Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Problems with the Constitution  (Read 12680 times)

EJ

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep deciding dinner
Problems with the Constitution
« on: July 22, 2002, 09:57:13 am »

If a state is selected, it still falls under the US Constitutuion.  I have no issues with that as long as we force the Federal government to follow it to the letter.  

Personally I think this idea of a living breathing document called the constitution is a way to move towards Mob(oops majority) Rule.  

I need to be sure that the rules are the rules.  No special treatments of this entity and that entity.  That we all read the document, and can with great consistancy understand it the same way, much as we understand that one is one, and not sometimes two.

So, would we be prepared to launch constitutional challenges as often as possible to get the Feds back to what the original role was meant to be?  

What are your thoughts?

EJ

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5720
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2002, 11:13:46 am »

We would presumably launch many legal challenges at the federal government aimed at restoring state autonomy.  For example, we can fight for the right to opt out of the Social Security system on the grounds that the 10th Amendment reserves this function to the states.  The legal challenges could be backed up by popular pressure.  One idea I've had is to start an "Association for Federalism" that would issue a series of demands and circulate them for signatures in our state.  This is an idea similar to the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which successfully pressed for a Scottish parliament.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

orgile73

  • Guest
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2002, 01:37:40 pm »

 My thoughs are that we are not aiming to convince the government of anything, most especially of constitutional definitions; that's a realm of duty for the Supreme Court.
Contending with the government on defining constitutional issues will most definately land in the SC, by wich all arguments should and likely will fall under recitals of past SC decisions. Those historical SC decisions that fall in favor of ruling to the FSP cause, if they exist, will put the FED on the path of contention with the SC itself, rather than directly with the FSP.

I think constitutional rights can initiate the challenge, but it will be the nature of the court that will ultimately decide and will be our major contendor, not the Fed. We would focus more so on ways to convince the SC of its own historical convictions in the best possible ways rather than aiming in forcing the Fed to our own interpretations, even though boths paths aim to the same conclusion.

As Jason noted, constitutional rights granting a state realm
to establish an autonomy to Federal interpretaions and practices of the constitution is the goal. At least I think it is...
Logged

Freestatepatriot

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
    • The Christian Independent
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2002, 05:52:19 am »

Would you be referring to the same Supreme Court that allowed national Welfare to be instituted, despite Amendment 10.

The past Supreme Court decisions have not always been glowing examples of honest legal interpretation.

I am ALL FOR pressing the Federal government to get back to the constitutionally-defined limits.

Adam G.
Logged

EJ

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep deciding dinner
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2002, 10:30:11 am »

One of the many things wrong with the system today is that politicians can vote and pass items that are indeed unconstitutional.  A good starting point would be automatic expulsion of any free state politicians that vote for items that are unconstitutional, and overturned in court.

Perhaps they get the three strikes rule and you are out rule.

Today, there is not penalty for politicians that constantly vote for and support items that are blatently unconstitutional.  Therefore, they do not mind pushing as far as they can, and over the lines when possible.

Free State's elected representatives need to stick to the constitution first and put their personal wants aside.  I hope that shall be the case.

We have to get the elected officials to actually think about what the constitution is and what it represents.  Until then we will have local officials doing what they want, and using our money to defend their unconstitutional plans and programs.  

This is what happens where I currently live and it needs to end.

EJ

Freestatepatriot

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
    • The Christian Independent
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2002, 11:37:51 am »

Glad to see that there are some other constitutionalists around (not to say members of the Party of the same name).  

Adam G.
Logged

orgile73

  • Guest
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2002, 12:39:51 pm »


Would you be referring to the same Supreme Court that allowed national Welfare to be instituted, despite Amendment 10.

Adam G.


Yes. That would be the one. The constitution states that the  interpretation of the constitution itself lays in the courts of law. When you have a little time on your hands, take a look at The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (1994).  This act is one of the most far-reaching federal statutes ever passed by Congress. That has to be challenged judicially (and it has been for years)  by proving violations to the constitution, you can't vote it in or out.  It is by the powers of the SC that government legislative acts are deemed constitutional or not.  

