• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is the "U.S. Constitution" really classically liberal more than anything else?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I don't think it is because even the bill of rights did not (and could not) amend the first 7 articles and it couldn't because the Federalist Party was too shrewd.

What it replaced potentially gave absolute equality before the law by setting a good example for the whole world by not forcing union and inequality over liberty, while the Federalists made it very clear that their legislation (I say "legislation" because the "US Constitution" is not law at all... I don't think it adheres to any one ideological policy like the Articles of Confederation did) did not attempt at all to give equality before the law and the 14th Amendment pretty much ended any equality before the law that the Democratic Party had been so kind to allow the people... it was what the Federalist Party initially tried to propose for the Bill of Rights (the Radical Republicans pulled the ideas from the Library of Congress and maybe the criminally genius General Sherman). It has crushed the rights of not only the States and the people, but also organized labor, put corporations (artificial/legal constructs) ahead of people, it has crushed the rights of the unborn, of congregations, brought church closer to state (i.e., the pro-centralization, traditionally fascist US Supreme Court hears cases that should belong to the States and the people), and it has seldom prevented the States from encroaching on individual liberty (Jim Crow was nationally inspired as was Buck v VA and Buck v VA took away everyone else's liberties plus it gave the States the greenlight for eugenics due to Justice Holmes' clever decision).

I should note that the 1st 12 Amendments were kind of like an allegory of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve started out as a council, then it's first ten chairmen were not so terrible, the 13th accelerated the growth of govt (it continued to make slavery a national issue but gave liberty back to some just as Greenspan had better justifications and was far more clever than his evil successor who thinks he knows it all), and now the 14th (bernanke) is trying to basically make the Federal Reserve a pure 100% greenbackist institution. Bernanke is very much doing what the greenbackers want and he'd gladly shift Congress the power fully if the fight was not lead by Kucinich, Sanders, and Dr. Paul (the former two are misguided and don't criticize as much because it has become very close to Congress just handing out money to institutions other than banks).

At the same time, I don't think the Anti-Federalists were perfect (some of them were against the Federalist Party because they thought the latter supported gold when a major foundation of the Federalist Party was paper money to be controlled by the surreal elite) and some of them felt entitled because they thought they won everyone independence from the Empire, but then the Federalists gave them some crumbs (daniel shays still died poor despite getting a pension from Federalist sponsored legislation) so the latter wouldn't look bad and could remain in power.

All of that said, I conclude that the "US Constution" was ratified by lies, deception, and force and it was meant to change the people rather than the other way around. Isn't my conclusion more right than wrong?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,743
9,842
136
You seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time researching American History. What I mean by that is:

A) While it is good to know and understand our history it is also important to understand that what may have been the best policy in 1776 might not necessarily be the best policy for 2012.

B) You talk about our past Presidents as though you were right there at their side throughout their lifetime, bringing up details about their personality and motivations that only a close personal friend could possibly know, as if they are undisputed facts. I assume you are getting these details off the internet, but how do you vet details like these? How do you choose which ones to believe and which ones to ignore?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The purpose of the constitution was to severely limit the powers of a central government, and to guarantee the freedoms of individuals. For instance, without the freedom of speech no one can really have freedom. It is the cornerstone of democracy. Similar to it is the right to own your own property.

The people that wrote the constitution knew what tyrany was because they were at one time ruled by a monarch that could take over your house, give your lands away or repossess property at will.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The founding fathers did not think women should vote. However, we may not want to go back to that idea. Lets just say they had some ideas that fit their time and lets try to keep those good ideas. For instance they did not even believe in property tax. Why should we tax property? If you own something it should be yours. If you have to keep paying taxes on it, you must just be renting that ownership.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
You seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time researching American History. What I mean by that is:

A) While it is good to know and understand our history it is also important to understand that what may have been the best policy in 1776 might not necessarily be the best policy for 2012.

B) You talk about our past Presidents as though you were right there at their side throughout their lifetime, bringing up details about their personality and motivations that only a close personal friend could possibly know, as if they are undisputed facts. I assume you are getting these details off the internet, but how do you vet details like these? How do you choose which ones to believe and which ones to ignore?
Wrong, many of the ideas were good ideas and the US would be better with them
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
B) You talk about our past Presidents as though you were right there at their side throughout their lifetime, bringing up details about their personality and motivations that only a close personal friend could possibly know, as if they are undisputed facts. I assume you are getting these details off the internet, but how do you vet details like these? How do you choose which ones to believe and which ones to ignore?
Psychology.:) Yes, I got it from celebritytypes.com actually. Intuitives only see eye to eye with intuitives. "S" types tend to be type A personalities too much and they don't like putting up with the stuff my group does (S take it all seriously because they're not as bright and I'm probably going to get murdered by someone with keen senses one day) and they're the tyranny of the majority... they even fall for dickheads like Lincoln (they don't fucking know Lincoln!) that I wouldn't have much trouble being a friend with since he tried to be cute about what he did and because he was just fucking crazy... he probably planned his own fucking assassination because I doubt he cared that he died, that's how sick, depressed, and psychotic he was... it doesn't excuse what he did and he deserved to die, but he was intuitive and logical as fuck. Sometimes I wonder if Hitler's goofy ass was Lincoln reincarnated (Himmler was the stupid, serious bitch, not Hitler and the latter pussied out after threatening to have him killed), except only Hitler was even more of a pussy and he was short and fat instead of tall and thin. Feeling types are generally more socially mature (Hitler was an exception) than people like me because they try to see eye to eye with everyone, but they only get limited success... they're constrained however because they are feeling and they can't change it. I have a personal letter from Bill Clinton because I used to worship him, then I found out about Dr. Paul and couldn't stand Clinton's lack of ethics (especially the fact that he seriously violated the NAP to further his political career). "S" types are angrier and it's hard for me to feel anymore sympathy for them although Dr. Paul does.

When I die, I can imagine my death being like that of Thomas Paine's rather than Jefferson's or Dr. Paul's... I am by no means jealous of Dr. Paul or Jefferson because they try to educate people like Hillary Billary Clinton... rather, it's unfortunate that people like the latter don't give a damn about the sweet old man they fucking assraped because people like Hillary Clinton don't give a damn about anyone but they're own type in the long run. I feel sorry for (and can and do love) people like Dr. Paul and Jefferson because they try to understand everyone by their very nature and they're all nurturing and jank but they just can't fucking win. I like Obama because he at least isn't all emotional and he'll understand why I'm probably not going to vote for him... he's too good to be a full Executive and he'll realize it sooner than later. He'll be happy to concede to that piece of shit asshole he's running against and it'll be funny. He's alienated too many people with some of the things he says and it really has kind of grown on me like his speech about janitors paying more in taxes than millionaires and billionaires... his wife probably kicked his ass for that. It may have made Netanyahu want to kill his ass, I don't know.

Thanks if you understood:) If not, then I may not have anything else to say to you... I hope the former is the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY