Why the US Constitution has failed Liberty

Duty Honor Country

Active member
There are those who are protesting the current actions of the US government by declaring that the US Constitution has been violated and we should go back to its roots. What if the problem lies within the US Constitution itself? After reading the Antifederalist Papers, a series of essays written in US papers in the 1780's criticizing the adoption of the current US constitution, I maybe starting to believe that US Constitution is the root of the problems seen by those against big government. I have not finished the Antifederalist Papers due to gearing up for a deployment, but feel the need to get the discussion started...so here goes

"The power to borrow money is general and unlimited, and the cause of often before referred to, authorizes the passing of any laws proper and necessary to to carry this into execution. Under this authority, Congress may mortgage any or all revenues of the union, as a fund to loan money upon; it is probable, in this way, they may borrow of foriegn nations, a principle sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country. By this means, they create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink." Antifederalist Paper No. 23

'The inference is natural that the legislature will have the authority to make all laws they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make all laws at discretion...It make be said, that this way of explaining the constitution is torturing and making it speak what it never intended." Antifederalist Paper No. 32

"To the question - without force - what can restrain the congress from making such laws as they please? What limits are there to their authority? I fear none at all. For surely it cannot be justly said that they have no power but what is expressly given to them, when by the very terms of their creation they are vested with the power of making laws in all cases - necessary and proper; when from the nature of their power, they must be the judges of what laws are necesssary and proper." Antifederalist Paper No. 46

The first quote could be easily used by those who are against huge government. Our government truely has unlimited power to borrow and do with in any way it feels.

The next 2 quotes deal with Congress' unlimited power. A few radio people have asked what can't the government do under the general welfare and commerce clauses?

I will add more to keep the conversation going.
 
I think for one that there just might be too much emphasis on law.
This is actually not without precedence.

You might want to read up on Han Fei Zi and his system of Legalism. He was a philosopher/politician during the Warring States period in China and his doctrine was adopted by the eventual winner of the Warring States Period, the Qin. But the Qin Dynasty post-unification did not last very long at all, and this has been attributed to its emphasis on harsh laws.
It is certainly an exagerrated example since a good deal of offenses back then were punishable by death and they were often for crimes like publishing a book that the emperor did not like.
http://www.humanistictexts.org/hanfeitzu.htm

Take it for what it's worth.
Maybe too much emphasis on law and that of precedence (where I get the impression that the exceptions to the rules increasingly become the rules themselves) is creating a program (written in legal code) to which we must all follow, limiting our liberty.
 
The constitution is there to keep the nation from falling apart, for over 200 years, it has done it's job. With 17 adjustments over the years. I do not expect America to require a new constituion (I.E a new government essentially) for a long time. But I think it may need a lot more adjustments, however, the constitution is very, very hard to adjust.
 
I am not saying we need a new Constitution.

The massive growth in government is unacceptable but our current Constitution allows for it. The General Welfare and Commerce Clause gives the US government the go ahead to basically do what ever it wants to do. Some people back in the 1780's saw that this would happen.

Does anyone else find it interesting that the 1st 5 Presidents all vetoed internal improvement bills saying that they themselves supported the idea but thought the Constitution did not allow the government the authority to so. Now the government doles out billions in high way funds with strings attached. Highway funds is how the drinking age in the US was raised to 21. The Government withheld funds until the states each passed laws raising the age.

The First Presidents were also very timid in using the military without approval from Congress. Now the President can deploy the military anywhere for 60 days without NY Congressional say. We have come a long way since Washington thought he overstepped his authority by giving his men money for 3 months of service to maintain his Army for the attack on Trenton.

Can anyone amuse me on the limits on the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses?
 
I am not saying we need a new Constitution.

The massive growth in government is unacceptable but our current Constitution allows for it. The General Welfare and Commerce Clause gives the US government the go ahead to basically do what ever it wants to do. Some people back in the 1780's saw that this would happen.

Does anyone else find it interesting that the 1st 5 Presidents all vetoed internal improvement bills saying that they themselves supported the idea but thought the Constitution did not allow the government the authority to so. Now the government doles out billions in high way funds with strings attached. Highway funds is how the drinking age in the US was raised to 21. The Government withheld funds until the states each passed laws raising the age.

