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.
Yeah, regardless of whether or not you agree that Anarchism/Voluntarism is a sustainable destination, it's certainly the correct direction from where we are now.
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.
Therein lies the problem . The Founders knew the devious nature of humans and that is why the original intent of the Founders is key. They believed the best government was the one closest to the people . They believed in State's rights.
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 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.
Yeah, regardless of whether or not you agree that Anarchism/Voluntarism is a sustainable destination, it's certainly the correct direction from where we are now.
Based on what?
"Markets for food are unsustainable" says the Agrimonopoly.
"Markets for housing are unsustainable" says the Zoning and Planning Commission.
"Markets for cars are unsustainable" says the sole auto producer in the USSR.
Need I go on....?
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.
Therein lies the problem . The Founders knew the devious nature of humans and that is why the original intent of the Founders is key. They believed the best government was the one closest to the people . They believed in State's rights.