. As long as we idolize the constitution, we miss the flaws. We're not taught in school all the sneakiness that went on.

Here's one you can read on-line. No Treason (1870?) by Lysander Spooner. Among other things, Spooner points out that the constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it.

The constitutional convention was supposedly called to update/improve the Articles of Confederation, yet it immediately morphed into a convention to re-write the entire plan of government. Hmmm. Sounds like somebody lied about why they wanted a convention.

Several delegates resigned in protest, saying they had no authority from their state legislature to write a new plan of national government, only authority to improve the existing Articles.

We (the public) have a letter from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington in the winter of 1787, months before the convention, mentioning plan(s) to morph the convention or some such.

Speaking of sneakiness, the pro-constitution bunch called themselves Federalists. Ha! What a bunch of sneaky bastards. First, we already had a federal system under the Articles of Confederation. At the time of the Framing, confederacy and federation meant the same thing--a group of independent sovereign states leagued together. So, they called themselves Federalists, yet completely scrapped the actual federal plan that already existed, and substituted a government that was not federal in nature. They created a central government. A national government. A non-federal government that over the years has usurped the powers of the formerly independent states. Oh, and look up how many of the oh-so public-spirited delegates ended up in the new "federal" government.

The Federalists actually bought two newspapers in (PA?) to prevent those papers printing arguments against the adoption of the new constitution.

You won't find much on this in the usual history books. What I have seen of it, is colored to gloss over the sins of the Federalists.

What you have to realize is that the constitution was a close-run thing. There was a lot of hostility to it. Lots of people saw that it created a national government and gave it worrisome powers. The only state to submit the constitution to a popular vote--Rhode Island--saw the voters defeat it by a margin of something like 11-1.

The constitution as written by the secret convention omitted a Bill of Rights. We only got a Bill of Rights because men like Patrick Henry nearly derailed ratification of the constitution. James Madison, we are taught, is the so-called father of the Bill of Rights. But, he was a very reluctant father. Very reluctant. He did not want a Bill of Rights. He only caved in and drafted a Bill of Rights to help overcome resistance that was literally threatening to prevent ratification of the constitution.

The convention itself nearly fell apart a couple times.

The constitution very nearly didn't occur. But, it wasn't because people were too dumb to know a good thing when they saw it. Lots of people were deeply suspicious of it.

Turns out, they were right.

Another excellent post, Citizen. Let me add that New Hampshire would not ratify the Con without the BoR. And you are right about Madison. He wrote a great set of amendments "after" the Con was ratified, per the compromise reached with the Granite State. The Federalists wanted something akin to a monarchy, while never using the term. Jefferson et al would have none of it. Push forward to Jackson who was among the greatest Neo-Federalists, if you will. The Whigs--led by NH's Webster and Henry Clay, were the Jeffersonians taken to the next level. They were the Constitutionalists of their day, but the party could never get it together. "Liberty and Union. Now and forever. One and inseparable." No one said it better than Webster.

As to dcmdon's question on Constitutionalists v Libertarians: Webster's quote defines a Constitutionalist. Libers would leave out the Union. Conservatives would mumble the liberty--unless they could further define it as closer to Union. Libs want to dissassemble and reassemble. Consts want people to read the words and apply them as written. They are clear and stood through the last 230 years and will for the next. They don't need a rewrite, and they don't need a subjective "law and order," supremacy clause interpretation the Conservs like to make. Maybe the biggest difference between my, at least, Constitutionalist leanings and Libers is this. The toast "Our country. May she always be right, but our country right or wrong." Is one I would gladly drink to.
 
Last edited:

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Another excellent post, Citizen.

**** that.

Turns out, they were right.

Yah, 'cause you and Spooner have done so much for this country.

tumblr_leot0ybAtm1qdlkgg.gif
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
**** that.

No offense, but if you want to extract and enjoy feelings of patriotism, feel free. When you're done, though, please dig up the stuff you were not taught in school. And, please re-examine some of the fundamental assumptions of what you were taught.

Lets start with a careful reading of what ol' Ben wrote. And, consider his purpose in that address. As we do this, lets keep in mind ol' Ben was an accomplished diplomat.

He flat out declared his belief that the constitution would fail. He knew it would not work:

...and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other...

He knew a better constitution was barriered by the ambition, jealousies, and prejudices of the men convened to write it:

...For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views...

Now, there is something interesting here. He mentions that the constitution, if well administered... Do you see it? The constitution relies on the good faith of ambitious men. The constitution does not provide the checks and balances needed--it still requires the self-restraint of ambitious men. And Ben knew it:

...and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism...

And, he didn't say this was a great constitution. He said this is the best we can get, so lets take it:

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults...and can only end in Despotism...I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution...

Now, his purpose for saying all these things was to persuade something. He says it in the last paragraph. He wanted unanimity of the delegates, well knowing that any lack of unanimity would be used against ratification in the state ratification conventions and state legislatures:

On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility--and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

Is the constitution the best Framing document so far on this planet? Yep. But, lets keep it in perspective. Its not saying a whole lot to say its the best so far. On a planet where scum and filth rise to the top and rule other men, it doesn't take much to be the best so far.