Remember hanging chads? The government cant even agree on what a vote is, and even after the SC decision, they still cant agree. Talk about herding cats....  ;D

--Mike

Logged

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2002, 06:04:11 pm »

One thing to keep in mind, is that while we certainly must at this point operate under the US constitution, it in itself was not established in fairness and consideration of "We the people...."  It was in fact never voted on by the vast majority of the people.  No women, children, or blacks were allowed to vote and of the white males permitted to vote on a small percentage met the property ownership requires of suffrage.  Our constitution that we all hail as the glory of the people was never actually ”by the people.”

Granted it is all we have now, but I think it is always prudent to recall the orgin of the document we all hold so dear.  This nation was founded on the idea of freedom for certain privileged individuals (adult, male, property owners) not in fact on the ideal of freedom for all.

Mega Joule
« Last Edit: August 08, 2002, 09:55:24 pm by Mega Joule »
Logged
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)

Chipper

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2002, 03:54:06 pm »

EJ, et al,

First I would like to say hello and GREAT PLACE! I couldn't stand yahoo groups. I've been following FSP since it's beginning. Used to post at yahoo under another handle even before the Porcupine was adopted. By the way, that logo would make a cool embroidered patch for my range jacket. ;D

I'm am going to offer my opinion here and it is just that, an opinion suitable both for contemplation or for lining the bottom of your birdcage. Like Fox, I spew. You decide.

I know that FSP is made up of libertarians, Libertarians, anarcho-(fill in blank) and many others who are concerned first and foremost about liberty and their lack of it under fedgov. FSP offers a tremendous opportunity to reclaim some of that liberty.

Since the plan is to select a state and to politically "seize power" (for lack of a better term) I would think that participants in the FSP would be most concerned over the elements of the state's constitution. Sort of a "take care of your own house first" approach. As a state FSP'ers WILL NOT be able to control fed policy or law or judicial rulings current or future. Why waste time and effort on things out of your reach?

FSP'ers however WILL be able to control their state's interaction with the fedgov. The power of the FSP state will go far in limiting the tentacles of fedgov action in the chosen state. FSP'ers can and should consistently work as a state to stand against any and all things proposed by the fedgov. Your fed reps in congress are at your disposal to do as you agree to have them do. So tell them to just say no to anything proposed.

Once FSP'ers gain control of their chosen state their actual work will only just be beginning. This project does not afford you the opportunity to escape the grasp of fedgov but you will be able to make it much harder for them to get their hands on you.  There will many things at the disposal of the state to thwart the efforts and effects of the fedgov.

By becoming essentially THE libertarian state and sticking to libertarian principles you will be a mighty big thorn in uncle sham's side. You will have a national and, at times, international platform for the libertarian principles. You will have the opportunity to show the rest of nation that these principles can effectively work and for the most part much better than what we have now. The opportunities afforded by this project are incredibly great.

For the Libertarians among you, moreso than concerns about fedgov, I would be concerned about those who seek to be legitimized in the mainstream. These people with their baggage of rabid support for fedgov combined with their deep desire to be accepted and lauded by the press and the punditry and the easy way in which they justify their support for the state (nation)present a huge danger right now for the "big L" Libertarians. If you acquiesce to those who are now doing their best to make the Libertarian party the new home for ex-repubs like the boys at Cato or FEE, you will fail to achieve anything useful in standing for liberty and thwarting the dictatorial rule of fedgov. Your efforts will be diluted and your state will be just one more soldier in line at the beck and call of fedgov.

In another vein, what about contingency plans for FSP? Many things indicate a high probability of economic and/or political collapse of the US. Food, housing and jobs will be the concern of many, not just FSP'ers. Ideals tend to become "flexible" when faced with an empty stomach. Plans generally tend to be put on hold.

These and many more are the things that I would be most concerned about rather than the semi-feudal document that empowers fedgov. Sharpening your focus on your state and what it can do independently of or in spite of fedgov would seem the best place to start making the state a truly libertarian one.

