Anti-Constitution Libertarians

chromodynamicgirl: What would you prefer?

Limited government is a fantasy, republicanism is worse than feudalism and the Constitution is a bunch of liberal nonsense.

As a liberal myself, I don't believe the constitution is what gave the Federal Government their power,
I believe the FED conspired to keep teachings of the constitution limited in our schools. And in doing so, they keep our generations today naive as to their Constitutional Rights [which are being trampled either way]
We the people, including the ones not learning from websites like this, hold our future in OUR hands. If we don't educate eachother and invoke our Rights, noone else will. period.

I think the crux of the matter is whether self-government of one population of 350million people is possible. As Aristotle thought, there is a limit to the size of nations. In 1780, the population of the U.S. was 2.78 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_... New York City today has a population of 19 million (6.8 times that of all of the U.S. at the time of ratification).

At 2.78 million people, there was a fierce debate over whether one federal government would be too much (see federalist/anti-federalist papers). I think many of the problems we see today such as voter apathy, overwhelming centralized power, theft through taxation, are all tied to this problem of one government over so many people.

The war of northern aggression certainly destroyed the Constitution that we did have, but I maintain that it was only a matter of time before it would be destroyed by the immense size of the federal government.

This is why simply "getting back to the Constitution" won't work. That's akin to saying if we just wear the clothes we had when we were 5, everything will fit better.

The biggest flaw I see with the constitution is that there wasn't a provision for terminating it if the population grew beyond a certain number.

Live Free or Die!

There would be different outcomes if we followed the constitution. IE."The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,..."

Allowing one Representative to represent, 600,000 and going up, that many people just begs for corruption. Large voting districts require immense amounts of money to run for office. The Senate changing to be elected by voters was a misguided amendment resulting in money over ideas. This makes it difficult to say the Constitution is a failure.

The less people to buy off the easier it is to get what you want. Thus, a small House of Rep. and elected Senators. Getting rid of the Articles of Confederation limited the buying of influence from 13 States down to one Federal government. Same principle.

I think it was a peaceful Coup d' etat . The A of Confederation would have worked out the interstate commerce
problem eventually. The big loss is the Constitution opened up the door, especially in the 20th Century, to taxation on the industry of the people. The A of confederation based taxation on land values which is the only moral means to raise revenue since no individual created land or the value of it. The land speculators disagreed, thus the Constitution.

I'll way in here although I maybe a little late to the party, (just found this article today). It's not the the Constitution in and off it self that is flawed, it is the application of the Constitution that is flawed. We believe that, and let's look at the first admendment, the Constitution grants you as a citizen of the US freedom of speech. I would point out that it does not. The Constitutuion states that the Federal Government "shall make no law" regulating speech. So we tend to apply the Constitution backwards, not as intended. As Jefferson said there are only "inaliable (sp?) rights that were endowed to us by our creator such as life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. When we as a people allow an entity created by men to grant us rights we also allow them to take them away. So apply the Constitution to the entity it was created to be applied to - the Federal Government.

Not responsible for spelling errors. I was educated in the public school system...... lol

Great article. It opens the door to reasonable debate. I, for one, view our Third Constitution as a slow walk to a proper positioning of the states and central government, but it was violated almost immediately with the Alien and Sedition Acts and John Marshal's support, because it was his own faction passing it, though it caused another good revolution in 1800 when Jefferson was elected. I'm hoping Obama's presidency offers the same opportunity for rebellion as well. The 19th century Democrats were libertarians of the best kind, cited in my book THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and claysamerica.com, but the modern Obama Democrats are followers of Rousseau and Marx, and to them, our constitution is to be ignored.

The Constitution was a third step in a naional union movement, each before firming the idea that the states are soveriegn and unite only for purposes that benefit them. The 19th century Democrats, our first libertarians, were the keepers of the keys, following Jefferson and Madison, on up to Cleveland, where state's rights was the foundation of their ideals, along with Madison's 1798 Resolutions (see THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and claysamerica.com)). It was Lincoln and the interventionist Republicans who introduced the wrinkles and diluted state's rights in the passionate name of ending slavery, as if only the central government was capable of doing it. Other than that, the pre-Lincoln Constitution was fine. It is just that people forget the rules and try to better them when they really cannot, or follow the Pied Piper (Obama) as he offers up a better way.