I'm not so much complaining about the constitution, imperfect as it is, as I am trying to get others to see the imperfections. The only people who benefit from constitutional idolatry is the people who see the imperfections and use them to get over on the idolaters. At some point a fella has to think to himself: "Wait a minute, if the constitution is so good, how can these bastards get away so much. I've been on the losing end of this game for a long time. I wonder if the rules of the game are part of the problem."
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Yah, 'cause you and Spooner have done so much for this country.

In fact, as a philosopher, Spooner did quite a bit. He promoted freedom. He highlighted government's lies, repeatedly. He got his readers to think.

Not many men in history like that, too few for sure.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
I'm not so much complaining about the constitution, imperfect as it is, as I am trying to get others to see the imperfections. The only people who benefit from constitutional idolatry is the people who see the imperfections and use them to get over on the idolaters. At some point a fella has to think to himself: "Wait a minute, if the constitution is so good, how can these bastards get away so much. I've been on the losing end of this game for a long time. I wonder if the rules of the game are part of the problem."

Well the comment you chose to end your post with implies otherwise. But I'll take your word for it.

I posted the Franklin quote. I am well aware of what he said. That's why I posted it.

We have the best piece of paper some of the smartest men in history could create. Perfect? Hell no. But it's close enough. And no one has come up with anything better since. Any failings of our country today are not the blame of the process with which our Constitution was born, who was involved, or what it says. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of our pathetic, apathetic countrymen. So attacking the document itself is a slap in the face to our founding fathers IMHO. It's a slap in the face to all those who sacrificed everything to protect it. Our Founding Fathers gave us a tool. It is up to us to keep the Republic going. The state of the Union reflects how we utilize that tool. Not on the perceived shortcomings of the document by the angry, failed businessman Spooner.

In my hardline opinion.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Well the comment you chose to end your post with implies otherwise. But I'll take your word for it.

I posted the Franklin quote. I am well aware of what he said. That's why I posted it.

We have the best piece of paper some of the smartest men in history could create. Perfect? Hell no. But it's close enough. And no one has come up with anything better since. Any failings of our country today are not the blame of the process with which our Constitution was born, who was involved, or what it says. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of our pathetic, apathetic countrymen. So attacking the document itself is a slap in the face to our founding fathers IMHO. It's a slap in the face to all those who sacrificed everything to protect it. Our Founding Fathers gave us a tool. It is up to us to keep the Republic going. The state of the Union reflects how we utilize that tool. Not on the perceived shortcomings of the document by the angry, failed businessman Spooner.

In my hardline opinion.

Oh, come, come. Your opinion can't be all that hardline if you're willing to call a bunch of scheming politicians the smartest men in the world.

Founding Fathers?!? You mean like Adams who gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts? Or, Hamilton, who as Washington's Treasury Secretary gave us a central bank, despite the unconstitutionality of a central bank? Or, Washington himself, who as president went along with Hamilton's recommendation for a central bank? Those guys and similar?

Do you really think that somehow the stars aligned, and for the first and only time in history the smartest men got together for several months to write a constitution? That only the very paragons of virtue attended the convention, the usual schemers and ambitious men being filtered out? That these politicians and lawyers, for one shining moment in the history of men, somehow were not mere men, adjusting their deliberations solely for the sake of freedom and posterity?

Nor, can your opinion be all that hardline if you call Spooner a failed businessman. Spooner explains how he thinks the constitution is a crock--for starters: it can't be binding on anybody because it wasn't signed by the people bound by it, and Mssrs A, B, and C deputing D by secret ballot to steal for them from E under threat of violence can in no way legitimize the theft. Those are some hardline attitudes.

No, your attitudes seem pretty malleable to me. Whoever wants to come along and hang a buncha patriotic bunting on an idea can bend your attitude whichever way.

My point is to get you to take off the bunting and see what is really there. The world won't end, I promise. Nor, will you betray anything. I promise. In fact, the most likely result is that you will find you've been lied to, repeatedly; and then you'll be angry. If so, join the club.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
And like I said. You have come up with nothing better. Neither had Spooner. Nor has anyone else. You have not addressed what I said although you have quoted me.

You have however spent your time making sure we get that you have no respect for the men who created the Constitution or those who died for it. Or the weekend. You do not hold the Constitution in high regard.

We hear you loud and clear. Mission accomplished. I say "Bully For You, Sir!"

In answer to your question though, yes, the stars did in fact align to give us the Constitution. It was the perfect storm of bit players, leading men, timing, attitudes, philosophy... location. Regardless of your disdain for all involved they did in fact do the nearly impossible. We are here as a result. So they are called the Founding Fathers for that reason. Like it or not. Politicians or not. (I mean, who was gonna do it if not for the Politicians and Statesmen of the time? The piss boy and the fish monger?)

I have joined the club. I just refuse to join your club. The "I heart Spooner " club. And I'll keep my bunting up by the way. I like it. It's ''tea stained" so it looks old tymie. It really makes the front of the house pop. Hope you had an excellent 4th of July.

:lol: :p :lol:







My hardline opinion.
 
Last edited:

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
This is really great stuff. I"m learning a lot. Keep it civil and keep it coming. Too bad it will only be seen by people who frequent the CT forum.
 
Last edited:
Top