Chipper
Logged

Bill

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • David Nolan and I, 2002 LP National Convention
    • Bill's web sight
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2002, 11:15:27 pm »

EJ, et al,
Since the plan is to select a state and to politically "seize power" (for lack of a better term) I would think that participants in the FSP would be most concerned over the elements of the state's constitution. Sort of a "take care of your own house first" approach. As a state FSP'ers WILL NOT be able to control fed policy or law or judicial rulings current or future. Why waste time and effort on things out of your reach?

Yes, I mentioned in a "secession" post that such talk was not only extremist in perception by newbies and outsiders, but that it was also VERY far fetched an quite premature. You (we if I sign on) will be fighting many battles just to incorperate some modest Libertarian reforms into the state and local government 's policy.
Quote
FSP'ers however WILL be able to control their state's interaction with the fedgov. The power of the FSP state will go far in limiting the tentacles of fedgov action in the chosen state. FSP'ers can and should consistently work as a state to stand against any and all things proposed by the fedgov. Your fed reps in congress are at your disposal to do as you agree to have them do. So tell them to just say no to anything proposed.

The secretary of state can and should select good cases that a state government could push into the supreme courts radar scope. This would of course benefit all states, not just the free one.

Quote
For the Libertarians among you,

I'm a BIG "L"
Quote
moreso than concerns about fedgov, I would be concerned about those who seek to be legitimized in the mainstream. These people with their baggage of rabid support for fedgov combined with their deep desire to be accepted and lauded by the press and the punditry and the easy way in which they justify their support for the state (nation)present a huge danger right now for the "big L" Libertarians. If you acquiesce to those who are now doing their best to make the Libertarian party the new home for ex-repubs like the boys at Cato or FEE, you will fail to achieve anything useful in standing for liberty and thwarting the dictatorial rule of fedgov. Your efforts will be diluted and your state will be just one more soldier in line at the beck and call of fedgov.

I don't like Libertarian Puritan rhetoric in the ranks of the LP, and I would hope that the folks associated with the FSP wouldn't start passing judgement on a participants motives or background either. One thing I appreciate about the LP's philosophy is that we judge people not on what flag they wave or what their bodies look like, or what language they speak, but we judge people only by their actions! If someone makes a committment to this effort, and follows through with it (and all of the sacrifice and risk that goes along with it) I would welcome them. The action of making the move speaks volumes about a persons motives and values.

Bill
« Last Edit: August 01, 2002, 11:21:51 pm by Bill »
Logged

mikegags

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Just waitin' for the Revolution to start...
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2002, 03:52:03 pm »

Chipper hit the nail on the head.

There is a *lot* more to this than just declaring ourselves to be a Libertarian-
controlled (politically) state. The courts will not simply declare 90% of the Fed
govt unconsitutional. Lets not forget that the courts are part of that govt. To
think that the courts will listen or that the Federal govt will negotiate with our state is naive.

-=-=-

As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms. We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.

We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.

And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?

Logged
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will.  But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

Thomas Jefferson

eldorado

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • I'm a suck-up
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2002, 07:02:33 pm »

Quote


As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms.



how do you figure?

Quote


We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.



freedom to do what, since we're not supposed to be concerned with specific types of freedom like same-sex marriage ect.

Quote


We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.



if we're willing to fight, move, support, and mobilize to get freedom for those things, seems to me like YOU would benefit from it, since you would get more freedom too.  

Quote


And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?



no, because if you put in a "leader" and something happens to him  - either physically or he's disgraced or jailed or whatever - the movement will die too. besides, i can think for myself. i don't need someone else telling me what i should think or do.
Logged
Moderators are my friends. All moderators are gods. Moderators can do no wrong. Do not question the moderator. All hail the moderator.

Bill

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • David Nolan and I, 2002 LP National Convention
    • Bill's web sight
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2002, 07:29:09 pm »

Quote

no, because if you put in a "leader" and something happens to him  - either physically or he's disgraced or jailed or whatever - the movement will die too. besides, i can think for myself. i don't need someone else telling me what i should think or do.


