Libertarians should forget about a return to the Constitution

[Anarchist420]

Instead, they should either seek a stateless society or replace the current Constitution with a new one that protects individual liberty.

Flaw #1 in the Constitution:
It does not put any limits on the military other than no quartering. That's not anywhere near enough. In other words, the 3rd Amendment is kind of a joke.

Flaw #2 in the Constitution
It has vague clauses in like the supremacy clause and the necessary and proper clause.

Flaw #3
It protects intellectual property.

Flaw #4
It's too democratic even with a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Flaw #5
It does not put limits on treaties.

Flaw #6
Tariffs can be protectionist.

Flaw #7
It was ratified due to special interests, and was designed by merchants.
It has helped for the cartelizing of industry, and it has always raised prices and decreased quality.

Flaw #8
It was ratified without unanimous consent of the governed 221 years ago. It should have no authority over the living generation.

Flaw #9
It can be amended without unanimous consent of the governed.

Flaw #10
The Federal Government gets to insert amendments, not the States. That has lead to at least one Amendment that wasn't ratified.

 

[Scotteq]

..posting in an Anarchist thread

 

[fskimospy]

Stateless society is impossible. Period.

Some of the 'flaws' you list would make governance impossible. (#8,#9) Some of them are factually incorrect. (#10) Some of them the repeal of would obliterate large segments of our economy. (#3) Some of them contradict your larger premise of individual agency and liberty. (#4)

All in all, this is a mess. Then again, Libertarianism is a mess.

 

[Anarchist420]

How is number 10 factually incorrect? Seward declared the 14th Amendment ratified when it wasn't, then added it to the Constitution. We'll also never know for sure about the 16th Amendment.

I'll acknowledge unanimous consent of the governed isn't possible, but if the government's powers are constrained, then it isn't so much of an issue. Also, instead of a supermajority for the Amendment process, they could make it 100% of Congress required and all of the States.

 

[fskimospy]

How is number 10 factually incorrect? Seward declared the 14th Amendment ratified when it wasn't, then added it to the Constitution. We'll also never know for sure about the 16th Amendment.

I'll acknowledge unanimous consent of the governed isn't possible, but if the government's powers are constrained, then it isn't so much of an issue. Also, instead of a supermajority for the Amendment process, they could make it 100% of Congress required and all of the States.

No, Seward declared it was ratified when it was. Two states that had initially ratified it later attempted to withdraw, but while that whole legal business of the validity of that was going on, two new states ratified it, bringing it to the total necessary. Furthermore, the states have a method for independently adding amendments if they so choose.

Requiring 100% of Congress and 100% of state legislatures would simply render amendments impossible. I am unaware of any meaningful political constituency in America that wishes for the Constitution to be impossible to amend.

 

[Infohawk]

Anarchist you should post links to the blogs you read this stuff from... partially because the authors deserve credit, partially because the sources will frequently be lulz-worthy.

 

[PeshakJang]

Anarchist you should post links to the blogs you read this stuff from... partially because the authors deserve credit, partially because the sources will frequently be lulz-worthy.

It's probably hard to post a link to his high-school history class and his friends at the lunch table.

 

[ShawnD1]

Flaw #3
It protects intellectual property.

Yeah. When people spend a billion dollars researching a new type of drug that inhibits HIV, I should be able to rip off their process and make it India for next to nothing.

Flaw #6
Tariffs can be protectionist.

But you'll be crushing the free market

 

[LegendKiller]

Yeah. When people spend a billion dollars researching a new type of drug that inhibits HIV, I should be able to rip off their process and make it India for next to nothing.



But you'll be crushing the free market

LOL, this guy is just so damn clueless.

 

[xj0hnx]

..posting in an Anarchist thread

+1 /thread

 

[nonlnear]

I'll take flaws 2, 5, and 10 (but ignore the non sequitur tacked on to 10)

The commerce clause is far too broad, as are the necessary and proper clauses. The supremacy clause could use a little trimming too - not a lot though.

There definitely should be explicit limits on treaties: A treaty should only be allowed to pertain to military concerns,diplomatic relations, and strictly international trade (i.e. no treaty can dictate domestic market or regulatory actions, unlike the current cancerous commerce clause...)

There definitely should be a way for states to propose amendments directly without a convention.

Now I feel dirty for dignifying this thread.

 

[Anarchist420]

http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/14con.html

 

[Schadenfroh]

The commerce clause, general welfare clause and common defense clause make the constitution a truly "living" document.