I strongly challenge the viewpoint that weakness in the Constitution is largely the failure of the Politicians to defend. Clearly, that has been a functional failure. But, the Constitution made the Individual Citizen the power brokers of this nation, first, and the States over the Federal Government second, and we have fundamentally functioned as though this was reversed. It is as though showing up to vote is the be all and end of our responsibility as citizens, and if we've done that, we are off the hook for how far off base our politicians take us.

I summarily reject that premise. There has been a profound failure in the last hundred years to educate citizens about what the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence say, what they mean, how they are applicable and why we must fight, hard, to protect them with active participation in the political system at all times... not just on election day.

We've GOT to get the American Citizen to understand what it means to a member of a REPUBLIC, and how it impacts their individual lives when they are apathetic about what happens when their elected officials head off to work and make decisions without the input of their constituents being of primary import and consequence.

I don't know HOW we accomplish this, but it shouldn't take this degree of irresponsibility in DC, state legislatures, local governments, Wall Street, etc., for us to BEGIN to wake up and understand our government was intended to be BY the People, OF the People, FOR the People.

The idea of a necessary evil is absurd, it's like saying a necessary cancer.

Many of the Founders of the Libertarian Party were anarchists, and the original platform called for the abolition of all taxes.

In the Words of Lysander Spooner."Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. 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. "

It's nice to say that we'd be better off with the Articles of Confederation, or the Confederate Constitution (which addressed some of the shortcomings of our Constitution), or that we should have no government at all, just a contractual society (which never has been the case in human history and which I doubt ever will be). In the end, though, its not so much what's in the Constitution as it is the people who use it. Benjamin Franklin supposedly said, "[T]here is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and [I] believe farther that this [Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 29:2

Libertarians should not be confused with anarchists. Government is a necessary evil and like fire, it needs to be contained and controlled to prevent it from destroying liberty. It is up to each and every one of us to be responsible to control it and not let it burn out of control which is where we find ourselves today! Education is the key.

It's nice to say that we'd be better off with the Articles of Confederation, or the Confederate Constitution (which addressed some of the shortcomings of our Constitution), or that we should have no government at all, just a contractual society (which never has been the case in human history and which I doubt ever will be). In the end, though, its not so much what's in the Constitution as it is the people who use it. Benjamin Franklin supposedly said, "[T]here is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and [I] believe farther that this [Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 29:2

The pivotal point in our history seems to have been the so-called Civil War, which introduced a new order of things by forcefully terminating state sovereignty and making the states subordinate to the federal government, which was not the intent of the Founders. Note Jefferson's comment: “With respect to our state and federal governments, I do not think their relations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But, this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the state governments are reserved all legislation administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only; and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners and citizens of other states; these functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government - neither having control over the other, but within its own department” (Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, 5 June 1824).

Our political system is beyond redemption. The legal precedents that have been established with regard to the Constitution have perverted and distorted its meaning, and have actually supplanted it; however, the Constitution may yet serve as a rallying point for lovers of liberty. "Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph Priestley, 1802). Thus, our system, which so little resembles what is in the Constitution, cannot be reformed; it must be replaced by a return to the "text."

The prescient Jefferson also saw that "[w]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated" (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Charles Hammond, 1821).

T LaCour noted that the U.S. Constitution has been flawed by loose wording. We could do well to look at how some state constitutions, including my home state of Ohio, have improved on the wording to strengthen the rights of its citizens. However, calling a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution poses the danger of allowing those in power today to pack the Convention with those who want to inflict the horror of something like the "Newstates of America" constitution (at http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstat...

