But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.
I think that's a little bit unfair, in that it's not like you'll find anything that's much better. All the infringements that have been made are not made because of flaws in the Constitution so much as because of people arguing and misinterpreting it in bad faith. I worry that to make it more explicit would just create a different host of problems, too, in that the more explicit something becomes, the fewer situations it can cover (generally speaking).
So yes, the Constitution was "powerless," but only in the sense that it was not obeyed. It's not like you could solve that problem unless you could actually endow the paper itself with sentience, purpose, and the literal, physical power to enforce itself. It's easy to say that it's not fit to exist, but what's the better version?
In the long run, there is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as "limited government," because once someone is accepted by others as a rightful master, and believes himself to have the moral right to rule, there will be nothing and no one "above" him with the power to restrain him.
Lincoln did what he had to do to preserve the union. But he laid the groundwork for tyranny by dramatically increasing federal power. Maybe it was inevitable?
Frankly, the groundwork was laid far earlier than that when Jefferson didn't dismantle the Supreme Court once the Court essentially decided that it was superior to the other branches of Government with Marbury V Madison. The 14th amendment stripping states of autonomy was the framework for our long slide downhill that was built upon that foundation.
On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it be really established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave.
I would say the problem really started after Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) when a corporation would be considered a person giving them the same constitutional rights as you and me (1st and 14th ammendments in particular). In addition the gradual weakening of the interstate commerce clause since the early 20th century has allowed to federal government to become the bloated overpowered bureaucracy that we see today.
The distortion of the Commerce Clause has been a very real and distinct problem . It is the Federal income tax that has led to the bloated Federal government we have today . The Founders would not believe the people would EVER pass such an Amendment .
IMHO, it was when the court - reformed itself - under the threat of the court packing plan, and then the new deal legislation / regulation was approved by the court. But even the reformed court, several years latter, so the folly of the new deal price controls, and even that liberal court started stricking down some of the legislation, the sick chicken case, etc. And also the passage of the 17th amendment - direct election of the Senate - made the issues worse - and as an indirect results lead to the creation of the unfunded mandates from the feds (a massive power grab). Marbury was correctly decided.
1860 was a punch to the gut but I think what we are seeing these days is the size of government we had to create to win WW2 is now biting us in the ass.
The size of govt was necessary for 20th century global politics, something the founders couldn't account for at the time. We're still just tribes squabbling for bananas except now the grove is the entire earth and our weapons can insure mutual destruction. Whether we like it or not, our country is "king" and all eyes are upon us until we aren't king. We're far away from the fantasy where the US can just majorly downsize its govt and stop being the player in global politics. Worse than that, the global financial system has been made so artificial its essentially a giant ponzi scheme and each new generation of politics have to be bagholders and get worse at it than their predecessors.
So we can't go back... but going forward is an Orwellian nightmare. What's to be done? Embrace globalism? Or try and stay the course (which isn't tenable).
If history is our guiding star, we're likely at a point where the board needs to be flipped and cleared before something better can bloom. Whether that happens in 5 weeks, 5 years, or 50 years, it's hard to say. Take a glass half full approach, acquire as many resources as you can, learn about how to live without modernity. I mean look at Texas... Corpses are piling up after 36 hours of no electricity.
Look for similarities and differences throughout world history, seek to understand the different sets of systems, and go from there. You may find people that speak (write) openly on image boards. While there is considerable freedom of speech on these forums, they still have much less freedom of speech in practice than multiple image boards.
If you are sincere and honest, and genuinely care about things, you may find some extremely bitter truths. Be prepared to face such in multiple different ways.
Like who? Black people have been screwed over by race grifters and politicians alike. The Establishment's plan is divide and conquer - and you are acting like one of their own.
Furthermore, The Constitution didn't "fail" in 1860 - The South jumped the shark and left the North without any good options.
Blacks aren't the masters, they're the attack dogs to keep people focused on the racial issues instead of the class ones. They don't have positions in media or finance or even government to orchestrate anything. There is a group that does, though.
How does one agree 10x more than their capacity to agree?
Print it like our farce of a government or issue them like our farce of a banking system issues securities.
