I was talking to someone a while back and they were complaining that government doesn't obey the Constitution. Of course, this person is anti-"illegal immigration" and I pointed out that this, too, goes against what the Constitution allows government to do. Surprisingly, I didn't get any pushback on this. For once.
Anyway, I said that the only thing that might have saved the Constitution would have been a clause that specified that killing politicians for any reason would never be a crime and could never be punished, and which could never be rescinded without invalidating the whole document (and thus abolishing the "Union"). This shocked her, but she didn't disagree. (I mentioned this same idea in a recent reply to a comment to another post.)
Blaming our forbears for not "defending" the Constitution well enough is just silly.
Letting government decide what's "constitutional" or not was doomed to fail-- it is always going to keep moving in the direction of more power for itself. It's always going to criminalize anything that would be effective at stopping this development.
There would have had to be a remedy that was beyond the reach of government. One that was in the hands of each and every individual; up to one person, not to the majority.
Would that have been enough? Would it have at least been better? I don't know, but it's the only thing that might have worked. The founders failed to include that, and here we are. It's too late now.
Jefferson and Madison understood the problem and specified a remedy in the Kentucky (and Virginia) Resolution(s):
ReplyDelete"...that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy..."
Secession by the Confederate States was an attempt to nullify the transfer of wealth from south to north by the various Tariff Acts of the 1820's and 1830's.
"Reconstruction" was a deliberate inversion of the ruling hierarchy to make States forever subservient.
A movement to reverse this evil is in its' infancy and poorly supported:
"The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine teaches that when the superior or higher ranking civil authority makes unjust/immoral law, policy, or court opinion – the lower or lesser ranking civil authority has both the God-given right and duty to refuse obedience to that superior authority; and if necessary, actively resist the superior authority." https://defytyrants.com/the-doctrine-of-the-lesser-magistrate/
Fortunately, we as individuals can always invoke our unalienable right to nullify tyranny ... it's known as Rule .308 ...
What would Henry Bowman do?
Just asking ... Hans (in the NC woods)
Henry Bowman would do what he has a right to do... and would be called a domestic terrorist by the tyrants and the corporate media, and the people would believe them and hate him. And, obviously, he'd die at the hands of the state. Just look at the examples of Marvin Heemeyer, Andrew Joseph Stack III, Carl Drega, etc. As I say, it's too late now, unless something big changes.
DeleteEstablishing a state is never the right thing to do, even if you have good intentions.
“Establishing a state is never the right thing to do, even if you have good intentions.”
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. This is tantamount to planting an acorn and then expressing astonishment when a mighty oak grows up from the place. I have my own thoughts on what the US constitution’s biggest mistake was and the first is drafting and then ratifying it for the reasons noted above. But one thing that could have curbed that growth by denying it the ‘fertilizer’ that allowed it to flourish would have been to expressly extend the prohibition in section 10 for any State to ‘make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts’ to the federal government as well and to eliminate the provision in section 8 authorizing the government ‘to borrow money on the credit of the united States’. It is profligate borrowing to further spendthrift expenditure and the fiat monetary system that have fostered the socialist debasement of the domestic economy and the imperial criminality of the country's foreign policy.
Agreed. There are so many fatal errors in that document... and in people for believing a document can protect their liberty.
Delete