I have to agree with the article do to the fact that a gun can no more pull its own trigger any more than the constitution can force its self on the self indulgent congress person or any other politically & morally bankrupt politician to do what is right. Those who attempt to change the intent of the constitution or the rights of the State's, Cities or the people must be Arrested and convicted with time in prison to reconsider their actions and never allowed in any position of authority over any public domain again.
NO this would not be too harsh as it is the only way to stop the destruction of our Constitution and way of life.
It may also help politicians at all levels to stop writing laws and bills with hidden meanings.

Just wanted to say thanks for the great post. keep it up!

Take what you can get, the U.S. Constitution is a far more limited compromise on government then what we now have. your right at the end of the Day the Constitution just like any law is just words, it require men to enforce and uphold it.

I think Lonny is right. Calling an anti-constitution advocate a Libertarian is Sophistry and muddies the water for the sake of,...What? Sorry to those who want otherwise, but the label is taken, find another.

I am surprised that no one has addressed the root of the problem: the actual words of the Constitution permit exactly the government we have. I think the Constitution is the best document yet adopted for establishing a limited but vigorous national government, and I refer to the whole document and not just the unamended 1787 original. But certain clauses are simply too loose in their wording, the first and last clauses of Article 1 Section 8 among the most conspicuous. It was a great start, but the words need fixing.

I do not advocate "kicking the Constitution to the curb", but it is both utopian and naive to make appeals such as "strict construction of the Constitution" or "return to the Founders' intent." Before taking exception to that sentence, I would ask any poster whether they know of the warnings of the Constitutional Convention delegate Judge Yates, who argued against ratification as Brutus (see, inter alia, "Why the Words of the Constitution Matter"), and whether they are aware of the extent to which every single Founder, once in office, found good reason to expand Federal power at the expense of State and local powers. Madison, in particular; before appealing to "Founders' intent", be educated by his many letters 1821-1836 in which he defended all the Federal expansions that occurred from 1789 on.

I believe the huge government we have now was enabled by the Constitution. I consider that to be the nature of government. It's a glorified protection racket, based on mass theft (taxation).

But there might be a way forward that would have a larger audience than anarchists. What the Constitution needs is Bill of Rights enforcement. That means that any congress critter who proposes or votes for unconstitutional legislation should be dragged off the floor in chains, tried by a randomly-selected jury of his peers, and, if found guilty, jailed for at least 5 years, and forever forbidden to hold any sworn position. Same goes for regulations proposed by regulators. There would be no appeal for a guilty jury verdict in these cases.

"The operation was a perfect success, but the patient died."

Proof is in the puddin'

How many of these advertised features were actually delivered:

1) form a more perfect Union
2) establish Justice
3) insure domestic Tranquility
4) provide for the common defence
5) promote the general Welfare
6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

If you bought a kitchen appliance that failed to deliver on a single advertised feature, would you return it?

re: "If we would scrap the Constitution, there would be a 0% chance that we would get a new Constitution that is more limited than the current Constitution."

I think this perhaps misunderstands the arguments radical libertarian critics of the US Constitution are putting forth.

I'm not arguing for scrapping the Constitution in terms of public policy. I'm arguing for scrapping public policy on the grounds the Constitution can not create an ethical obligation to obey the government.

Personally, I think "Libertarians" who are not also Constitutionalists are associating with the wrong party. They should be members of the Anarchy party.

I think we must take this in steps. First, we restrain the government to the Constitution. Then we further limit the Constitution. If we would scrap the Constitution, there would be a 0% chance that we would get a new Constitution that is more limited than the current Constitution.

The Constitution by itself cannot do anything - it must be upheld by people. Since that is the case, why not uphold something better?

I uphold the right of individuals to do whatever they wish so long as they don't infringe on the equal right of another individual to do the same. And I uphold the ability of people to organize into any arrangement that works toward this end.

The Constitution is a rulebook for an institution that should not exist. Government exists to pull rank over individuals, attempting to devalue their lives, for the benefit of the politically privileged. Upholding the Constitution is just a distraction on the way to liberty.

Nice brief article here Mr. Krey.

I recently attended an all-day Constitution seminar and (I disclose, I have not read the Federalist papers) I started to draw the conclusion you attack here in your article: that the Constitution strengthened the Federal Government and was a foot in the door for Globalists to infect and usurp our ability to self-govern.

The Confederation provided the people with the most control over their government, and while it was imperfect and states warred with each other over commerce, this can be considered the first of a long series of "crises" that big-government champions have since used throughout history to garner more power for the Federal Government at the expense of self-governing.

We have heard about the “Drug Crisis in America”, the “Education Crisis”, the “Terrorism Crisis”, the “Health Care Crisis”, the “Global Warming Crisis”, and on and on and on...
The issue of interstate feuding during the days of the Confederacy (that lead to Shay's Rebellion) was the first of such "crises" that was used against the people.

Now, is this a reoccurring theme that concludes the people are insufficient at self governing? Big Government folk may concur, though as a Libertarian, I content these crises is the beauty and yet challenge with self-governing—that we shall always have issues (read: “crises”) that stress the chains upon government’s actions and the application of freedom. To succumb to another surrogate layer of bureaucratic power “to deal with the current crisis” is to feed, piecemeal, our liberties away.

I see the actions of Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists’ call to ratify the Articles of Confederation akin to a Constitution Convention being called today to “ratify the Constitution”. Such a call to action would certainly be under the guise of addressing the numerous societal crises that plague our nation. Defenders of the Constitution would be in arms over a Constitutional Convention today, calling such a move “treasonous”. And yet, these same proponents of limited government fail to look upon the first of such actions (Annapolis Convention-from which the Constitution derived) as one-in-the-same.

So, to say, “blaming the Constitution for the failure of Americans (namely politicians) to uphold it is akin to blaming a gun for a murder” is quite accurate! Would the murder have taken place if the politician (in this case) had just his fists? See, without the power of the Constitution, federal politicians today would have very little power. We, the people, could much more easily defend ourselves against fist-a-cuffs vs. a gun; in other words, with a limited federal government, politicians have no real power (guns). I think this is the way it should be.

PS. I think it is interesting that Mr. Krey uses the gun analogy here as if it works the same as in the debate about gun control. As in both situations, it is never the gun, but the people behind the gun that murder. Likewise, in both situations, personal defense and equal footing can prevent the usurping of liberties by both politicians & gun-man.

There is room for honest discussion regarding the intent and application of the principles laid out in the Constitution. That's exactly how the Founders derived the language we find in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The biggest problem with the Constitution as amended is that too few of our elected officials for many years now and in both major political parties, are willing to abide by the principals it espouses and limitations it imposes on the federal government and we, the people, have let them get away with it because of our own ignorance and personal interests. Nothing will change to reduce government intrusion in our lives until we elect people to office who will actually adhere to the Constitution, properly apply it, and once more make it the bedrock document on which our nation stands in fact and not in name only.

Let me just say very quickly that the critics of the Constution are speaking about the original, unamended document. The Bill of Rights was the product of the protests by the libertarians of the day: Jefferson, Mason, etc. We love the Bill of Rights.

Regarding your statement: "My thought is that blaming the Constitution for the failure of Americans (namely politicians) to uphold it is akin to blaming a gun for a murder."

Well, I would say one flaw in what you're saying is this...

The Constitution is not *merely* a statement of limits on governmental power, like some statement of a religious creed that we either adhere to or not. Rather, it's a blueprint for government -- a specific *plan* -- with the limits that libertarians value engineered into it. The Constitution establishes a government, and as a result the Constitution can reasonably be evaluated based on the behavior of that government. You indirectly acknowledge this point by pointing to positive points of post-Founding history. Generally, if the positive aspects of American history can be attributed to the Constitution, the negative can be as well.

I would go beyond this point, though, to say that even if the plan to restrain the power of government had worked, the Constitution would still establish an *illegitimate* authority (just less of it). Refer to Lysander Spooner's classic "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" for perhaps the best treatment of this topic.

http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm

Thank you so much for this! I've heard so often from other Libertarians that the Constitution has done little to protect individual rights from big government. I personally don't understand this. I think the Constitution lays out pretty clearly which areas of the government are able to exactly what. It's the individual politicians who have demolished this great liberty-protecting document. Thank you for defending the Constitution!