Has the Constitution Failed Us?

Advertisements

I have a LOT of respect for anyone who fights for liberty. Undoubtedly, many who subscribe to socialism, anarchism, or even democracy believe they are doing just that. So I do respect that, but I also frown upon the fact that so little objective research has been done on their part before going out to fight.

Normally, I would take my hat off to anyone willing to stand up where others would not, but let us talk reality for a second. Nations rise, and nations fall, and just as governments fail, so too will non-governments. This is always true and has been proven time and time again since the dawn of civilization. Nothing lasts forever. If this information is a shock to you, then I am sorry it had to come from me, but there has yet to be a nation that has lasted forever. It is simply not possible. The United States is no exception.

We should also address the idea that governments do not just grow out of control on their own. Instead, it is people inside of the government which make it grow out of control. Or perhaps it was the people who elected the politicians who demanded it grow out of control? Or perhaps the people with social ideals that believe taking from their neighbor to give to another are the ones who are primarily responsible? Or better yet, maybe it was the people who refused to do anything about the politicians they elected that grew the government out of control?

Regardless of which is correct, what I am trying to convey here is that we need to put the blame back on the people. I advocate this because this nation was supposed to have a government-created for the people and, more importantly, by the people.  The common denominator is the people, but currently, it is the people who refuse to take the blame for their inaction. For example, people placing the blame on a piece of paper or a flag.

We need to understand this simple concept. Experiments are scientific procedures undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact. Pretty basic stuff, right?

The United States is called “The Grand Experiment” because it is the FIRST (not the only) country to exist that was formed “by the people, for the people” and is based on the ideals of a Republic, aspects of democracy, and of course, fundamental liberty. Not an easy undertaking to say the least, and undoubtedly not going to be absolutely perfect right out of the gate. Still, it was a pretty solid start.

republic-constitution
Fun Fact: Benjamin Franklin is the only founding father to have signed all four of the key documents establishing the U.S., including the Constitution.

Nations have formed since the time of the creation of our own. Some of these nations have taken our ideas, improved upon them, and are doing pretty good. Still, the U.S. has faltered in many ways, and the people are starting to figure out that these social changes were not exactly the great changes they were promised.  However, we should always remember that the PEOPLE asked for these changes, to begin with. As a result, the government got HUGE. When the government got huge, it got bad; some might go so far as to say it became corrupt.

As a result, many people are very quick to say that if the United States is really an experiment, then the experiment has failed since it is so bad. Think about that for a second. What would have happened had Thomas Edison given up because of his numerous failures attempting to make the light bulb? What would have happened had Henry Ford given up because he failed and went broke so many times? What would have happened if Michael Jordan quit playing basketball after being cut from his High School basketball team? Are we just supposed to give up on the Constitution and the idea of limited government because of some failures or setbacks, or do we learn from these failures and attempt to make it better?

The irony is that our Founders warned us that if the PEOPLE ALLOWED the government to grow, we would see tyranny. They warned us, and here we are. They even told us what we were supposed to do about it, but now people are too scared. Is any of this really the fault of the idea? Of course not! To suggest such a thing is fundamentally asinine.

The problem I see here is that there are quite a few people who are just dead set at saying that a “Federalist” position is a bad one. And in doing so, they take the approach that the Constitution does not provide a benefit. This is extremely naïve, and nothing could be further from the truth. THINK:

  • Did the Constitution fail us?
  • Did the Constitution stop the tyranny we face?
  • Did the Constitution create the tyranny we face?
  • Did the Constitution “allow” this tyranny?

If you found yourself giving a “yes” to any of these questions, then guns probably kill people, and spoons make people fat. It was ALWAYS the people who were supposed to enforce the document. It has ALWAYS been the people who have failed to do so.

Notice the common theme thus far. It is the people who have allowed tyranny to occur. It is the people who have failed the Constitution. It is the people who have not stopped the tyranny, even after it was recognized, and it is the people who continue to provide excuses as to why an inanimate object is to blame. These people include the citizenry, soldiers, law enforcement, and politician alike.

Of course, the argument then comes in that “I wasn’t around when the Federal Reserve/16th Amendment/New Deal/Gun Laws/etc. came into play”. Well, neither was I, but that is a piss-poor excuse anyway because we see the problems now, and many still refuse to do anything about it.

So the best option is to bad mouth the Founders, the documents, etc., and get rid of it all because of how corrupt the government has become? Well, should we get rid of the institution of marriage because some people cheat on their spouse? Should we get rid of water because a few people have drowned? Should we stop driving because a few people crash? THINK!

Maybe the question should be, “Is that because you are lazy, ignorant, stupid, or ten years old?” Perhaps you do not like the fact that I blame the PEOPLE instead of some piece of paper? Try to understand that I am on your side here. I also do not believe that a cop can give a car a parking ticket considering that the car cannot be found guilty of a crime. It seems like an odd point to bring up, doesn’t it?