The First Presidents were also very timid in using the military without approval from Congress. Now the President can deploy the military anywhere for 60 days without NY Congressional say. We have come a long way since Washington thought he overstepped his authority by giving his men money for 3 months of service to maintain his Army for the attack on Trenton.

Can anyone amuse me on the limits on the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses?
If the federal government is too weak, we'd be back at the days of the Articles of Confederation, which left us with a government so weak it could barely handle a bunch of poorly trained (if trained at all at that) musket totting drunkards and a horribly inefficient mess of states united only in name. But I do think we should rewrite those clauses to be much more specific, because right now they are so vague that there is bugger all congress couldn't do. That is if Congress ever decided to stop bickering amongst itself like a bunch of gibbering loonies. Essentially, Congress is currently little better than the Roman Senate at it's worst, actually scratch that, It has always been little better than the Roman senate at it's worst. Some elements of it are very respectable, others are things I wouldn't touch with a standard issue ten foot pole.
 
Last edited:
Make a change to the Commerce Clause that says it applies only to things in actual Interstate Commerce, not things that influence it.
 
We Failed Liberty

The Constitution has not failed Liberty.

We The People have failed to protect Liberty.

Our collective lack of personal responsibility has corrupted our vision of preserving Liberty.

We let our fears, our cowardice, our laziness, our emotions, our lack of understaning, our immorality, our conflict of visions, and empowerment of incompetent leaders to mismanage Liberty.

We transferred our personal responsibility to others, who in turn, manipulated our perceptions and acted out of their self-interest to pass laws that outsourced control of our nations wealth, that promoted secrecy instead of openness, and subverted our unity and the principles of our Founding Fathers.

We transferred our spiritul power to a corrupt minority, and now we are waking up to the terror that we have to take back our Country and may not have the collective power to do so.

We lost control of our mainstream media, science, academic, educational, financial, political, military, religious, and corporate institutions. A minority controls the global wealth. And they are gaining control of our healthcare and essential natural resources.

We clamor for security, and bailouts, and stimulus packages that do nothing but add more restrictive laws and tighten the noose around our necks, because we lack the courage to stand on our own, to say no, and to assert our will.

Our reluctance to acknowledge our power and the spiritual force that unites us, is tearing us apart, and no amendment to our Constitution will ever change that.

Unite and stand tall. Be thankful, and take control of your life and seek to better understand your constitutional heritage. OohRa!
 
Last edited:
The Constitution has not failed Liberty.

We The People have failed to protect Liberty.

Our collective lack of personal responsibility has corrupted our vision of preserving Liberty.

We let our fears, our cowardice, our laziness, our emotions, our lack of understaning, our immorality, our conflict of visions, and empowerment of incompetent leaders to mismanage Liberty.

We transferred our personal responsibility to others, who in turn, manipulated our perceptions and acted out of their self-interest to pass laws that outsourced control of our nations wealth, that promoted secrecy instead of openness, and subverted our unity and the principles of our Founding Fathers.

We transferred our spiritul power to a corrupt minority, and now we are waking up to the terror that we have to take back our Country and may not have the collective power to do so.

We lost control of our mainstream media, science, academic, educational, financial, political, military, religious, and corporate institutions. A minority controls the global wealth. And they are gaining control of our healthcare and essential natural resources.

We clamor for security, and bailouts, and stimulus packages that do nothing but add more restrictive laws and tighten the noose around our necks, because we lack the courage to stand on our own, to say no, and to assert our will.

Our reluctance to acknowledge our power and the spiritual force that unites us, is tearing us apart, and no amendment to our Constitution will ever change that.

Unite and stand tall. Be thankful, and take control of your life and seek to better understand your constitutional heritage. OohRa!
Lookie here, a speech....No matter what system you use, corruption will exist. We simply aren't as moral as we like to think we are.
 
The Constitution has not failed Liberty.

We The People have failed to protect Liberty.

Our collective lack of personal responsibility has corrupted our vision of preserving Liberty.

We let our fears, our cowardice, our laziness, our emotions, our lack of understanding, our immorality, our conflict of visions, and empowerment of incompetent leaders to mismanage Liberty.

We transferred our personal responsibility to others, who in turn, manipulated our perceptions and acted out of their self-interest to pass laws that outsourced control of our nations wealth, that promoted secrecy instead of openness, and subverted our unity and the principles of our Founding Fathers.

