• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Isn't the Constitution illegal and Britannical?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
The Articles of Confederation was supposed to be a perpetual union, and the Constitution, which is of no authority, is of no authority, among other reasons, because it didn't follow the Amendment procedure of the Articles of Confederation.

Put simply, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was only able to be amended--not replaced. It followed our nation's founding principles to a tee, whereas the Constitution has failed to protect life, liberty, and property. It set up a strong central government, a quasi-monarch, it gave power to the elites (rather than to every citizen), it mandates a standing army, and it mandates taxation. Those are all against the founding principles of our nation.

We became much more like Britain when the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution is a big dirty rat.
 
I suggest that Anarchist420 eliminate the 420 from his life for a while. It may result in more coherent (and relevant) thoughts.
 
Sorry, but the Articles were illegal because we revolted against the Brits, which itself wasn't legal.

Embrace the Crown!
 
piasabird said:
I think this is totally nonsense. Does not even make sense. What on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I will attempt to translate, although my abilities in this case are limited.

It appears that he is saying that since the Articles came first they have precedence and cannot be superseded. They are irrevocable and therefore the Constitution is invalid.

Now why he says this and why he thinks people can be bound to it but not be to their country (which was Great Britain) and why it matters is beyond me. For all I know he's a Church of England supporter.
 
Thanks for attempting to translate🙂

Anyway, I'm not a church of england supporter. What I was saying was that the Constitution established a government more similar to britain's government and that it is illegal because it goes against the Declaration and the law that precedes it and should still be superseding it.

read Lysander Spooner's "the Constitution of No Authority".
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Sorry, but the Articles were illegal because we revolted against the Brits, which itself wasn't legal.

Embrace the Crown!
Click to expand...

But if we follow his logic then even the Magna Carta is illegal so I guess even the British government is illegal. We could probably follow his faulty logic all the way back to finding the Code of Hammurabi to be illegal. Then again he claims to be an anarchist so I guess this is really what his dream world would be.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Thanks for attempting to translate🙂

Anyway, I'm not a church of england supporter. What I was saying was that the Constitution established a government more similar to britain's government and that it is illegal because it goes against the Declaration and the law that precedes it and should still be superseding it.

read Lysander Spooner's "the Constitution of No Authority".
Click to expand...

Again, as I alluded to and everyone else mentioned, nearly every nation formed on earth goes against that which preceded it. Were the only legitimate governments ever created the first ones to lay claim to any piece of land? If so, why?
 
piasabird said:
I think this is totally nonsense. Does not even make sense. What on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

True, however, instead of a million threads on how each Amendment is Illegal, he has condensed it all into one Thread arguing that the whole Constitution is Illegal. Progress IMO.

:biggrin:
 
There will always be similarities to something else, but most importantly there are many huge distinctions from the British system.

For one thing, the British system mandates a system of religious-based inbreds heading the country.
 
I think the Anarchist has every right to his position, however, it seems to me that the ratifying bodies to the Constitution were the same folks/Colonies involved with the Articles of Confederation. If this is true then they adopted new law by their ratification.

The term 'Founders' seems equally suitable for the creators of the Articles of Confederation as for the US Constitution... The 'A of C' were the first Constitution of the Sovereign States... And to my thinking the States intended to retain their Sovereignty with the exception for what authority was given the Federal Government in the US Constitution.

I think my position is: The States never intended to let the 14th, for instance, become a total and complete limit on them as determined by the subsequent Court Opinions beyond the issue addressed when they ratified that bit of hocus pokus.
 
Of course the Constitution is "Britannical." The US was born of the European enlightenment, of which Britain was a huge part (unfortunately for COW). Our entire legal system is a continuation of English common law.
 
Scotteq said:
OMG Yes!!!! - THE US CONSTITUTION REALLY IS BRITANNICAL!!!
Click to expand...
😀 My first thought too.
sandorski said:
True, however, instead of a million threads on how each Amendment is Illegal, he has condensed it all into one Thread arguing that the whole Constitution is Illegal. Progress IMO.

:biggrin:
Click to expand...
😀 Progress ain't what it used to be.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but my memory is that the Articles of Confederation were meant as a loose amalgamation of free states, which failed utterly, and that the Constitution represents a separate union altogether under a federal government. True, a weak federal government with very carefully limited and proscripted powers, but still an entirely separate and different construct from the failed Confederation, rather than an improved Confederation.
 
werepossum said:
😀 My first thought too.

😀 Progress ain't what it used to be.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but my memory is that the Articles of Confederation were meant as a loose amalgamation of free states, which failed utterly, and that the Constitution represents a separate union altogether under a federal government. True, a weak federal government with very carefully limited and proscripted powers, but still an entirely separate and different construct from the failed Confederation, rather than an improved Confederation.
Click to expand...

They were actually both federal constitutions. The Articles of Confederation were created with an extremely weak federal component of government however, and the Constitution gave the federal government quite a large amount of additional power.

Under the AOC the federal government had no authority to tax (it had to ask the states nicely for money, that worked super well.), it had almost no regulatory authority, and it had to rely on the kindness of the states for the federal army as well. Basically all it had any real power in was in foreign policy, as the articles prohibited states from conducting much of that on their own.
 
eskimospy said:
They were actually both federal constitutions. The Articles of Confederation were created with an extremely weak federal component of government however, and the Constitution gave the federal government quite a large amount of additional power.

Under the AOC the federal government had no authority to tax (it had to ask the states nicely for money, that worked super well.), it had almost no regulatory authority, and it had to rely on the kindness of the states for the federal army as well. Basically all it had any real power in was in foreign policy, as the articles prohibited states from conducting much of that on their own.
Click to expand...

But is the Constitution a change in the Confederation, or forming a different union?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top