Something as tiny as a parking ticket can be a huge problem because it represents something so much bigger. THINK! The car had to be driven by a person, and that someone is “supposed” to be innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. The fact that the car is there is irrelevant. Nobody saw who parked the car in that spot, yet the car (a non-person) is given a ticket, and you are expected to pay it all the same. It may seem petty, but it demonstrates another profit model and usurpation of the rule of law. What if your mother or cousin drove it? It is YOUR RECORD!

I am just saying that we should question some of this. Some may disagree, and that is okay. Let me say that I am trying to stir your soul. I am trying to get you emotionally involved. I want everyone to own their part in this, and I want you to consider what I am about to say.

We can blame inanimate objects or even other people all we want. Here is the problem with all of this: we live in something called “The Real World.” In this Real World, there are governments, corporations, and there are monetary systems. Some are okay, some are bad, and some are really good. Still, with enough research, we begin to see that it is not the money that is bad; it is not the government or the idea of capitalism that is bad either. Instead, it is the people who have an evil agenda who seem to be able to justify or contort intent which often breeds tyranny, and then there are those who allow it.

Too many people refuse to place blame where it is deserved, so these people who commit acts of tyranny remain in office, the government gets bigger and more corrupt, and the ignorant are confused as to how or why it continues while gladly blaming those that the government presents as scapegoats. Clearly, this is not a good way to go about getting change. Real results will ONLY occur if the process of how we approach this is changed.

Rather than deal with the truth, real information, reality, and the problems we all face, some say, “trash it!” Some even cry “Anarchy!” as though either idea could be the answer. However, this is mainly because they cannot address or comprehend the fundamental foundation of the real world or the real problems we currently face.

To achieve a stateless planet and make this “utopia” of non-representation really work, you would literally have to go and overthrow and/or kill every single government AND leader AND follower and IMPOVERISHED person in the entire world. This idea is impractical and childish, to say the least. Besides, under what authority would such a task be undertaken, and would you really want to play a part?

What we should be asking is, “why do people need governments, and why do governments form?” There are actually quite a few reasons.  Who sets up and enforces trade rules with other nations? You and your neighbors? Would you like to leave this in the hands of corporations that we already know can and will corrupt? How about the self-evident idea that the majority of the masses are simply not interested in self-governance or participation? Under what authority do you plan to force involvement? Should we discuss international treaties, invasions, bloodless weights, and measures, etc.? These are obviously just to name a few. Understand that not everybody has the ability to just figure it out.

I would love the utopia that is a government-free planet. That is a great idea, and in a perfect world, I would be down, but again, this is earth! Now, that is not to say that an extremely limited government is not preferred (as it was originally intended and as I say we should have), so we should not trash the entire idea or even badmouth it because PEOPLE like us have failed to live up to it or allowed it to be ignored.

Can you imagine one nation without a government while another nation’s government remained? Of course, I could point out several nations where this is or has been the case, and the results are great (sarcasm). Of course, some will be quick to call these examples a “fallacy” because I do not consider the idea of a “global cleansing,” which basically equates to mass genocide. Still, my point remains a valid one, even in contrast.

Imagine another nation such as Russia, attempting to negotiate trade or buying mineral rights, or establishing borders, etc., without a representative to represent the collective in that territory. Would each and every resident speak with the leader of Russia? Of course not. Russia would not have it; someone would more than likely screw it up anyway. As a result, Russia might just invade and take what they wanted once they realized the only ones standing in their way were twelve people.

It is just a stupid idea all the way around. The Constitution provided a blueprint for a system of government that COULD have been extremely limited had the people just ensured it. Lazy and apathetic people are to blame just as much as the tyrant. I see and read of these folks talking bad about the Constitution, and it blows my mind that they refuse to see the fundamentals of the problem.

These reasons, of course, do not provide permission or acceptance for the repeated abuses being experienced, and this article is in no way a defense for a tyrannical government or even a large federalist system. On the other hand, the abuses also do not negate the necessity of a system of limited government at the very least.

The truth is that all government eventually corrupts, just as ALL large bodies of power corrupt: even corporate entities. EVERYTHING can corrupt: Churches, Non-Profits, Hospitals and Doctors, Cops, Parents, Friends, Employees, Military, Firemen, children, etc. Again, as governments fail, so too will non-governments. This should come as no surprise because it appears to be a part of the human condition, and knowing all of this ahead of time, the people should constantly be on guard for it. The question should be, “what are you willing to do about it?

I have heard it best said like this: “We must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. (The Boondock Saints, 1999)” Think about that for a second, and then reflect on what your positions are. Your indifference, or apathy, is just as much a part of the problem as the horrible agendas being put into action by these horrible people.

Sure, you hate what this nation has become. Well, so do most of us, but being blinded by love is no different than being blinded by hate. You should not continue to go kiss the person who keeps punching you in the face any more than you should continue to accept tyranny when the supreme law clearly demonstrates it is wrong. Additionally, you should not infringe upon someone else’s rights just because you do not like how they exercise or apply them any more than you should accept someone attempting to take away your rights because someone else does not like how you are exercising or applying them.

