I am a huge fan of the Judge and DVR every episode of Freedom Watch. However, I think that his views on the Constitution are not necessarily correct.
It is arguable that the Constitution is anti-libertarian - after all, it was written by East Coast elites, passed illegally, supported by the Mercantalist-Centralist Federalists and sponsored by banksters. The Judge has a libertarian interpretation of the Constitution, but that doesn’t make it the correct one.
Now, as I reject the government and Constitution altogether I think that, if we are going to bother with it, we should give it a libertarian spin wherever possible. But whether it is historically and legally correct is unlikely. Even if the USG is violating the Constiution that does not mean the correct interpretation is a libertarian one. After all, the classical liberals were not libertarians.
As far as I’ve heard - i’m not an American, so my knowledge regarding the topic is far and far between - the term ‘classical liberal’ really isn’t that applicable to most of the people who signed the constitution either.
OP, can you provide some sources regarding your views on how the Constitution was ‘passed illegally’, etc.? I don’t know much about the forming/process of it.
Most of them seem quite classically liberal to me. Of course, there were enough others to convince everyone else that the Constitution was better than the Articles of Confederation.
I believe the judge has made it quite clear that he is a market anarchist. When asked about it he said “I’m not denying anything” and when he was on Stossel he said all taxation was theft. When asked how the military would be funded, he simply said “who says we need a military?” He keeps talking about the constitution because the average teapartier, which I imagine is his main demographic, still believes the constitution is some magical paper that would make everything good if it was enforced.
Perhaps we should spin it for what it really is? That is to say four pieces of papr signed by 39 dudes long dead that has no real power over the government nor us. The government uses it to perpetuate a “don’t woory be happy we’re protected by the constituion” illusion to keep power over its citizenry.
Ricky James Moore II: "I am a huge fan of the Judge and DVR every episode of Freedom Watch. However, I think that his views on the Constitution are not necessarily correct.
It is arguable that the Constitution is anti-libertarian - after all, it was written by East Coast elites, passed illegally, supported by the Mercantalist-Centralist Federalists and sponsored by banksters. The Judge has a libertarian interpretation of the Constitution, but that doesn’t make it the correct one.
Now, as I reject the government and Constitution altogether I think that, if we are going to bother with it, we should give it a libertarian spin wherever possible. But whether it is historically and legally correct is unlikely. Even if the USG is violating the Constiution that does not mean the correct interpretation is a libertarian one. After all, the classical liberals were not libertarians."
That’s exaclty the way I interpret it:) I don’t see how any libertarian could support the Constitution, when it was supported by mercantalist banksters, centralist statists, and illegally replaced a more libertarian document, because it wasn’t ratified by Rhode Island and North Carolina.
My ideas and thinking on the Constitution are in constant flux
Here is my present understanding…
I think that there was relatively little wrong with the Constitution up until the amendments started getting tacked on. I think that it actually addressed some issues that the Articles of Confederation had with regard to monetary policy. Being in the process of reading Edwin Vieira’s “Pieces of Eight” it seems the document was fairly ironclad in that regard. We simply did not adhere to its restrictions.
While I would prefer a society of Liberty that did not need such documents, to legitimize a regime that would then subsequently ignore them at it’s convenience, I can abide by the rules of a game if all players do so as well. Strict adherance to the Doctrine of Original Intent and plain language must guide the interpretation of that document, not seeing it as a living document in some crazy quilt chaotic legal system. Judicial revue (i.e. rule by fiat) has to be laughed out of existence and “We the People” need to get back in control of applying the Constitution as it was intended.
The amendments are where it really started to stumble. In particular the foolishness of preventing men from drinking, the contradiction of outlawing slavery but instituting income tax, and the elimination of the the check and balance of state appointed senators.
I think perhaps this would be enlightening to how the demi-gods that created our current constitution weren’t the disinterested parties that many would like to think they are.
The constitution wasn’t a step towards liberty. It was a step away from it.
What an idiot. Obviously he would not stand against slavery when it was legal, because well it was legal and he would be encouraging so called criminal behavior. What a joke. He doesn’t even understand a crime requires a case and that you cannot have a case if there is no victim and there is no victim if I don’t pay taxes. Some lawyer.
When Mao took control of China, some Chinese traditionalists who wanted to protect China’s older heritage knew they could not betray the signs of reactionary agenda.
And in old Chinese Confucian tradition, those people believed that you do not argue with your parents, but appeal to their sense of fairness. Much the same way, you do not tell Mao’s men that they are destroying China, but you simply tell them that their own laws stated that they must do such and such. The Chinese who did not want to see the forests and mountains of old China burnt down or mined out had this plan - they would tell the Communists that they had themselves promised to protect the land, air, and water of China in the interests of Chinese. They would remind them that bulldozing old Chinese monuments was wrong not because it destroyed China’s past but because it was inefficient from the Marxist perspective.
So much in that same sense, the American Constitutionalists probably know that the Constitution is not exactly the limited government mandate they believe it is - phrases like General Welfare give nearly unlimited scope of power. What Napolitano and Paul really are doing is to appeal to a government on terms of its own laws and mandate to stop its reckless military expansion and public waste. They could have gone all the way and simply called their government a mass murdering terrorist state. Instead, they chose the path of deference to it.
Was this the worst they could do? You guys tell me.
Yeah, nothing wrong with institutionalized slavery and the ability to wage tax wars.
Such as? It actually gave the government a greater power to enact a central banking scheme, drive out currencies by over/under valuing them, and enforce the use of its currency through taxation.
And who dictates the original intent? Seeing as how numerous politicians and lobbiests had their hand in shaping the constitution, original intent is very vague. I don’t see any way of isolating such a concept into a single interpretation.
Except it is the judiciary that is granted the right of interpreting and enforcing constitutional authority under the Constitution.
Didn’t say it was perfect. I get the same kind of attitude in debates with socialists about capitalism. Just chill.
It did, at least, decisively strike out the ability to emit bills of credit. Not that our politicians abide by it, but that’s not the documents fault. No where in the text of the Constitution does it say that Congress (or any other branch) has the ability to grant a preference to any business, the right to engage in fraud. This is given to the central banks, but again, that is not the documents fault. It is the fault of the uneducated People.
The Constitution authorized gold and silver in payment of debts and gave Congress the ability to “regulate” the coins weight and fineness. Congress bears the blame for bimetalism, not the Constitution. They should never have afixed the word “Dollar” to a gold coin, a dollar is a silver coin. An apple can’t be an orange and substance trumps form under law. If a gold coin had circulated by weight in the market and been valued in dollars rather than tendered as dollars then Greshams Law would never have caused such upheavals.
The judiciairy was never given the ability to interpose itself between the Congress and the law. It was given the power to decide Cases and Controversies (art.III §2) only. So it could interpose itself in individual cases and make precedents, but precedents are not law, only suggestions for future cases to consider. Judges who overturn legislation or popular referendum are allowed to get away with it because the bulk of the nation believes they have that power. The rules of the game do not give them such power, they merely exercise authority through acquiesence. Again, not the documents fault.
I don’t particularly like that we have a flawed constitution, it was drafted by flawed beings, but so long as there are rules to the game then they should be followed. I prefer to have a flawed Constitution to a flawed dictator.
I seem to be in the wrong place, I wanted the Peoples Front of Judea, down the hall…
That is an awesome lecture. Sheldon Richman brings up this gem, the words of James Madison after the constitution was ratified when Madison was a Congressman debating the 10th amendment:
This is in contrast to Madison’s promises prior to ratification where he stated,
The federalists were a bunch of liars who didn’t want a limited government, but an unlimited one that could implement the mercantilist policies that they wanted.