I couln't agree more. The people who will arise as our leaders will be the people we nominate for the various state/county/city/district offices that our influx of registered voters is going to give us access to! The whole idea is to put freedom leaning people in the positions of policy making throughout the states government. We will follow their lead by supporting them/ holding their feet to the fire/ being candidates/managers/volunteers/ supporters of our local city councils/ etc. We don't have to build forts and make peace with Indians, but we may have to make peace with the indigenous population of the state that we "invade". I'm still not signed yet, but I'm leaning your way!
Logged

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2002, 10:56:31 pm »

Quote
Quote from: mikegags

There is a *lot* more to this than just declaring ourselves to be a Libertarian-
controlled (politically) state. The courts will not simply declare 90% of the Fed
govt unconsitutional. Lets not forget that the courts are part of that govt. To
think that the courts will listen or that the Federal govt will negotiate with our state is naive.


You are quite right in that the task before us is as monumental as was that of our founding fathers.  Once any government seizes power it is utterly opposed to relinquishing even the slightest measure of its control.  Our cries for justice in the chambers of the Supreme Court may well fall upon deaf ears.  The odds are stacked against us, but are we willing to forsake the battle?  I think not.  We will have to fight for every ounce of freedom we procure.  We will be hard pressed to convince the powers governing this nation to listen to us.  We will petition the courts, elect representatives, and invoke the powers of mass media to make our cause heard.  We will pass state and local laws securing liberty to the extending we are permitted under the tyranny of the federal government.  We will hold true to the ideals of our founding fathers and like them we will work peaceably so long as we are able to secure the blessings of liberty to which we are entitled under the constitution, bearing always in mind these words:

”When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Quote

As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms. We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.

On the contrary, they have everything to do with our lost freedoms.  If we do not seek to protect the freedoms of all of those who are with us, we will be as a house divided.  â€œWe must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. (Ben Franklin)”

Quote

We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.

For the colonists who proclaimed their independence so long ago, the issue of molasses (used to make rum, the common mans liquor) and taxation on the same, was among the things they willing to fight for.  

Quote

And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?


We do indeed need such people.  Not one leader, but many.  Not one voice, but a multitude of voices crying out, all different, yet ringing with the harmonious sound of liberty for us all.  â€œWho will be our Washington, Jefferson or Adams?”  That is yet to be seen, but if we are diligent in our efforts to secure freedom, we will find among our ranks, those men and women possessing the talent to illuminate our cause.

Stay the course.

Meg
Logged
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)

mikegags

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Just waitin' for the Revolution to start...
Re:Problems with the Constitution
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2002, 07:29:47 am »

Quote

As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms.



how do you figure?



I figure we already agree that too many of our freedoms are being sacrificed in the name of security, fairness and safety. Complaining about them here is a waste of energy. Go read "John Adams". When the F.F. got together in Philly they didn't sit around and b*tch about taxes. They decided what they were going to DO about it.

Quote

We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.


Quote

freedom to do what, since we're not supposed to be concerned with specific types of freedom like same-sex marriage ect.


I didn't say we're not supposed to be concerned with them. The FSP should be a place where people can come who are ready to do something, not just talk about it. Those people are free to come to the state after the movement has begun.

Quote

We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.


Quote

if we're willing to fight, move, support, and mobilize to get freedom for those things, seems to me like YOU would benefit from it, since you would get more freedom too.  


Please. You're telling me you're willing to sacrifice everything, possibly even your life, for a six-pack?
Like I said above, those people can come to the
state after the movement has started. The 20,000 needs to be made up of people who are true patriots. I *know* it sounds corny, but this is serious stuff we are talking about here.

Quote

And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?


Quote

no, because if you put in a "leader" and something happens to him  - either physically or he's disgraced or jailed or whatever - the movement will die too. besides, i can think for myself. i don't need someone else telling me what i should think or do.


I agree this is the scary part. The leaders of today aren't driven by principles, but rather a lust for power. I'm also not talking about one leader, but leadership - our Founding Fathers (and Mothers!) if you will. People who don't necessarily want to lead, but just are the most passionate about freedom.

As for your 2nd statement, its not about telling you what to do. Its about keeping everyone focused on one goal.
Logged
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will.  But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

Thomas Jefferson
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

anything