We transferred our spiritual power to a corrupt minority, and now we are waking up to the terror that we have to take back our Country and may not have the collective power to do so.

We lost control of our mainstream media, science, academic, educational, financial, political, military, religious, and corporate institutions. A minority controls the global wealth. And they are gaining control of our healthcare and essential natural resources.

We clamor for security, and bailouts, and stimulus packages that do nothing but add more restrictive laws and tighten the noose around our necks, because we lack the courage to stand on our own, to say no, and to assert our will.

Our reluctance to acknowledge our power and the spiritual force that unites us, is tearing us apart, and no amendment to our Constitution will ever change that.

Unite and stand tall. Be thankful, and take control of your life and seek to better understand your constitutional heritage. OohRa!

You beat me to it 03, I was gonna say something down this line.
 
Speaking as an outsider I do have some questions about the constitution and its application in the real world.

If I understand correctly politicians are mandated by the constitution to be free from commercial interest - if so why is lobbying by businesses an accpted method of law creation and amendment?

Why do all states have 2 senators? Some are more populous than others, but have the same number of senators.

Why has there never been a realistic 3rd party in US politics? From what I understand the 2 parties were originally voting blocks which have metamorphasised into their current identities, why have the people never challenged this?

I ask in the spirit of seeking knowledge, many Americans, that I ask, can't supply answers or simply agree with me, I need help.
 
Speaking as an outsider I do have some questions about the constitution and its application in the real world.

If I understand correctly politicians are mandated by the constitution to be free from commercial interest - if so why is lobbying by businesses an accpted method of law creation and amendment?

Why do all states have 2 senators? Some are more populous than others, but have the same number of senators.

Why has there never been a realistic 3rd party in US politics? From what I understand the 2 parties were originally voting blocks which have metamorphasised into their current identities, why have the people never challenged this?

I ask in the spirit of seeking knowledge, many Americans, that I ask, can't supply answers or simply agree with me, I need help.
All States having 2 Senators is Equal Representation. The House has delegation size determined by State population for Proportional Representation. We have always had 2 dominate Partys. Part of the "Checks & Balances" built into the System. Originally Senators were appointed by the Governors or State Legislature to represent the State Govt. The then new Republican Party recieved to bulk of Whigs when the Whig Party fell apart over the slavery issue in the 1850s.
 
Speaking as an outsider I do have some questions about the constitution and its application in the real world.

If I understand correctly politicians are mandated by the constitution to be free from commercial interest - if so why is lobbying by businesses an accpted method of law creation and amendment?

Why do all states have 2 senators? Some are more populous than others, but have the same number of senators.

Why has there never been a realistic 3rd party in US politics? From what I understand the 2 parties were originally voting blocks which have metamorphasised into their current identities, why have the people never challenged this?

I ask in the spirit of seeking knowledge, many Americans, that I ask, can't supply answers or simply agree with me, I need help.

Valid questions
Part one I can answer, thats because the congress works for its own benefit, not the people, but since they are in charge, theres not a hellofa lot we can do about it until we all unite and make REAL changes.

Part 2, because they are "supposed" to have an equal number in that house.
part 3 is the easiest, because the two controlling parties, will crush ANY political party that tries to form and do their damnedest to discredit ANYONE who speaks out against the controlling parties power if they can't outright destroy that party or person.
 
Great stuff guys, getting a much firmer handle on how the political system is supposed to work - for some reason that doesn't get much air time, but then I guess all Americans are born with that knowledge.

Just so I'm clear about congress, they hold the purse strings and that is how they are a sanity check on the president?

If that is the case, then why is quite legal for companies to support congressmen, who have control over the budget - seems like a conflict of interest there! Doesn't that concern anyone?
 
Great stuff guys, getting a much firmer handle on how the political system is supposed to work - for some reason that doesn't get much air time, but then I guess all Americans are born with that knowledge.

Just so I'm clear about congress, they hold the purse strings and that is how they are a sanity check on the president?

If that is the case, then why is quite legal for companies to support congressmen, who have control over the budget - seems like a conflict of interest there! Doesn't that concern anyone?

It should cause the company that has the most campaign funds delivered gets what it wants also. As loong as they make friends with the socialists on Capital Hill.
 
Back
Top