The U.S. and its useless constitution

Long ago we were taught in government schools that the U.S. was set up to be a Republic. But we were also taught that the U.S. is a democracy. Well which is it? Does it matter? The elite ruling class, i.e. the overlords, want to keep you confused on the issue of “republic” vs. “democracy” as well as ignorant of what the constitution actually says.

ron_paul_poster_flyer_by_the_russianThe difference between a republic and a democracy is critical is seeing how the U.S. became the mess that it is today.

In a republic the people vote for representatives who operate the government according to rules set forth by the whole people in a document called a constitution or some synonymous term. The republican government is supposed to be limited in scope and power to things like defense, keeping the peace, and justice.  It is the primary duty of the elected officials in a republic to oversee the enforcement of the rules stated in the constitution and not to be forever making new laws and rules. New laws and rules may be enacted as needed as situations change over time but they have to conform to the rules, regulations, and powers set forth in the founding document called the constitution. Sometimes the constitution itself would need to be changed by the whole of the people to address changing situations; and that process should be spelled out in the original constitution.

In a democracy the people also vote for representatives to operate the government but in a democracy there is little to no constraint outside public opinion on what rules, laws, and actions the representatives take or enact. In a democracy sometimes the people themselves get to vote on laws and actions to take. There is little or no protection for the marginalized or hated in society — the state is unconstrained in its actions. The ancients knew that a pure democracy was not a thing the common man should ever hope for as it offers no protection from mob rule.

In the U.S. it is said that the constitution is open to interpretation and not fixed in meaning. So if the constitution is open to interpretation then naturally every president’s administration will interpret it to their advantage. Now if every administration interprets the constitution differently then it has no fixed meaning but rather many different, conflicting meanings. If the constitution has many different, conflicting meanings then it has no real meaning at all. Obviously the U.S. has become a democracy without constraint rather than a republic constrained by a written constitution that seeks to restrict the state to a small set of powers and legal actions.

In my last post I wrote:

One of the most disappointing things in political discourse is to hear so many claim that the constitution if followed “as it was written” would “guarantee our rights”. This is almost as bad as those who think that the American constitution grants us our rights in the first place. ~Stoval

The simple fact is that there can be no “meaning” of any written words without “interpretation” of those words. (ask your local English teacher) As long as the state itself does the interpretation then it should be obvious that the state’s minions will seek to interpret the document to mean whatever the minion needs to empower the state in whatever action it seeks to take at that point in time.

A friend, Henry Moore, wrote to tell me that he disagreed with me on my view of the constitution in a post (see here) he had put up at about the same time as my last one. After reading it over, I don’t think we disagree all that much. After all, I posted “The Constitutionalism of Ron Paul” a while back agreeing with Ron Paul that we would be far, far better off if we could get the state to follow its own rules as plainly written in the constitution. And so, I also agree with Henry Moore that it would be great if the government of the U.S. would follow its constitution on matters like the second amendment found in the Bill of Rights.

But my friends, while the tactic of demanding that the state follow its own rules is a worthwhile endeavor, I can not see any state constrained by any piece of paper for very long at all. It is the very anatomy of the state itself to commit aggression against its own citizens. The very nature of the state is that of the few preying on the many; sucking the lifeblood like some mythical vampire.

As I have written before, the main problem with the constitution is that it is in conflict with the non-aggression principle.The constitution supports aggression against the citizens: forcibly taking some people’s rightful positions and property to give to other people and that is just for starters. But if we are to seek to use the constitution itself against the present police state, the best tactic is to use the nearly forgotten and never followed 10th amendment to the constitution seeking to use the state you live in to protect you from the central government in D.C. Of course, you are on your own seeking protection from your local state!

All in all, I think making the government follow the constitution is a good tactic but I tend to think it is far too little and far too late. I wager an honest survey would find that the majority of Americans don’t even know what is in the darn document, much less how it was interpreted back when it was written. Who says government schools are not working?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s