Fractional Reserve Agreement
I think that's a little bit unfair, in that it's not like you'll find anything that's much better. All the infringements that have been made are not made because of flaws in the Constitution so much as because of people arguing and misinterpreting it in bad faith. I worry that to make it more explicit would just create a different host of problems, too, in that the more explicit something becomes, the fewer situations it can cover (generally speaking).
So yes, the Constitution was "powerless," but only in the sense that it was not obeyed. It's not like you could solve that problem unless you could actually endow the paper itself with sentience, purpose, and the literal, physical power to enforce itself. It's easy to say that it's not fit to exist, but what's the better version?
Perhaps, and yet anarchy is unsustainable. It may just be a cycle we're stuck in.
Lincoln did what he had to do to preserve the union. But he laid the groundwork for tyranny by dramatically increasing federal power. Maybe it was inevitable?
Frankly, the groundwork was laid far earlier than that when Jefferson didn't dismantle the Supreme Court once the Court essentially decided that it was superior to the other branches of Government with Marbury V Madison. The 14th amendment stripping states of autonomy was the framework for our long slide downhill that was built upon that foundation.
I would say the problem really started after Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) when a corporation would be considered a person giving them the same constitutional rights as you and me (1st and 14th ammendments in particular). In addition the gradual weakening of the interstate commerce clause since the early 20th century has allowed to federal government to become the bloated overpowered bureaucracy that we see today.
The distortion of the Commerce Clause has been a very real and distinct problem . It is the Federal income tax that has led to the bloated Federal government we have today . The Founders would not believe the people would EVER pass such an Amendment .
IMHO, it was when the court - reformed itself - under the threat of the court packing plan, and then the new deal legislation / regulation was approved by the court. But even the reformed court, several years latter, so the folly of the new deal price controls, and even that liberal court started stricking down some of the legislation, the sick chicken case, etc. And also the passage of the 17th amendment - direct election of the Senate - made the issues worse - and as an indirect results lead to the creation of the unfunded mandates from the feds (a massive power grab). Marbury was correctly decided.
1860 was a punch to the gut but I think what we are seeing these days is the size of government we had to create to win WW2 is now biting us in the ass.
The size of govt was necessary for 20th century global politics, something the founders couldn't account for at the time. We're still just tribes squabbling for bananas except now the grove is the entire earth and our weapons can insure mutual destruction. Whether we like it or not, our country is "king" and all eyes are upon us until we aren't king. We're far away from the fantasy where the US can just majorly downsize its govt and stop being the player in global politics. Worse than that, the global financial system has been made so artificial its essentially a giant ponzi scheme and each new generation of politics have to be bagholders and get worse at it than their predecessors.
So we can't go back... but going forward is an Orwellian nightmare. What's to be done? Embrace globalism? Or try and stay the course (which isn't tenable).
Spend the 1-2 hours it takes to read this today: http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
If history is our guiding star, we're likely at a point where the board needs to be flipped and cleared before something better can bloom. Whether that happens in 5 weeks, 5 years, or 50 years, it's hard to say. Take a glass half full approach, acquire as many resources as you can, learn about how to live without modernity. I mean look at Texas... Corpses are piling up after 36 hours of no electricity.
Look for similarities and differences throughout world history, seek to understand the different sets of systems, and go from there. You may find people that speak (write) openly on image boards. While there is considerable freedom of speech on these forums, they still have much less freedom of speech in practice than multiple image boards.
If you are sincere and honest, and genuinely care about things, you may find some extremely bitter truths. Be prepared to face such in multiple different ways.
Because life was better before 1860?
So you prefer black masters now? I never had a white hood, but after BLM trying to enslave me, might be a good idea to pick one up.
Like who? Black people have been screwed over by race grifters and politicians alike. The Establishment's plan is divide and conquer - and you are acting like one of their own.
Furthermore, The Constitution didn't "fail" in 1860 - The South jumped the shark and left the North without any good options.
Blacks aren't the masters, they're the attack dogs to keep people focused on the racial issues instead of the class ones. They don't have positions in media or finance or even government to orchestrate anything. There is a group that does, though.