The experiment has NOT failed. In fact, I would venture to say it is just underway because it is now being thoroughly tested. We have been able to learn from this experiment. We know what protects us. We know what changes have led to tyranny. This does not mean the original idea was wrong, flawed, or even outdated. If anything, we have seen just how perfect it was, but just how horrible people with “good intentions” can really be. Daniel Webster said, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power, but they cannot justify it, even if we were sure that they existed. It is hardly too strong to say, that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions, real or pretended (Webster & Whipple, 1993).” Clearly, the people have not enforced it; the people are the ones who have failed, and we are living the result.

So imagine being able to secure safeguards within the document based on what we have learned; safeguards that solidify the purpose of the document! Would that not be an ideal situation? Should we not adjust and repair?

Is the Constitution perfect? No, especially not after certain amendments have been made. Can it be improved based on what we have learned? YES! Should we just trash it because a bunch of power-hungry parasites ignored it? Of course not!

The Constitution is an idea. A good idea does not cease to be good just because someone does not follow it or because a bunch of people are scared to enforce it. On the other hand, a dumb idea does not cease to be dumb just because the good idea is not being executed with perfection.

As for those who would rather a private business handle government tasks and those who would prefer the government just handle everything, let me paraphrase some words from a good friend of mine. “Just as there is a need for checks and balances in government, there is a need for checks and balances in business.” There is little difference between centralized industry and centralized government anymore, and if you have not figured that out, you clearly do not understand the problem. They have merged and only pretend to fight for the camera. Putting all your eggs in one basket is NEVER a good idea.

The truth is that the media which influences your behaviors are beholden to the advertisers. Advertisers are corporations and banks. The government is beholden to the corporations and banks as well. The sick irony is that many of the corporations and banks have bought and paid for what they need via those in government using the dollars that you borrowed and/or provided them to fulfill your need or desire to keep up with your neighbors, which was sold to you by the media you continue to watch. Starting to see the funnel here?

Clearly, this is NOT how it was supposed to be, but we can learn from this, and we can change this without scrapping the experiment altogether. Once again, it boils down to what the PEOPLE are willing to do. Stop placing blame on everyone else for your problems, and stop blaming inanimate objects. Look at yourself and see what you are doing to perpetuate the problems, then determine what you can do to correct them.

I fundamentally disagree with the position that the government does not play a role, and I fundamentally disagree with the position that the government should play every role. I also find it entirely irresponsible that people complain about the government, and then not even attempt a “solution” short of giving up your ideas of “state-ism” or throwing in the towel on a document that was ignored by social-oriented people who deliberately and quite specifically set out to undermine it with impunity.

Let me also take a moment to address a quote by Lysander Spooner; a known anti-constitutionalist and member of the socialist First International (Woodcock, 2011). He said “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.

That is by far and away one of the dumbest things I have ever read because it places the blame (once again) on an inanimate object. Are your vows to your spouse unfit to exist because you cheated on your spouse, neglected your spouse, ignored your spouse, or physically hurt your spouse? Not at all. All it does is illustrate how much of an ass you are for having broken the vows. Those vows were a promise. They do not stand up and stop you from being a horrible person. You chose to ignore them, and the fact that they did not stand up to stop you does not mean that they are unworthy of being said. All it means is that YOU could not be trusted when you said them.

For someone to be so against either vows or the Constitution only illustrates a fundamental ignorance of their purpose, or perhaps it exposes that person’s true agenda. The question is not whether a government can corrupt. Humans have known that they WILL since the beginning. The question is not even whether or not a government or non-government can last. We know that they will not and cannot. The real question is how long can people remain happy and without injury between each peak or cycle? Unfortunately, all answers based on reason involve a mixture of the people, government, and business.

I believe that this nation is about to fulfill a few cycles. We might want to start getting ready for it, and the only way we can really do that is to bring REAL ideas and solutions to the table. We cannot rely on wishes, fairy tales, or theory-based ideas known to rapidly collapse in practice.  We need concrete solutions to deal with real-world problems. The sooner we start dealing with the reality of the situations we face, the sooner we can start addressing and correcting the real problems at hand.

You will never get the right answers if you do not start asking the right questions. You cannot ask the right questions unless you understand the foundation of the problem. You will never understand the foundation of the problem if you refuse to look at the reality of the issue. At this point, you probably have one question on your mind. “So, what is the answer?” Well, it is my firm belief that the answers we seek are in the Republic we have abandoned.

RESOURCES


Fun Fact: Benjamin Franklin was the oldest person to sign the Constitution. Because of his poor health, he needed help to sign it. As he did, tears streamed down his face.


Would you like a hardcover copy of the Constitution? I found this hardcover Constitution on Amazon.com – click here.

Advertisements